How is f-14 maneuverability?

Fortunately, it's only Ralfi's virtual life that depends on his BFM skill :D

Even mediocre PvP players are better than excellent AI at gun fighting.

I'm not impressed with the F14's maneuverability.

The gun sight does look impressive though.

Even mediocre PvP players are better than excellent AI at gun fighting.

 

I'm not impressed with the F14's maneuverability.

 

The gun sight does look impressive though.

You do realize, Ralfi wasnt flying it correctly, right? IF he had, it would have been a much different outcome.

EDIT: Once ralfi has many many hours in the jet, im sure he will get better. As most, if not all of us, will need ridiculous amounts of stick time to use her correctly.

The F-14 is well known for being a difficult beast to master.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I'm not impressed with the F14's maneuverability.

 

The gun sight does look impressive though.

Of course you are not impressed. You made your decision long ago based on limited information and are simply reinforcing your bias. Not that watching another player is an objective measure anyway.

It’s fine to have an unfounded opinion, but why bother sharing? :)

-Nick

Hello captain dalan,

 

Thank you for your insight.

Sorry, is this a rhetorical question, or do you want to know my experience ?

Rhetorical, as in the rest of the post i try to address the points made by Humming bird and build upon them :thumbup:

What about roll rate? ...how is it with wings extended as I assume they would be in a slow-ish speed BFM?

It’s fine, and not a significant tactical limitation despite what you may have heard.

He can always try and snap roll it! :smilewink:

Even mediocre PvP players are better than excellent AI at gun fighting.

 

I'm not impressed with the F14's maneuverability.

 

The gun sight does look impressive though.

Lag-lag-lag-pull-pull-pull-lead-lead-squeeze <that's what i caught myself screaming while watching the video> ! Unfortunately he lead way too soon most of the time. Personally i loved what was being shown. She acts as i expected her to :thumbup:

If you allow me a small correction. The A can sustain her turns almost as well as the B, especially 10kft and bellow). The problem with the F-14A isn't that sustained turn rate, it is the recovery of energy once you go slow and have no altitude to trade (pm).

Looking at the charts for 10 kft you do have a point, as there was only about a 0.7 deg/sec difference in STR from 10 kft down, so I was probably recalling performance at higher altitudes.

That said the F-16C is right up there riding the F-14A's butt in STR at Mach 0.6 and 10 kft with just a 0.5 deg/sec difference, so that extra 0.7 deg/sec of the B/D would come in handy here.

Main problem for the A series however is performance as you go even slower, and as you rightly point out the lack in acceleration to regain lost energy. Thus in a F-14A vs F-16C fight I'd bet my money on the F-16 most of the time, whilst in an F-14B/D vs F-16C fight I'd be hard pressed to make a choice as they're so evenly matched.

As I see it the F-16 is quite simply the most dangerous of the legacy fighters that the F-14 could face in a no bars held angles fight and vice versa.

 

...

 

Lag-lag-lag-pull-pull-pull-lead-lead-squeeze <that's what i caught myself screaming while watching the video> ! Unfortunately he lead way too soon most of the time. Personally i loved what was being shown. She acts as i expected her to :thumbup:

Interesting, so I imagine you do that process when employing the M61, in order to attain a preferred / ideal angle-off solution ?

Looking at the charts for 10 kft you do have a point, as there was only about a 0.7 deg/sec difference in STR from 10 kft down, so I was probably recalling performance at higher altitudes.

 

That said the F-16C is right up there riding the F-14A's butt in STR at Mach 0.6 and 10 kft with just a 0.5 deg/sec difference, so that extra 0.7 deg/sec of the B/D would come in handy here.

 

Main problem for the A series however is performance as you go even slower, and as you rightly point out the lack in acceleration to regain lost energy. Thus in a F-14A vs F-16C fight I'd bet my money on the F-16 most of the time, whilst in an F-14B/D vs F-16C fight I'd be hard pressed to make a choice as they're so evenly matched.

 

As I see it the F-16 is quite simply the most dangerous of the legacy fighters that the F-14 could face in a no bars held angles fight and vice versa.

And what about the F/A-18C, how do you see it threat wise to the F-14 (A or B) in BFM ?

Being the notable factors, its high nose pointing authority even at very slow speeds, and high alpha capability - so although in somewhat different ways, shouldn't it be as dangerous as the F-16 also ?

I've just tested the sustained and instant.(peak) Gs available for the other fighter in DCS. Just for fun (10 minutes of flying around). Not accurate, just to get a picture about how scary that 7g/320kts sustained will be with the F-14B.

Clean aircraft with 60% fuel (4000kg for the 27/33), and decreasing during the test (no unlimited fuel) at ~3000ft/320kts

Type--------- Sustained/Peak

Mig-28 :)-------- 4,3 / 6

M2000 ---------- 5,1 / 7,6

F-15C -----------5,4 / 8

F/A-18C -------- 5,7 / 7,4

Mig-29A -------- 5,6 / 7,9

Mig-29S -------- 5,4 / 7,9

Su-27 ---------- 5,8 / 7,6 / 10 (limiter off)

Su-33 -----------5,0 / 6,3 / 10 (limiter off)

Mig-15bis- ------6,3 / 8

This test clearly shows, that there is no other way, you will have to get into that old rusty Mig-15 rotting behind the hangar to have a good chance in guns only BFM against the cat. :smilewink:

Gentlemen,

Those charts only show one part of the equation. there's another part of the equation it's in there that you're not seeing. this is what they found out when the f-14a win against the F-15a because on paper the latter was supposed to dominate the fight. Those charts are this there to supplement it doesn't tell you everything. There are parts of the envelope where the 14a is better than the 14b.

I watched that video last night... All 2 hours of it. It was insightful it's going to teach a lot of people that hamfist a lot how to fly a plane. unfortunately you'll never feel the seat of the pants. you can see his habits are is to pull hard and then he controls himself by watching the alpha which actually hinders his situational awareness as he acclimates himself to the flight Dynamics. The buffeting cues are there so you don't have to keep your eyes pegged to the alpha gauge. You see that it is a plane that will talk back to you. In the early stages of development the f-15 did the same thing. The infamous bitburg roll which is essentially adverse yaw into snap roll in the f-15.

If you were to look at the Psub charts you'll see at the transonic region where your positive acceleration are. You will note there's not that much difference between the F-16 the f-15 and the F-14b.

I remember a puking dog in a F-14b talking about dog fighting the f-15s from Langley at the republic forum. He basically stated that the f-15 couldn't out-climb him couldn't out turn him and all he could do in the fight was try to out roll him away which f-15 pilots were known to do. Roll, pull, roll, pull...

I don't got this plane is going to disappoint a lot of people in the ACM arena because expectations are high. There's going to be a lot of work involved to master it

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

So, we're gonna hear that cool THUMP-THUMP-THUMP more often?

Actually, I was disappointed to see we're not getting a MiG-19 with those 37s...

I've just tested the sustained and instant.(peak) Gs available for the other fighter in DCS. Just for fun (10 minutes of flying around). Not accurate, just to get a picture about how scary that 7g/320kts sustained will be with the F-14B.

Clean aircraft with 60% fuel (4000kg for the 27/33), and decreasing during the test (no unlimited fuel) at ~3000ft/320kts

 

Type--------- Sustained/Peak

 

Mig-28 :)-------- 4,3 / 6

M2000 ---------- 5,1 / 7,6

F-15C -----------5,4 / 8

F/A-18C -------- 5,7 / 7,4

Mig-29A -------- 5,6 / 7,9

Mig-29S -------- 5,4 / 7,9

Su-27 ---------- 5,8 / 7,6 / 10 (limiter off)

Su-33 -----------5,0 / 6,3 / 10 (limiter off)

 

Mig-15bis- ------6,3 / 8

 

This test clearly shows, that there is no other way, you will have to get into that old rusty Mig-15 rotting behind the hangar to have a good chance in guns only BFM against the cat. :smilewink:

Hello HWasp,

If things were so simple... (and I take it you're being humurous).

Although initially I got distracted by your data, then I recall:

Two different jets turning at the very same G force, doesn't mean that they are turning a the same turn rate, neither at the same turn radius.

Which is why you compare sustained at the same speed. Any other kind of analysis is just much deeper.

Hello HWasp,

 

If things were so simple... (and I take it you're being humurous).

Although initially I got distracted by your data, then I recall:

 

Two different jets turning at the very same G force, doesn't mean that they are turning a the same turn rate, neither at the same turn radius.

If you re-read my post, you can see, that all of the tests were at the same 320 kts indicated at the same 3000, during level flight. You can calculate both rate and radius if you have the speed (IAS is almost same as the true speed at this low alt., as you know) and the load factor.

So yes, at the same speed and altitude pulling the exact same G in level flight gives you the exact same rate and radius, regardless of the type, or anything

What this does not tell you, is the maximum rates ,for example, of the given type. 320 is below the corner speed of the types listed (except the Mig-15 maybe)

Which is why you compare sustained at the same speed. Any other kind of analysis is just much deeper.

If you re-read my post, you can see, that all of the tests were at the same 320 kts indicated at the same 3000, during level flight. You can calculate both rate and radius if you have the speed (IAS is almost same as the true speed at this low alt., as you know) and the load factor.

So yes, at the same speed and altitude pulling the exact same G in level flight gives you the exact same rate and radius, regardless of the type, or anything

 

What this does not tell you, is the maximum rates ,for example, of the given type. 320 is below the corner speed of the types listed (except the Mig-15 maybe)

Thank you both - that way makes sense already.

Completely missed the speed (320 kts)! :thumbup:

And that’s just level turns, never mind the vertical! Pretty scary stuff, better bring some heaters if you wanna live past an encounter with that nonsense. :(

The only thing the F-14 can do in a dogfight is climb to 45,000ft and hope the bandit doesn't have the energy to go with.

Probably the main tactic that will be seen in dogfight servers day 1 of Tomcat release.

The only thing the F-14 can do in a dogfight is climb to 45,000ft and hope the bandit doesn't have the energy to go with.

 

Probably the main tactic that will be seen in dogfight servers day 1 of Tomcat release.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The only thing the F-14 can do in a dogfight is climb to 45,000ft and hope the bandit doesn't have the energy to go with.

In the Ralfidude's stream he got way too slow in that first hop, and his roll control was all over the place. No offense to him, It's looks challenging. But Just FYI if your using that as your reference.

The jet has an eye watering sustained turn rate, and it can pull Gs for days. 7Gs at 320 speaks for itself. Sorry your wrong, if you believe it can't do anything but climb. In the right hands that things gonna eat hornets and crap eagles.

*in a guns only fight ;)

The only thing the F-14 can do in a dogfight is climb to 45,000ft and hope the bandit doesn't have the energy to go with.

 

Probably the main tactic that will be seen in dogfight servers day 1 of Tomcat release.

One of these days you'll take physics and learn how to apply it to the real world. Fan boy support or opinion of a tactic or piece of hardware will fade once you start applying the real world math and capabilities to machines. Its not magic, its reality due to physical laws. A well-flown F-14 just might be your introduction to physics.

I've made another test, this time at 420 kts, closer to corner speed.

Top competitors are:

F/A-18----- 8g sustained (20,7 degrees/second)

Mig-29A---- 8g sustained (20,7 degrees/second)

They were at 18,5 (Mig29) and 19 (F18 ) degrees per second flying at 320 kts.

Compare that to the 7g/320 kts---> 24 degrees per second of the F-14B.

Interesting, so I imagine you do that process when employing the M61, in order to attain a preferred / ideal angle-off solution ?

Something like that, yeah. The idea is that if you fly lead pursuit all the time, you end up:

-bleeding too much energy for little gain

-increase your closure rate so much, that might lead to overshoots

-getting a snap shot at best

However, if you stay ON his turn circle (with the F-14) in this kind of "slow" speed gun fight, he has nowhere to go and he bleeds more then you. Soon he'll find himself out of energy and a sitting duck and you get to pick how to gun him down.

For this to work though, you need to get pretty good at estimating when exactly and how much to start pulling. I.E. in that second MiG-29 fight, when they are getting low, the bandit does 90 degree left hand roll and performs a split S. Ralfi rolls his vector on him and pulls right away, which causes him to pull too much alpha and lose too much energy. It's not fatal, but a much better move is Knight on B4, which leads to....just kidding. A much better move is to continue his turn to the point where the MiG initiated the roll, and then replicate his move. You plane is better in a dive, so if you do this, you end up in the same spot that he end up, but with excess energy to then use as you will. The hard part is to visualize these spacial point without any external cues AND keep a situational awareness of the bandit. This is where that second pair of eyes in the back will be immensely helpful!

Mig-15bis- ------6,3 / 8

 

This test clearly shows, that there is no other way, you will have to get into that old rusty Mig-15 rotting behind the hangar to have a good chance in guns only BFM against the cat.

Or an A-4! Especially the souped up variants.

The only thing the F-14 can do in a dogfight is climb to 45,000ft and hope the bandit doesn't have the energy to go with.

 

Probably the main tactic that will be seen in dogfight servers day 1 of Tomcat release.

No, that’s not a good idea. I just tried that against a F-15C in PvP and it failed. Fighting in the horizontal was much better. Hitting the merge at 22K’ at Mach 0.95 and performing an optimal inclines turn (AOB 40ish degrees) gave much better initial nose position. After that it is just energy management and not getting greedy with at the expense of AOA and energy.

I also flew a F-15C today against the F-14B and made the mistake of keeping it horizontal. Got gunned on the deck out of energy. The embarrassing part is that the F-15C started at 70% fuel, but the Tomcat started at 100% - the Tomcat still ran me out of energy. I should have stayed high.

However, the real answer is that who ever was the better pilot won - no matter the airframe. Today we flew the F-14B against the F-15C and F/A-18C for about 15 engagements and the better pilot won every time irrespective of airframe. Tactics and skill were more important than airframe - which real pilots know very well.

DCS players keep hoping that a new airplane will solve their limitations by being so much better than everything else, but this is simply not going to happen. You better practice instead of posting nonsense and hoping for the best. :P

-Nick

No, that’s not a good idea. I just tried that against a F-15C in PvP and it failed. Fighting in the horizontal was much better. Hitting the merge at 22K’ at Mach 0.95 and performing an optimal inclines turn (AOB 40ish degrees) have much better initial nose position. After that it is just energy management and not getting greedy with at the expense of AOA and energy.

 

I also flew a F-15C today against the F-14B and made the mistake of keeping it horizontal. Got gunned on the deck out of energy. The embarrassing part is that the F-15C started at 70% fuel, but the Tomcat started at 100% - the Tomcat still ran me out of energy. I should have stayed high.

 

However, the real answer is that however was the better pilot won - no matter the airframe. Today we flew the F-14B against the F-15C and F/A-18C for about 15 engagements and the better pilot won every time irrespective of airframe. Tactics and skill were more important than airframe - which real pilots know very well.

 

DCS players keep hoping that a new airplane will solve their limitations by being so much better than everything else, but this is simply not going to happen. You better practice instead of posting nonsense and hoping for the best. :P

 

-Nick

Smart post.

Just reading some of this thread, I was thinking that very few DCS modules are airframe limited. Pilot knowledge and execution of the proper tactics are the real adversary, not E-M diagrams. Those are mere picture frames, not the holy grail. Up to the pilot to create the art within.

If you re-read my post, you can see, that all of the tests were at the same 320 kts indicated at the same 3000, during level flight. You can calculate both rate and radius if you have the speed (IAS is almost same as the true speed at this low alt., as you know) and the load factor.

So yes, at the same speed and altitude pulling the exact same G in level flight gives you the exact same rate and radius, regardless of the type, or anything

What this does not tell you, is the maximum rates ,for example, of the given type. 320 is below the corner speed of the types listed (except the Mig-15 maybe)

Well to be honest, looking back and reading it with more attention, made me realize I was probably with some wrong assumptions...

Because I never really looked at it that way - paying the due attention to the laws of physics, but it makes sense.

Instead I tended to see BFM performance of a given fighter, more like a function of: thrust to weight ratio; wing loading, and airframe design... so now I realize this isn't the "complete picture".

If I got this right, let's say for the sake of example:

Two different airframes, F-4 Phantom II and F-16, both at: 3000 ft, 380 kts, pulling 5 G's turn (for example), it means:

- both of them will be executing the same radius of turn, with the same turn rate also;

- however, eventually at some given airspeed and altitude (equal for both), the F-16 will be able to pull more G's than the F-4, and therefore it will have an higher turn rate.

Is this it ?