How is f-14 maneuverability?

Anyone buy this cockamaimie theory?

Here is Boeing quoting my cockamamie theory. Of course I guess the Navy may miss out on principles of Flight but I know the USAF taught it pretty well.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

I suspect Victory is winding you up :D

Sorry yes, my knee jerk reaction to miss information on the forum I was trying to be helpful in my original post maybe I should just quote Natops instead .

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Sorry yes, my knee jerk reaction to miss information on the forum I was trying to be helpful in my original post maybe I should just quote Natops instead .

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

I’m asking others to cogitate over your bizarre theory and see if they agree. I am interested in who knows what, and who is interested in learning versus those who are simply parroting and pretending.

Besides, what does the USAF know about how airplanes fly? :smilewink:

Does Windy’s theory hold water?

Sorry yes, my knee jerk reaction to miss information on the forum I was trying to be helpful in my original post maybe I should just quote Natops instead .

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

I’m asking others to cogitate over your bizarre theory and see if they agree. I am interested in who knows what, and who is interested in learning versus those who are simply parroting and pretending.

 

Besides, what does the USAF know about how airplanes fly? :smilewink:

 

Does Windy’s theory hold water?

Best to settle this the old fashioned way then........

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Rock, Paper, Scissors.

If the Hornet driver can force a single circle fight the turn rate disadvantage becomes irrelevant though (turn radius is what's important), so not that simple.

It only becomes irrelevant if the Hornet can score on the 2nd merge, which I also stressed in my post. If the Hornet can't do this it's going to be in trouble. And since the difference in initial turn radius between the two aircraft is so small, scoring on that 2nd pass is going to be difficult.

A 2 circle fight is most likely not going to end well for the Hornet, thus I would automatically assume the Hornet pilot forcing a single circle fight if he could. If the Hornet doesn't score on the 2nd merge however, the higher sustained rate & smaller sustained radius of the Cat is going to put the Hornet on the defensive for the rest of the fight.

Cross controlling/reverse coupling the tomcat(help me on the term) at high alpha, low speed was possible due to one horizontal stab providing lift (one A-4 wing...ish) and the other an airbrake. the rudders were moved opposite the stick roll(and full aft) input and if you were crafty and lucky and a little stupid the jet would swap ends.....all because one horizontal stab was providing lift and acting as a wing. The above discussion may be restricted to horizontal stab behavior in level flight only, just thought I'd offer that the horizontal stabs can and do provide lift at some point.

Unless you are pushing hard which you won't be in a fight (99% of the time). The tail is always producing a downward force so it reduces the overall lift available. All conventionally stable aircraft work the same way.

I’m asking others to cogitate over your bizarre theory and see if they agree.

Does Windy’s theory hold water?

The theory is correct under most circumstances. That's why the horizontal stabs are put there with a negative angle of attack in the first place (and the nature of my initial response). However, as mentioned, these are all moving surfaces, and when pulling on the stick they do change their angle of attack and hence their contribution to the lift. I haven't seen the numbers on the Tomcat, but in the Eagle i.e. (another plane with fully movable tail surfaces) a fully deflected taileron can contribute to as much as 14-15% increase (stick aft) or 10% decrease (stick fore) of the total lift produced by that said plane. I ran into this problem when i was doing some flight model calculations myself, and under some circumstances i ran into non accounted lift (the plane was seemingly able to pull more g, then what i got when did the calculations myself). And then it occurred to me that i am missing something. I just wasn't sure what exactly.

Lol it's got to be another windup, I am controlling my knee jerk reaction this time.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Lol it's got to be another windup, I am controlling my knee jerk reaction this time.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

No , itˋs not a wind-up.

Your statement „The tail is always producing a downward force..“ is not correct.

There quite few factors involved that influence whether the horizontal tailplane produces a down- or upward force, some of them are decided in the design phase already ( e.g. depending on the placement of the c.g. range ) and others which can cause a force direction change inflight, like AOA ( of the horizontal stabilizers).

On airplanes with all-moving horizontal tailplanes (count the F-14 in )what direction of force do you think is generated by the tailplanes when you push the stick full forward during level horizontal flight?

As well,what do think happens if you re flying inverted and pull on the stick?

The Boeing text you linked refers to the design of transport category swept swing aircraft which usually follow a narrow aerodynamic design philosophy.

This does however not apply to all airaft types, even before fbw there were quite a few aircraft out there that had positive lift tailplanes.

Kind regards,

Snappy

This does however not apply to all airaft types, even before fbw there were quite a few aircraft out there that had positive lift tailplanes.

Please name one, I'd be interested to see how they work.

The Eurofighter/Typhoon has a tail that produces positive lift (I think).

Just to reiterate the F14 is a conventionally stable aircraft just like the Boeing article.

The whole point of modern fighters using Canards is that they are not stable. The Canards do add to the lift making the aircraft more manouverable but you need a flight control computer to fly it as humans are not quick enough to correct any deviations and being dynamically unstable any deviation will increase.

The Typhoon is not a conventionally stable aircraft, you cannot fly it without the computers similarly the F16 and probably the F15 ( but don't quote me on that).but it would explain the lift curves.

Like the F14 the Tornado was conventionally stable tho less so than previous generations, we flew it occasionally using direct Mechanical mode it was very PIO sensitive and on the limit of what I would fly , it was probably one of the last stable fighters.

Beside TBH you guys get too wrapped up in this while I love Friday night fights with guns only and it's great for handling skills it has little bearing on real world ops. I would rather have a fantastic RWR that told me exactly what was going on around me and give away 3 degrees per second in a turning fight.

90 % of fights on red flag were over before there was even a 90 turn. So I would say it is easily manouverable enough to be a great fighter in dcs just better work well with your RIO in order to get the most out of it.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

The f-15 is stable. It's the F-16 that was the first fourth generation aircraft that is unstable.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Just

 

....I would rather have a fantastic RWR that told me exactly what was going on around me and give away 3 degrees per second in a turning fight.

 

90 % of fights on red flag were over before there was even a 90 turn. So I would say it is easily manouverable enough to be a great fighter in dcs just better work well with your RIO in order to get the most out of it.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

You just described the F35.

Of course your red flag fights were over in 90 degrees, you were flying a Tornado! Ours went on for hours! :smilewink:

When did you participate?

And you are spot on re stability and real world SA dominating academic discussions on 1v1 maneuverability.

@ Flaming Squirrel:

A rather famous one would be the sopwith camel.

Another non fbw aircraft would be the Piaggio Avanti.

@WindyTX:

Not sure who you are responding to. Nowhere did I state or claim the F-14 was an aerodynamically unstable aircraft by design, nor did I talk about canards.

I said the F-14 has all-moving horizontal stabilizers.

It was you who waded in here claiming incorrect stuff like tailplanes always produce a downwards force with no follow up argumentation .

Now you seem to be performing your best unloaded disengagement by claiming people

get too wrapped up -nice move.

No problem though , people are different, enjoy your perfectly simulated RWR.

Pretty sure Heatblur will provide you with that.( well perfect in its simulation at least, not a perfect RWR)

Kind regards,

Snappy

@ Flaming Squirrel:

 

A rather famous one would be the sopwith camel, due to a very aft placed c.g.

Another non fbw aircraft would be the Piaggio Avanti.

 

 

@WindyTX:

Not sure who you are responding to. Nowhere did I state or claim the F-14 was an aerodynamically unstable aircraft by design, nor did I talk about canards.

I said the F-14 has all-moving horizontal stabilizers.

 

 

It was you who waded in here claiming incorrect stuff like tailplanes always produce a downwards force with no follow up argumentation .

 

 

Now you seem to be performing your best unloaded disengagement by claiming people

get too wrapped up -nice move.

 

No problem though , people are different, enjoy your perfectly simulated RWR.

Pretty sure Heatblur will provide you with that.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Snappy

Why are you butthurt? Discuss, make your point, contribute...

You just described the F35.

 

Of course your red flag fights were over in 90 degrees, you were flying a Tornado! Ours went on for hours! :smilewink:

 

When did you participate?

 

And you are spot on re stability.

" Red Air are cleared off "

And yes we fought the plane to kill prior to the merge we weren't stupid lol, I liked fighting F15s easy to VID and they are big and always blue. Never had F14s on one unfortunately.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

You are just a kid. I was 1986, one week red, one week blue.

Couple more trips to Nellis as a NFWS side show, then 1991 as 4th Gen Red Air for AMRAAM development.

Place could be tedious in terms of course rules, briefs and interminable debriefs. We got in trouble for (among other things), coming into the break in a diamond. This, unless you are a Thunderbird, is a felony in the USAF.

I am old enough to know the pre Amraam days were way more fun in training, but you must be really old .

Yes TBH the USAF were always a bit anal why the hell would you write that you have to fly ifr to the maximum extent possible..

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

We got in trouble for (among other things), coming into the break in a diamond. This, unless you are a Thunderbird, is a felony in the USAF.

Doesn't that make it Navy SOP at that point?

Doesn't that make it Navy SOP at that point?

Four plane Diamonds were SOP around the ship. Far easier to maneuver and execute things like "the spin pattern" if the deck wasn't ready.

I don't think that I would have survived the USAF. Too much centralized control, too many rules. Our sister squadron always had a USAF exchange pilot. They loved it, but not the night landings.

For Windy, the F14 RAG also had two RAF instructor pilots. Pete Legg and Stuart Black were there when I went through. Great guys.

Any more comments on wing loading, lift generation and maneuvering performance?

 

Any more comments on wing loading, lift generation and maneuvering performance?

Unfortunately most people seam to over at the "when it gets released" threads...... :doh:

Four plane Diamonds were SOP around the ship. Far easier to maneuver and execute things like "the spin pattern" if the deck wasn't ready.

 

 

 

I don't think that I would have survived the USAF. Too much centralized control, too many rules. Our sister squadron always had a USAF exchange pilot. They loved it, but not the night landings.

 

 

 

For Windy, the F14 RAG also had two RAF instructor pilots. Pete Legg and Stuart Black were there when I went through. Great guys.

 

 

 

Any more comments on wing loading, lift generation and maneuvering performance?

I met Pete Legg a few times didn't know him well tho', did you know Chip Beck exchange RIO on the F3 OCU in 92 I flew with him a few times and rode Harley's around Coningsby.

I tried your 4 ship box recovery to the ship today was going really well till 3 lag spiked into 1, dam DCS, luckily we all got down.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk

Four plane Diamonds were SOP around the ship. Far easier to maneuver and execute things like "the spin pattern" if the deck wasn't ready.

 

I don't think that I would have survived the USAF. Too much centralized control, too many rules. Our sister squadron always had a USAF exchange pilot. They loved it, but not the night landings.

 

For Windy, the F14 RAG also had two RAF instructor pilots. Pete Legg and Stuart Black were there when I went through. Great guys.

 

Any more comments on wing loading, lift generation and maneuvering performance?

Was Stuart Black any relation to George Black and Ian Black? Both George (father) and Ian (son) were Lightning pilots in the RAF.