F-14 low speed prowess vs Other Aircraft

I take it those are the "best" figures for STR for each airframe?

Why don't you also post a diagram showing STR's for all three where the height and speed is the constant (ie, SL @ M.05, SL @ M0.9, 5k @ M0.8 etc...)?

That's likely to be of more use, because if you're up against a decent F-15 driver, they're going to try and keep in their sweet spot for speed and turn.

I hope that the F-14's prowess in low speed turning will be modelled by leatherneck.

 

Could do a full 360 min radius turn in under 20 sec at sea level, setting the record at Abbotsford in 1986.

 

 

The F-14 might have had a slow roll, but it would turn & burn better than most.

I was there that day. Wish the F-14 were still there. Some of the Blue Angels were out there today checking it out for the airshow this summer.

I take it those are the "best" figures for STR for each airframe?

Yes, best STR for each airframe at 10 kft and the resulting radius to give an idea of the scale. (I made sure that scale of the circle was kept accurate/representative of the actual calculated radius)

Why don't you also post a diagram showing STR's for all three where the height and speed is the constant (ie, SL @ M.05, SL @ M0.9, 5k @ M0.8 etc...)?

 

That's likely to be of more use, because if you're up against a decent F-15 driver, they're going to try and keep in their sweet spot for speed and turn.

Oh I posted the whole lot earlier in this thread, just go back. However many people aren't able to convert all the numbers to an actual picture in their head. The above illustration was an attempt to help with tha :)

Yes, best STR for each airframe at 10 kft and the resulting radius to give an idea of the scale. (I made sure that scale of the circle was kept accurate/representative of the actual calculated radius)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I posted the whole lot earlier in this thread, just go back. However many people aren't able to convert all the numbers to an actual picture in their head. The above illustration was an attempt to help with tha :)

Much appreciated, bud

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Much appreciated, bud

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're most welcome, was actually abit surprised myself at how big the difference was.

One thing is made clear for sure, and that is you don't ever want to fight the F-14 in the horizontal if you're in the F-16 or F-15 - You'll have to take the fight vertical and keep up the speed, or you're gonna be in big trouble fast (!) And ofcourse the opposite is true if you're piloting the F-14, in which case the main objective is going to be luring the opponent into a strictly horizontal fight, and the more energy you can get him to bleed the better - cause if he goes vertical you're going to have a hard time.

It's gonna be real fun putting all of this to the test once the HB releases their module :pilotfly:

The hard part is hitting that sweet spot with your head turned over your shoulder away from your instruments.

The hard part is hitting that sweet spot with your head turned over your shoulder away from your instruments.

Haha, indeed. We have it a lot easier though with our 1G trackIR environment :D

Not at all. You maneuver with respect to the bandit and the airframe tells you where it's at.

The hard part is hitting that sweet spot with your head turned over your shoulder away from your instruments.

Haha, indeed. We have it a lot easier though with our 1G trackIR environment :D

Physically, yes it is easier to really crank the jets around a tight circle due to a lack of actual G forces but I'd venture to say it is harder to efficiently fight the platform due to a lack of sensory input. A lack of G forces, lack of peripheral vision and 3D movement are a major part of the difficulty, for me at least. Even the large professional full motion simulators can't get that right for the most part. VR, with its associated failings in the long range spotting department, goes a little way to help remedy this but without the motion and vibrations it is still very difficult to know exactly what your plane is doing without looking at the instruments through a soda straw... I need a bigger monitor. It is a lot harder to find the sweet spot without those sensory inputs.

To give you guys an idea of what to expect here's a little graphical comparison based on the official EM charts:

 

Holy thread revival mate!!!

Nice pic though....

Physically, yes it is easier to really crank the jets around a tight circle due to a lack of actual G forces but I'd venture to say it is harder to efficiently fight the platform due to a lack of sensory input. A lack of G forces, lack of peripheral vision and 3D movement are a major part of the difficulty, for me at least. Even the large professional full motion simulators can't get that right for the most part. VR, with its associated failings in the long range spotting department, goes a little way to help remedy this but without the motion and vibrations it is still very difficult to know exactly what your plane is doing without looking at the instruments through a soda straw... I need a bigger monitor. It is a lot harder to find the sweet spot without those sensory inputs.

I second this. Both from my experience behind a driver's wheel and the pilot's yoke, the tactile feedback is crucial. An easier (and yet still incomplete) way to illustrate this is with force feedback controllers and how much of a difference they make.

In a plane, an actual plane is actually much easier to "ride the edge". Most birds have a distinctive "tells" when flying at their limits. Buffets, flutters....you name it.

Holy thread revival mate!!!

Nice pic though....

 

 

 

I second this. Both from my experience behind a driver's wheel and the pilot's yoke, the tactile feedback is crucial. An easier (and yet still incomplete) way to illustrate this is with force feedback controllers and how much of a difference they make.

 

In a plane, an actual plane is actually much easier to "ride the edge". Most birds have a distinctive "tells" when flying at their limits. Buffets, flutters....you name it.

Perhaps it would help to buy a JetSeat or ButtKicker so you can feel the buffets? That might be a solid way to help influence that tactile feel to tell your brain and body at within the flight envelope.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holy thread revival mate!!!

Nice pic though....

Haha yeah, it was either that or start a new thread :D And thanks :)

It came about as I was looking through the performance figures the other day and had the idea of converting the numbers into a graphical representation, and after seeing the difference I felt I needed to share it. It's pretty interesting how much converting numbers into graphics can really surprise you (!), sure gives meaning to the phrase "a picture says a thousand words" :)

Btw just to make myself clear to everyone once again: Whilst the F-14 certainly holds a distinct advantage in the horizontal plane, the tables do turn if the F-16 or F-15 pilot takes the fight into the vertical and the F-14 commits to that type of fight. So don't expect an F-15 or F-16 to be easy meat in a dogfight, they are just as capable as the F-14 in that regard, they just take a different approach.

 

Btw just to make myself clear to everyone once again: Whilst the F-14 certainly holds a distinct advantage in the horizontal plane, the tables do turn if the F-16 or F-15 pilot takes the fight into the vertical and the F-14 commits to that type of fight. So don't expect an F-15 or F-16 to be easy meat in a dogfight, they are just as capable as the F-14 in that regard, they just take a different approach.

Also take into account the bleed rates. Loaded and in a dive vs unloaded and in a climb...

Haha yeah, it was either that or start a new thread :D And thanks :)

 

It came about as I was looking through the performance figures the other day and had the idea of converting the numbers into a graphical representation, and after seeing the difference I felt I needed to share it. It's pretty interesting how much converting numbers into graphics can really surprise you (!), sure gives meaning to the phrase "a picture says a thousand words" :)

 

Btw just to make myself clear to everyone once again: Whilst the F-14 certainly holds a distinct advantage in the horizontal plane, the tables do turn if the F-16 or F-15 pilot takes the fight into the vertical and the F-14 commits to that type of fight. So don't expect an F-15 or F-16 to be easy meat in a dogfight, they are just as capable as the F-14 in that regard, they just take a different approach.

As a lifelong Tomcat fan I have to admit the F-15 and F-16 are also generally considered "better" in ACM due to their FLCS. The F-15 has a very advanced traditional system that isn't fly-by-wire, but allows say a 40lb pull on the stick to have the same affect from near stall to Vmax. In the F-14, at corner speed, you might only need 40lbs to maintain corner, but at 500 knots you'll be putting 80 on the stick to get the same response. The F-14 required a LOT more training and thinking to be fought well. The Eagle and Falcon took a lot of the thinking out and made it easier to do what you wanted.

As a lifelong Tomcat fan I have to admit the F-15 and F-16 are also generally considered "better" in ACM due to their FLCS. The F-15 has a very advanced traditional system that isn't fly-by-wire, but allows say a 40lb pull on the stick to have the same affect from near stall to Vmax. In the F-14, at corner speed, you might only need 40lbs to maintain corner, but at 500 knots you'll be putting 80 on the stick to get the same response.

Also true! :thumbup:

As a lifelong Tomcat fan I have to admit the F-15 and F-16 are also generally considered "better" in ACM due to their FLCS. The F-15 has a very advanced traditional system that isn't fly-by-wire, but allows say a 40lb pull on the stick to have the same affect from near stall to Vmax. In the F-14, at corner speed, you might only need 40lbs to maintain corner, but at 500 knots you'll be putting 80 on the stick to get the same response. The F-14 required a LOT more training and thinking to be fought well. The Eagle and Falcon took a lot of the thinking out and made it easier to do what you wanted.

Yes and not only that, during mock fights the F-14's were always limited by the 6.5 G Navy restriction, a restriction that simply wouldn't be there or even thought about during actual life or death combat. This no doubt also had an effect on how the F-14 was percieved by US pilots of other types which then only really had to avoid getting slow with the thing.

Yes and not only that, during mock fights the F-14's were always limited by the 6.5 G Navy restriction, a restriction that simply wouldn't be there or even thought about during actual life or death combat. This no doubt also had an effect on how the F-14 was percieved by US pilots of other types which then only really had to avoid getting slow with the thing.

Most F-14 pilots will tell you the g had little to do with anything- the Tomcat fights best ~330-360 kts. F-16s don't pull 9g at that speed. F-18s don't destroy the ACM arena with 7.5 g pulls- its all about nose authority and energy. AFAIK most of the high g maneuvers ive read about were defensive breaks- and that only for a few moments. Now in the late 80s-early 90s? when the Tomcats were limited to 3-5g due to metal shavings in the wing pivots(from what I've heard)- that was a bad time in the Tomcat community.

Meh...just ramblings..

The only the the 15c has over the 14b is roll rate as the GE engines closed the gap in the vertical.

From my experience talking to the 14 community about ACM...

The big engines give the ability to fight 250 cas. But you enough Psub to get back. If you force a 16 to go slow, you have a nice window since he's smacking the limiter..at what? 200 CAS?

Rolling scissors, fight out of plane..

Majority of kills are Never at high G turns!

You don't want to be flying so fast that you'd be arcing. They said good merge or start speed was 410-440 CAS.

If you go slow, pull the big boys, kill the roll sas... Cartwheel, snap roll... Etc. Use areobatics but you need to where that nose will be. This will cut time ..

E.g.. Flash Jr, (son of the legendary Flash) took on two Langley F15c flipping that plane in a gun fight. A story similar to Hoser. But there are several stories like this since these two bases (LFI and NTU) were close each other. They fought over the Atlantic a lot. Then there's Tyndall and Key West fights.

It's a great energy fighter

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Most F-14 pilots will tell you the g had little to do with anything- the Tomcat fights best ~330-360 kts. F-16s don't pull 9g at that speed. F-18s don't destroy the ACM arena with 7.5 g pulls- its all about nose authority and energy. AFAIK most of the high g maneuvers ive read about were defensive breaks- and that only for a few moments. Now in the late 80s-early 90s? when the Tomcats were limited to 3-5g due to metal shavings in the wing pivots(from what I've heard)- that was a bad time in the Tomcat community.

AFAIK that's actually what Hornet pilots often do when facing the Eagle, i.e. win the first 180 via ITR and then go for a quick shot. In defence Eagle pilots go vertical immediately after the merge, just like when facing the Cat.

The Viper or Eagle pilots try to avoid getting slow, and thus they are often pulling a lot more G's for the same rate.

EDIT: Polished the illustration abit

Was this thread link here or did I miss it?

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=45

As a lifelong Tomcat fan I have to admit the F-15 and F-16 are also generally considered "better" in ACM due to their FLCS. The F-15 has a very advanced traditional system that isn't fly-by-wire, but allows say a 40lb pull on the stick to have the same affect from near stall to Vmax. In the F-14, at corner speed, you might only need 40lbs to maintain corner, but at 500 knots you'll be putting 80 on the stick to get the same response. The F-14 required a LOT more training and thinking to be fought well. The Eagle and Falcon took a lot of the thinking out and made it easier to do what you wanted.

I hope that this will be implemented in some way for force feedback users. Obviously not at the real force values, but something along the lines of the other force feedback using jets we already have in the game? It would make what would be an awesome module even better.

 

Btw just to make myself clear to everyone once again: Whilst the F-14 certainly holds a distinct advantage in the horizontal plane, the tables do turn if the F-16 or F-15 pilot takes the fight into the vertical and the F-14 commits to that type of fight. So don't expect an F-15 or F-16 to be easy meat in a dogfight, they are just as capable as the F-14 in that regard, they just take a different approach.

Just a bit of context, so all this horizontal and vertical doesn't get taken too much word for word.

Take your 3 EM charts for 10k, the F-14A, F-14A+ and F-16C. Now look at the mach 0.6 and mach 0.8 values for the bleed/recovery rates.

First, let's look at mach 0.6. F-16C has the both the thrust and the T/W advantage right? It should perform better in the vertical and should accelerate better right? And it does. But does it turn better in the vertical as well? For the same of the high turn rates, the F-16C actually bleeds twice as fast then the F-14A. 3 times faster then the F-14A+. What that translates to, is that at mach 0.6, if push comes to shove, and neither plane has gets the chance to extend and unload, the F-16 will actually run out of steam first. Now let's go down the chart. At mach 0.6 for the turn rate at which the F-16C sustains its turn (excess power = 0), the F-14A actually positive excess power, that is, it can actually recover lost energy (either through a climb or through acceleration). The F-14A+ has more then 50% more excess power then the F-14A at this point. Which is the vertical fighter now? It is only as we further unload (2-3g) that the F-16C gets the upper hand against the F-14A, but not against the F-14A+.

Now, let's go to mach 0.8. Here we actually have the situation reversed. It is the F-16C that has the energy advantage throughout most of the turn states. And yet, even this fast, at the uppermost available g's for both planes, they actually bleed at almost exactly the same rate. So if the F-14A has the room (altitude) to spare it can actually keep up with the F-16C. But anything below maximum turn and the F-16 has the advantage. Now let us switch to the F-14A+. Look at the excess power levels for every turn rate (g pulled) available. You'll notice that the F-16C and the F-14A+ are withing 1/2 a degree of each other for virtually every level of excess power. That means, at mach 0.8, the actual vertical turning performance for both planes is virtually the same. So there is no vertical advantage per se.

In the end, neither plane will fight at mach 0.6 and mach 0.8 at 10000ft exclusively. What you as a virtual pilot should do, is study the charts and see what parts of the envelopes you should try and avoid and what to exploit. It's a dynamic process. And it's not es easy and simple as left is left and right is right. You fly the wrong way and even an F-14A will beat you in the vertical. Especially with all aspect heater strapped on.

Was this thread link here or did I miss it?

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic....27709&start=45

Hehe, yeah things get quite heated over there when'ever you even as much as insinuate that anything might match the F-16 in a dogfight :music_whistling:

Just a bit of context, so all this horizontal and vertical doesn't get taken too much word for word.

 

Take your 3 EM charts for 10k, the F-14A, F-14A+ and F-16C. Now look at the mach 0.6 and mach 0.8 values for the bleed/recovery rates.

 

First, let's look at mach 0.6. F-16C has the both the thrust and the T/W advantage right? It should perform better in the vertical and should accelerate better right? And it does. But does it turn better in the vertical as well? For the same of the high turn rates, the F-16C actually bleeds twice as fast then the F-14A. 3 times faster then the F-14A+. What that translates to, is that at mach 0.6, if push comes to shove, and neither plane has gets the chance to extend and unload, the F-16 will actually run out of steam first. Now let's go down the chart. At mach 0.6 for the turn rate at which the F-16C sustains its turn (excess power = 0), the F-14A actually positive excess power, that is, it can actually recover lost energy (either through a climb or through acceleration). The F-14A+ has more then 50% more excess power then the F-14A at this point. Which is the vertical fighter now? It is only as we further unload (2-3g) that the F-16C gets the upper hand against the F-14A, but not against the F-14A+.

 

Now, let's go to mach 0.8. Here we actually have the situation reversed. It is the F-16C that has the energy advantage throughout most of the turn states. And yet, even this fast, at the uppermost available g's for both planes, they actually bleed at almost exactly the same rate. So if the F-14A has the room (altitude) to spare it can actually keep up with the F-16C. But anything below maximum turn and the F-16 has the advantage. Now let us switch to the F-14A+. Look at the excess power levels for every turn rate (g pulled) available. You'll notice that the F-16C and the F-14A+ are withing 1/2 a degree of each other for virtually every level of excess power. That means, at mach 0.8, the actual vertical turning performance for both planes is virtually the same. So there is no vertical advantage per se.

 

In the end, neither plane will fight at mach 0.6 and mach 0.8 at 10000ft exclusively. What you as a virtual pilot should do, is study the charts and see what parts of the envelopes you should try and avoid and what to exploit. It's a dynamic process. And it's not es easy and simple as left is left and right is right. You fly the wrong way and even an F-14A will beat you in the vertical. Especially with all aspect heater strapped on.

Yep, it'll be fun to explore this once the HB's F-14 module is out :)

IMHO, you guys are reading too much into the charts and not reading what isn't listed. Just like real life racecar drivers, they don't race engine or chassis Dyno numbers, they race cars....

I left f16 net because that's all they talked about on what it says in black and white and what it should be. In reality, all snapshot gun shots are under low Gs. You can do the right turn all you want sooner or later you're going to get tired and you end up being slow

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I'd rather fly them then read the charts, but alas! We don't have a proper F-14 simulator. Besides.....it can be fun doing all these paper simulations. BTW..... didn't it occur to someone to send those math guys over at f16 net to actually send them the lift/alpha charts? I mean....it's like they are even that hard to find......