(Fact Check needed)Is F-16C largely over-performing than F-14B in the two-cycle BFM engagements in the real life?

[Spurts]

The Tomcat was immensely capable but very difficult. A great pilot could well be unbeatable to other teen series they faced, while a pilot who is pretty good might get their butts kicked every time.  It 100% come down to how well the pilot knows his plane and the enemy plane. 

[Dragon1-1]

Also, the Tomcat aged. You could probably outfly F-16s all day with a new airframe, but towards the end of their service life the very same plane, now tired and old, would fall apart if you tried pulling off the old tricks in it. The F-16C Block 52 vs. the F-14A may be a turkey shoot simply because the F-14 would, at the time the Block 52 became a thing, be too weak structurally to perform the same sort of aerobatics it used to when it was kicking F-16N asses all over the sky at Top Gun. An F-14 pilot in the 80s could afford to hit Mach 2 and play fast and loose with the G limits when he needed to, while a pilot in mid-2000s would have to observe those limits rather strictly, else the wings would come off, or some other important bit breaks. The limits were tightened during the Tomcat's life, as well. HB's module represents the Tomcat at its peak, which is quite unlike what pilots who flew aircraft represented in other modern era modules would have faced in DACT.

[Nexus-6]

On 4/20/2022 at 2:17 PM, cheezit said:

I have now learnt that there are fundamentally only two arguments in comparative performance discussions:

 

1. Drawing lines on charts

2. "My dad could beat up your dad!"

This is the most accurate extrapolation available.  Use this approach every time and you can't go wrong.

[draconus]

12 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, the Tomcat aged. You could probably outfly F-16s all day with a new airframe, but towards the end of their service life the very same plane, now tired and old, would fall apart if you tried pulling off the old tricks in it.

Based on what? You can break any aircraft if you do stupid things. If the airframe is not airworthy it is not allowed to fly and they are checked every time after the flight, esp. when G's were pulled. They have to meet specification - anything above is the safety buffer. And it's not like you need high G's to win in a Tomcat anyway.

[Spurts]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

 And it's not like you need high G's to win in a Tomcat anyway.

Correct.  I beat up the UFO Ace AI MiG-29 staying under with a max G pulled of 6.7G at the break.

[captain_dalan]

1 hour ago, Spurts said:

Correct.  I beat up the UFO Ace AI MiG-29 staying under with a max G pulled of 6.7G at the break.

You also made a very good video on the exact topic the OP was asking his/her question, but it would not share it without your permission. 

[Spurts]

This one?  https://youtu.be/HrdP7nZcNrE

[captain_dalan]

Indeed that one!

[Hector45]

On 4/21/2022 at 6:47 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, the Tomcat aged. You could probably outfly F-16s all day with a new airframe, but towards the end of their service life the very same plane, now tired and old, would fall apart if you tried pulling off the old tricks in it. The F-16C Block 52 vs. the F-14A may be a turkey shoot simply because the F-14 would, at the time the Block 52 became a thing, be too weak structurally to perform the same sort of aerobatics it used to when it was kicking F-16N asses all over the sky at Top Gun. An F-14 pilot in the 80s could afford to hit Mach 2 and play fast and loose with the G limits when he needed to, while a pilot in mid-2000s would have to observe those limits rather strictly, else the wings would come off, or some other important bit breaks. The limits were tightened during the Tomcat's life, as well. HB's module represents the Tomcat at its peak, which is quite unlike what pilots who flew aircraft represented in other modern era modules would have faced in DACT.

That's not how it works with aircrafts. It's not like an old car where they just fix things as they break. Aircrafts have regular inspections where they are taken apart thoroughly inspected, wings x-ray'd and parts replaced when they are out of spec.

How do you think there are trainers like the T38 made in the 60/70's still being used today.

[Dragon1-1]

21 minutes ago, Hector45 said:

That's not how it works with aircrafts. It's not like an old car where they just fix things as they break. Aircrafts have regular inspections where they are taken apart thoroughly inspected, wings x-ray'd and parts replaced when they are out of spec.

You don't have much choice when the only spare parts you have are as old as the ones you're replacing, and the vast majority of them comes from another aircraft that's in an even worse shape. That was the situation for the Tomcats in the 2000s. Once they stopped making new ones and new parts for them, things started wearing out. Take a look at G and airspeed limits between various versions of the aircraft if you don't believe. There's no reason an F-14D wouldn't be capable of making Mach 2 if it was new. The reason it was derated was age. They could keep them flying, but they couldn't keep them performing like the new aircraft did. This is why they were ultimately retired, and before that, they were definitely in "fix them as they break" mode for quite a while. Part failure rates were high during this last period, including parts that were not normally inspected because they were so much stronger than the others.

The T-38s are being replaced, too. They're not carrier-based nor routinely taken to extremes of speed and G, so they last longer than frontline fighters do, but that doesn't mean they'll last forever.

[Spurts]

@Dragon1-1 it was much more nuanced than that.  The lower G limits imposed by the Navy (6.5G wartime and 5.5G peacetime) was indeed due to Mx issues, but the cause of the Mx issues is that Congress never funded the F-14 properly.  Spare parts were never ordered in the quantities needed.  The people holding the purse strings hated the program so their goal was to kill it through lack of funding.  This is why half of all Bs and Ds were refurbished As, and even in the early 2000s most Tomcat squadrons were still flying As, because as much as the Navy requested upgrades Congress wouldn't fund them.  This behaviour even pre-dates the Hornet Mafia, which did nothing to help the Tomcats case.  

Now the lower speed limit of the D (and the B) is, AFAIK, because the intake ramp scheduling was never optimized for the F110.  In effect, the F110 was being fed TF30 airflow, and this led to sub-optimal performance.  The TF30 made more thrust above 1.5M than the F110.

[Snappy]

On 4/22/2022 at 2:45 PM, Spurts said:

Correct.  I beat up the UFO Ace AI MiG-29 staying under with a max G pulled of 6.7G at the break.

No offense and I don't mean this as a slight  to your skills. But I find the AI in DCS simply  isn't any sort of reliable benchmark baseline, 
especially not for aircraft performance comparisons. I also came out victorious repeatedly 1v1 against the Ace Mig-29 while I flew the
much inferior Viggen with gunpods.
Not because I'm any sort of BFM master . Far from it. Just because the AI in DCS isn't flying very smart and often simply doesn't utilize their aircraft to its strengths. At other times it seems to be blatantly cheating.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Snappy

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, Spurts said:

The lower G limits imposed by the Navy (6.5G wartime and 5.5G peacetime) was indeed due to Mx issues, but the cause of the Mx issues is that Congress never funded the F-14 properly. 

Well, of course if they produced the Tomcat for longer, it wouldn't have had those issues by 2000s, but, say, by 2010s or later. The Congress did do it a disservice, and it could've served longer than it did, possibly turning into an even better bomb truck, like what happened with the F-15. However, my original point still stands: the Tomcats a Viper pilot would've faced in 2000s would be pulling 5.5G at most, turning the fight into a turkey shoot for the F-16. The Viper could likely win that fight with a full bombload under the wings. A Tomcat driver who exceeded that for no good reason would not be very popular with neither the ground crew nor the brass, even his wings didn't fall off (a distinct possibility with just how worn out those birds were getting), he'd probably wish they did by the end of the day. The modern Viper jocks have simply never faced a "healthy" Tomcat, heck, by this point many of the guys and girls flying now weren't even alive back when you could still meet a factory-new Tomcat in the sky.

As for the speed, intake ramp scheduling played a role, but the D was derated further, IIRC at least twice after the B was introduced. Like the G limits, these might have been peacetime only, but we're talking peacetime training here.

[Quid]

On 4/24/2022 at 4:44 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, of course if they produced the Tomcat for longer, it wouldn't have had those issues by 2000s, but, say, by 2010s or later. The Congress did do it a disservice, and it could've served longer than it did, possibly turning into an even better bomb truck, like what happened with the F-15. However, my original point still stands: the Tomcats a Viper pilot would've faced in 2000s would be pulling 5.5G at most, turning the fight into a turkey shoot for the F-16. The Viper could likely win that fight with a full bombload under the wings. A Tomcat driver who exceeded that for no good reason would not be very popular with neither the ground crew nor the brass, even his wings didn't fall off (a distinct possibility with just how worn out those birds were getting), he'd probably wish they did by the end of the day. The modern Viper jocks have simply never faced a "healthy" Tomcat, heck, by this point many of the guys and girls flying now weren't even alive back when you could still meet a factory-new Tomcat in the sky.

As for the speed, intake ramp scheduling played a role, but the D was derated further, IIRC at least twice after the B was introduced. Like the G limits, these might have been peacetime only, but we're talking peacetime training here.

I'm sorry, but no.  I have no idea where you're getting this information.  The F-14 was flown to and through its g-limit all the way until the end.  There was no "5.5g peacetime limit" to the plane, unless it was loaded so heavily as to reduce the limit to 5.5g or less, or were carrying munitions or pods that lowered the limit to this (in which case, a similarly loaded F-16 would have the same limit).  The only time there was a 5.5g symmetrical limit was in the early days for the maneuver flaps and slats (this can be found in the 1975 NATOPS).  This was revised by 1980 so that regardless of maneuver flaps/slats the limit was 6.5g symmetrical (again, unless you're talking above combat weight, in which the limit lowers as weight increases, as is true of every aircraft).  Even the last two Tomcat crews who qualified (Jay "Faceshot" Consalvi and Megan "Slick" Flannigan) both admitted to overstressing the jet during training and real-world operations (IIRC, Faceshot put more than 9g on his jet during a MANPADS defense, and Vargas did 7.5g+ during training to win, neither aircraft broke anything critical), and HUD footage of F-14Bs in 2004-5 show maximum g loads on their Sparrowhawk HUDs around 10g.  No Tomcat EVER broke its wings under any circumstance whatsoever in the real world, and the wing box was considered the strongest part of the aircraft.  The only thing I'm aware of that caused a temporary reduction in allowable "g" due to the wings was that metal shavings were showing up in the joints in the 1970s and again in the mid-1990s, but in both cases, it wasn't a long lasting problem.  If there were any reason F-14 crews became less proficient at air-to-air combat into the late 1990s/early 2000s, it was because they trained less for it; they went from being entirely air-to-air assets to multi-role with heavy focus on strike.  I recall "Okie" Nance actually talking about the difference going against Aggressor F-16s and line F-16s and the night-and-day difference because aggressors did nothing but fly the Viper in air-to-air and BFM, while line guys would do strike and practice BFM per their syllabus.  He considered the latter not much of a challenge and the former difficult.  This goes back a little to my comment about boasting and whatnot, but think about it from what I said about how it's all about the pilot/aircrew: a pilot who does nothing but BFM all day is going to be exceptional at that.  A pilot who does strike, FAC(A), some intercepts and some BFM is going to be a much different person to go against. 

As to the speed limits, all F-14s were eventually limited to 1.88M, even if they were rated for a higher speed.  Victory 205 talked about the reason, I'd have to search for his answer, but all F-14s could physically break 2.0M and both had a similar top speed, but it is as Spurts explained - the TF-30 is a "dumb" engine that just takes air and fuel and turns it into thrust while the F110 is a "smart" engine that governs the thrust for wear and life considerations, and the TF-30 at extreme high speeds eventually overtakes the F110.  At any tactically significant speed, the F110 is the more powerful of the two.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Quid
Callsign incorrect

[r4y30n]

Now the lower speed limit of the D (and the B) is, AFAIK, because the intake ramp scheduling was never optimized for the F110.  In effect, the F110 was being fed TF30 airflow, and this led to sub-optimal performance.  The TF30 made more thrust above 1.5M than the F110.

There are a couple studies floating around the internet investigating engine/inlet compatibility of the F110 and none raise any concerns. And as far as scheduling goes, the engines wouldn’t work properly to begin with if the scheduling wasn’t updated, particularly the bypass created by the gap between ramps 2 and 3. Just take a look at how low ramp 3 is when subsonic in the A vs the B.

[Karon]

13 hours ago, Quid said:

As to the speed limits, all F-14s were eventually limited to 1.88M, even if they were rated for a higher speed.

Directional stability when one engine is out. SAS and rudder cannot compensate and the jet is gone. Definitely not a lot of fun for the crew.

[Spurts]

On 4/22/2022 at 3:03 PM, Spurts said:

This one?  https://youtu.be/HrdP7nZcNrE

VIPER FM VIDEO CORRECTION!  **UPDATE** Math error!  After getting the acceleration in Gs I need to multiply by the speed to get Ps.  I multiplied by Knots instead of ft/s when calculating acceleration.  Deceleration calculations are fine, I double checked.  Sorry I didn't catch it before posting, I was in a self-imposed rush.  The acceleration is fine!

A similar video for the Tomcat is coming soon

[Katj]

Directional stability when one engine is out. SAS and rudder cannot compensate and the jet is gone. Definitely not a lot of fun for the crew.

That's more of a problem when you are slow!

[draconus]

2 minutes ago, Katj said:

On 4/25/2022 at 4:32 PM, Karon said:

Directional stability when one engine is out. SAS and rudder cannot compensate and the jet is gone. Definitely not a lot of fun for the crew.

That's more of a problem when you are slow!

When you're slow there's no risk of structural disintegration.

[Karon]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

When you're slow there's no risk of structural disintegration.

This.

An engine gone when you are slow is indeed a problem (AB restrictions on carrier ops for the 110 come to mind), but at least you don't implode (implode → figure of speech).

[Katj]

When you're slow there's no risk of structural disintegration.

No, but why wouldn't you have rudder authority to compensate for an engine dying if you're fast?

[captain_dalan]

On 4/27/2022 at 11:45 PM, Spurts said:

VIPER FM VIDEO CORRECTION!  **UPDATE** Math error!  After getting the acceleration in Gs I need to multiply by the speed to get Ps.  I multiplied by Knots instead of ft/s when calculating acceleration.  Deceleration calculations are fine, I double checked.  Sorry I didn't catch it before posting, I was in a self-imposed rush.  The acceleration is fine!

A similar video for the Tomcat is coming soon

Happens to all of us. Looking forward to your F-14 analysis. Would love to help, unfortunately not much time for DCS lately  
Hardly 30 minutes on my belt in the last month. 

[Karon]

13 hours ago, Katj said:

20 hours ago, draconus said:

When you're slow there's no risk of structural disintegration.

No, but why wouldn't you have rudder authority to compensate for an engine dying if you're fast?

I'm not an aero/mechanical engineer, so I can only guess. I supposed if you are very fast and an engine quits, the thrust becomes suddenly asymmetrical, the rudder is uncapable of maintaining the proper aircraft would "spin" out of control. At that speed, the forces in play may disintegrate the aircraft.
As of why the rudder loses authority, I guess it's due to how the airflow behaves at that speeds, or perhaps it's just a matter of volume / speed in relation to the "size" of the rudder.

I'd love to read a proper answer by someone competent.

[sLYFa]

You should have enough authority to compensate for an engine failure high supersonic flight. The problem is that things happen so fast that neither SAS nor the pilot have enough time to react. Thats what happened to an SR-71. One of the inlet cones failed at Mach 3 instantly killing the engine. The resulting yaw moment immedietly turned the aircraft around and the airflow ripped it to pieces. The pilot didnt even have time to pull the handle and was thrown out of the cockpit with his seat and magically survived. 

[Spurts]

there is also a problem with aeroelastic twist (I am an aero engineer).  The force the rudder would be required to impart would twist the vertical stabilizer which would reduce the effectiveness of the rudder even if it didn't rip the plane apart.  This same thing happened with the ailerons of early Hornets (possibly the prototypes, don't recall) and it was so bad it led to roll reversal at higher speeds.  This led to the development and testing of a Hornet with an Aero-Elastic wing.