Jump to content

is the tomact any good?


Recommended Posts

Even with 4 the F-14D can super cruise without burner ;)

 

This brings us to the moral of the day.

 

Kids, don't do drugs ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:megalol: are you kidding me?!?! itll supercruise without burners and is a lot faster than the hornet ever will be.

SuperMan could supercruise...the Tomcant. Theres only a handful of aircraft around that can supercruise. The Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, F-22, technically speaking the Concorde too, but not the Tomcant. Dont do this to yourself Vipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Viper is basing his argument off of a recent thread posted on the Tomcat Sunset forums. I'll see if I can dig it up. There, one of the many pilots mentioned that the Delta Tomcat can go supersonic w/o the use of burner in a shallow dive. While that isn't "supercruise", it does speak volumes about the Cat's speed. She is a very quick bird, and if memory serves, closely contests the Eagle for speed. That isnt bad if you think about how much more rugged a carrier-based jet has to be.

 

If I'm wrong Viper, correct me. But I do seem to remember that mentioned in a thread.

"When you're out of Tomcats, you're out of fighters!"

helk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Viper is basing his argument off of a recent thread posted on the Tomcat Sunset forums. I'll see if I can dig it up. There, one of the many pilots mentioned that the Delta Tomcat can go supersonic w/o the use of burner in a shallow dive. While that isn't "supercruise", it does speak volumes about the Cat's speed. She is a very quick bird, and if memory serves, closely contests the Eagle for speed. That isnt bad if you think about how much more rugged a carrier-based jet has to be.

 

If I'm wrong Viper, correct me. But I do seem to remember that mentioned in a thread.

 

thank you. and yes its burried in there on their forums somewhere :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1st incident of SU27s harrassing NATO aircraft was quickly resolved by a pair of Tomcats which were all over the 27s. :thumbup:

 

You are talking BS and I don't mean Black Shark ;)

 

Mizzy.

 

P.S. Get over the idea that the F14 was anywhere near a match for the Su27, it just ain't the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking BS and I don't mean Black Shark ;)

 

Mizzy.

 

P.S. Get over the idea that the F14 was anywhere near a match for the Su27, it just ain't the truth!

 

It actually happened thats why I mentioned it, no bias intended regarding any aircraft in particular. Perhaps its a bit before your time:music_whistling: .

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not much of an argument since even the F-16 can outzoom the Hornet, although not by a whole lot.

 

I've heard during Enduring freedom Tomcats were launching after the Hornets on Strike missions, delivering their load and landing well before the Hornets. I've always regarded the Tomcat as an interceptor rather than a strike aircraft but it certainly was a good aircraft for those type of missions.

[sIGPIC]2011subsRADM.jpg

[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got done reading "Black Aces High" about VF-41's cruise on the Roosevelt during Operation Allied Force(Balkans). Talks about the first implementations of LANTIRN among other things. Kind of a shame to read how shite the engines really were on the A models. Not the best book I've read about aviation, kind of read like a soap opera...lots of drama in the ranks, but an interesting look nonetheless into tomcats in combat.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Aces-High-Robert-Wilcox/dp/0312997086/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6700563-0015160?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177905129&sr=1-1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supercruise = to cruise supersonic without the use of afterburner.

 

No, it hasn't quite as much to do with burners as it does with engine efficiency. Turbojets are quite efficient at altitude in afterburner - supercruisers have existed for a while now. F-104 anyone? ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the supercruising in the world doesnt mean anything if you cant land onboard the boat again when you get home, thats assuming you didnt get to pop off your Fox 3's. Thats 4 very heavy, Mk. 54 drag slugs you're hauling back, figure thats in excess of 4000 pounds of dead weight you're bringing back.

 

There's a limit to how much weight you can bring back aboard the boat, and 4000 pounds of weight is quite a bit of fuel. So..assume you're already somewhat fuel critical...now, you're bringing back 4 unused -54's that are holding up alot of weight.

 

See the picture? The F-14D (CLEAN) may have been able to supercruise once the burners pushed it past Mach 1, but true supercruising implies being able to break the speed of sound without AB. No aircraft, thus far, besides a VERY clean (IE no pylons and very low fuel) F-15A(barely past Mach, like Mach 1.05), T-38(same) , F-22 or Typhoon can do.

 

But, with a aircraft launch weight of in excess of 68,000 pounds, it would take insane kinds of engine power to get that to super cruise.

 

Dont get me wrong, the F-14B and D were very fast and very capable, but it wasnt the invincible god some claim it to be.

topGraphic.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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