How is f-14 maneuverability?

[GGTharos]

For the same speed, yes. If you can pull more g or same g at a slower speed, you get tighter turn radius and faster turn rate.

[HWasp]

If I got this right, let's say for the sake of example:

Two different airframes, F-4 Phantom II and F-16, both at: 3000 ft, 380 kts, pulling 5 G's turn (for example), it means:

 

- both of them will be executing the same radius of turn, with the same turn rate also;

 

- however, eventually at some given airspeed and altitude (equal for both), the F-16 will be able to pull more G's than the F-4, and therefore it will have an higher turn rate.

 

Is this it ?

 

 

Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but imagine it like this:

 

Let's say the max sustained G for that Phantom is 5 at 380kts at 3000', and 7 for the F-16 (just made up numbers)

 

-They are flying in close formation making a 5g level turn together (same 5 g, rate and radius of course)

 

-The Phantom in the lead is in max. afterburner, struggling to keep the 380kts. If it pulls any more G, it will start to bleed speed.

 

-The F-16 following in close formation is in minimum afterburner, keeping formation easily, plenty of reserves left. The viper pilot can pull inside the Phantom's turn, while maintaining the same 380kts, all he needs to do is to add more thrust.

[Top Jockey]

For the same speed, yes. If you can pull more g or same g at a slower speed, you get tighter turn radius and faster turn rate.

 

Yes, that much I had the right perception.

(As the circle is smaller, the respective jet will go through it in less time, than the jet with a bigger turn radius, and so he is also turning faster.)

 

The point was, in my mind I sort of disregarded G's (wrongly) as that an important factor to attain turn rate, if a given airframe has somewhat a low weight.

 

In other words:

 

An airframe like for instance A-4 Skyhawk being so much lighter than an F-4, would in certain circumstances "turn better", even without much engine thrust (no afterburner, etc)... because given its very low weight it would be able to bear its nose around faster with less effort - and hence with less G's...

 

But from what you're telling, what I get is:

Those specific G's are always needed to get a specific turn rate, the point is: some airframes can (for the same airspeed) attain more G's easily than others, right ?

Edited January 20, 2019 by Top Jockey

[Top Jockey]

Not sure if I understand your question correctly, but imagine it like this:

 

Let's say the max sustained G for that Phantom is 5 at 380kts at 3000', and 7 for the F-16 (just made up numbers)

 

-They are flying in close formation making a 5g level turn together (same 5 g, rate and radius of course)

 

-The Phantom in the lead is in max. afterburner, struggling to keep the 380kts. If it pulls any more G, it will start to bleed speed.

 

-The F-16 following in close formation is in minimum afterburner, keeping formation easily, plenty of reserves left. The viper pilot can pull inside the Phantom's turn, while maintaining the same 380kts, all he needs to do is to add more thrust.

 

Sure, I can see the results; because it bleeds speed easier, it loses its G's availability sooner than the F-16, and therefore its turn rate starts decreasing.

[Eldur]

Those are mere picture frames, not the holy grail. Up to the pilot to create the art within.

 

Pretty much this... but it's gonna be great to have JESTER tell me where the bandit is that I still fail to see myself

 

And I guess you know - the one who sees first wins

[HWasp]

 

An airframe like for instance A-4 Skyhawk being so much lighter than an F-4, would in certain circumstances "turn better", even without much engine thrust (no afterburner, etc)... because given its very low weight it would be able to bear its nose around faster with less effort - and hence with less G's...

 

But from what you're telling, what I get is:

Those specific G's are always needed to get a specific turn rate, the point is: some airframes can (for the same airspeed) attain more G's easily than others, right ?

 

 

 

It's not just the weight, but rather the wing loading, and the shape of the wing, that matters. The majority of the drag that comes in a high AoA turn is due to the vortices forming (google induced drag, or vortex drag)as lift is produced.

 

This is why the F-14 can sustain turns that good, while being one of the heaviest, because it can spread those wings, making them more efficient for that low speed turn (less drag from vortices for a given amount of lift)

Edited January 20, 2019 by HWasp

[Victory205]

The F14a at fighting weight had an effective wing loading of 44-48psf, about the same as the A4.

 

Anyone know why?

[Nexus-6]

The F14a at fighting weight had an effective wing loading of 44-48psf, about the same as the A4.

 

Anyone know why?

Uh...lifting body?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Top Jockey]

The F14a at fighting weight had an effective wing loading of 44-48psf, about the same as the A4.

 

Anyone know why?

 

Because of the extra "pancake" area, in the under fuselage, between the engine naceles ?

[jcdata]

High aspect ratio wings have lower induced drag....

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[captain_dalan]

Uh...lifting body?

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

That, and the A-4's wings are the size of the F-14's horizontal stabilizers/tailerons.

 

High aspect ratio wings have lower induced drag....

 

Also true :thumbup:

[TLTeo]

Yes, that much I had the right perception.

(As the circle is smaller, the respective jet will go through it in less time, than the jet with a bigger turn radius, and so he is also turning faster.)

 

The point was, in my mind I sort of disregarded G's (wrongly) as that an important factor to attain turn rate, if a given airframe has somewhat a low weight.

 

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion#Uniform_circular_motion

For a given speed and centripetal acceleration (or g load) you can solve the equations of motions to derive angular speed (or turn rate) and turn radius. What that object is does not matter.

 

 

 

Of course, depending on the airframe you may or may not have a given amount of available g at a certain speed. The F104 will only give you 6-7g at ~500 kts if I recall correctly, the F14 can do that at much lower speeds thus turning much "better".

[Top Jockey]

 

...

 

However, if you stay ON his turn circle (with the F-14) in this kind of "slow" speed gun fight, he has nowhere to go and he bleeds more then you. Soon he'll find himself out of energy and a sitting duck and you get to pick how to gun him down.

 

For this to work though, you need to get pretty good at estimating when exactly and how much to start pulling. I.E. in that second MiG-29 fight, when they are getting low, the bandit does 90 degree left hand roll and performs a split S. Ralfi rolls his vector on him and pulls right away, which causes him to pull too much alpha and lose too much energy. It's not fatal, but a much better move is Knight on B4, which leads to....just kidding. A much better move is to continue his turn to the point where the MiG initiated the roll, and then replicate his move. You plane is better in a dive, so if you do this, you end up in the same spot that he end up, but with excess energy to then use as you will. The hard part is to visualize these spacial point without any external cues AND keep a situational awareness of the bandit. This is where that second pair of eyes in the back will be immensely helpful!

 

...

 

Hahaaaaa ! I was reading this, and man, what the heck ?! :lol:

[Top Jockey]

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_motion#Uniform_circular_motion

For a given speed and centripetal acceleration (or g load) you can solve the equations of motions to derive angular speed (or turn rate) and turn radius. What that object is does not matter.

 

 

 

Of course, depending on the airframe you may or may not have a given amount of available g at a certain speed. The F104 will only give you 6-7g at ~500 kts if I recall correctly, the F14 can do that at much lower speeds thus turning much "better".

 

Good explanation also, thank you.

 

Until today I didn't realize that: same altitude; same speed and same G's equated to same turn rate (and radius), even in different airframes.

 

Although that's somewhat sorted out for me, there are more factors that add to the confusion.

Because even if most of the time I do tend to think in turn rate, then there's also AoA, and pitch rate specific of every single airframe...

 

And these factors will influence parameters like turn radius and so.

[Victory205]

That, and the A-4's wings are the size of the F-14's horizontal stabilizers/tailerons.

 

Does the stab contribute to lift on the F14?

[TLTeo]

Good explanation also, thank you.

 

Until today I didn't realize that: same altitude; same speed and same G's equated to same turn rate (and radius), even in different airframes.

 

Although that's somewhat sorted out for me, there are more factors that add to the confusion.

Because even if most of the time I do tend to think in turn rate, then there's also AoA, and pitch rate specific of every single airframe...

 

And these factors will influence parameters like turn radius and so.

 

 

Pitch rate and turn rate both mean the same thing - how quickly the plane's nose is changing direction.

 

 

Increasing AoA means more of the lift vector is going into generating G (thus leading to a sharper turn), but it also means the plane is creating more drag to generate said G. That is why wing loading is a (very, very rough) measure of turning capability - roughly, the lower the wing loading, the more lift is available, the less AoA is needed to put part of that lift into the turn, thus creating less drag.

 

 

 

In practical terms, that's one of the reasons why the Spitfire was such an excellent dogfighter. It had low wing loading and an elliptical wing that caused very little drag, which in turn meant it required relatively little AoA to perform a turn, thus losing relatively little energy when doing so.

 

 

Does the stab contribute to lift on the F14?

 

 

 

Every horizontal surface contributes to lift in a plane, some more than others. In the F-14 a lot of the lift actually comes from the body rather than the wing itself actually, which is why measures like wing loading tend to be pretty vague. Similarly, a good bit of the lift in the F104 and F101 actually came from their tail section, which (along with the design of the tail) is part of the reason why they were such a handful to fly at high AoA.

Edited January 20, 2019 by TLTeo

[captain_dalan]

Does the stab contribute to lift on the F14?

 

My first response would be that it reduces lift, however it being an all moving surface, i'm guessing that depends on its current deflection angle, it can either have a positive or a negative effect on the lift coefficient. Probably a good deal of the F-14's pitching ability comes from this?

[Eldur]

The F14a at fighting weight had an effective wing loading of 44-48psf, about the same as the A4.

 

I'll never get used to those seemingly archaic units except for feet altitude, knots speed and nm ranges, had to go convert them to be able to compare this to anything I've heard, and it's a quite impressive figure... glad you don't measure speeds in stadiums per fortnight* still

 

TBH I had to google this just to know it's lb/ft²...

 

*For those interested, the Cat should reach about 0.6ish at altitude

 

a much better move is Knight on B4

 

Hahaaaaa ! I was reading this, and man, what the heck ?!

 

What does a knight do? He'll pierce you up with his lance in a B'n'Z attack before you can swing your sword at him. Basically this means: Just get rid of 'em by tossing 54Cs at them BeFour you even have to bother with BFM at all

[captain_dalan]

Hahaaaaa ! I was reading this, and man, what the heck ?! :lol:

 

What does a knight do? He'll pierce you up with his lance in a B'n'Z attack before you can swing your sword at him. Basically this means: Just get rid of 'em by tossing 54Cs at them BeFour you even have to bother with BFM at all

 

LOL. Sorry mates.... i wish it was something as witty as that:doh:

The truth is, it was a weekend night, i had some traces of bourbon in my bloodstream and halfway through my rant, i realized i sounded like a chess commentator.... yeah, i know....bad joke :lol:

 

EDIT: Sorry, i missed the comment the first time Jockey.

Edited January 21, 2019 by captain_dalan

[Bad Idea Hat]

Smart post.

 

Just reading some of this thread, I was thinking that very few DCS modules are airframe limited. Pilot knowledge and execution of the proper tactics are the real adversary, not E-M diagrams. Those are mere picture frames, not the holy grail. Up to the pilot to create the art within.

 

 

I honestly don't think any airframe is limiting, given good choices by the lesser aircraft pilot, and terrible choices by the greater airframe pilot. If an F-14 pilot's decision is to save the Phoenix missiles for later, but decide to get in an actual gunfight with a MiG-15, they're risking the chance of having a bad time when their primary advantages are wasted.

[WindyTX]

My first response would be that it reduces lift, however it being an all moving surface, i'm guessing that depends on its current deflection angle, it can either have a positive or a negative effect on the lift coefficient. Probably a good deal of the F-14's pitching ability comes from this?

He is messing with you fella. Unless you are pushing hard which you won't be in a fight (99% of the time). The tail is always producing a downward force so it reduces the overall lift available. All conventionally stable aircraft work the same way.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

[Victory205]

...The tail is always producing a downward force so it reduces the overall lift available. All conventionally stable aircraft work the same way.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

 

Anyone buy this cockamaimie theory?

[Strikeeagle345]

Anyone buy this cockamaimie theory?

 

I dont know, but I have read the NATOPS. Going through it again. Memorizing those check lists.:thumbup:

[Hummingbird]

And what about the F/A-18C, how do you see it threat wise to the F-14 (A or B) in BFM ?

 

Being the notable factors, its high nose pointing authority even at very slow speeds, and high alpha capability - so although in somewhat different ways, shouldn't it be as dangerous as the F-16 also ?

 

It would be an interesting match up, but if there's one area where the Hornet has issues it's in sustained turns, and this due to a rather massive amount of vortex induced drag at high AoA, which ironically is also what helps generate the lift that enables the Hornet to carry out that first 180 so fast.

 

In other words whilst the Hornet most likely is going to be able to match (or even beat) the F-14 in the first 180 deg turn, it's going to struggle matching the rate of the Cat after that, esp. vs the F-14B/D. So assuming the Hornet commits to the level turning contest and doesn't score a hit during the 2nd merge, then at that point the Hornet will be fully on the defensive with little opportunity to turn things around as it can neither outrun nor outclimb the Cat and the speed has now dropped to the point where it can trade nomore of it to keep up with the Cat round the turn.

 

So in summary, in a F-14 vs F/A-18 fight I'd have to put my money on the F-14,esp. if its the B or D variant, as both are close when it comes to the initial turn but the F-14 can maintain a higher sustained rate whilst at the same time being faster both on the level and in the climb.

 

This is all assuming an initial neutral head on merge, similar load outs & pilots of equal skill for both fighters ofcourse.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

In other words whilst the Hornet most likely is going to be able to match (or even beat) the F-14 in the first 180 deg turn, it's going to struggle matching the rate of the Cat after that, esp. vs the F-14B/D. So assuming the Hornet commits to the level turning contest and doesn't score a hit during the 2nd merge, then at that point the Hornet will be fully on the defensive with little opportunity to turn things around as it can neither outrun nor outclimb the Cat and the speed has now dropped to the point where it can trade nomore of it to keep up with the Cat round the turn.

 

If the Hornet driver can force a single circle fight the turn rate disadvantage becomes irrelevant though (turn radius is what's important), so not that simple.