How is f-14 maneuverability?

Two young, bulletproof aircrew, just graduated from the RAG, initial phase of TARPS training, long before GPS and RLG IRS. Low level recce hop, 480 knots, pulled down on the back side of a ridge line in the Shenandoah Mountains, glanced the strip chart over the top for next heading, turned out to be an uncharted double ridge line.

I had pulled halfway down into the second one. RIO saved our asses. I learned to trust RIO’s for Nav Data.

Still see him often, six kids and one grandchild between us, and as we look around at all of them we still exchange that look.

I posted some time back. But worth a read to those who have not seen it.

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/reports/2011/landingandstopping.php

Seems to back up a lot of what’s been said about the beautiful Tomcat, and in this instance it’s an F-14a. So I can imagine the B and D we’re just awesome.

Posted this a while back to visually illustrate the difference in turn performance at the max STR's of the aircraft:

Obviously the radius can be reduced further by all three aircraft by pulling max ITR, but it would be at the cost of sustained rate, and thus the above illustrates which aircraft would eventually end up on the others tail in a purely horizontal turn fight.

Posted this a while back to visually illustrate the difference in turn performance at the max STR's of the aircraft:

 

...

 

Obviously the radius can be reduced further by all three aircraft by pulling max ITR, but it would be at the cost of sustained rate, and thus the above illustrates which aircraft would eventually end up on the others tail in a purely horizontal turn fight.

Outstanding!

This really is the kind of data I'm looking after.

Thank you.

So, following your comment, one would say that:

On those circumstances theoretically speaking, the F-16C would eventually end up on the others tail, because of the higher STR ?

Two young, bulletproof aircrew, just graduated from the RAG, initial phase of TARPS training, long before GPS and RLG IRS. Low level recce hop, 480 knots, pulled down on the back side of a ridge line in the Shenandoah Mountains, glanced the strip chart over the top for next heading, turned out to be an uncharted double ridge line.

 

I had pulled halfway down into the second one. RIO saved our asses. I learned to trust RIO’s for Nav Data.

 

Still see him often, six kids and one grandchild between us, and as we look around at all of them we still exchange that look.

Yikes! Thanks for sharing.

Outstanding!

 

This really is the kind of data I'm looking after.

Thank you.

 

So, following your comment, one would say that:

On those circumstances theoretically speaking, the F-16C would eventually end up on the others tail, because of the higher STR ?

Theoretically speaking, yes. Realistically speaking, no.

I say this since all three are pretty much the same in terms of best sustained turn rate (0.1 - 0.3 deg/sec difference), yet are noticably different in terms of at what speed, and thus radius, they achieve it. Thus the outcome to a large extent depends on wether the fight turns out to be a 1 or 2 circle fight, and wether or not the fighter with the smaller radius can force the former at some point.

In general however, with sustained rates being so close to equal, the fighter with the tighest radius at its highest STR has the overall advantage assuming the fight stays in the horizontal.

I can set up a couple of purely horizontal scenarios between two fighters with the same best sustained turn rate, but at two different speeds and thus radius, to demonstrate this later.

Just a little OT here.

This thread.

It hasn't been 60+ pages.

And it didn't start out in 2015.

Makes me confused...

Now who of the moderators merged the most recent one with another one that obvioulsy got necromanced out of the internet stone age? No offense meant though and I don't want to complain about staff actions, it's just like coming to work like every day and having to find out that you got moved to another bureau without anyone actually telling you in advance and all your stuff is just gone and you first have to find out what happened (... to me once actually)

Here's an example of how a 2 circle fight between two aircraft with equal max rate but different radius might develop:

Here's an example of how a 2 circle fight between two aircraft with equal max rate but different radius might develop:

This exactly, the F-14 will have the advantage for the first few turn of the fight no doubt thanks to its tight turning radius, and lack of FBW

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lack of FBW has nothing to do with what's happening in that fight.

Theoretically speaking, yes. Realistically speaking, no.

 

I say this since all three are pretty much the same in terms of best sustained turn rate (0.1 - 0.3 deg/sec difference), yet are noticably different in terms of at what speed, and thus radius, they achieve it. Thus the outcome to a large extent depends on wether the fight turns out to be a 1 or 2 circle fight, and wether or not the fighter with the smaller radius can force the former at some point.

 

In general however, with sustained rates being so close to equal, the fighter with the tighest radius at its highest STR has the overall advantage assuming the fight stays in the horizontal.

 

I can set up a couple of purely horizontal scenarios between two fighters with the same best sustained turn rate, but at two different speeds and thus radius, to demonstrate this later.

Very true - as clearly seen at the 1 circle fight, in the scenario you posted.

Here's an example of how a 2 circle fight between two aircraft with equal max rate but different radius might develop:

Now this is school !

1st scenario - we see a 2 circle fight were the small turn radius does not present a perceptible advantage;

2nd scenario - because it's a 1 circle fight, the smaller turn radius gives the "red" fighter, an Aspect Angle advantage, over the "blue" fighter;

3rd scenario - we see the "red" fighter forcing a 2 circle fight (when he turns left), in which he will have an Aspect Angle advantage again.

That's my impression on the scenarios.

Yes, in short the example illustrates how in a purely horizontal fight between two fighters with equal max STRs, but different radius, the tighter turning aircraft will have the general advantage as it can leverage its smaller radius to gain angles on the other.

However removing the intial assumption, i.e. that the fight stays horizontal, the less tightly turning but same STR fighter has an advantage of its own which isn't shown, and that is speed, speed which quickly can be turned into height by going vertical. By going vertical the faster going fighter can effectively balance out the difference, at which point it becomes a matter of who makes the first mistake of attempting to play the others game.

Hummingbird,

why did you assume in the middle picture/second merge that the blue

fighter keeps turning left as the red one reverses turn direction?

Given that the red one has the radius advantage it doesn’t seem to be the smart thing to do , as he basically obliges the red fighter to go one circle.

Reversing turn at the merge to keep it two circle seems more prudent,especially if you elect to stay purely horizontal for this discussion.

Or was that purely for academic demonstration purposes?

Kind regards,

Snappy

Hummingbird,

 

why did you assume in the middle picture/second merge that the blue

fighter keeps turning left as the red one reverses turn direction?

Given that the red one has the radius advantage it doesn’t seem to be the smart thing to do , as he basically obliges the red fighter to go one circle.

 

 

Reversing turn at the merge to keep it two circle seems more prudent,especially if you elect to stay purely horizontal for this discussion.

 

 

Or was that purely for academic demonstration purposes?

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Snappy

If both fighters had reversed their turns as you suggest that would lead back to a reset of the situation and you would go back to the first diagram.

So yeah basically this is done to illustrate how to turn your smaller turn radius into an advantage and an earlier aspect shot.

Hummingbird,

 

why did you assume in the middle picture/second merge that the blue

fighter keeps turning left as the red one reverses turn direction?

Given that the red one has the radius advantage it doesn’t seem to be the smart thing to do , as he basically obliges the red fighter to go one circle.

 

 

Reversing turn at the merge to keep it two circle seems more prudent,especially if you elect to stay purely horizontal for this discussion.

 

 

Or was that purely for academic demonstration purposes?

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Snappy

Correct, however this was to demonstrate what might and most likely eventually would happen if the fight stays horizontal. I say this as it would be difficult for either fighter to always judge wether the other has reversed or not in time without losing seconds/angles in the fight, thus in general the advantage lies with the tighter turning fighter has he can dictate what the other HAS to do.

What would happen if one fighter goes vertical ?

Depends on who goes vertical, when and with how much speed, but as a general rule of thumb maneuvering in the vertical reduces horizontal turn radius.

Just curious, why there's been no comments on this thread in ~2 years, especially considering the negative changes (depending on perspective. IMO they are negative) to the F14B flight model the past ~6 months.

2 hours ago, Ur_A_Cop said:

Just curious, why there's been no comments on this thread in ~2 years, especially considering the negative changes (depending on perspective. IMO they are negative) to the F14B flight model the past ~6 months.

This thread died naturally. Recent comments were here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253409-turn-rate-has-tanked-with-new-update/