Jump to content

F-14B vs F-16C Block50 vs F-15C


Lunatica

Recommended Posts

T.O.GR1F-16CJ-1-1,F-16C Block50

Operating Weight = 19261;

Ammunition = 287;

(6)AIM-120 = 6 x 341 = 2046; Drag Index: 4 x 4 + 2 x 0 = 16;

(2)LAU129/A Launcher ; Drag Index: 2 x 1 = 2;

(4)LAU129/A Launcher + Adapter(16S301) = 4 x 113 = 452; Drag Index: 4 x 6 = 24;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZFW = 22046; Drag Index = 42;

 

GW - ZFW = 26000 - 22046 = 3954;

3780 / 7162 = 55.2%;

 

 

NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1,F-14B

Empty Weight = 43600;

(4)AIM-7 = 4 x 500 = 2000; Drag Index: 4 x 2 = 8;

(4)AIM-9 = 4 x 195 = 780; Drag Index: 4 x 8 = 32;

(2)Stub Pylon = 2 x 230 = 460;

(4)AIM-9 Adapter and Launcher = 4 x 113 = 452; Drag Index: 4 x 1 = 4;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ZFW = 47292; Drag Index = 44;

 

GW - ZFW = 55620 - 47292 = 8328;

8328 / 16200 = 51.4%;

 

TO 1F-15A-1

AIRPLANE CONFIGURATION 4AIM-7+4AIM-9+CL PYLON

F100-PW-220

 

tks @LJQC drew this doghouse

wu5dld.thumb.jpg.dbb7a4826ab0ea4711a4522bf9a9df9b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you take the 0 drag index table as your base model?

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When drawing a doghouse like that you should use the measured G's, not the deg/sec, which is esp. unreliable at low speeds.

 

Taking a look at the actual measured G's and the F-14 outperforms the F-15 in both sustained & instantanuous turn rate at all speeds up to mach 0.75 and then again from Mach 1.2 onwards.

 

Sustained G performance of the F-14A & D, F-16C & F-15C in comparison at 10,000 ft

 

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-14A @ 53,873 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.1

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.8

0.5 = 3.9

0.6 = 4.9

0.7 = 5.2

0.75 = 5.5

 

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


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO, The NAVAIR 01-F14AAP-1.1 only have combat performance(with AIM7/AIM9/AIM54/EXTERNAL TANKS) charts

I meant for the Viper.

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Guys, Do you realy think, what turkey can outturn the viper

?

I think, information above incorrect..


Edited by SandMartin

 Мой youtube канал Группа в VK 

 

IBM x3200 Tower, i7 9700k, Asus Z390-P, HyperX Fury DDR4 2x16Gb 3466 Mhz, HyperX Savage 480Gb SSD, Asus RTX3070 Dual OC 8G, 32" Asus PG329Q, Creative Sound Blaster AE-5, HyperX Cloud Alpha + Pulsefire FPS Pro + Alloy FPS brown, Track IR 4 PRO + Clip Pro, Warhog HOTAS + CH Pro Pedal + есть руль Logitech G25

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think so?

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's ineresting about this chart is, F-16's max turn rate looks like 18 degrees / sec, which, I can even do with MiG-21 in DCS (however very briefly). Even if we assume that is sustained turn figures rather than maximum rates, it looks still weird F-15 and F-16 looking so lackluster, I believe they can do turn rates well in excess of 20 degrees, but don't know that is instantaneous or sustained performances of them.

 

Added colored lines for F-16 and F-15 looks a bit strange to me to be honest. I'm not necessarily saying they are wrong, I don't have evidence, but if they are true, I would genuinely be very surprised.

 

F-14 itself looks like offering pretty much warbird like turn performance, however at almost warbird like speeds too. 28 degrees / second sound mighty impressive but it is at quite a low speed.

 

So yeah, it seems F-14 can turn mighty good at low speeds but at usual combat speeds not that different to other 4th gen fighters it seems. And I think that crazy low speed turn rate involves minimum sweep setting of wing, which would likely impact acceleration and roll rate?

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ooh, i'm gonna be so scared when i see you guys break out your charts and slide rules and pull your mechanical pencils out of your pocket protectors............

 

i think i'd rather just sneak in unobserved and gun your brains out

 

lol

i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's ineresting about this chart is, F-16's max turn rate looks like 18 degrees / sec, which, I can even do with MiG-21 in DCS (however very briefly). Even if we assume that is sustained turn figures rather than maximum rates, it looks still weird F-15 and F-16 looking so lackluster, I believe they can do turn rates well in excess of 20 degrees, but don't know that is instantaneous or sustained performances of them.

 

 

Look at the altitude, it's 10000ft. And all the planes carry their full complement of air to air missiles. You can't possibly expect an air-show level of performance.

 

Chart clarification:

Only the F-14 and the F-16 curves represent both ITR and STR. For the F-14 the ITR is the black thick line that peaks at just above 19 and for the F-16 it's the blue one, that peaks around 18. The STR is just above 14 for all of them (F-14 thin black, F-16 red and F-15 pink). What you should take into account is that the ITR on the Viper is "capped" by the flight computer at 9g. You won't be pulling any more alpha even if you wanted to. There are no such restrictions for the F-14 and F-15. The limit depicted here for the F-14 (6.5g) is "soft", that is operational peace time limit for air frame longevity. If you want to, you can pull even harder.

 

As for the last part of your question..... well.... there is no such thing as a usual combat speed. At least not in a WVR engagement. Even if your cruise/merge speed is in the range of 450 KIAS, you won't be staying there once both of you start turning. Your tactics and energy management will determine where in the envelope you fly(you will of course try to stick the best possible parameters).

 

ooh, i'm gonna be so scared when i see you guys break out your charts and slide rules and pull your mechanical pencils out of your pocket protectors............

 

i think i'd rather just sneak in unobserved and gun your brains out

 

lol

No need to bother yourself with the guns, just uncage the winders and go for the silent kill :P

Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tomcat at full extension had a lighter wing loading than the Eagle.

Which allows for better turning performance.

The photo, supposedly, is from a series of mock dogfights fought by Tomcats and Eagles.:megalol:

Donald E. Auten writes briefly about the engagements in "Rodger Ball". If you have the inclination it is a very good read!:book:

http://www.amazon.com/ROGER-BALL-ODYSSEY-MONROE-FIGHTER/dp/1605280054

F-15-locked.jpg.ba22ff4f846260e333198eb0a13439a8.jpg


Edited by Cool Breeze

"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Leonardo Da Vinci

 

 

"We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch - we are going back from whence we came."

John F. Kennedy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.

TI-84 graphics calculator (overclocked) 24 KB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140030

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140557

 

 

 

 

Go read the pages in these threads.

 

 

You'll learn oodles.

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.

 

There is so much wrong with this post it isn't even funny. :cry:

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.

 

I really hope this doesn't sound like an immature attack on you, but do you actually know anything you're talking about? Where have you gathered so much misinformation? I really hope you do some reading up through some of these threads where some very credible people will hope to turn around about 99% of your views on the Tomcat and its abilities.

"I'm just a dude, playing a dude, disguised as another dude."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not jumping into the discussion...

 

Aircrew interviews has posted an interviewa real life Tomcat driver who flew F-5s and F-16s as well.

 

You might find it interesting.

 

 

Enjoy.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you ever believe an experienced F14 pilot like Keith when you can just quote some random blog you read on the internet as if you are the burning bush?

 

People who didn’t fly the aircraft, including real life fighter pilots really don’t know. They are often wrong and speak with bias and ignorance of the details and nuances.

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.

 

You're very wrong, the F-14 Tomcat was a great interceptor as much it was a great dogfighter, the F-14 was 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 by Maverick966
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not jumping into the discussion...

Aircrew interviews has posted an interviewa real life Tomcat driver who flew F-5s and F-16s as well.

You might find it interesting.

 

 

Enjoy.

 

Thanks for the video, I immediately stole a quote from there for my signature - hilarious!

"[...] because, basically, in this day and age, if you get to the merge and no one's died - it's not good for anybody." - Keith 'Okie' Nance
"Nun siegt mal schön!" - Theodor Heuss, September 1958

"Nobody has any intention of building a wall." - Walter Ulbricht, June 1961
"Russia has no plans to invade either Ukraine or any other country.
" - Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's ambassador to the EU, January 2022

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combat pilots know that energy management is key to survival. Getting too slow is a guaranteed kill (for the enemy). Most pilots will not get into a turning fight to lose to much energy and give the advantage to an adversary. The F-14's strength was as an interceptor (high speed missile launch platform) used for fleet defense not a dogfighter. Rarely if ever did it mix it up with nimble dogfighters which could easily get the best of them. The US Navy's policy was to avoid dogfighting with this class of fighters and maximize its true best qualities of kill from a distance. Even the F-5E was a challenge for the F-14, initially losing at a 1:2 ratio in games until they devised better flying practices to overcome the nimble fighter. The F-14's real challengers were the MiG-23 and Sukoi fighters of the 1970's and 1980's, flown by less than capable pilots with far less adequate electronic equipment. It was more than a match for them. Matching a Tomcat against today's F-15 or latest F-16 would be suicide as each can easily defeat the AIM-54 and then move in for the kill. It was a great plane for its time however, but to match it against newer models with better technology and across the board capabilities is unfair and really not a fair comparison. I love the F-14 however, I hope they realistically model how it was used. 2 Phoenix was the preferred configuration with 4 at most (and having to jettison at least 2 for safety reasons upon landing). 6 could be carried but never ever happened in real life due to weight and landing. The missiles themselves cost over a million in 1970's dollars. It will be fun flying an older generation airplane that was one of the best of its time. Even the best pilot in an inferior plane can defeat an inferior pilot in a better plane, but the better plane sure helps.

 

Hello,

 

I do know it's at 58 pages already, but the thread below is an eye opening source of info on the F-14 capabilities:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140030

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% of that thread referencing F14 performance is hearsay, speculation or made up from snippets heard from some random guy looking for attention in a bar or on a blog.

 

The variables are immense in the real world and go far beyond the academic discussions that are often based on a few words from a sentence that gets blow far out of proportion and context.

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

95% of that thread referencing F14 performance is hearsay, speculation or made up from snippets heard from some random guy looking for attention in a bar or on a blog.

 

The variables are immense in the real world and go far beyond the academic discussions that are often based on a few words from a sentence that gets blow far out of proportion and context.

 

Hello,

 

Sounds a little preconceptuous statement, made in a rush of judgment.

Let me assure - you wouldn't be claiming that if you have read the complete 58 / 59 pages.

 

If I were a betting guy, I would bet that you didn't read the complete thread from the start... why do I think that ?

 

Because, if you have read it, you would have noticed that in the first 20 or 30 pages (for instance), there is such an amount and specific type of information on the F-14, that it really is remarkable.

 

For instance, members like @lunaticfringe, @GGTharos, @captain dalan (just to name a few), frequently post some very good information on the aircraft.

 

- @captain dalan frequently posts EM diagrams / tables with data of some sort - that kind of info is not quite "hearsay"...

 

- also, if you read @lunaticfringe's posts, you will quickly realize that he REALLY knows is stuff.

If you feel like it, try to find his discussion with another member regarding the F-14 vs MiG-23 performance comparison, and you'll understand my point.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry mate, but he's a well-read enthusiast, nothing more. Quoting guys I've known for decades, just like the rest, as if that makes a difference. I've known Music for four decades now, served with him twice during our Navy careers for seven years. He was a B777 Captain, and retired from the airlines on May 28th last year, divorced four times. He, and Munster, and the rest, are just guys that happened to get lucky. It's funny to see the attitudes here, because trust me, you wouldn't let your daughters or wives anywhere around some of these gents. :)

 

I understand that almost none of you has the background to understand the true situation- what is important, what isn't. You can't "know what you don't know", because you simply don't have access. So like Pierre Sprey, who only knows what Boyd dropped in the trashcan, guys worship things (your world, not mine) that were ancillary and tangential. EM diagrams for example. Those aren't the Holy Grail, they are a general overview of an aircraft's capabilities, which may give you a general idea of how to initially engage. It's all you have, so it gets magnified beyond it's normal importance. You don't win or survive by holding up a piece of paper with some scribbles on it like it is a cross in front of a vampire.

 

You know who has perhaps the broadest, most accurate knowledge of all here? Blacklion 213. He knows things about different models and systems that I didn't know, because I left before many of the modifications hit the fleet, or my squadrons didn't get the upgrades. The guy knows his stuff, and handles it extremely well.

 

Here's the coolest part-

 

Before you know it, the Heatblur module will hit the streets, and you are going to forget about all of the bickering and pee pee measuring because you will get to experience the hands down best representation of the F14 that there has ever been. It won't be perfect in some of the deep weapons systems and missile capabilities, simply because much of the capabilities will never be available to the public. It will still immerse you in the feel of the aircraft, and you will find it far better than you thought, and far, far, far more fun to fly than anything you've experienced to date.

 

Everyone here should be excited about that.


Edited by Victory205

Viewpoints are my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...