How is f-14 maneuverability?

[BlackLion213]

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...

 

Like Probad said, all things are relative. :)

 

Compared to the F-4 Phantom, A-4, or F-5 - the Tomcat (A-model) performed quite well in the vertical. The major advantage of the Tomcat versus the Phantom in the vertical is that it lost a lot less speed during pitch-up and could vertically extend with a much lower starting airspeed. The Tomcat needed about 350 KIAS of starting airspeed to vertically extend vs 450 KIAS for the Phantom (according to "Hawk" Monroe - first CO of Topgun). Against the F-5, the Tomcat had a much higher pitch rate and better ITR/STR. Compared to the A-4, the Tomcat's much greater power gave it a big edge in energy maneuvers, but best to avoid turning fights against the Skyhawk (scooter).

 

However, things are different against 4th gen fighters. It also depends if you are referring to the F-14A vs the F-14B/D.

 

The re-engined F-14s are very capable in the vertical and perform well in a turning battle as all versions of the F-14 have excellent pitch rates. Roll-rate is a limitation, so best to avoid flat scissors. Against the F-15, the Tomcat (B/D) performs better in a turning battle below ~450 knots and can more or less match the F-15C in energy maneuvers/vertical maneuvers.

 

Against something like the F-16, the Tomcat (B/D) can use some tricks like asymmetric thrust to generate very high combined rates of pitch and yaw to aid rolling scissors. Also, very few fighters perform as well in a turning fight around 300 knots. However, Vipers have so much power that they only find themselves slow if they make a mistake and they can quickly regain their energy.

 

I have read less about Tomcat encounters with other 4th gen aircraft.

 

The F-14A has a tougher time against all 4th gen opponents compared to the F-14B/D. It is far from hopeless, but energy management is essential. The same airframe performance that gives the F-14 excellent pitch rate is still present, but it is much easier to bleed off energy and end up slow. The F-14A's relative lack of excess thrust means that it can only sustain max performance turns for about 180 deg before airspeed loss starts to limit available G, especially between 10,000' and 25,000'. Below 10,000' (and especially 5,000') the TF30 makes a lot more thrust in zone 5 and relative performance is good deal better. Not to mention the issues of engine reliability at high AOA or rapid throttle changes, but no need to go too far down the rabbit hole. :)

 

I hope these tidbits help to answer your question.

 

-Nick

[LJQCN101]

If you want a F14 vs F15 vs F16 E-M diagram comparison in similar altitude, drag and fuel, here you go:

 

 

Provided some max sustained G measurements earlier which are what the turn rates are based on, but here's a recap:

 

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.2

0.3 = 1.95

0.4 = 2.95

0.5 = 4.0

0.6 = 5.0

0.7 = 5.3

0.75 = 5.6

 

F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = CAT limited

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.7

0.5 = 3.55

0.6 = 4.5

0.7 = 5.5

0.75 = 6.0

 

F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.0

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.6

0.5 = 3.4

0.6 = 4.3

0.7 = 5.25

0.75 = 5.7

[FWind]

Like Probad said, all things are relative. :)

 

Compared to the F-4 Phantom, A-4, or F-5 - the Tomcat (A-model) performed quite well in the vertical. The major advantage of the Tomcat versus the Phantom in the vertical is that it lost a lot less speed during pitch-up and could vertically extend with a much lower starting airspeed. The Tomcat needed about 350 KIAS of starting airspeed to vertically extend vs 450 KIAS for the Phantom (according to "Hawk" Monroe - first CO of Topgun). Against the F-5, the Tomcat had a much higher pitch rate and better ITR/STR. Compared to the A-4, the Tomcat's much greater power gave it a big edge in energy maneuvers, but best to avoid turning fights against the Skyhawk (scooter).

 

However, things are different against 4th gen fighters. It also depends if you are referring to the F-14A vs the F-14B/D.

 

The re-engined F-14s are very capable in the vertical and perform well in a turning battle as all versions of the F-14 have excellent pitch rates. Roll-rate is a limitation, so best to avoid flat scissors. Against the F-15, the Tomcat (B/D) performs better in a turning battle below ~450 knots and can more or less match the F-15C in energy maneuvers/vertical maneuvers.

 

Against something like the F-16, the Tomcat (B/D) can use some tricks like asymmetric thrust to generate very high combined rates of pitch and yaw to aid rolling scissors. Also, very few fighters perform as well in a turning fight around 300 knots. However, Vipers have so much power that they only find themselves slow if they make a mistake and they can quickly regain their energy.

 

I have read less about Tomcat encounters with other 4th gen aircraft.

 

The F-14A has a tougher time against all 4th gen opponents compared to the F-14B/D. It is far from hopeless, but energy management is essential. The same airframe performance that gives the F-14 excellent pitch rate is still present, but it is much easier to bleed off energy and end up slow. The F-14A's relative lack of excess thrust means that it can only sustain max performance turns for about 180 deg before airspeed loss starts to limit available G, especially between 10,000' and 25,000'. Below 10,000' (and especially 5,000') the TF30 makes a lot more thrust in zone 5 and relative performance is good deal better. Not to mention the issues of engine reliability at high AOA or rapid throttle changes, but no need to go too far down the rabbit hole. :)

 

I hope these tidbits help to answer your question.

 

-Nick

 

F-15 fight with F-14A.

-Nick

[BlackLion213]

F-15 fight with F-14A.

[ATTACH]162597[/ATTACH]

-Nick

 

Great find! :thumbup:

 

I met a recently transitioned F-14D crew (just finished the transition from the F-14A) from VF-213 at the Dayton air show ~1998 or 99. Of course, they loved their new F-14Ds and were very impressed by the new tech and power of the F110s. I asked if they noticed a big improvement in ACM capability or maneuverability. The pilot gave me a funny glance and said "no....but I can now sustain minimum radius turns without trading altitude for airspeed. I guess that will open up some options and the engine reliability will make a difference too" (probably paraphrased a bit after 18 years). So the re-engined F-14s can sustain that impressive ~180-270 turn rate while the F-14A has to either "take it downhill" or reduce its rate of turn to match the available energy.

 

Bio Baranek said that one of the ACM decision points of fighting something like the F-15 was deciding when it was worth it to trade energy for position and that keeping airspeed up was important.

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

 

-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...

 

I think that when they say "with the big boys (flaps) working in a "non-landing configuration,"", they actually mean he dropped down the main flaps all the way down, something that i would imagine made his plane captain a bit cross with him :music_whistling:

 

F-15 fight with F-14A.

[ATTACH]162597[/ATTACH]

-Nick

 

Makes sense. Except for that defensive break. I mean, the 14 does have more lift for every degree of alpha at the same mach, up to about the stalling edge. If so, and they are behind you, breaking hard might not be such a good idea? I mean, they can out point you and get where you wanna be before you, then unload and get some energy back, while your exhaust goes right to your face.... Unless he is more at the 3-9 line, but does that classify as a defensive setup? :huh:

[Tirak]

I think that when they say "with the big boys (flaps) working in a "non-landing configuration,"", they actually mean he dropped down the main flaps all the way down, something that i would imagine made his plane captain a bit cross with him :music_whistling:

 

 

 

Makes sense. Except for that defensive break. I mean, the 14 does have more lift for every degree of alpha at the same mach, up to about the stalling edge. If so, and they are behind you, breaking hard might not be such a good idea? I mean, they can out point you and get where you wanna be before you, then unload and get some energy back, while your exhaust goes right to your face.... Unless he is more at the 3-9 line, but does that classify as a defensive setup? :huh:

 

I've always been under the impression a defensive setup is line with the attacker on the defender's 6, so I can't imagine he's talking about any other position. However, something important to notice is that the F-14 in the example is an A, so high alpha plus low speed equals compressor stall, the F-15 pilot may be able to force the F-14 to bleed energy inefficiently because he can't make full use of his aerodynamic advantage. Also, A Cats can't work the throttle aggressively, so forcing him to play close to the edge of his operational envelope probably invites him to make a mistake. A break turn like that against a B Cat would probably end poorly.

[Sknipas]

Yes, I'm more than covered! :D

 

Thank you very much guys!!

 

Ufff, can't wait for this child's dream to be released...

...but at least there's plenty of great reading ahead that will help on the wait. ;)

 

\cheers!

[captain_dalan]

I've always been under the impression a defensive setup is line with the attacker on the defender's 6, so I can't imagine he's talking about any other position. However, something important to notice is that the F-14 in the example is an A, so high alpha plus low speed equals compressor stall, the F-15 pilot may be able to force the F-14 to bleed energy inefficiently because he can't make full use of his aerodynamic advantage. Also, A Cats can't work the throttle aggressively, so forcing him to play close to the edge of his operational envelope probably invites him to make a mistake. A break turn like that against a B Cat would probably end poorly.

 

Hmmm, could be.....can't wait to try this in action. Generally, when a Flanker gets on your six, it's a fool's errant to try and shake him by hard breaks, but as you say, energy management can be trickier in the Alpha Cat.

[Andy1966]

there are so many variables in air combat, "It depends" is the phrase that comes to mind. The idea is to use the advantages if your aircraft to exploit the disadvantages of your opponents aircraft, the variables being energy weight, load, alt, speed, etc. Tactics change as the advantage/disadvantages and variables change. Know the capabilities of your aircraft, and your opponents aircraft, and it still "Depends" on pilot skill. we may be surprised how deadly the Tom is in the Trans sonic range due to the sweep wing? or it could be a brick? other a\c experiencing mach tuck first etc.? will be interesting to find out.

[Hummingbird]

A snippet of a defence article from 1977 regarding mock fights:

1977 - 3566.PDF

[Hummingbird]

Hmmm, could be.....can't wait to try this in action. Generally, when a Flanker gets on your six, it's a fool's errant to try and shake him by hard breaks, but as you say, energy management can be trickier in the Alpha Cat.

 

Yeah as Tirak rightly points out an F-14A would likely suffer a compressor stall if the throttle was managed too aggressively. But I'm also under the impression that the advice is for a high altitude merge where the alpha cat is at a further disadvantage powerwise, hence its 270 deg rate advantage.

 

Down low the energy retention would be better to the point of forcing the F-15 to go vertical.

[captain_dalan]

Yeah as Tirak rightly points out an F-14A would likely suffer a compressor stall if the throttle was managed too aggressively. But I'm also under the impression that the advice is for a high altitude merge where the alpha cat is at a further disadvantage powerwise, hence its 270 deg rate advantage.

 

Down low the energy retention would be better to the point of forcing the F-15 to go vertical.

 

Yeah, under most circumstances i'd agree. A Turkey driver would have to be extremely mindful of both energy management and throttle movement if he/she is to tangle Eagle up high. But in a specific (Eagle) defense scenario?

 

The Cat has more lift (and arguably drag) per alpha at a given mach number. What that translates to is that it needs less AoA to get to the same g as the Eagle. This in turn means less induced drag, which translates to that low -medium STR advantage to Tomcat usually has. So not only can you outpoint the Eagle in a break, you can follow it and actually bleed it dry in the process. I haven't actually done the math yet, but unless the F-14 is already in an inferior energy state and both planes are very high (like way over angels 20)........i just don't see this work. Who knows, maybe as a last ditch maneuver.......and pray he overshoots or something.

[Hummingbird]

Yeah, under most circumstances i'd agree. A Turkey driver would have to be extremely mindful of both energy management and throttle movement if he/she is to tangle Eagle up high. But in a specific (Eagle) defense scenario?

 

The Cat has more lift (and arguably drag) per alpha at a given mach number. What that translates to is that it needs less AoA to get to the same g as the Eagle. This in turn means less induced drag, which translates to that low -medium STR advantage to Tomcat usually has. So not only can you outpoint the Eagle in a break, you can follow it and actually bleed it dry in the process. I haven't actually done the math yet, but unless the F-14 is already in an inferior energy state and both planes are very high (like way over angels 20)........i just don't see this work. Who knows, maybe as a last ditch maneuver.......and pray he overshoots or something.

 

I guess another factor is that in mock fights the Cat driver would rarely exceed the navy 6.5 to 7 G limit, or he might face a reprimand. Thus a heavy 9 G break by the Eagle driver could be effective.

[captain_dalan]

I guess another factor is that in mock fights the Cat driver would rarely exceed the navy 6.5 to 7 G limit, or he might face a reprimand. Thus a heavy 9 G break by the Eagle driver could be effective.

That might be so, except for the wording in the text, that explicitly states to make sure the F-14 is following you into the turn for the first 120 or so degrees so it will deplete itself of energy.

[Hummingbird]

That might be so, except for the wording in the text, that explicitly states to make sure the F-14 is following you into the turn for the first 120 or so degrees so it will deplete itself of energy.

 

It is quite odd advice indeed.

[SinusoidDelta]

It is quite odd advice indeed.

Well it is advice specific to BFM/ACM setup with the F-15 starting in a defensive position. It sounds like the advice is implying that, in an energy depleted state, the F-15 has the potential to regain energy at a faster rate than the f-14.

[Hummingbird]

Well it is advice specific to BFM/ACM setup with the F-15 starting in a defensive position. It sounds like the advice is implying that, in an energy depleted state, the F-15 has the potential to regain energy at a faster rate than the f-14.

 

Yes but I think a few of us are just thinking that dropping down in speed is probably the worst thing the F-15 can do vs an F-14 as the latter can turn tighter and go slower whilst still being able to maneuver.

 

But again the advice is probably for a high altitude merge, everything written points to that (diving spirals etc), and it's also noted that the F-15's advantage lies in the vertical and not the horizontal.

 

But ofcourse we can speculate the reasons/logic behind each word in the document forever, meanwhile fact is the actual difference is there for all to see on the declassified EM charts :)

Edited May 31, 2017 by Hummingbird

[BlackLion213]

From what I've read, getting slow during DACT was one of the worst mistakes a Tomcat pilot could make (F-14A). With less thrust than its 4th gen counterparts, energy management is very important and nearly every combat aircraft becomes quite vulnerable when low on energy. The F-14A's best performance is in the horizontal and most Tomcat pilots favor a one-circle fight and will try to press their advantage quickly. However, if they overdo this just a bit, they end up slow and with few options for staying in the fight.

 

I think the F-15 defensive maneuver is trying to bait the Tomcat crew by offering them what they want (horizontal fight) and hoping that the Tomcat goes for broke. Plus, they are talking about defensive maneuvers with the enemy ideally positioned to their 6, most aircraft have limited options for winning this fight against a modern opponent. This strategy of hoping the Tomcat bleeds off too much energy seems as good as any imho. :)

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

It sounds like the advice is implying that, in an energy depleted state, the F-15 has the potential to regain energy at a faster rate than the f-14.

 

And it does, by quite a margin. As long as it is unloaded/at low AoA.

 

 

 

But again the advice is probably for a high altitude merge, everything written points to that (diving spirals etc), and it's also noted that the F-15's advantage lies in the vertical and not the horizontal.

 

 

From what I've read, getting slow during DACT was one of the worst mistakes a Tomcat pilot could make (F-14A). ........Plus, they are talking about defensive maneuvers with the enemy ideally positioned to their 6, most aircraft have limited options for winning this fight against a modern opponent. This strategy of hoping the Tomcat bleeds off too much energy seems as good as any imho. :)

 

-Nick

 

Did some basic calculations, mach 0.2 to mach 0.5, from SL to 35000ft, both clean and with ordnance. At comparable fuel and external loads, the Eagle just doesn't have the thrust to compensate for the unfavorable lift to drag ratio at high angles of attack. The T/W ratio advantage tends to go from 55%+ to 75%+ in favor of the Eagle (relative ratios), however the L/D advantage of the Tomcat goes from 94% to 170% (also relative) at high angles of attack. Not to mention there are regimes at which the Eagle just drops out of the sky, while the Cat still pulls and even sustains 1.5g.

 

This is the very low edge of the envelope though. If i have the time i'll try and calculate if the situation changes above the mid mach. After all, the guide describes the F-14 as always entering the merge at high speed. If the same is true for the defensive setup, then maybe the bleed rates in the 0.7-0.9 region would allow the eagle to fare better and bleed more favorably.... :book:

[The Black Swan]

From what I've read, getting slow during DACT was one of the worst mistakes a Tomcat pilot could make (F-14A). With less thrust than its 4th gen counterparts, energy management is very important and nearly every combat aircraft becomes quite vulnerable when low on energy. The F-14A's best performance is in the horizontal and most Tomcat pilots favor a one-circle fight and will try to press their advantage quickly. However, if they overdo this just a bit, they end up slow and with few options for staying in the fight.

 

I think the F-15 defensive maneuver is trying to bait the Tomcat crew by offering them what they want (horizontal fight) and hoping that the Tomcat goes for broke. Plus, they are talking about defensive maneuvers with the enemy ideally positioned to their 6, most aircraft have limited options for winning this fight against a modern opponent. This strategy of hoping the Tomcat bleeds off too much energy seems as good as any imho. :)

 

-Nick

 

But what about the B model?

With more thrust and no compressor stalls wouldn't it be more viable in the low speed state?

[probad]

The F-14A was also underpowered to put it bluntly. The A-model needed all of its resources to get to 35,000FT, so 92%-100% RPM was the range, especially if we were carrying ordnance. We would use the burner to get us to altitude quickly, say 28,000ft, and then she would peter out. We would have to climb in steps from there, using the burner off and on, but then we could also hear the fuel being sucked out of the tanks!

 

pretty anemic sounding. l:d ratio may be the only saving grace it has to keep it in the game at all.

[Tirak]

pretty anemic sounding. l:d ratio may be the only saving grace it has to keep it in the game at all.

 

You can build the greatest airframe in the world, but if the brass insist on putting leftover engines from a low altitude penetration bomber in it, you're going to run into some pretty big hurdles when you ask those engines to pretend to be fighter engines.

[probad]

everyone knows the tf-30 was the wrong engine, but i was surprised by the account of just how poorly the engine performs at higher altitudes.

[BlackLion213]

But what about the B model?

With more thrust and no compressor stalls wouldn't it be more viable in the low speed state?

 

None of these issues apply to the B, with a lot more thrust the Tomcat doesn't have to worry much about bleeding energy and it can sustain minimum radius turns very well. As depicted by Tom Clancy in "Carrier" (nonfiction), the F-15s struggled when the F-14 got the F110 since their prior tactics quit working.

 

This was especially true at the medium altitudes of most DACT training. The TF30s worst regime was military power at high altitudes - one Tomvat pilot quipped "The only thing the TF30 dos below 250 KIAS and above 25,000' is convert JP5 into noise". At high speeds things were better and down low things were much better.

 

-Nick

[captain_dalan]

The TF30s worst regime was military power at high altitudes - one Tomvat pilot quipped "The only thing the TF30 dos below 250 KIAS and above 25,000' is convert JP5 into noise". At high speeds things were better and down low things were much better.

 

-Nick

 

So true. None of that with the GE engines. You could recover your energy in a jiffy and no spontaneous die outs. Military power above 25kft? Forget it if you are in an alpha.