How is f-14 maneuverability?

[Maverick966]

Surely the F-14 is much more manoeuvrable than an F-15 without the 6,5 G limit, both the fighters have a stable design, the F-14 has a wing load of 295 kg/m² while the F-15 has a wing load of 358 kg/m², both at loaded weight, at full load the gap is even much greater (200kg/m²), moreover, the F-15 does not have slats while the F-14 has slats and has variable-sweep wings that greatly increase maneuverability at all speeds compared to the F-15.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Maverick966

[Victory205]

Was Stuart Black any relation to George Black and Ian Black? Both George (father) and Ian (son) were Lightning pilots in the RAF.

 

Don't know. Pretty sure that his father proceeded him in the RAF though, and was fairly senior. Stuie is still active flying gliders in the UK, at the Borders Gliding Club I think.

 

Photo of two of my favorite Tomcat guys, both had amazing, positive attitudes - Splash and Schwartz.

[Victory205]

For Victory205

 

I met Pete Legg a few times didn't know him well tho', did you know Chip Beck exchange RIO on the F3 OCU in 92 I flew with him a few times and rode Harley's around Coningsby.

 

I tried your 4 ship box recovery to the ship today was going really well till 3 lag spiked into 1, dam DCS, luckily we all got down.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

Doesn't ring a bell. I met a US aerobatic pilot named Chip Beck, can't be the same guy.

[Alicatt]

Don't know. Pretty sure that his father proceeded him in the RAF though, and was fairly senior. Stuie is still active flying gliders in the UK, at the Borders Gliding Club I think.

 

Photo of two of my favorite Tomcat guys, both had amazing, positive attitudes - Splash and Schwartz.

Might well be the same guy then, thanks.

 

I know that Ian has a brother called Stuart and their father was Air Vice Marshal of the RAF. I've chatted with Ian a few times and got him to sign his books on the E.E. Lightning for me. It was of note that George and Ian were the only father and son to fly the Lightning.

[Sam]

Hey guys,

 

I'm taking the risk to ask very stupid questions as I am still a nooby in air combat, but I am here to learn !

 

After reading most of this thread and another one pretty much as lengthy, I learnt a lot about STR, ITR, wing loading, TW ratio etc. between different jets, however...

 

Knowing all this and being the pilot, how do I get the best out of my F-14 in a dogfight ?

For example, what speed should I fly and at what altitude ? Should I go vertical or not ? If so, when ? I read that the F-15 had a better roll rate and could take advantage of it using the scissor maneuver... what to do then ? Are there any specific maneuvers where the F-14 excels ?

 

I'm sure they are tons of different scenarios and it really depends on the weaknesses and strengths of the opposing fighter.

So, I guess it could be a good start to learn about the strengths/weaknesses of my own aircraft first !

 

I read multiple times that what truly matters in a dogfight, is not really the aircraft but pilot skills and pilot tactics... so... how do I fly my F-14 to its max potential ? :D

[WindyTX]

Probably not unless he is like my old backseaters who became a pilot and now flys for Dragonair in HKG !

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Victory205]

Hey guys,

 

I'm taking the risk to ask very stupid questions as I am still a nooby in air combat, but I am here to learn !

 

After reading most of this thread and another one pretty much as lengthy, I learnt a lot about STR, ITR, wing loading, TW ratio etc. between different jets, however...

 

Knowing all this and being the pilot, how do I get the best out of my F-14 in a dogfight ?

For example, what speed should I fly and at what altitude ? Should I go vertical or not ? If so, when ? I read that the F-15 had a better roll rate and could take advantage of it using the scissor maneuver... what to do then ? Are there any specific maneuvers where the F-14 excels ?

 

I'm sure they are tons of different scenarios and it really depends on the weaknesses and strengths of the opposing fighter.

So, I guess it could be a good start to learn about the strengths/weaknesses of my own aircraft first !

 

I read multiple times that what truly matters in a dogfight, is not really the aircraft but pilot skills and pilot tactics... so... how do I fly my F-14 to its max potential ? :D

 

It takes a lifetime of commitment to the craft to learn that. ;)

 

For everyone, if you are really interested in the basics, and willing to put in the time, then pick up a copy of Bob Shaw's "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering". We thought it should have been classified when it came out.

 

One little tidbit that may put some of the bluster here into perspective-

 

The F14A could do a loop from a 220-230 KIAS entry depending upon altitude, and the F14B could do it from a 180 knot entry speed. That's all you needed to get your nose on an opponent that tried to exploit all of that horrible energy bleed that the F14 was supposed to have by going vertical.

 

180 knot loop. That's close to a Pitts Special number. ;)

[GGTharos]

... that's if your opponent lets you get low. And then, there are plenty of aircraft that will out-AoA the cat regardless. We just had a hornet driver describing how to loop the hornet from 180kts. :)

[Hummingbird]

... that's if your opponent lets you get low. And then, there are plenty of aircraft that will out-AoA the cat regardless. We just had a hornet driver describing how to loop the hornet from 180kts. :)

 

Plenty?

 

F/A-18C & Su-27 are the only two I can think of when it comes to the aircraft ingame or any of the known upcoming ones.

[GGTharos]

Neither the mirage nor the eagle will have issues with it. Pretty sure the MiG-29 will be sitting pretty, too.

 

Plenty?

 

F/A-18C & Su-27 are the only two I can think of when it comes to the aircraft ingame or any of the known upcoming ones.

[Victory205]

... that's if your opponent lets you get low. And then, there are plenty of aircraft that will out-AoA the cat regardless. We just had a hornet driver describing how to loop the hornet from 180kts. :)

 

Hate to break it to you, but in a frumpy old clean F14A, I've beaten F18's from a neutral start, I've also ended some fights neutral. You won't be able to though. :)

[turkeydriver]

Hate to break it to you, but in a frumpy old clean F14A, I've beaten F18's from a neutral start, I've also ended some fights neutral. You won't be able to though. :)

 

I just saw a mic drop on the internet......

[Victory205]

F18 is a versatile, reliable little fighter that owns the upper left quadrant of the envelope. It isn't unbeatable. Besides, it would be out of gas before it made it over the top of its loop. :megalol:

 

The toughest fight was a Topgun flown F16N. They were supposed to be emulating whatever Soviet fighter for whatever scenario we were running. The instructors did this faithfully, until you got behind them. Then they mysteriously turned back into an F16N. ;)

 

In the real world, at the tip of the spear where the fighting takes place, all of these nifty jets are loaded with external tanks (especially tough on the F18 and particularly E/F) and ordnance. In that configuration, the F14B isn't impacted as much as some of the others. Things like burner time available, tankers, mission focus and proficiency (F16/18 spent a lot of time doing AG work while F15/14 did Air to Air - which changed for the F14 because the AA threat essentially vanished) all of which end up dominating performance.

 

So much of this is merely academic bluster at the bar talk. The BS stops at "fights on".

 

If I was going to an Air to Air war in the morning, I'd want to be in an F22 or F35.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Victory205

[Top Jockey]

F18 is a versatile, reliable little fighter that owns the upper left quadrant of the envelope. It isn't unbeatable. Besides, it would be out of gas before it made it over the top of its loop. :megalol:

 

The toughest fight was a Topgun flown F16N. They were supposed to be emulating whatever Soviet fighter for whatever scenario we were running. The instructors did this faithfully, until you got behind them. Then they mysteriously turned back into an F16N. ;)

 

In the real world, at the tip of the spear where the fighting takes place, all of these nifty jets are loaded with external tanks (especially tough on the F18 and particularly E/F) and ordnance. In that configuration, the F14B isn't impacted as much as some of the others. Things like burner time available, tankers, mission focus and proficiency (F16/18 spent a lot of time doing AG work while F15/14 did Air to Air - which changed for the F14 because the AA threat essentially vanished) all of which end up dominating performance.

 

So much of this is merely academic bluster at the bar talk. The BS stops at "fights on".

 

If I was going to an Air to Air war in the morning, I'd want to be in an F22 or F35.

 

Interesting matter in that post.

 

Although some doubts I had regarding F-14 vs F/A-18 in BFM were also commented some posts ago, to "stir" things a little bit found an old magazine here - bought in the 90's.

 

At the end of page 17 it goes like this:

 

... " They (VFA-125) also claimed that the F-18 was a superior air-to-air fighter and proved it by maneuvering for a rear hemisphere gun or AIM-9 shot on an F-14 in twenty of thirty-four engagements. The F-14 was never able to achieve a firing position on the Hornet.

The impressions of VFA-125 were markedly different than those of the Navy's two Operational Evaluation Squadrons, VX-4 and VX-5, which were the operational test units which had generated the unfavourable report cited by the Hornet's critics. " ...

 

from:

"Modern Military Aircraft - Hornet"

By Lou Drendel

squadron/signal publications

(page 17)

 

 

Victory205 and everyone, feel free to comment.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Top Jockey

[Victory205]

Interesting matter in that post.

 

Although some doubts I had regarding F-14 vs F/A-18 in BFM were also commented some posts ago, to "stir" things a little bit found an old magazine here - bought in the 90's.

 

At the end of page 17 it goes like this:

 

... " They (VFA-125) also claimed that the F-18 was a superior air-to-air fighter and proved it by maneuvering for a rear hemisphere gun or AIM-9 shot on an F-14 in twenty of thirty-four engagements. The F-14 was never able to achieve a firing position on the Hornet.

The impressions of VFA-125 were markedly different than those of the Navy's two Operational Evaluation Squadrons, VX-4 and VX-5, which were the operational test units which had generated the unfavourable report cited by the Hornet's critics. " ...

 

from:

"Modern Military Aircraft - Hornet"

By Lou Drendel

squadron/signal publications

(page 17)

 

 

Victory205 and everyone, feel free to comment.

 

I already did. Doesn't seem to matter. Comic books carry more weight with some of you. :smilewink:

[BlackLion213]

Interesting matter in that post.

 

Although some doubts I had regarding F-14 vs F/A-18 in BFM were also commented some posts ago, to "stir" things a little bit found an old magazine here - bought in the 90's.

 

At the end of page 17 it goes like this:

 

... " They (VFA-125) also claimed that the F-18 was a superior air-to-air fighter and proved it by maneuvering for a rear hemisphere gun or AIM-9 shot on an F-14 in twenty of thirty-four engagements. The F-14 was never able to achieve a firing position on the Hornet.

The impressions of VFA-125 were markedly different than those of the Navy's two Operational Evaluation Squadrons, VX-4 and VX-5, which were the operational test units which had generated the unfavourable report cited by the Hornet's critics. " ...

 

from:

"Modern Military Aircraft - Hornet"

By Lou Drendel

squadron/signal publications

(page 17)

 

 

Victory205 and everyone, feel free to comment.

 

So its worth noting that nothing in this post actually contradicts Victory's excellent post above.

 

There seems to be a sense among forum-goers and aviation enthusiasts in general that you can predict the outcome of an engagement by comparing EM tables and consulting "anecdotal" evidence to confirm an aircraft's capability. But the reality is that these factors are way down the list in terms of meaningful data points or evidence of an aircraft's value to its user.

 

All aircraft are machines operated by humans. These machines have strengths and weaknesses, but the magnitude of variability between human operators consistently exceeds that of the machine. We like to use silly comments like "well, with equal pilots..." - what does that mean? How to value someone's relative capability in the cockpit? If someone is outstanding at managing energy, but lacks the decisiveness to switch tactics when things aren't quite going well, how do you rate that? What would you rather be: someone who is masterful at reading seat of the pants cues, but has poor judgement with choosing tactics? Someone who deeply understands their opponent, but struggles to keep sight of them during an engagement? How do your squadron mates rate you when you are excellent at managing a strike, but have the lowest landing scores in the squadron?

 

In the end, these beautiful machines are tools and air combat is not a game of equals squaring off in a joust. The F-15C doesn't have a 104-0 kill ratio because of its EM chart; it is because those who fly it are very well trained, have excellent SA by virtue of their sensors and supporting aircraft, and the pilots exercise proper tactics and mutual support. Survival in air combat is all about awareness, initiative, and making smart choices. It is still a human vs human endeavor, though maybe this will change someday it hasn't yet.

 

So while we debate the endless "who would win", we discuss the variables that have a relatively small contribution to the final outcome. It is fun to talk about, but ends being little more than minutiae, honestly.

 

To respond to Top Jockey's other question: why did VX-4 and VX-5 criticize the Hornet when it beat the F-14 "20 out of 34 times in BFM"? Well first, what happened in the 14/34 engagements and did VFA-125 throw out 66 other engagements because they didn't like the result? What were those 34 engagements? Seems a bit random, but who knows? All history now.

 

But VX-4 and VX-5 criticized the F/A-18A for having poor range, no better accuracy than the A-7E it replaced, and underperforming in the case 1 pattern with the inevitable external tanks. The Hornet was at risk of being cancelled because it was failing several of the USN's minimum criteria for acceptance: payload, range, and acceleration in the landing configuration. Rather significant demerits, but the USN needed a replacement for the A-7E and the F/A-18A was certainly better at pop-up maneuvers and dodging SAMs. There were no other aircraft in the pipeline, so the USN changed its cycle time, recommended new flight profiles, and changed minimum requirements to make it work. Luckily, it was a fun aircraft to fly and the USN was willing to make it work. It cost the USN some striking power and autonomy as it became far more dependent on USAF tanker assets, but it also received a fighter that was forgiving, reliable, pretty capable, and more survival against the threats of the 1990s. It managed to be both a burden on Naval aviation and the backbone of Naval aviation at the same time. But everything has its issues, Tomcat included of course. :)

 

-Nick

Edited January 25, 2019 by BlackLion213

[Victory205]

Smart piece. Reads like it was written by the DCNO Air Warfare himself.

[freehand]

It was like watching paint dry.

Edited January 25, 2019 by freehand

[BlackLion213]

Thank you for the kind words Victory. It is much appreciated!

 

It was like watching paint dry.

 

Thank you! I’m not an entertainer or fan of hyperbole. :)

 

-Nick

Edited January 25, 2019 by BlackLion213
I

[Victory205]

It was like watching paint dry.

 

Supersonic paint.

[WindyTX]

I liked the 1st half,only thing I would add is instead of Pilot I would say crew, a good RIO is worth double his weight in fuel

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Victory205]

Agree. I am alive today because of a RIO. So is he. ;)

[Top Jockey]

Hello BlackLion213,

 

Thank you for your complete insight.

 

So its worth noting that nothing in this post actually contradicts Victory's excellent post above.

 

But neither did I intend to contradict @Victory205 or anyone's opinion.

What I do intend when I post, is to know your and others opinion / knowledge, on F-14 (or whichever aircraft) related stuff.

 

My previous post with the citation from the magazine, was merelly a way of asking people:

" Hey what's your take on this ? "

 

There seems to be a sense among forum-goers and aviation enthusiasts in general that you can predict the outcome of an engagement by comparing EM tables and consulting "anecdotal" evidence to confirm an aircraft's capability. But the reality is that these factors are way down the list in terms of meaningful data points or evidence of an aircraft's value to its user.

 

...

 

So while we debate the endless "who would win", we discuss the variables that have a relatively small contribution to the final outcome. It is fun to talk about, but ends being little more than minutiae, honestly.

 

Yes I do know frequently newbie / junior / young members do get stuck on the "wrong" or less important concepts like that, or trying to take the EM charts like the be all and end all in a dogfight, etc; and for that purpose alone I agree they are evaluating things wrong.

 

But for many people like me who like to learn and understand a little more about the aircraft, EM diagrams and other data are always very welcome.

 

I do enjoy stuff like instantaneous / sustained turn rates, turn radius, and so on, merelly by the sake of my curiosity and interest alone.

... but it doesn't mean I went through the forum stating stuff like: "the fighter jet with the best turn rate it's the one who wins the dogfight".

 

It just means that: I do find the "turn rate" concept interesting in itself.

 

In the end, these beautiful machines are tools and air combat is not a game of equals squaring off in a joust. The F-15C doesn't have a 104-0 kill ratio because of its EM chart; it is because those who fly it are very well trained, have excellent SA by virtue of their sensors and supporting aircraft, and the pilots exercise proper tactics and mutual support. Survival in air combat is all about awareness, initiative, and making smart choices. It is still a human vs human endeavor, though maybe this will change someday it hasn't yet.

 

Yes very true, and it has been seen in various conflicts on the last decades.

 

To respond to Top Jockey's other question: why did VX-4 and VX-5 criticize the Hornet when it beat the F-14 "20 out of 34 times in BFM"? Well first, what happened in the 14/34 engagements and did VFA-125 throw out 66 other engagements because they didn't like the result? What were those 34 engagements? Seems a bit random, but who knows? All history now.

 

But VX-4 and VX-5 criticized the F/A-18A for having poor range, no better accuracy than the A-7E it replaced, and underperforming in the case 1 pattern with the inevitable external tanks. The Hornet was at risk of being cancelled because it was failing several of the USN's minimum criteria for acceptance: payload, range, and acceleration in the landing configuration. Rather significant demerits, but the USN needed a replacement for the A-7E and the F/A-18A was certainly better at pop-up maneuvers and dodging SAMs. There were no other aircraft in the pipeline, so the USN changed its cycle time, recommended new flight profiles, and changed minimum requirements to make it work. Luckily, it was a fun aircraft to fly and the USN was willing to make it work. It cost the USN some striking power and autonomy as it became far more dependent on USAF tanker assets, but it also received a fighter that was forgiving, reliable, pretty capable, and more survival against the threats of the 1990s. It managed to be both a burden on Naval aviation and the backbone of Naval aviation at the same time. But everything has its issues, Tomcat included of course. :)

 

-Nick

 

That bold was all I was trying to know.

The magazine didn't state that much, and because it is indeed vague there's why I did bring the subject here and asked your opinion.

 

Thank you again for the clarifying post. :thumbup:

[Sam]

It takes a lifetime of commitment to the craft to learn that. ;)

 

For everyone, if you are really interested in the basics, and willing to put in the time, then pick up a copy of Bob Shaw's "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering". We thought it should have been classified when it came out.

 

One little tidbit that may put some of the bluster here into perspective-

 

The F14A could do a loop from a 220-230 KIAS entry depending upon altitude, and the F14B could do it from a 180 knot entry speed. That's all you needed to get your nose on an opponent that tried to exploit all of that horrible energy bleed that the F14 was supposed to have by going vertical.

 

180 knot loop. That's close to a Pitts Special number. ;)

 

 

Thank you ! Looks like I have a new book to read and a few stuff to practice ! :joystick:

I wish there were more discussions on actual tactics people use in dogfight scenarios... I'm sure some guys are really good at it and would be really interesting to read ! If anyone knows interesting threads on this forum about it, don't hesitate to share !

Edited January 25, 2019 by Panther 976

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Agree. I am alive today because of a RIO. So is he. ;)

 

Is it a story you might be willing to share?