How is f-14 maneuverability?

[Zooker]

Both AC clean, or with extremely light A-A ordinance, yes. However with 4 or 8 AAMs, especially in a mixed load, things become less clear. What the Hornet enjoys is a very good nose pointing authority, but there are loads (i.e. 2XAIM-7 & 2AIM-9 in which the F-14 actually has greater ITR all around. The STR difference is also somewhat of a mixed bag and it depends highly on altitude. Generally bellow 180-230KIAS (alt. dependent) the Hornet sustains better. The high subsonic range is also where the F-18 sustains better.

 

 

 

ITR and STR?

[lunaticfringe]

Instantaneous Turn Rate/Sustained Turn Rate

[lunaticfringe]

I have all those reports - you need to understand this

 

If you had all those reports, you wouldn't have made the ludicrous claim about Combat Tree.

 

The VPAF records are just as good as the US records - I am not saying they are 100% but they give a better picture than just the US side.

 

No, they're not actually "just as good", given the aforementioned fact:

 

VPAF records do not maintain *airframe* losses- only *pilot* losses.

 

Which, when you think about it, makes it a fairly ballsy claim to state that they are "just as good", when USAF/USN outline everything: what they (think) they shot down, and every airframe they lost- whether the crew was killed or rescued.

 

Seriously- Boniface covered this seven years after Toperczer, with the latter having aided the former in the research. You want to complain about age of material- get with the program and acknowledge what kind of inane joke that creates for "matching" claims.

 

USAF: We have gun gamera footage showing this aircraft being blown out of the sky on this date.

VPAF: Didn't lose a pilot- didn't happen!

USAF: You do realize he could have ejected, right?

VPAF: We have absolutely no record of such, and our records of airframes received from USSR/China are classified- didn't happen!

 

That's some spectacular record keeping technique, eh?

 

Those old reports you have are accurate to the best of their knowledge at the time - but are inaccurate to what may have really happened.

 

Quite immaterial to the discussion you wanted to start with. You wanted to state the case as to USAF employment on a regular basis using a specific system in a particular fashion that cannot be verified with the materials explicitly covering applied techniques at the time.

 

Nothing has changed in the definition of what Combat Tree was over the intervening 40 years. Nor, has the details on how it was used. And given the admitted documentation holes on the VPAF side, you really don't have a case to question as to what is inaccurate or not.

 

And I had to save the best for last:

 

I love that you have just turned up to have an argument :megalol: - are you the site Troll?

 

I've been following, and actively involved, in this thread for the last two-plus weeks.

 

Meanwhile, you've just signed on in the last twenty-four hours- and you want to say *I'm* the troll who just turned up?

 

Project much?

[Basher54321]

If you had all those reports, you wouldn't have made the ludicrous claim about Combat Tree......rant

 

 

I would like to think that you were not arguing for the sake of it and just do not understand what I am getting at - hopefully the later is the case - in which case dont worry you have plenty of time to do some research on the subject. ;)

[Basher54321]

 

Congratulations on defining yourself as a late GenX/early millennial that has been programmed to doubt everything except your own opinion. There are strengths and weaknesses to that.....

 

The APX-80 shot was early on in the war and not repeated once we shot down one of our own F-4s trying to get a BVR shot on a MiG-17. Also, I find it humerous that you give complete factual evidence to a report from the opposite side without researching further to prove its validity. This is evidence that your self-proclaimed, informed opinion, due to "getting both sides of the story" is really nothing more than an action to satisfy a mental need to feel superior, like you have the answer, as opposed to finding facts, you've spoken up here only to dispute the facts stated, never to agree or further the discussion.............I'm an "old" genXer but I think you have defined yourself as a troll of the interwebs.....

 

Thank you for the evaluation

 

Nope am Gen X - but do not want to write 37 pages of answers to answer all of these tangents you keep going into.

 

I don't state or give "complete factual evidence" to anything neither the US or the VPAF sources - kinda the point really!

I also don't dismiss sources from good/credible sources either - a lot of it actually matches up with the US side. I also fail to see why you find it difficult that someone might consider using non US information - it doesn't really change anything regarding kill claims - which itself is always up for argument.

 

 

 

 

 

No need for the PS, you're preaching to the choir and asking us to sing the DUH song....

Only thing I've found that I give credibility to that defies the old record is that Duke and Willie's F-4J was hit by an Atoll, not a SAM as Duke claimed. No SA-2 emitting in the area, no known SA-2 site established in the area, and the last MiG-17 fight(5th kill, not a famous Colonel Toon/Tomb) was to delay that F-4 and ensure a kill after MiG-21s showed up. Duke got the kill and was headed home when a MiG-21 took an easy shot an hit him, but you've probably read all this....

 

It was a half arsed attempt to get the subject back on topic actually TD

 

Yes but like any sources you can make any number of assumptions at what happened - and you have to take them for what they are. I just prefer to have an open mind about things I guess because there are often other things for e.g. no SA-2 indications on an RHAW scope as you well know never stopped SA-2s being launched.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Basher54321

[turkeydriver]

Apologies for knocking your attempt to get us back on track, Basher.

 

I'm wondering how well high alpha roll control will be implemented(rudders), and hoping for cross couple, but the update today makes it sound like the FM will be more accurate than what I'm hoping for.

[captain_dalan]

Apologies for knocking your attempt to get us back on track, Basher.

 

I'm wondering how well high alpha roll control will be implemented(rudders), and hoping for cross couple, but the update today makes it sound like the FM will be more accurate than what I'm hoping for.

I think they shouldn't have any difficulties reproducing it. What i do wonder is if they will implement it as "manual" rudder input or will they implement it through the aileron input?

 

Technically aileron input should be practically useless for roll control above 15 degrees alpha or so, possibly even counterproductive.

 

EDIT: forget my doubt, i think they mentioned the version they are making will include the ARI. BTW, when was ARI implemented feel wide?

Edited March 21, 2015 by captain_dalan

[BlackLion213]

I think they shouldn't have any difficulties reproducing it. What i do wonder is if they will implement it as "manual" rudder input or will they implement it through the aileron input?

 

Technically aileron input should be practically useless for roll control above 15 degrees alpha or so, possibly even counterproductive.

 

EDIT: forget my doubt, i think they mentioned the version they are making will include the ARI. BTW, when was ARI implemented feel wide?

 

Hard to tell...

 

I've read several different things that are not detailed. It seems that "something" was done in the early/mid-80s, but I don't know what.

 

The first major ARI update was in the production line of the F-14D. The next major update was integrated with DFCS in the late 90s.

 

The changes that took place before that are less clear. The was an early ARI that was disconnected in the late 70s. It was helpful for landings, but screwed up BFM. The ARI system was disconnected until some modifications were implemented after the NASA testing from 1979-1983. However, this system worked mostly at low speeds and phased out around 300 knots (I think).

 

Hard to find good documentation, but the big changes were late for the F-14A/B. Not till the late 90s with DFCS.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Nick

[captain_dalan]

Thanks mate, i too found it a bit hard to find a definitive answer pre-digital flight system implementation... :book:

[SinusoidDelta]

Hard to tell...

 

I've read several different things that are not detailed. It seems that "something" was done in the early/mid-80s, but I don't know what.

 

The first major ARI update was in the production line of the F-14D. The next major update was integrated with DFCS in the late 90s.

 

The changes that took place before that are less clear. The was an early ARI that was disconnected in the late 70s. It was helpful for landings, but screwed up BFM. The ARI system was disconnected until some modifications were implemented after the NASA testing from 1979-1983. However, this system worked mostly at low speeds and phased out around 300 knots (I think).

 

Hard to find good documentation, but the big changes were late for the F-14A/B. Not till the late 90s with DFCS.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Nick

 

Have you seen this NTRS paper from 1981?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19820005275.pdf

Its certainly preliminary but theres some useful information. Theres also another NTRS paper from 1980 regarding ARI but it's simulation based, not actual flight test data.

[Hummingbird]

Both AC clean, or with extremely light A-A ordinance, yes. However with 4 or 8 AAMs, especially in a mixed load, things become less clear. What the Hornet enjoys is a very good nose pointing authority, but there are loads (i.e. 2XAIM-7 & 2AIM-9 in which the F-14 actually has greater ITR all around. The STR difference is also somewhat of a mixed bag and it depends highly on altitude. Generally bellow 180-230KIAS (alt. dependent) the Hornet sustains better. The high subsonic range is also where the F-18 sustains better.

 

Don't you mean the F-14 sustains better in the high subsonic range? :)

 

The F-14 does best in between Mach 0.4 to 0.7.

 

That having been said I lack a good doghouse plot for the F/A-18C :-/

[captain_dalan]

Don't you mean the F-14 sustains better in the high subsonic range? :)

 

The F-14 does best in between Mach 0.4 to 0.7.

 

Nah, when i said high subsonic, i meant mach 0.8-0.9, maybe up to 0.95.

 

 

That having been said I lack a good doghouse plot for the F/A-18C :-/

 

Me too. I am pretty skeptical about the one i have :(

[Hummingbird]

Nah, when i said high subsonic, i meant mach 0.8-0.9, maybe up to 0.95.

 

Ah ok, well I have no clue how the F-18 does there, but I could imagine the F-14 having an advantage due to the variable sweep wing.

 

AFAIK it is going real slow where the F-18 has an advantage, mainly due to its high alpha capability. On the other hand I recall something about the cleaned up the F-18 nearly matching the F-16 in STR, which coupled with its high alpha capability would make it a real dangerous adversary WVR to anything out there.

 

Me too. I am pretty skeptical about the one i have :(

 

Yeah we probably have the same one which is an approximation made for another sim :(

 

I wonder if any true doghouse plots even exist for the F/A-18C?

Edited May 23, 2017 by Hummingbird

[Pocket Sized]

Up near the sound barrier, I imagine the Tomcat's turn rate would suffer due to the wing sweep in comparison to something like the Hornet (which has better TWR and relaxed stability to boot)

[BlackLion213]

Up near the sound barrier, I imagine the Tomcat's turn rate would suffer due to the wing sweep in comparison to something like the Hornet (which has better TWR and relaxed stability to boot)

 

The Tomcat actually has more pitch authority with the wings swept, but higher induced drag. So the ITR is better swept, but STR can suffer do to the energy bleed. Also, yaw stability is not as good with the wings swept and it is easier to build up AOA to a point where departures are more likely.

 

The loaded T/W for the Hornet is bette than the F-14A, but less than that less than that of the F-14B. The Hornet does have an advantage with high AOA flight, but it also suffers from very high induced drag at high AOA with the attendant effect on STR. It will be interesting to see how the Hornet and F-14B match-up (the F-14A is at a disadvantage, but also performs pretty well below 10K').

 

-Nick

[Pocket Sized]

The Tomcat actually has more pitch authority with the wings swept, but higher induced drag. So the ITR is better swept, but STR can suffer do to the energy bleed. Also, yaw stability is not as good with the wings swept and it is easier to build up AOA to a point where departures are more likely.

 

The loaded T/W for the Hornet is bette than the F-14A, but less than that less than that of the F-14B. The Hornet does have an advantage with high AOA flight, but it also suffers from very high induced drag at high AOA with the attendant effect on STR. It will be interesting to see how the Hornet and F-14B match-up (the F-14A is at a disadvantage, but also performs pretty well below 10K').

 

-Nick

 

Huh! I had assumed the tomcat had an inferior TWR across the board.

[captain_dalan]

 

AFAIK it is going real slow where the F-18 has an advantage, mainly due to its high alpha capability. On the other hand I recall something about the cleaned up the F-18 nearly matching the F-16 in STR, which coupled with its high alpha capability would make it a real dangerous adversary WVR to anything out there.

 

It's Ps=o geometry is very similar to other "conventional" 4th gen fighters (as in rising sharply from low, smoothing up at medium and then topping off at high), so yeah, i would guess there are supposedly similar.

 

Huh! I had assumed the tomcat had an inferior TWR across the board.

 

Static maybe. Dynamic? Not so much. Especially not the B/D's. It would depend on loads as well.

[BlackLion213]

Huh! I had assumed the tomcat had an inferior TWR across the board.

 

You're right, my numbers were for the 400 version of the F404. With the 402 the Hornet is a little bit better: 1.14 vs 1.10 for the F-14B. This is at combat weights of half internal fuel and 2 sparrows and 2 sidewinders. Not max TOW.

 

-Nick

[Sknipas]

Hello people!

 

In an attempt to wrap my untrained hobbyist head around all the wonderfull info posted here and put what I've read so far into perspective, I'd like to ask if the following summarization is correct:

 

-If we find ourselves in a merge our best tactical options (as a general rule of thumb) would be any combination of trying to fuel starve the opponent (whenever possible ofc) and/or fly aggressively trying to make 'em nose-down/depart.

 

-To achieve the above we should prioritize on going vertical and/or use that "pre-landing configuration" Hoser was famous for when things got tight, and...

 

-It would surely help to use the Cat's power to bleed as much of our opponent energy as possible before exploring the aformentioned options.

 

Have I got it right?

 

Best regards!

[probad]

sounds like youre just dropping some buzzwords you collected tbh.

 

1- in dcs perspective the f-14 is in more danger of running out of gas first if engaged in a wvr fight with the flanker and eagle. but they could also be really low on gas. it could be anything, so the statement is meaningless until you are faced with a specific scenario.

 

2- f-14's vertical prowess has nothing to do with that, the vertical is a way to recycle energy. there are some popular aircraft that are, like it or not, better in the vertical than the f-14.

 

3- really vague statement, almost completely devoid of meaning. yes if you can tire out the other guy you disarm him and you make him an easier target or allow yourself to get out of jail... and? the ultimate goal of any engagement is to kill, if you can get the kill right off the bat it doesnt matter what energy state anyone is at. the whole formalization of bfm energy management is just a guideline to what not to do so you dont do something counterproductive.

no different than learning why not to swing wildly in hand to hand combat.

Edited May 24, 2017 by probad

[Sknipas]

Thanks for your reply!

 

Admittedly, English not been my native language does not help much, so I apologise if I've given the wrong picture- I just tried to keep some expressions as I've read them to avoid more linguistic confusion than what I usually generate when talking on matters I'm unfamiliar with. :)

 

From your reply I can easilly see how vaguely I get the science involved, which -ofc- directs me to more reading on the subject. So, please allow me to rephrase my question:

 

I'm trying to figure out the Tomcat's WVR tactical guidelines when facing a) a lighter/more manouverable opponent, b) a bigger bird like a Flanker or an Eagle. Does those guidelines exist, are they available?

 

TYVM!

[Hummingbird]

Sknipas,

 

The F-14's advantage lies in horizontal maneuvers, i.e. tight turns, and not so much the vertical.

 

Furthermore Hoser didn't use any "pre-landing configuration" when things got tight, what he did was he manually applied full sweep to fool his opponent of his energy state and thus lure them into a turn fight. If they fell for it then Hoser would flip the cat back into automatic sweep mode and haul his bird round the turn faster than his opponent, get on his six and guns on target. This is the tactic he successfully used to defeat experienced F-15 drivers in mock fights. He simply made them believe he was hauling ass supersonic (full sweep) when in reality he was well within his best subsonic maneuver speed, where the F-14 quite comfortably outmaneuvers the F-15.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Hummingbird

[Deadpoetic6]

Well the F-14 can take easily take out Mig-28 in close gun range, so it must be pretty agile

[Sknipas]

Sknipas,

 

The F-14's advantage lies in horizontal maneuvers, i.e. tight turns, and not so much the vertical.

 

Furthermore Hoser didn't use any "pre-landing configuration" when things got tight, what he did was he manually applied full sweep to fool his opponent of his energy state and thus lure them into a turn fight. If they fell for it then Hoser would flip the cat back into automatic sweep mode and haul his bird round the turn faster than his opponent, get on his six and guns on target. This is the tactic he successfully used to defeat experienced F-15 drivers in mock fights. He simply made them believe he was hauling ass supersonic (full sweep) when in reality he was well within his best subsonic maneuver speed, where the F-14 quite comfortably outmaneuvers the F-15.

 

Thank you Hummingbird!

 

In regard to the F-14's turn advantage, most of my questions on vertical came from here:

 

I understand the trainer is talking about 1-on-1 scenario, wing load comparison and a ton of context that I surely missed, but it also gave me the impression that -generally speaking- vertical is the thing f-14 do well...

 

In regard to the Hoser's event, I was referring to a story I read here: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/921898_The_Hoser_Chronicles.html

You may search the page for "Picture Hoser" if you want to go right at it.

 

Edit: Typos & I'm not trying to argue, only to understand :)

 

Cheers!

Edited May 24, 2017 by Sknipas

[probad]

no, its not so absolute as that. its always about relative performance. the golden rule of fighting is to do what you do better, in other words, do not do what your opponent can do better. the f-14's got more energy retention than a f-5 so you abuse that and go over the top. f-15s can easily overpower you in the top end so you challenge them to low energy contests.

 

your best game is the game that hurts you less than it hurts them.

Edited May 24, 2017 by probad