How is f-14 maneuverability?

[Rogue Trooper]

Rio looking down the spine of the aircraft to check the "6" whilst the pilot finishes the hard fought kill.

It does sound interesting and intense.

[Rogue Trooper]

It is funny.

When I first learnt about DCS and what it offers this is the plane I thought of for multiplayer.

Of course then I learnt the realities..... but we are almost there.

[foxbat155]

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. ..............

 

Sorry for a little late answer, but I'm busy man.

Great graphs, thanks for post them. I choosed for comparison 5000 and 15000 feet table, added some colors for clarity.

 

 

Colors:

Green - stall line,

Red - aircraft structural limit,

Blue - turn radius zones,

Yellow - best performance for sustained turn,

Pink - performance values.

 

On each graph I choosed Tomcat's best performance values for low and high speed. Results:

5000 feets ( 1524 m )low:

Speed: 335 knots ( 620 km/h );

Radius: 2400 feets ( 732 m );

G load: 5,2;

Corner speed: 15,2 deg/sec.

 

5000 feets ( 1524 m ) high:

Speed: 580 knots ( 1074 km/h );

Radius: 6200 feets ( 1890 m );

G load: 5,5;

Corner speed: 10 deg/sec.

 

15000 feets ( 4600 m ) low:

Speed: 335 knots ( 620 km/h );

Radius: 3800 feets ( 2290 m );

G load: 4,7;

Corner speed: 11,5 deg/sec.

 

15000 feets ( 4600 m ) high:

Speed: 485 knots ( 900 km/h );

Radius: 7500 feets ( 2290 m );

G load: 4,6;

Corner speed: 9 deg/sec.

 

Now time for this " ex-Soviet hand-waving garbage " ( frustration? problems with those strange letters? ). From MiG-23ML

aerodynamic manual I choosed graphs for: turn radius, g load, corner speed. All graphs shows sustained turn. Like previously I added some colors:

 

 

 

 

Yellow - best performance for sustained turn,

Pink - performance values.

I set the same speed value like Tomcat have, and then I read rest from graphs:

1000 m low:

Speed: 620 km/h;

Radius: 800 m ( 8,5% bigger than Turkey );

G load: 4,2;

Corner speed: 12 deg/sec.

 

1000 m high:

Speed: 1074 km/h;

Radius: 1550 m ( 22% smaller than Turkey );

G load: 6,8;

Corner speed: 11,5 deg/sec.

 

5000 m low:

Speed: 620 km/h;

Radius: 1400 m ( 20,5% bigger than Turkey );

G load: 3,5;

Corner speed: 8,6 deg/sec.

 

5000 high:

Speed: 900 km/h;

Radius: 2500 m ( 9% bigger than Turkey );

G load: 4,3;

Corner speed: 7,5 deg/sec.

 

We clearly see that Tomcat have slight better performance, so yes Flogger can't eat Turkey easily, but Turkey can't do this with 23 as well:music_whistling:. Bearing in mind that graphs have some accuracy errors, my readings have some errors, Turkey data are marked "estimated", Soviet manual concerns early ML with SUOA it's really hard make judgment.

It seems that we have more equal situation than many people thought. As I said: facts can be surprise:joystick:.Regards.

[Alicatt]

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:

 

At least the pipper is on the right spot ;)

[TAW_Blaze]

I think the Cat will be a killer in WVR. The extra set of eyes is massive in any dogfight scenario. The awful visibility magnifies this to an even further extent.

[lunaticfringe]

Now time for this " ex-Soviet hand-waving garbage " ( frustration? problems with those strange letters? ).

 

As illustrated, the best performance the MiG-23 can generate is so consistently poor that it is always forced to play on its opponents terms: at 5000', the F-14 isn't going to fight at 550 knots; he's going to decelerate to corner on the bandit with a nautical mile wide circle and stuff a Sidewinder in his face one circle.

 

The only performance margin you can find is the one he wouldn't bother with- reason being that the MiG can't generate a better radius *or* rate than the F-14 can sticking by its own terms. Both airframes fight their fight at said altitude, all the Flogger is doing is generating separation for that aforementioned heater.

 

We clearly see that Tomcat have slight better performance, so yes Flogger can't eat Turkey easily, but Turkey can't do this with 23 as well:music_whistling:...It seems that we have more equal situation than many people thought. As I said: facts can be surprise:joystick:.Regards.

 

While I give you props for coming on back, you are welcome to keep dreaming.

[Exorcet]

It seems that we have more equal situation than many people thought. As I said: facts can be surprise:joystick:.Regards.

Hoping not to blow fire on this, but I think the issue here was how you presented yourself. No one is really over estimating the Tomcat or showering it in bias, though you came in here claiming people were.

 

You also said this:

 

Gentlemen, I know you are Tomcat fanboys, but facts are facts . Navy pilots called her "Turkey". Guess why?. Dogfight it's not Tomcat's world, as I said BVR it's different story. Flogger was most agile swing wing combat aircraft ever built. I know, you don't like it, really sorry. MiG-23 was created as interceptor but became very good dogfighter as well.

 

Which you seemingly just retracted:

 

We clearly see that Tomcat have slight better performance

 

If you came in with a more neutral tone I think things would have gone better.

[captain_dalan]

Lets put this into perspective. I used a simple linear model to adjust the F-14A charts for sea level and 5000ft, to reach what would approximately be a 3000ft performance chart, roughly 1000m in order to make it more comparable with the data in the MiG manual.

 

this is the page in the manual

This are the charts for the F-14A at sea level and at 5000ft, with the MiG-23ML overlay in the second one

 

 

And this is both MiG and Tomcat at 3000ft.

 

 

Do note that the 23 is only armed with 2 R-23 missiles and although a different model is depicted on the same graph, the inclusion of 4 lighter missiles seriously degrades the performance. The charts for the MiG give it a relatively low speed at 1000m, which makes me wonder if it might be structurally limited to roughly 1100km/h with these loads?

 

Anyway, assuming indicated airspeeds in both cases (not that there is all that much difference this low), i took the liberty of calculating the turning radius of both AC, at their best sustained turning rates.

 

One final add to the legend; the dark lines represent the CLmax, or the maximum instantaneous turn rate, while the lighter curves are the Ps=0 or the maximum sustained turn rates. With the MiG, the doted line is an estimated based on the page 219 of the manual.

 

Obligatory apology:

In making of these charts, to make it more easy on myself, i used a digital copy of the AFM for the F/A-18C for FF5, only to get the proper knot/degree scales more precisely and save myself some work. I did not by any means intend to offend or take away from the people that made it.

 

EDIT: is there a way for me to post the pictures from my dropbox directly to the reply?

Edited March 13, 2015 by captain_dalan

[lunaticfringe]

Upload the images to your post in advanced mode instead, so long as they're <1mb.

[captain_dalan]

Upload the images to your post in advanced mode instead, so long as they're <1mb.

Thanks! That worked :thumbup:

[SUBS17]

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...

 

 

 

 

During the 1980s when the SU27 first went into service a pair followed and harassed a P3 orion over the atlantic. BTW regarding F-15 there was a rumor around the time Topgun was out where an F-15 pilot made a statement that he could beat an F-14 so bets were made and he lost against an F-14 in a dogfight although from my knowledge such dogfights would have happened quite often as I've read of a few exercises where F-14s went up against F-15s for training. It would be awesome to check out ACM footage from the real topgun training if they ever made such videos available or even some unique moves etc that the Tomcat was capable of back in the day.

 

I also know the Aim54 has been used effectively in dogfights and shot down aircraft in the Iran - Iraq war including at closer ranges than you would expect so although it states the Aim54 is for bombers only it has been used against jet fighters effectively. Also it depends on if the aircraft that the F-14 is engaging has a decent RWR as to whether the pilot would know if an Aim 54 was heading his way.:thumbup:

[OB1]

Has someone already mentioned that in the real word two F-14s from VF-32 had a WVR dogfight with two MiG-23s?

 

Those results were very much in favor of the Tomcat.

 

Would you actually classify the Libyan encounter as a dogfight ? I'd actually like someone to explain the encounter in detail as it seemed to differ from different sources but the radio chatter can't be disputed. The positions of the 4 aircraft is what I would particularly would like to know.

 

It is probably more realistic to compare it to much more capable platforms like the SU-27, especially the GE powered ones.

 

 

Yeah, by the time the F-14 upgrades rolled out and the B came along, Mig-29's and Su-27's were in service.

Edited March 7, 2015 by OB1

[Dutchy93]

In an article I read some time ago it was said that when the Iranians ran out of AIM54's they strapped HAWK SAM missiles under the cat and managed to use them effectively in AA combat.

I don't know if this is true, but it does sound cool, and funny :).

 

To bad I lost the source, but if I find it again I'll post it here.

[lunaticfringe]

They strapped them on, but the MIM-23 functions on a completely different wavelength than the AWG-9 can generate, so it was unsuccessful.

 

Chalk it up to about as useful as the Sageh.

 

(BTW: the MIM-23 HAWK has the greatest acronym for anything in the history of acronyms...)

[captain_dalan]

Would you actually classify the Libyan encounter as a dogfight ?

 

Pretty much correct. I doubt any merge with a Flogger can be classified as a "classical dogfight".

EDIT2: the level of training mismatch made those encounters pretty one sided too....

 

Yeah, by the time the F-14 upgrades rolled out and the B came along, Mig-29's and Su-27's were in service.

 

Yeah. It would have been these aircraft they would have to fight for air superiority anyway.

 

EDIT:

@Subs and lunaticfringe; thanks guys, i didn't know about any of those encounters

Edited March 7, 2015 by captain_dalan

[foxbat155]

While I give you props for coming on back, you are welcome to keep dreaming.

 

Dreams are important part of life, so I wish you many Flogger kills with Turkey.:thumbup:

 

Hoping not to blow fire on this, but I think the issue here was how you presented yourself. No one is really over estimating the Tomcat or showering it in bias, though you came in here claiming people were.

 

You also said this:

 

 

 

Which you seemingly just retracted:

 

 

 

If you came in with a more neutral tone I think things would have gone better.

 

Well yes my words were bit exaggerated, but ( forgive me ) Tomcat myth always make me laugh, especially trashy " Top Gun" movie.

Where is the point?. I have real doubts that Leatherneck ( or any other developer ) is able to deliver so complicated sim. It's not Tomcat issue, but all really complex aircrafts. Eagle Dynamics claims that DCS it's high level simulation not game, but so far most developers have serious issues with simplest things: flight models, fan from Mi-8, gunsight in MiG-21, lots of trivial issues in F-86, P-51, bug treads are full. When you read topics people just saying stories, I heard here.. I heard there... almost no substantive discussion. Meanwhile DCS became cheap market where developers announcing new super cool " awesome" modules, without finishing old ones. Almost nobody does not demand improvements, most wants game, next Arma or Falcon 4. I want simulation, graphs, numbers because I paid for it.

I don't care which aircraft will be better Tomcat, Flogger, Mirage, Fulcrum.... it does not matter. They are to be a copy of reality with all consequences and issues, NOT someone's imagination. Everyone were delighted Leatherneck's new modul, nobody asked about documentation for all important systems. Navair it's only slight part of needed documentation. Most of this papers are still secret, so we will have imagination instead facts and reality. Regards.

[TAW_Blaze]

Even military grade sims have bugs. Any software you create at such level of complexity will have bugs. Some of them you won't even notice. You can minimize the amount of bugs by careful design and extensive testing, but there will always be bugs.

 

I'm positive LN has the required documentation to build the jet otherwise they wouldn't have announced it in the first place.

[captain_dalan]

Well yes my words were bit exaggerated, but ( forgive me ) Tomcat myth always make me laugh, especially trashy " Top Gun" movie.

 

The following question is not pointed directly at you, but generally at the fighter sim community:

 

What myth of the Tomcat is exactly propagated through the Top Gun movie? I know most people (or at least a great many) came to know or like the plane because of the movie, but it can't be a myth that the plane is pretty good or superior to any others. I mean.... it was in the movie itself that Jester says: "The jets you will fly against are, smaller, faster, more maneuverable, just like the Soviet MiGs." And Charlie says something like, "we will use A-4 and F-5 as our MiG simulators". So if we are to judge from the movie alone, A-4s and F-5s are faster and more maneuverable then the F-14......? :doh:

If anything, the movie severely under appreciates the Cat.

 

On the other hand, i can completely understand when people diss the movie based on its representation of air to air combat and air combat maneuvering. There is hardly a shot in the movie, where you can actually see anything that you can take as a good pointer in an actual fight...... except maybe overshooting targets? :smilewink: :megalol:

 

But come on, when was the last time you saw an entertainment movie that represented A-A in an even remotely believable manner? Well..... maybe Independence Day minus the aliens of course :P

 

Seriously guys, has anyone of you have any good recommendation for me to watch over the weekend and is aviation based? "Dogfights" doesn't count, i watched that show 3-4 times over by now :thumbup:

 

And Foxbat, don't take this the wrong way, there is no such thing as a "better" fighter. Ask any real pilot worth their salt (not the ego hungry maniacs) and they will tell you, the best plane is the one that helps you do you job most effectively and brings you home safely.

[MoGas]

@Foxbat155, it seems you are a dissapointed and angry person. First you wanted to troll with the Flogger eats a Turkey kind of thing (The name Turkey was given by the appearance on landing, how the Tomcat looks like, and not that she flys like a Turkey). And now everything looks bad what is simulated in DCS world. Fact is there will be no 100% simulation out there.

 

The true story, there will be no 5000ft 500knots setup, guns only meeting with youre enemy, the better package will win. What I mean is, Sensor, Weapons, Range, trained Pilots/RIOs. In this case I dont see a MiG 23 win be honest. Poor Sensor, poor Weapons (compared to the Tomcat in the 80`s) trained Pilots well something we can talk about how much flyt time and what kind of training the had. One pilot in the MiG 23, poor visibility for a dogfight, short legs, manuel wingsweep (he has to care about it too, on every change in the flyt), he will be to busy to care of the plane itself....

 

Well there is no myth about the Cat, she was and is a good weapons platform..... About the handling

there are several good videos out there, where the push the Tomcat to its limits I would say https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fJICHLi1t0. And it should be clear that a Tomcat in good hands, bites you....

[lunaticfringe]

Well yes my words were bit exaggerated, but ( forgive me ) Tomcat myth always make me laugh, especially trashy " Top Gun" movie.

 

So lemme get this straight: you believe it is completely acceptable to trade in patent fabrications because a film made expressly as a work of fiction is "trashy"?

 

Boy, you've never seen Iron Eagle, Firebirds, Les Chevaliers du Ciel or Blue Tornado, have you? Are you sure you weren't a Zampolit in a past life? Seriously- you're willing to walk into an argument with pure propaganda and lodge insults at people based on your opinion of entertainment. That is *insane*, to a Yefim Gordon "the Fitter was almost within firing parameters on the Tomcat in the turn" degree.

 

Where is the point?. I have real doubts that Leatherneck ( or any other developer ) is able to deliver so complicated sim. ...but so far most developers have serious issues with simplest things: flight models, fan from Mi-8, gunsight in MiG-21, lots of trivial issues in F-86, P-51, bug treads are full.

 

You'll have to excuse me for saying, but given your propensity for hyperbole, what makes you think you are qualified to state what qualifies as a "simple thing"?

 

Navair it's only slight part of needed documentation. Most of this papers are still secret, so we will have imagination instead facts and reality. Regards.

 

NAVAIR is only "part" of the needed documentation? Every bit of the information required is going to have the NAVAIR prefix in the title- the dozens upon dozens of volumes. And frankly, having provided some significant material to Leatherneck, and had some of it be duplicates of information they already had in hand, I think you're going to find yourself at a loss as to what they actually have or need.

[turkeydriver]

In an article I read some time ago it was said that when the Iranians ran out of AIM54's they strapped HAWK SAM missiles under the cat and managed to use them effectively in AA combat.

I don't know if this is true, but it does sound cool, and funny :).

 

To bad I lost the source, but if I find it again I'll post it here.

 

They modified only 2 F-14a to carry the Hawk, and it was unable to reliably track the AWG-9s beam. Not a single Hawk fired from either of the two ever hit a target.

[turkeydriver]

Dreams are important part of life, so I wish you many Flogger kills with Turkey.:thumbup:

 

 

 

Well yes my words were bit exaggerated, but ( forgive me ) Tomcat myth always make me laugh, especially trashy " Top Gun" movie.

Where is the point?. I have real doubts that Leatherneck ( or any other developer ) is able to deliver so complicated sim. It's not Tomcat issue, but all really complex aircrafts. Eagle Dynamics claims that DCS it's high level simulation not game, but so far most developers have serious issues with simplest things: flight models, fan from Mi-8, gunsight in MiG-21, lots of trivial issues in F-86, P-51, bug treads are full. When you read topics people just saying stories, I heard here.. I heard there... almost no substantive discussion. Meanwhile DCS became cheap market where developers announcing new super cool " awesome" modules, without finishing old ones. Almost nobody does not demand improvements, most wants game, next Arma or Falcon 4. I want simulation, graphs, numbers because I paid for it.

I don't care which aircraft will be better Tomcat, Flogger, Mirage, Fulcrum.... it does not matter. They are to be a copy of reality with all consequences and issues, NOT someone's imagination. Everyone were delighted Leatherneck's new modul, nobody asked about documentation for all important systems. Navair it's only slight part of needed documentation. Most of this papers are still secret, so we will have imagination instead facts and reality. Regards.

 

While I fully appreciate EM diagrams and the use of mathematics to explain physics, I appreciate more what the charts don't show.

 

The F-14 is a bread and butter vertical fighter WVR. This has nothing to do with its TW ratio, it has everything to do with it being a giant wing with 2 engine pods. Its maneuvering devices and weight distribution allows yo-yo maneuvers tighter than other aircraft and it retains its energy better than most other fighters doing this. The F-15 and F-16 are superior at higher speeds, and the F/A-18 will always be easier to control, but the MiG-23 cannot maneuver with any fighter made after the F-4. The MiG-23 can zoom and boom, climb , and accelerate, at eye-watering speeds. The MiG-23MLD goes a long way fixing the deadly problems the MiG-23 encounters during dogfights, but early MiG-23s disintegrated in the air at loads of 8g or more. F-14s only require an overstress inspection and after repeated abuse, intense maintenance such as bulkhead replacement due to cracks.

What you must understand as an armchair commando like 99% of us(non-fighter pilots), is that if any of us where given the training and ability to fly and fight all of the fighter aircraft in the world we would come to the following conclusions:

1) initially we would be impressed by those airframes that are easier to control-this makes learning ACM tactics a less intense task.

 

2) After a few hundred hours in each type, we would learn that each type has specific strengths that you must counter or they will use that strength to beat you

 

3) After a 1000 hours or so we would learn that now being able to "wear the aircraft like a second skin", we can perform maneuvers and have a bagful of tricks that aren't defined by NATOPS or diagrams(like cross coupling stick and rudder inputs to swap ends instantaneously).

 

EM diagrams show that the MiG-29 and Eurofighter Typhoon to be on par aircraft, reality proves the Eurofighter to be far superior, every time. My advice, pick one aircraft, know its strengths and weaknesses cold, and then make your enemy fly to your strengths.

[foxbat155]

@Foxbat155, it seems you are a dissapointed and angry person.

 

Please don't judge me so hard, just Flogger argument always works in Turkey case. Type of discussion trigger.

 

Boy, you've never seen Iron Eagle, Firebirds, Les Chevaliers du Ciel or Blue Tornado, have you? Are you sure you weren't a Zampolit in a past life? Seriously- you're willing to walk into an argument with pure propaganda and lodge insults at people based on your opinion of entertainment. That is *insane*, to a Yefim Gordon "the Fitter was almost within firing parameters on the Tomcat in the turn" degree.

 

We can agree much worse, but because others movies are more idiotic not means that "Top Gun" is good. Don't ask me about Gordon's books, I'm not him.

 

 

You'll have to excuse me for saying, but given your propensity for hyperbole, what makes you think you are qualified to state what qualifies as a "simple thing"?

 

Simple logic. Parts amount and complexity. If you are not able simulate ASP-PFD-21 correctly, why you trying to do this with AWG-9 or other complicated weapon system.

 

 

 

NAVAIR is only "part" of the needed documentation? Every bit of the information required is going to have the NAVAIR prefix in the title- the dozens upon dozens of volumes. And frankly, having provided some significant material to Leatherneck, and had some of it be duplicates of information they already had in hand, I think you're going to find yourself at a loss as to what they actually have or need.

 

NAVAIR is huge for military, others can only lick cover. But I really have hope that you have right. You can share these treasures with us in the future and then we will able assess Leathrneck work. Finally, we are customers and we should require quality.

[captain_dalan]

 

The F-14 is a bread and butter vertical fighter WVR. This has nothing to do with its TW ratio, it has everything to do with it being a giant wing with 2 engine pods. Its maneuvering devices and weight distribution allows yo-yo maneuvers tighter than other aircraft and it retains its energy better than most other fighters doing this.

 

Confirmed. There is actually an article from the times when the first Hornet Drivers were going thought the Fighter Weapon School. I will skip over the details in order to shorten the post, but the epilogue is, the instructor beats the student on the graduation flight, by following the hornet in the vertical, performing a maximum performance turn doing so and getting a rear quarter missile shot on him.

 

 

but the MiG-23 cannot maneuver with any fighter made after the F-4. The MiG-23 can zoom and boom, climb , and accelerate, at eye-watering speeds. The MiG-23MLD goes a long way fixing the deadly problems the MiG-23 encounters during dogfights

 

I sometimes get the impression the 23 was specifically designed to beat the F-4..... they have very similar performance parameters, with the 23 outperforming the Phantom in some areas.

 

 

1) initially we would be impressed by those airframes that are easier to control-this makes learning ACM tactics a less intense task.

 

2) After a few hundred hours in each type, we would learn that each type has specific strengths that you must counter or they will use that strength to beat you

 

3) After a 1000 hours or so we would learn that now being able to "wear the aircraft like a second skin", we can perform maneuvers and have a bagful of tricks that aren't defined by NATOPS or diagrams(like cross coupling stick and rudder inputs to swap ends instantaneously).

 

 

1. Again true. Even after years of flying sims, the more authentic the FM the more i find myself excelling in the Hornet. Even more so then in other craft i fly more often.

 

2. Again true. I have fought every plane in available in every plane available and there is always a scenario that allows you to win (or lose) if you play to your advantages (or the enemy does)

 

3. Tried this several times in highly detailed sims (like the Aerosoft's F-14X) but i am still far from reaching this level myself, though there are plenty of living "legends" out there that seam to have done it IRL. Wish this iteration of F-14A/B allows us to explore it more.

 

Turkeydriver, this is a video i've done while working on a highly detailed AFM for the F-14A in BMS (NASA simulator data tables included) and it illustrates the vertical maneuvering points you made nicely. It was/is WIP and i would not go that far as to say it's 100% accurate (i'd be lucky if it's 50% at this time, seeing how it's made for Falcon), but the basic E-M performance and handling characteristics are there. The maneuvering sequence is executed at around 3:30 after i let the Viper drop in my rear quarter. He bleeds to much while trying to follow me.

 

 

Edited March 7, 2015 by captain_dalan

[lunaticfringe]

we will use A-4 and F-5 as our MiG simulators". So if we are to judge from the movie alone, A-4s and F-5s are faster and more maneuverable then the F-14......? :doh:

 

The F-5, no. An A-4E/F/M?

 

Yeah, you've got a big part of that envelope you do *not* want to play with him on his terms. Snort'll tell you, now that he's flying A-4Ks with Draken International: give that airframe AIM-9X, and he'd kill Raptors all day long.

 

Heinemann's hot rod is no joke with a good motor and functional slats.

 

As for what to watch?

 

Class is in session.

 

Edited March 7, 2015 by lunaticfringe