Jump to content

F-14's agility


Pandacat

Recommended Posts

The way you write that, is as though you’ve flown it. Have you?

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you write that, is as though you’ve flown it. Have you?

 

He's most likely referring to the turn rate demonstrated in MagzTv's Youtube video, which is an impressive turn rate.

- i7-7700k

- 32GB DDR4 2400Mhz

- GTX 1080 8GB

- Installed on SSD

- TM Warthog

 

DCS Modules - A-10C; M-2000C; AV8B; F/A-18C; Ka-50; FC-3; UH-1H; F-5E; Mi-8; F-14; Persian Gulf; NTTR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weight/size means little in the physics of the turn.

 

It's what lift you can generate to counter the weight you have, and after that what thrust you can generate to replace the energy lost to drag produced by generating the lift.

 

 

I would say weight is a big factor in how quickly you can turn. You know the formula F=ma. You're going to have to produce a force in order to turn and that force is greatly dependent on your weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying, with equal lift a heavier aircraft is going to be more difficult to turn.

 

Yes. If you reference two identical airframes but with differing weights then this is true.

 

However, for two different planes pulling the same G, even if plane X is 20% heavier than plane Y but plane X can generate 25% more lift, then, depending on power loading, then X will outturn Y.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a few threads going over how agile it actually is.

 

Here's one with some interesting charts overlaying the F-15 and F-16 over the F14's turns:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=144469

 

tl;dr:

F-14 out turns the F-15 by a decent margin below M0.7 and above M1.2, and isn't far behind in the middle.

F-16 beats both in general, however the F-14 does actually beat it in ITR at slower speeds (~M0.4) under certain conditions, but only just.

 

Bearing in mind that graph for the F-14 is against the operational 6.5g limit, if you ignore it, it can do get some brutal ITR, but as recently

if you really push it.

 

There's also lots of info scattered in this thread, if you fancy an evening's read:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140030


Edited by Buzzles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. If you reference two identical airframes but with differing weights then this is true.

 

However, for two different planes pulling the same G, even if plane X is 20% heavier than plane Y but plane X can generate 25% more lift, then, depending on power loading, then X will outturn Y.

 

 

So the following quote is not true. Weight is significant in "the physics of the turn".

 

 

 

Weight/size means little in the physics of the turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main disadvantage to more weight is inertia that needs to be overcome. E.g. Doing an aileron roll in the Tomcat, will require that you counter the roll sooner to roll level, that an F-16 would. Something people keep forgetting when they see large fighters such as the F-14, F-15 and Su-27, is their wing loading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised by how tight Tomcat can turn. For such a massive fighter, it can practically turn on a dime. Feels like much more agile than F-18c.
It's not that the F-14 is more agile, it would be better to say that the F-14 isn't incapable.

 

 

Hold it in it's optimum speed and AOA envelope, and the Tomcat will do everything you want it to do. That includes out turning people.

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can generate the lift, you can make a supertanker turn as tight.

 

When comparing aircraft, the lower the wing loading, the better the turning ability.

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main disadvantage to more weight is inertia that needs to be overcome. E.g. Doing an aileron roll in the Tomcat, will require that you counter the roll sooner to roll level, that an F-16 would. Something people keep forgetting when they see large fighters such as the F-14, F-15 and Su-27, is their wing loading.

 

Bigger planes also have bigger control surfaces though. Not saying you're wrong as a rule, just that it's not the whole story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
If you can generate the lift, you can make a supertanker turn as tight.

 

When comparing aircraft, the lower the wing loading, the better the turning ability.

 

This is only partially correct. You also need high thrust. B-2 bomber's wingloading is very low, its lift coefficient is probably greater than some of the fighters, but can they outturn the fighters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slow fighter is a dead fighter. Most engagements are in pairs. Pilots fight their aircraft to their maximum ability and avoid an adversaries advantage.

 

The F-15 ruled the dogfight even as claimed by former F-14 pilots. They were glad the F-15's were on our side.

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-14-tomcat-vs-f-15-eagle-aircrews-perspective/

TI-84 graphics calculator (overclocked) 24 KB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, written by an F15 guy who probably never saw a clean F14, followed by quoting a RIO from the bombing days.

 

So you've got quotes by two guys who never flew the F14. :)

 

And here is our world

 

-The Israelis THOROUGHLY evaluated both, and found that the F-15 was better in maneuverability, better in dog fighting, cheaper to operate, and better suited for their needs. Remember that the F-14's main selling point was the Phoenix--great for defending a carrier battle group at 200 miles out against cruise-missile packing bombers, but not so good when the enemy is five minutes flying time from the border.

 

You're welcome

TI-84 graphics calculator (overclocked) 24 KB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is our world

 

-The Israelis THOROUGHLY evaluated both, and found that the F-15 was better in maneuverability, better in dog fighting, cheaper to operate, and better suited for their needs. Remember that the F-14's main selling point was the Phoenix--great for defending a carrier battle group at 200 miles out against cruise-missile packing bombers, but not so good when the enemy is five minutes flying time from the border.

 

You're welcome

 

You only deserve a thank you when you add something of value to the conversation, what you wrote here certainly doesn’t qualify. Do you specialize in weak arguments and skimming Wikipedia or is it just a hobby?

 

The Israelis evaluated the Tomcat on paper in the early 70s and never flew it. The EM charts clearly show the F-14 matching the eagle’s STR at 15000’ and below and not kore than a degree behind up to 30000’. Below 10000’ the F-14’s performance is better.

 

While I’m sure you can rationalize this with a quote from Bill’s cousin who once saw a F-15 take off and thought it looked fast, it would be a real discussion if you bring forward something worth discussing. :)

 

And you are welcome.

 

-Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...