How is f-14 maneuverability?

[Scoggs]

Yeah, these forums are one of the few where you dont want to get into a pissing match without credible sources to back up your claim.

[dekiplav]

How would F-14A/B hold in a "guns only" fight vs the F-15A/C. Is it something similar like F-86F vs MiG-15 Bis?

[captain_dalan]

I'll show you just a *fraction* of my data (as I own both 01-F14AAA-1.1 *and* 01-F14AAP-1.1 in hard copy), let's see some of yours, Foxbat.

 

And don't give me typical Soviet-era hand-waving garbage they fed their aircrews (such as I can find from here):

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/ussr/mikoyangurevitch/mig-23/5379todo.html

 

Or a comparable laugher from the -23ML (which underlines what an embarrassing statement you've made) here:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20120406214900/http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id16.html

 

There is no combination of data that you can find on God's green earth that will present the MiG-23 as a more maneuverable combatant at ACM than the F-14, in any configuration. None. The instability at high CL at wings forward in all versions of the Flogger (produced by the aforementioned center of pressure ahead of center of gravity, thereby generating negative static margin- and if you don't know that that does to stability, you can leave this conversation right now) precluded employment of maximum G in the one configuration it *might* have been respectable.

 

The MiG-23 does *one* thing: it runs, even when you don't want it to.

 

You're done, fanboy. Fini. сделано. Busted.

You beat me to it, at least on the F-14A charts (as i don't have the B yet) :thumbup:

 

I have a question though. Does the B manual say if the charts are for a maneuvering device (flaps/slats) operating or disabled configuration like the F-14A does?

 

How would F-14A/B hold in a "guns only" fight vs the F-15A/C. Is it something similar like F-86F vs MiG-15 Bis?

 

Hard to tell, but general rule of the thumb is (and you can hear this from Ego drivers as well) the lower you are the harder the fight for the F-15. Generally they don't want to fight it bellow 15000ft at all. At 20000ft they have a rough parity. As we are talking gunzo here, the Eagle can afford more vertical luxury as long the Tomcat has not approached its rear quarter. With heaters though.... especially all aspect, this is not the case.

 

Yeah, these forums are one of the few where you dont want to get into a pissing match without credible sources to back up your claim.

 

He reminds me largely of a certain member of the old aviation forums at key publishing..... i think his user name was Mig-23MLB or something [/url]

Edited March 5, 2015 by captain_dalan

[lunaticfringe]

You beat me to it, at least on the F-14A charts (as i don't have the B yet) :thumbup:

 

If you're in the US and want to talk about getting the A+/D, send PM.

 

I have a question though. Does the B manual say if the charts are for a maneuvering device (flaps/slats) operating or disabled configuration like the F-14A does?

 

The line concerning operation of devices is at the bottom of the page, rather than both bottom and top. F-14A+/D as shown is the *not* operation pages. Like I was saying- wanted to show legitimacy to the extent of information available. :D

 

He reminds me largely of a certain member of the old aviation forums at key publishing..... i think his user name was Mig-23MLB or something

 

Almost verbatim- almost completely verbatim, now that you mention it.

[SUBS17]

Not an expert on the matter, but the Tomcat isn't a purebred fighter like the F-15. Its main task was to intercept bombers with the help of its Phoenix missiles. It has long legs and it likes to go fast, but i think in a gunzo dogfight, you'll have a really hard time competing with Mig-29 and Su-27.

 

IRL F-14s have one dogfights with SU27 and Mig29 one incident involved a P3 orion being followed by SU27s and the F-14s got behind them within seconds. Another incident a F-14 did a dogfight with a Mig29 in Iran and won. Although in both cases the aircraft did not fire their guns however in the Libya incidents missiles were used and the aircraft were WVR.

[ironmarc]

I would bet that it doesn't get completely outmaneuvered when engaging WVR against the F-15 and MiG-29, I think it might have a good enough fighting chance depending on the circumstances and offer enough tools that in the end, it's the pilot's skill what turns out to be the most decisive factor.

 

Against the F/A-18, F-16, I dunno, considering some descriptions from pilots that you can find around the internet, probably it is going to get outmaneuvered by these in most situations, but then it has some other strengths that might compensate for it. Or not.

 

Talking about DCS modules, the Typhoon that is going to be a part of DCS probably beats it handily when WVR, and likely it's not going to have many advantages BVR as well.

 

The MiG-21, in theory, can become very troublesome to deal with in some circumstances for the Tomcat, according to what knowledge is publicly available and that I've managed to find.

[dekiplav]

I don't know about F-16, F-18, MiG-29, they are light fighters with low fuel quantity. They are probably more maneuverable in clean configuration, but from what I know the tactic that was thought to the F-14 pilots was fly aggressive defensive maneuvers, and they run them out of fuel in no time (Especially the F-16). Now the F-15 and Su-27, are in the same category, and I can't wait to try F-14B vs F-15C scenario in DCS arena to find out how will Cat hold on. Finally after 21 years we are getting a F-14 study sim (the last being 1994 Microprose F-14 Fleet Defender). Can't wait to try the Tomcat.

Edited March 6, 2015 by dekiplav

[captain_dalan]

IRL F-14s have one dogfights with SU27 and Mig29 one incident involved a P3 orion being followed by SU27s and the F-14s got behind them within seconds. Another incident a F-14 did a dogfight with a Mig29 in Iran and won. Although in both cases the aircraft did not fire their guns however in the Libya incidents missiles were used and the aircraft were WVR.

 

When did they go up against 27? I know there was some flying against 29's flown by former East German pilots-instructors, but i've never read reports or interviews on F-14 VS Su-27...

 

I don't know about F-16, F-18, MiG-29, they are light fighters with low fuel quantity. They are probably more maneuverable in clean configuration, but from what I know the tactic that was thought to the F-14 pilots was fly aggressive defensive maneuvers, and they run them out of fuel in no time (Especially the F-16). Now the F-15 and Su-27, are in the same category, and I can't wait to try F-14B vs F-15C scenario in DCS arena. Finally after 21 years we are getting a F-14 study sim (the last being 1994 Microprose F-14 Fleet Defender). Can't wait to try the Tomcat.

 

Against smaller AC like the F-16, 18 or MiG-29, you'd have a smaller margin of error. Much smaller. If they are flying clean. And yes, flying to outlast them and waiting on a mistake is probably your best bet. Against loaded birds is a whole new ballgame though.....

 

 

The line concerning operation of devices is at the bottom of the page, rather than both bottom and top. F-14A+/D as shown is the *not* operation pages. Like I was saying- wanted to show legitimacy to the extent of information available. :D

 

I should have seen that :D

Edited March 6, 2015 by captain_dalan

[Exorcet]

I'm sure it's capable of holding its own in a dogfight, but I don't see it being at the top of the list. Being a Navy plane is usually a disadvantage as it means extra weight. The swing wings make it more versatile, but also add more weight. You'd probably want to pull your opponent out of their sweet spot, because they being more specialized than you will probably win if they fight where they are comfortable.

[lunaticfringe]

When did they go up against 27? I know there was some flying against 29's flown by former East German pilots-instructors, but i've never read reports or interviews on F-14 VS Su-27...

 

1987. Right after the Norwegian P-3 had that run in with the Flanker. A few days later a pair of F-14s shadowed another P-3, flying the same profile that caused the Su-27s to come up the first time. Tomcats broke the formation prior to the merge to announce their presence, both sides continued their intercepts, and the F-14s were behind the Flankers inside of half a minute.

 

As to this extra weight/optimized argument:

 

1. Again, weight doesn't matter like you think it does. If your wing area is large, you're covered. One thing that most have never seen is Grumman's equation for the area of the Tomcat (confirmed by NASA through their studies): they qualified two thirds of the body area (443 ft^2, so 292.4 ft^2) as additional wing based on the design of the pancake, and the amount of additional body lift it provides. Thus, the "reference" wing area, fully extended (565 ft^2) is 50 percent short- fully extended, the area carrying the F-14 is actually 857.38 ft^2, bringing a 57k Tomcat down to a wing loading of 66.48 lbs/ft^2.

 

That's your sustained energy. It's even funnier, because in contrast to foxbat's earlier claims, the F-14's loading is *always* less than the MiG-23 based on exposed wing plus body lift.

 

2. Optimization- to what end? Being optimized for the slow speed radius/rate fight is no less a valid design choice than being optimized for high speed/energy. If I choose to sit inside your turn circle all day, you have to sacrifice position to extend out and start over. Advantage: me.

 

And let's be very clear: from the period of 1972/1974, all the way into the mid-1990s, there were only two operational communities on the planet generating over 300 flight hours per year, with all of their training time dedicated to ACM: the F-15A/C, and the F-14. Everybody else either had less than half of those hours, or were doing most of their business on the ranges for air to ground (yes, I mean you- F-16s and F/A-18s and MiGs).

 

The machine can make up for some of this- it can't make up for everything. And the opposite is also true- experience makes up far more for perceived deficiencies than not. Thus, it's really laughable when folks sit around and say "oh, this airplane should always win" or "that plane will be in a bad way"- there are very few people who do the air to air role exclusively, and most of those don't get the hours (and haven't since the collapse of the Soviet Union); the few that do need not give a damn about what the perceived penalties they pay against the competition, because they've worked through the eventualities far more than the other guy.

 

In other news, I see our resident Flogger fan doesn't actually want to play stat lines- sad, because I really wanted to get into the 300 flight hours/year, all ACM based, against the 125 flight hours/year argument. It'd be especially funny, considering that a LT out of the RAG would have as many hours halfway through his third year as a newly minted pilot officer 1C would have in six-plus. From there, it just gets more embarrassing in the balance of forces.

[Exorcet]

As to this extra weight/optimized argument:

 

1. Again, weight doesn't matter like you think it does. If your wing area is large, you're covered. One thing that most have never seen is Grumman's equation for the area of the Tomcat (confirmed by NASA through their studies): they qualified two thirds of the body area (443 ft^2, so 292.4 ft^2) as additional wing based on the design of the pancake, and the amount of additional body lift it provides. Thus, the "reference" wing area, fully extended (565 ft^2) is 50 percent short- fully extended, the area carrying the F-14 is actually 857.38 ft^2, bringing a 57k Tomcat down to a wing loading of 66.48 lbs/ft^2.

 

The F-14 is not alone when it comes to body lift, but admittedly it seems like it would be quite strong on that front. And while you can negate weight with more lift, it's not just a matter of size here, but efficiency. A stronger airframe meant for carrier use means that no matter what you do aerodynamically, you're carrying around more weight than you would need to if you were land based. The stronger frame and bigger gear can be offset with more wing, but then that's more weight for the engines to deal with and a reduced fuel fraction which means less endurance.

 

If we're going by wing loading, a loaded F-15 at 44000 lbs only needs 10% more area to get to 66 lb/ft^2. You could probably get that just from the inlets. And then, the Eagle has much better static TWR, some of which would carry over to the actual in flight TWR, which is just as good as having reduced drag.

 

I can't say definitively which is better where, but I suspect that the F-15 will hold an edge over the Tomcat at higher speeds.

 

That's your sustained energy. It's even funnier, because in contrast to foxbat's earlier claims, the F-14's loading is *always* less than the MiG-23 based on exposed wing plus body lift.

Yes, the MiG-23 seems like more more of a straight line aircraft, it doesn't really have much fuselage shaping that contributes to lift, especially at the rear.

 

2. Optimization- to what end? Being optimized for the slow speed radius/rate fight is no less a valid design choice than being optimized for high speed/energy. If I choose to sit inside your turn circle all day, you have to sacrifice position to extend out and start over. Advantage: me.

 

I agree. Basically what I was saying was play to your strengths. The swing wing gives good performance all around, but compared to fixed wing aircraft, the gap is going to be biggest away from their corner speeds since most fixed fighters are designed for high subsonic/transonic performance. At lower speeds they'll make too much drag, and possibly at very high speeds they'll run into lower critical Mach numbers.

 

And let's be very clear: from the period of 1972/1974, all the way into the mid-1990s, there were only two operational communities on the planet generating over 300 flight hours per year, with all of their training time dedicated to ACM: the F-15A/C, and the F-14. Everybody else either had less than half of those hours, or were doing most of their business on the ranges for air to ground (yes, I mean you- F-16s and F/A-18s and MiGs).

A good point for reality, but for the DCS discussion things can be very different. Everyone wants bombs on the F-14, so us F-15 pilots will clearly be vastly superior [sarcasm warning].

[captain_dalan]

The stronger frame and bigger gear can be offset with more wing, but then that's more weight for the engines to deal with and a reduced fuel fraction which means less endurance.

 

If we're going by wing loading, a loaded F-15 at 44000 lbs only needs 10% more area to get to 66 lb/ft^2. You could probably get that just from the inlets. And then, the Eagle has much better static TWR, some of which would carry over to the actual in flight TWR, which is just as good as having reduced drag.

 

I can't say definitively which is better where, but I suspect that the F-15 will hold an edge over the Tomcat at higher speeds.

We can go with estimates based on such static indicators as wing loading and thrust to weight, but only if we lack actual performance data. Even if it was such a case, these estimates can often be misleading. To caricaturize the subject, a 2x4 with a rocket attached to it, would have the smallest "wing" loading and the highest T/W ratio of probably the most nimble fighter out there, yet it will hardly generate any lift... :P

 

In this particular case the F-15 does hold and advantage in the transonic region (no surprise there as its designers went a long way compromising other aspects just to get that edge), but in order to properly utilize this advantage, you also need a considerable altitude. Otherwise you'd be stuck in turning rate fight against a jet that can match yours at a lower g-loading and with a tighter radius.

 

 

I agree. Basically what I was saying was play to your strengths. The swing wing gives good performance all around, but compared to fixed wing aircraft, the gap is going to be biggest away from their corner speeds since most fixed fighters are designed for high subsonic/transonic performance. At lower speeds they'll make too much drag, and possibly at very high speeds they'll run into lower critical Mach numbers.

 

This i think is pretty much a given for any fight, from a street brawl, to thermo-nuclear exchange. In fact, IMO it is the ability to bring a fight to your own terms that makes or breaks a good "fighter" (as a person).

 

A bit of an addendum on the thrust VS lift argument.

 

In order to generate a certain amount of G, for a given weight you need a certain amount of lift. For a set mach number, this requires us to have a look at the lift curve per alpha for that mach. After we have found the lift value needed, we can see what angle of attack is required in order to "pull" that G. We then see much drag will that alpha induce, add it to our normal drag for that airspeed and see how much thrust we need to maintain it. The lift and the drag values per alpha and mach, are very specific for each AC, and are results of design decisions. Choice of airfoils for the wings, fuselage geometry, inlet-body-wing blending.....

 

Generally for every AC out there there is point in its mach/alpha tables where the drag rises so sharply that no amount of thrust can compensate. This is why i think in the lack of actual wing tunnel data (not that we don't have some of those, mind you), fighter performance should better be estimated based on E-M charts. But the conclusion is, a lighter AC, with more thrust, may not necessarily turn "better". By better here i mean in less time and/or less space. It will all depend on the designer choice and fighting doctrine.

 

Addendum2, for the whole energy VS nose pointing argument and which is better, there is an excellent article on the net, from a USN Bug driver that flew in the AF exchange program with the Viper. He makes some very good points about "arguing" which aircraft is "better" or the futility of the effort thereof. You may have read it already, but if not i'll try to find it later on.

 

A good point for reality, but for the DCS discussion things can be very different. Everyone wants bombs on the F-14, so us F-15 pilots will clearly be vastly superior [sarcasm warning].

:megalol:

You noticed that too? :lol:

[Sierra99]

Well, the MiG-21 was designed primarily as an interceptor - It didn't need a complex radar, since it relied on GCI/AWACS, and a basic gyro sight was enough. The Tomcat, as a Fleet Defender, needed a very powerful radar for its weapons, and was designed with a fighter role in mind. But in the end Russian avionics tend to be less fancy than American ones.

 

Didn't the F-14 and E2s have datalink capability with their radars?

[Dudikoff]

Didn't the F-14 and E2s have datalink capability with their radars?

 

Only the D AFAIK.

[ironmarc]

I don't know about F-16, F-18, MiG-29, they are light fighters with low fuel quantity. They are probably more maneuverable in clean configuration, but from what I know the tactic that was thought to the F-14 pilots was fly aggressive defensive maneuvers, and they run them out of fuel in no time (Especially the F-16). Now the F-15 and Su-27, are in the same category, and I can't wait to try F-14B vs F-15C scenario in DCS arena to find out how will Cat hold on. Finally after 21 years we are getting a F-14 study sim (the last being 1994 Microprose F-14 Fleet Defender). Can't wait to try the Tomcat.

 

And from my (limited) understanding, trying to apply those tactics with an F-14 against a F-16 would be very ballsy, at the very least.

 

I have a book here that talks a lot about the dogfighting ability of the F-16 called "Viper Force", written by John M. Dibbs with the help of a retired USAF pilot, Col. Robert Renner and the pilots opinions in this book about the F-16 in dogfighting situations is pretty damn high and they were training extensively with F-15's.

 

When the F-14 pilot tries a lag roll for example against the F-16, you are talking about an aircraft that pulls 9g (more than the F14 can, or F-15 for that matter), has negative stability, would bleed clearly less speed during any maneuvering... Pilot's skill being equal, I believe the F-14 in most cases would get outmaneuvered and shot down if it tried to do any aggressive maneuvering against the F-16.

 

There are plenty of references for the F-16's perfromance in WVR engagements.

It is (or was) extensively used in training against the F15, F22 and Typhoon.

 

There is actually a video of a training dogfight between the F-16 and F-14, which means nothing as we don't even know the circumstances, but will link it just to add it to the conversation...

 

Generally, when looking at any references from pilots and videos, the F-16 seems to be always a little better at dogfighting than the F-15 for example.

[chev255]

When the F-14 pilot tries a lag roll for example against the F-16, you are talking about an aircraft that pulls 9g (more than the F14 can, or F-15 for that matter

F-15C has 9G limit...

[pyromaniac4002]

Only the D AFAIK.

 

The D was the only one to have Link 16, earlier variants had their own proprietary datalink to use their AWG-9s at their maximum range.

[ironmarc]

F-15C has 9G limit...

 

Thanks for the correction.

[dekiplav]

 

There is actually a video of a training dogfight between the F-16 and F-14, which means nothing as we don't even know the circumstances, but will link it just to add it to the conversation...

 

Yes I know the video :), but here you have Top Gun instructors in F-16N which are agile exactly as F-16A, and on the other side are students in F-14A, which are ... well ... anemic :). I would like to see Hoser or Snort in F-14B vs F-16N. It would probably end up similar to this: :lol::music_whistling:

Edited March 6, 2015 by dekiplav

[Dudikoff]

The D was the only one to have Link 16, earlier variants had their own proprietary datalink to use their AWG-9s at their maximum range.

 

Yes, you're right, the Link 4. Even Fleet Defender simulated this.

[ironmarc]

Yes I know the video :), but here you have Top Gun instructors in F-16N which are agile exactly as F-16A, and on the other side are students in F-14A, which are ... well ... anemic :). I would like to see Hoser or Snort in F-14B vs F-16N. It would probably end up similar to this: :lol::music_whistling:

 

The F-15 has ran out of fuel in this? :)

 

The story behind the pic actually proves that between the F-15 and F-14, pilot skill is the more decisive factor.

Edited March 6, 2015 by ironmarc

[captain_dalan]

F-15C has 9G limit...

 

There are no G limiters on the F-14s, you pull as much as you can take. Sustaining taht G it is a different matter though. Only a lightly loaded F-16 (or F-15/Su27 ) can hope to sustain a 9G turn at lower altitudes.... for all the good that does.

 

The advantage of the Viper in the BFM arena is not its peak G in my opinion. You achieve it at far too high a speed to give any that decisive of an advantage. Not to mention you run the risk of a G-lock. Where the Viper shines is its ability to quickly change its energy states and overall movement. It rolls very fast, it accelerates very fast, it has a good thrust to weight for vertical maneuvers, and overall tries to kill you much less then a Tomcat.

 

Other great advantages, the F-16 is much smaller and more difficult to spot. Being smaller and lighter also gives it much less rotational (or any in fact) inertia. As all smaller aircraft it's is a very difficult opponent when upclose. And if you take away all its external stores, it is probably the best adversary/aggressor AC you can think of if you want to practice ACM.

 

The F-15 has ran out of fuel in this?

 

Don't tell me you haven't read about the famous 2 VS 2 near the end of the ACEVAL/AIMVAL? F-14A VS F-15A 2 on 2, that evolved into 2 separate 1 on 1?

Edited March 6, 2015 by captain_dalan

[dekiplav]

The F-15 has ran out of fuel in this? :)

 

:) I don't know if he ran out of fuel or luck or skill, or misjudged the large apparently interceptor aircraft :D.

 

It was a joke. I tough to my self here is a thread about F-14 maneuverability, and still no one is posting the famous Hoser and Hill Billy gun kill. :D

[Rogue Trooper]

It will be interesting to see how this discussion pans out once we have the F-14 in DCS.

Without doubt, once multiplayer/multi crew becomes a reality in DCS and you have two live pilots in the F-14 engaged in WVR toe to toe combat in a predator rich environment this module will be hard to beat.

 

Offensive and defensive Situational awareness will be top notch with two sets of eyes.

Indeed, the heated conversation between Pilot and Rio will be superb.

 

Hmmmm... do I buy it?

[captain_dalan]

If is a definite buy for me if they indeed implement all that stuff in the announcement. There are 3 planes is the history of aviation i love flying in sims above all others (F-8, F-14 and F4U) and even though i fly better with other AC (like the F/A-18C), the above 3 are by first on the list of "to buy" things. As the Tomcat seams to be the first from that list to come around in DCS, that is my prime target........ and to finally fly with a RIO.... a real human RIO.... man...