Browsing other forums

[Top Jockey]

Yeah, good point, but all those examples are simulated kills(Gun kills and fox 2 kills). :-)

 

True, however I always find that the aircraft with the better instantaneous / sustained turn rate has a crucial uper hand, and the MiG and the Hornet do have it.

 

Not that it is the absolute "be all" and "end all", there's always other tactics; vertical fight; 1 circle vs 2 circle fight; etc.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

True, however I always find that the aircraft with the better instantaneous / sustained turn rate has a crucial uper hand, and the MiG and the Hornet do have it.

 

Not that it is the absolute "be all" and "end all", there's always other tactics; vertical fight; 1 circle vs 2 circle fight; etc.

 

Agreed. :thumbup:

[Basher54321]

 

Although I find the F-14 as a generally superior war machine than the F-16 (for their time), I think in a dogfight scenario, all things being equal (pilots included) the Tomcat wouldn't last long.

 

 

From someone who flew both

That’s not to say that an F-14 could not win a turning fight with an F-16, but it would require a superior job by the F-14 crew and mistakes by the threat pilot. The F-16N simply enjoyed a significant maneuvering advantage over the Tomcat.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fly-f-16n-viper-topgun-163000300.html

 

Important to note that guy flew a lighter Block 30 which is not on the earlier EM charts and there is a large difference in performance between F-16 blocks - similar to F-14A vs F-14D.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

From someone who flew both

That’s not to say that an F-14 could not win a turning fight with an F-16, but it would require a superior job by the F-14 crew and mistakes by the threat pilot. The F-16N simply enjoyed a significant maneuvering advantage over the Tomcat.

Yeah, but what F-14 he was fighting? Cuz the F-14A cannot maneuver like the F-14B/D because of the TF-30 engines. The TF-30 engines are less powerful(Max. Thrust 34,154 lbs) compared to the F-14B/D engines (F110- 56,400 lbs) and of course, the TF-30 engines had a lot problems with high AoA.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7

[Top Jockey]

From someone who flew both

That’s not to say that an F-14 could not win a turning fight with an F-16, but it would require a superior job by the F-14 crew and mistakes by the threat pilot. The F-16N simply enjoyed a significant maneuvering advantage over the Tomcat.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fly-f-16n-viper-topgun-163000300.html

 

Important to note that guy flew a lighter Block 30 which is not on the earlier EM charts and there is a large difference in performance between F-16 blocks - similar to F-14A vs F-14D.

 

Very good article!

[Darkbrotherhood7]

The Tomcat's ability to add energy and head into the vertical was a serious advantage over the Super Hornet...

 

In a BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers ie a dogfight) engagement, the pilot has to think about energy management. Fighter pilots always talk about a Rate vs a Radius fight, which in layman terms means how fast can you go around the circle you are turning versus how short of a radius can you make your circle. Some Fighters perform better in a rate fight while others perform better in a radius fight.

 

For example, if a Tomcat was in a BFM engagement with a Super Hornet, the Tomcat's best chance to win the fight (we are assuming "Sticks and Stones" meaning each fighter has only a gun remaining) is to try and force the Super Hornet to bleed off energy at the first pass. The Tomcat would force the Super to honor his nose position, make a neutral pass at the merge and then go vertical. The Tomcat's ability to add energy and head into the vertical was a serious advantage over the Super Hornet. Conversely, the Tomcat would not want to get into a slow speed fight with the Super. With both jets at slow speed, the Super has a better ability to maneuver his nose for a shot than the Tomcat.

 

The F-15C is probably the premier BFM fighter and more capable in that area than the Tomcat. You have to remember, the F-15C has a 9G turning capability versus 6.5 to 7.0 G for the Tomcat. But the F-15C is strictly air-to-air, so there are trade-offs in capabilities between the two jets.They don't drop bombs, we do. Another thing: a lot of success in BFM has to do with the pilot's ability to maximize the jet's capability. Fortunately, the best trained guys who fly the F-15C are on our side!

 

This one is also a very nice article about the F-14.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625

[Basher54321]

Yeah, but what F-14 he was fighting? Cuz the F-14A cannot maneuver like the F-14B/D because of the TF-30 engines. The TF-30 engines are less powerful(Max. Thrust 34,154 lbs) compared to the F-14B/D engines (F110- 56,400 lbs) and of course, the TF-30 engines had a lot problems with high AoA.

 

Read what I put under the link.

 

He doesn't state the specific version - you might be able to ask him if he is looking at the comments.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Read what I put under the link.

 

He doesn't state the specific version - you might be able to ask him if he is looking at the comments.

 

I will do that. :thumbup:

[Top Jockey]

This one is also a very nice article about the F-14.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-elite-f-14-airman-explains-why-the-tomcat-was-so-imp-1610043625

 

Also interesting!

[Hummingbird]

I've been following this thread for some time, just my 2 cents:

 

For much I praise the F-14 Tomcat (probably my favourite bird), I find hard to believe it might have a significant better performance over the F-16 in dogfighting.

 

- The F-16 was born with the dogfight doctrine in mind (new concepts; excess energy; etc.);

- It has less than half the weight of the F-14;

- Its airframe is clearly more refined and optimised for ACM, than the F-14.

 

Although I find the F-14 as a generally superior war machine than the F-16 (for their time), I think in a dogfight scenario, all things being equal (pilots included) the Tomcat wouldn't last long.

 

The F-16's sustained turn rate for instance, would be one of the major threats for the Tomcat.

 

The EM charts don't lie though.

 

However the F-16's ability to go into the vertical without losing as much energy is an important advantage, one it would be very hard to overcome in an F-14A for example.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Hummingbird
elaborating abit

[Hummingbird]

Pilot accounts are nice & interesting to have, esp. when it comes to understanding what's going in a persons mind during aerial combat, but when it comes to comparing the true capabilities of aircraft they are not very accurate and tend to very a lot from pilot to pilot, thus they're not really of much use in this type of debate.

 

By comparison the EM charts are based on exhaustive flight testing and really are the ultimate debate settler when it comes to the subject of performance & maneuverability, it simply doesn't become more specific & accurate than this.

 

Now regarding the F-16N, this bird is notorious for its agility, and considering that it was mostly flown completely stripped & clean as an aggressor I don't really doubt that it would make mince meat of most other aircraft in a dogfight. By comparison the F-14's at top gun were usually flown with fuel bags & missile pylons installed, and crucially usually by student pilots.

 

PS: With experienced pilots behind the stick (& not students) the F-14 enjoyed a positive kill/loss ratio against most aggressors in mock dogfights, incl. the few times it met the F-15:

 

https://www.airwarriors.com/community/index.php?threads/no-kill-like-a-gun-kill-the-legendary-joe-hoser-satrapas-famous-eagle-model.35572/

[lunaticfringe]

Yeah, but what F-14 he was fighting? Cuz the F-14A cannot maneuver like the F-14B/D because of the TF-30 engines. The TF-30 engines are less powerful(Max. Thrust 34,154 lbs) compared to the F-14B/D engines (F110- 56,400 lbs) and of course, the TF-30 engines had a lot problems with high AoA.

 

1. AB thrust with the TF30s was 41,800, not 34,154.

 

2. It's not a question of simple maneuverability- there is no turn that the F110 powered Tomcat could generate that the earlier, Pratt and Shittney couldn't generate; it's not a matter of maneuverability, but sustained maneuvering. This means that the F-14A was required to prosecute an engagement in a different fashion than the upgraded variants- generally in a slower, more calculated fashion. Endgame, however- it would bat-turn in the same fashion as the B/D

 

3. When discussing the later migration of the F-14 into multi-role, this does not mitigate the earlier responsibilities of the aircraft to pure air to air. Subsequently, the falloff in responsibility- and therefore pilot versus pilot performance, was late in its lifespan, so this is a very difficult point to side one way or the other.

 

4. That said, it's also important to remember that the G limitation in the F-14 was *operational*, not systematic. If the wings had the energy, it would provide a pilot with whatever G he could withstand. The airframe was originally specified to 9G- as was the purpose of the original CL max wing sweep programming, with testing out to 12+G. That the Navy cut the charts off in an attempt to extend service life doesn't remark on the matter of actual capability within the jet- simply that you don't get to see the numbers.

 

5. Really funny item of note: one of the F-15 RTU manuals I have with a BFM DACT breakdown of types the students would potentially be exposed to during the course mentions the F-14, goes into detail about what it takes to beat it, and references the F110s in the D.

 

But then gives the students the EM for the F-14A. :D

[BlackLion213]

Yeah, but what F-14 he was fighting? Cuz the F-14A cannot maneuver like the F-14B/D because of the TF-30 engines. The TF-30 engines are less powerful(Max. Thrust 34,154 lbs) compared to the F-14B/D engines (F110- 56,400 lbs) and of course, the TF-30 engines had a lot problems with high AoA.

 

34,154 lbs is the installed thrust of the TF30 (thrust installed in the airframe at 0 knots and sea level). The comparable F110 installed figure is 23,000 or so lbs.

 

Airspeed and altitude can have a big effect on jet engine thrust and the TF30 was particularly sensitive to these issues. It made big thrust at sea level and higher airspeeds (28,000 lbs at Mach 0.9 and sea level vs 30,200 for the F110), but suffered more at higher altitudes. Especially at military thrust, output could be pretty paltry at lower airspeeds and high altitudes. A Tomcat pilot once said that the only thing the TF30 does at mil power below 250 KIAS and above 30K' is convert JP5 into noise.

 

The TF30 performed pretty well below 10K' feet, but no ACM training ever took place down there for safety reasons. This also influenced other pilot's perception of the F-14. I pilot once told me that the F-14A's weakest ACM performance was between 15K' and 25k'....which is where nearly all ACM training takes place!

 

TARPS crews got to enjoy the TF30s capabilities much more often since they trained at low altitudes.

 

In fact, for most aircrew, the operational differences between the F110 and TF30 were even bigger than the numbers would suggest. Most pilots spend the great majority of their career in mil power above 10K' - the F110 performed MUCH better in those regimes and the difference in mil power was quite profound above 25K' (I think the F110 made nearly twice the thrust under those conditions).

 

At low altitudes and full burner, most would think there is nothing wrong with the TF30. But under normal operational conditions, it left a lot to be desired.

 

-Nick

 

However the F-16's ability to go into the vertical without losing as much energy is an important advantage, one it would be very hard to overcome in an F-14A for example.

 

Very true.

Edited June 29, 2016 by BlackLion213

[captain_dalan]

Very good examples of the F-14 capabilites in DACT... I know the Tomcat also has its claws.

 

However, how long could it stay on the MiG-29 or F/A-18 six-o-clock if they started to maneuver hard ?

 

(I don't mention the F-15, because I believe this one does not pose the same threat in therms of ACM capabilities / maneuverability over the Tomcat, like the MiG or the Hornet.)

Maneuvering hard is what gets you low on energy enough for someone to stay behind you in the first place. Both birds at 500 knots, 10000ft and pulling for all they got, is not likely to result in a tracking firing solution. The drivers would just black out. However, getting the other guy to "panic" and bleed more then needed or wise can give you the opportunity to settle in behind the enemy and stay there.

 

1. AB thrust with the TF30s was 41,800, not 34,154.

 

2. It's not a question of simple maneuverability- there is no turn that the F110 powered Tomcat could generate that the earlier, Pratt and Shittney couldn't generate; it's not a matter of maneuverability, but sustained maneuvering. This means that the F-14A was required to prosecute an engagement in a different fashion than the upgraded variants- generally in a slower, more calculated fashion. Endgame, however- it would bat-turn in the same fashion as the B/D

 

3. When discussing the later migration of the F-14 into multi-role, this does not mitigate the earlier responsibilities of the aircraft to pure air to air. Subsequently, the falloff in responsibility- and therefore pilot versus pilot performance, was late in its lifespan, so this is a very difficult point to side one way or the other.

 

4. That said, it's also important to remember that the G limitation in the F-14 was *operational*, not systematic. If the wings had the energy, it would provide a pilot with whatever G he could withstand. The airframe was originally specified to 9G- as was the purpose of the original CL max wing sweep programming, with testing out to 12+G. That the Navy cut the charts off in an attempt to extend service life doesn't remark on the matter of actual capability within the jet- simply that you don't get to see the numbers.

 

5. Really funny item of note: one of the F-15 RTU manuals I have with a BFM DACT breakdown of types the students would potentially be exposed to during the course mentions the F-14, goes into detail about what it takes to beat it, and references the F110s in the D.

 

But then gives the students the EM for the F-14A. :D

 

1. Yeah. He probably meant static thrust. After all, usually these are the numbers given in most sources.

 

2. So very true. While the A+/B/D might engage in sustained turning fights, the A would usually favor bleed-unload cycles. Though.... in my experience with simulators, bleed-unload works better even for the machines that do not seem to "require" it, as it allows for better recoveries then the stay at best STR at all times.

 

3. Amen.

 

4. Also often forgotten or ignored. People seam to rely too much on static measures when trying to quantify an AC's combat performance, and not the 2 things that matter the most. Your ability to generate lift (that determines your ability to bring the nose around) and the drag generated (that determines how long you can sustain your action) at given thrust/speed/altitude. So how can a plane that is twice as massive as another match the turn of the smaller one? Well, by generating twice the lift...... duh.....

 

5. LOL! I had no idea! Why would they do such a thing?! :lol:

[Darkbrotherhood7]

1. AB thrust with the TF30s was 41,800, not 34,154.

 

2. It's not a question of simple maneuverability- there is no turn that the F110 powered Tomcat could generate that the earlier, Pratt and Shittney couldn't generate; it's not a matter of maneuverability, but sustained maneuvering. This means that the F-14A was required to prosecute an engagement in a different fashion than the upgraded variants- generally in a slower, more calculated fashion. Endgame, however- it would bat-turn in the same fashion as the B/D

 

3. When discussing the later migration of the F-14 into multi-role, this does not mitigate the earlier responsibilities of the aircraft to pure air to air. Subsequently, the falloff in responsibility- and therefore pilot versus pilot performance, was late in its lifespan, so this is a very difficult point to side one way or the other.

 

4. That said, it's also important to remember that the G limitation in the F-14 was *operational*, not systematic. If the wings had the energy, it would provide a pilot with whatever G he could withstand. The airframe was originally specified to 9G- as was the purpose of the original CL max wing sweep programming, with testing out to 12+G. That the Navy cut the charts off in an attempt to extend service life doesn't remark on the matter of actual capability within the jet- simply that you don't get to see the numbers.

 

5. Really funny item of note: one of the F-15 RTU manuals I have with a BFM DACT breakdown of types the students would potentially be exposed to during the course mentions the F-14, goes into detail about what it takes to beat it, and references the F110s in the D.

 

But then gives the students the EM for the F-14A. :D

 

1- That's my source: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-specification.htm They probably made a mistake, but I'm not sure.

 

2- besides the TF-30 high AoA problems, there's also some others problems like thrust delay, etc. Actually compressor stalls are possible even if you move your throttles aggressively. What I'm trying to says is, the TF-30 had a lot limitations compared to the F-110, and It can certainly change the dogfight performance.

 

3- I agree with the rest.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7

[Darkbrotherhood7]

The EM charts don't lie though..

 

By comparison the EM charts are based on exhaustive flight testing and really are the ultimate debate settler when it comes to the subject of performance & maneuverability, it simply doesn't become more specific & accurate than this.

 

Agreed!

Edited June 29, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7

[Darkbrotherhood7]

34,154 lbs is the installed thrust of the TF30 (thrust installed in the airframe at 0 knots and sea level). The comparable F110 installed figure is 23,000 or so lbs.

 

Airspeed and altitude can have a big effect on jet engine thrust and the TF30 was particularly sensitive to these issues. It made big thrust at sea level and higher airspeeds (28,000 lbs at Mach 0.9 and sea level vs 30,200 for the F110), but suffered more at higher altitudes. Especially at military thrust, output could be pretty paltry at lower airspeeds and high altitudes. A Tomcat pilot once said that the only thing the TF30 does at mil power below 250 KIAS and above 30K' is convert JP5 into noise.

 

The TF30 performed pretty well below 10K' feet, but no ACM training ever took place down there for safety reasons. This also influenced other pilot's perception of the F-14. I pilot once told me that the F-14A's weakest ACM performance was between 15K' and 25k'....which is where nearly all ACM training takes place!

 

TARPS crews got to enjoy the TF30s capabilities much more often since they trained at low altitudes.

 

In fact, for most aircrew, the operational differences between the F110 and TF30 were even bigger than the numbers would suggest. Most pilots spend the great majority of their career in mil power above 10K' - the F110 performed MUCH better in those regimes and the difference in mil power was quite profound above 25K' (I think the F110 made nearly twice the thrust under those conditions).

 

At low altitudes and full burner, most would think there is nothing wrong with the TF30. But under normal operational conditions, it left a lot to be desired.

 

-Nick

 

 

 

Very true.

 

Thanks for the info, Nick!:thumbup: Pretty interesting.

[captain_dalan]

 

2- besides the TF-30 high AoA problems, there's also some others problems like thrust delay, etc. Actually compressor stalls are possible even if you move your throttles aggressively. What I'm trying to says is, the TF-30 had a lot limitations compared to the F-110, and It can certainly change the dogfight performance.

 

 

Thrust delays and especially compressor stalls because of aggressive throttle management won't be an issue unless you are in a high alpha-low rpm environment, which is usually a problem during landings. When on 90% military power or higher, your TF30's won't just die on you unless you do something really naughty. Above 35000ft though, it's a whole different story.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Thrust delays and especially compressor stalls because of aggressive throttle management won't be an issue unless you are in a high alpha-low rpm environment, which is usually a problem during landings. When on 90% military power or higher, your TF30's won't just die on you unless you do something really naughty. Above 35000ft though, it's a whole different story.

 

Even during dogfights at high altitudes like 25k feet?

[Vitormouraa]

34,154 lbs is the installed thrust of the TF30 (thrust installed in the airframe at 0 knots and sea level). The comparable F110 installed figure is 23,000 or so lbs.

 

Airspeed and altitude can have a big effect on jet engine thrust and the TF30 was particularly sensitive to these issues. It made big thrust at sea level and higher airspeeds (28,000 lbs at Mach 0.9 and sea level vs 30,200 for the F110), but suffered more at higher altitudes. Especially at military thrust, output could be pretty paltry at lower airspeeds and high altitudes. A Tomcat pilot once said that the only thing the TF30 does at mil power below 250 KIAS and above 30K' is convert JP5 into noise.

 

That makes a lot of sense when you learn about engines, the jet engines work differently, when piston engines and jet engines are compared, most of the jet engines (especially the old ones) require relative wind to reach the maximum power, the piston engines you don't need the same amount of air (of course). Same jet engine produces less power when there is no relative wind. Also there is a chart provided by the manufacturer where you can see the best altitude to run the engine, where it produces more thrust.

 

So that's why piston planes and jet planes climb with a different Angle of attack, jet engine requires airflow. When you climb with a jet, you must have some speed, that's important for the engine.

[captain_dalan]

Even during dogfights at high altitudes like 25k feet?

 

As you are going to plug the throttles into the after burner anyways (or your plane won't even like flying above 25k in mil power) for most of the time, you are not going to have many problems. Above 35k though, beware spontaneous flameouts when transitioning from afterburner to military power. Not sure if this applies to supersonic flight alone, but one should be careful.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

As you are going to plug the throttles into the after burner anyways (or your plane won't even like flying above 25k in mil power) for most of the time, you are not going to have many problems. Above 35k though, beware spontaneous flameouts when transitioning from afterburner to military power. Not sure if this applies to supersonic flight alone, but one should be careful.

 

Thanks for the info. :thumbup:

[captain_dalan]

Thanks for the info. :thumbup:

 

NP mate! :thumbup:

[Darkbrotherhood7]

PW TF-30:

 

GE F-110:

 

The difference is very clear.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7

[Vitormouraa]

One of the biggest difference I see, is the Inner Cone, which keeps the high-velocity of the gases coming from the turbine (previous stage) and also it prevents turbulence, so it profits greater use of the power produced by the engine (more efficiency when using military power). Also the F-110 has less igniter plugs, probably that means more efficiency and less fuel consumption, because less fuel is used in the afterburner stage, so less ignitors you need, the Bypass duct looks smaller too. Also the exhaust nozzle looks smaller, which is a very important thing for the engine performance, if it's too large, power will be wasted.

 

Definitely when I look to this I know the reason for it being so much powerful than the TF-30.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Vitormouraa