A Comparison F-14 Versus F-15E In The Fighter Role

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 14:59

The same can be said about the original SU-27 Flanker.


wing area =667sq ft.
empty weight =36,200lbs.

Factor in its large LERX, twin tail booms, unstable tail, and center pancake. And now you have a total area of nearly 900sq ft.


So it's a misconception to say that the original Flanker has high wing loading, which is simply not the case.


The SU-27 can out turn all of the Teen series, except the F-16C Block 30. It has far greater AOA capabilities than all of them. The Flanker is the only jet that can perform an actual Cobra (a real Cobra has the nose exceeding 90 degrees); I'm not talking about a Draken super-stall or a Finnish Cobra.
Offline

gbigly

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 00:23

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 15:29

f-16adf wrote:The same can be said about the original SU-27 Flanker.


wing area =667sq ft.
empty weight =36,200lbs.

Factor in its large LERX, twin tail booms, unstable tail, and center pancake. And now you have a total area of nearly 900sq ft.


So it's a misconception to say that the original Flanker has high wing loading, which is simply not the case.


The SU-27 can out turn all of the Teen series, except the F-16C Block 30. It has far greater AOA capabilities than all of them. The Flanker is the only jet that can perform an actual Cobra (a real Cobra has the nose exceeding 90 degrees); I'm not talking about a Draken super-stall or a Finnish Cobra.


The f-14 is quite capable of over 90 AoA, it's just it's hard to control without a proper flight control computer. And the drakken didn't do the super stall, it performed a full cobra, which is anything that is 90 degrees and above. Flanker probably has more than 667 sq ft because of it's wider nacelle area, and that's also why the tomcat has 1,008 sq ft of wing area. The tomcat D version quite literally can out turn a flanker very easily.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 16:25

Seriously, now you are posting just absolute lies.


NO F-14 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-15 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-18 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

MOST F-16'S CANNOT OUT TURN A SU-27.




The Baseline Flanker has lower wing loading than any Tomcat.



Here is a SU-27 performing a full 360 degree turn, turn begins at 4:25,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=290&v=4B00eSuLq0Q

That is basically 15 seconds or slightly less for the full turn.




Draken superstall is not a Pugachev's Cobra.
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 16:50

gbigly you have to be trolling, there is no way you have this much blind allegiance to the f-14 airframe.

The f-14 is a really cool jet but it never was the best turning aircraft. It had an advanced radar and long range missile for it's time, that is really what the jet was built around. It was a fleet defender that could help defeat the threat of long range cruise missiles.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1987
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 17:04

gbigly wrote:
garrya wrote:A sustained turn is a turn where velocity, altitude and G value are constant ( or sustainable ) in others word the Ps in a sustained turn is zero . An aircraft can make a turn with constant G, yet with decelerate in velocity or decrease in altitude. that turn will not be considered a sustained turn.


Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.




Gbigly - I hope for your sake you have simply misunderstood what you are being told because there is a massive difference between the definition you are using for a sustained turn (sustained G only) Vs the actual definition used in comparisons and performance charts (constant G/DPS/Velocity & Altitude).

Tomcat glove vane.jpg
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 17:37

gbigly wrote:Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

1) to be accurate you cannot ever be at constant mass because plane will consume fuel
2) the fact that it constantly pulling 7.5G is irrelevant, a sustained turn is a turn where specific excess power is larger or equal zero which means you can't lose any altitude or speed while doing the turn

gbigly wrote:If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

no he didn't, according to flight manual even with F-110 GE400 engine , F-14 would barely sustain 1.1G at Mach 1.9


gbigly wrote: Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.

a) The F-14 in iran had less than 12% fuel
b) it also did not sustained 7.5G at Mach 2. Seriously, do you know how much drag is at Mach 2 ??
c)accelerating doesn't neccesary mean it a sustain turn, since an aircraft can make an instantaneous turn while nose down aka , it can trade alot of potential energy for small amount of kinematic energy. A version of this is the down spiral turn
Image

A sustained turn is a turn where both potential energy and kinematic energy can be constant.



gbigly wrote:That's peacetime limitations.

Right, so according to your logic, they have to lower sustain G limit of F-14 by 7 times in peace time? there must be some serious problem with the airframe then

gbigly wrote:That's not what Mike was talking about. He worked with the plane, he knows what he's talking about. Period.

Yes , he know what he talking about. You, on the other hand. Do not have the slightest idea of aerodynamic or even basic physic.

gbigly wrote:It can sustain 7.5gs with 80-85lbs PSF of wing loading @ 68 degrees of wing sweep @ mach 2. Period.

Nope it doesn't. Only in your imagination and interpretation due to lack of fundamental understanding. F-14 with F-110 GE400 can sustain about 1.1 G at Mach 1.9
Image


gbigly wrote:Except effective wet drag is very little with the wings back. Wet drag is always vertically planar to incoming wind. When the wings are back, there is less surface hitting that wind head on. When the wings are out, thus giving the tomcat more lift, you also increase the effective wet drag.

Wing out and you have more lift but also more drag. Wing in and you have less lift and left drag. However, even with wing in the drag is still massived at Mach 2

gbigly wrote:More gas lighting. That's is NOT what i said. I said the Eagles ailerons and flaps are FIXED in their POSITION. I didn't say they were FIXED as in STATICALLY UNABLE TO BE USED TO TURN THE AIRCRAFT. If the wings on the tomcat move, then the spoilers also move their POSITION or ANGLE as those wings move, providing more aerodynamic advantage. Use your brain.

Or may be you should use your brain and try to understand what is wing loading and what is a sustained turn :wink: :wink:



gbigly wrote:That's because that's a 1950's design. The tomcat has basically the same percentage of titanium by WEIGHT of aircraft as the eagle does. However the tomcat is about 50% HEAVIER than the eagle. That means more titanium. And that means your 1950's Mirage is obsolete going up against either one of them. Of course they could have just used even more aluminum, which would have resulted in more volume of aluminum to counter the the thinner and less volume yet strong titanium. But they didn't do that. Planes back then weren't designed with 9gs in mind.

Nonsense, Mirage structure G limit is 9G,so according to your own logic then if it able to pull a certain G value , it must be also be able to sustain that G value :wink: , Mirage wing is even more sweep back than F-14, so why doesn't it sustain 7.5G at Mach 2 ?
Image



gbigly wrote:Wet drag and "drag" are two different things. Drag is sh*t that hits wind head on like missiles and pylons, wet drag is smooth drag that does not break the wind. However, when the wings are back to some degree the tomcat is more aerodynamic.

Image
Total Drag produced by an aircraft is the sum of the Profile drag, Induced drag, and Parasite drag. Total drag is primarily a function of airspeed. The airspeed that produces the lowest total drag normally determines the aircraft best-rate-of-climb speed, minimum rate-of-descent speed for autorotation, and maximum endurance speed.

Profile Drag is the drag incurred from frictional resistance of the aircraft passing through the air. It does not change significantly with angle of attack of the airfoil section, but increases moderately as airspeed increases.

Induced Drag is the drag incurred as a result of production of lift. Higher angles of attack which produce more lift also produce increased induced drag. In rotary-wing aircraft, induced drag decreases with increased aircraft airspeed. The induced drag is the portion of the Total Aerodynamic Force which is oriented in the direction opposing the movement of the airfoil.

Parasite Drag is the drag incurred from the non lifting portions of the aircraft. It includes the form drag and skin friction associated with the fuselage, cockpit, engine cowlings, rotor hub ,landing gear, and tail boom to mention a few. Parasite drag increases with airspeed.
gbigly wrote: At about 40 - 50 degrees of wing sweep is where your 9g sustainability is on the F-14. Again, this takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.

You haven't provided a single piece of evidence for this



gbigly wrote:If a navy plane that weighs 40,000 lbs + 3-4,000 lbs of fuel can pull 8.5gs and ACCELERATE

Could easily be a nose down turn :wink: so just because it was accelerated doesn't mean it can sustain that turn. Pilots may as well traded altitude for speed

gbigly wrote:and still have lower wing loading than the even the (what would have been at that time the *FUTURE*) f-15C at that point, then adding extra weight with more fuel

except that F-14 doesn't have better wing loading, it is just that you don't understand how wing loading are calculated

gbigly wrote:Remember the F-14 can sustain 7.5gs with lots of fuel at mach 2

Once again, this is the production of your wishful thinking when you don't understand what is a sustained turn

gbigly wrote:You still forget the tomcat was very low to ground when pulling those Gs, which means more variable, bumpy and violent winds.

It is easier to sustain high G at low altitude because the air is denser which mean either less speed needed or less AoA. Moreover , dynamic thrust at low altitude also tend to be higher.Both factors lead to higher G.
For example:
Image


gbigly wrote:7.5gs SUSTAINED for tomcat @ mach 2 w/68 degrees of wing sweep. 9gs sustainability at 40-50 degrees of wing sweep. Of course, 9gs sustainability takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.
Simple. Period.

That just not what the manual say
Image

gbigly wrote:Nope, Gs means Gs. Ps don't mean anything! See? I can do the same stupid childish crap you do. It doesn't change the fact that NZW is G-load x Weight.

If you use your brain and do what everyone else do , hmm what it called. Oh yes READ, then you would know that Ps is specific excess power.Ps = zero when there no specific excess power left. Which is literally where aircraft achieve their maximum sustained turn rate
Image
The only one who childish here is you


gbigly wrote:And that doesn't change the fact that the tomcat is in reality, a 10g sustainable aircraft with wings somewhere near 20 degrees of sweep w/44-48 PSF of wing loading and powerful enough engines. Again, this takes into account that you have at least F-110 engines installed on the tomcat.

Too bad that Northrop Grumman , US Navy and anyone know even a tiny bit about aerodynamic would disagree with you :wink:



gbigly wrote:Yes it does. The F-14 Tomcat's maximum 44-48psf of wing loading is significantly lower than raptor, flanker, eagle and even MiG-21.

Wing loading = aircraft weight/ reference wing area, it doesn't matter if aircraft body generate lift or not, all effect from body lift , vortex generator are included in lift coefficient. You can repeat the crap about 44 psf wing loading all you want, it still will not become true.



gbigly wrote:All dog-fighter jets are mostly aluminum by weight.
It's just that the f-4 phantom has actually about 9% titanium by weight, whereas the tomcat and eagle both have about 25% of titanium by weight. That's why those 2 planes can turn 9gs, and the f-4 phantom cannot. The f-4 phantom does not have a strong enough frame because of the low percentage of titanium to sustain higher than 6 or 6.5gs

Moronic comment, SR-71 has about 85% titanium by weight so by your logic it would be the best turner ever. Except that it isn't

gbigly wrote:And of course, f-22 raptors aren't really dogfighters. The f-35 isn't either. They're just kinda useless crap.

Those " useless crap " can easily destroy F-14 any day in the week and twice on Sunday :wink:

gbigly wrote:And btw, the low percentage of titanium in the f-16 doesn't really hurt it so much. It's a tiny, light little plane

Don't try to dodge the question.
F-16 has thinner wing, and much higher wing loading than F-15 , F-4, F-106 ..etc so why can it out turn those aircraft ? according to your so called " theory" , F-16 would have pathetic turn performer, yet in reality it remained the best in STR
Last edited by garrya on 26 Mar 2017, 02:23, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 18:34

He will dodge the question or just lie. He knows that the F-16C Block 30 or Su-27 can fly rings around the F-14D.

He also doesn't understand that the best turning ability of the F-14 is with wing sweep angles of 25 to 20 degrees (hence, lower speeds). That's because at those angles the wing is technically a "high aspect" ratio wing. ....THINK A-10!!!! THE A-10 HAS A HIGH ASPECT RATIO WING, CONSEQUENTLY IT CAN MAKE TURNS WITH A VERY, VERY SMALL RADIUS ALBEiT AT LOW SPEEDS.... Just like the Tomcat.

Once you go above the Tomcat's corner velocity, its turning ability (radius and rate) fall off sharply because of increasing drag buildup. And once the wings start to go back in the low 400'sKIAS, that's it... The trailing edge of the wings are consequently at a high sweep angle and that is generally detrimental to turning ability (low turn rate/ increasing turn radius).



https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaem ... iginal.jpg
Last edited by f-16adf on 25 Mar 2017, 18:56, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gbigly

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 00:23

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 18:54

f-16adf wrote:Seriously, now you are posting just absolute lies.


NO F-14 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-15 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

NO F-18 CAN OUT TURN A SU-27.

MOST F-16'S CANNOT OUT TURN A SU-27.


Repeating bullshit isn't going to make you win. Others can read the information I have consistently posted. The tomcat has a 44-48 psf wing loading with wings around 20 degrees, significantly lower than the flanker. When the wings are pulled back the wing loading increases, but even at 68 degrees of sweep, there is only up to 85 psf of wing loading.




Draken superstall is not a Pugachev's Cobra.


Drakken didn't do a superstall. The only plane really ever that had the "superstall" attributed to it famously is the f-14 tomcat. A superstall is a high AoA maneuver up to 80 degrees. Cobra is 90 degrees AoA and above. The f-14 tomcat can also perform a cobra but it is very hard to control the plane to prevent spin without a proper FBW system.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 19:06

The only one posting lies and BS is you.


The Flanker easily out-turns the Tomcat. You are just to blind to see it.


ONCE AGAIN: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE POST ME A DEMO VIDEO OF ANY TOMCAT TURNING UNDER 19.8 SECONDS. THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE NONE EXIST.


You don't even apply the same criterion to your arguments. You include the F-14's tunnel in the wing loading discussion, but will not include the Flanker's? You did not factor in the Su-27's LERX, and the fact that it is truly unstable in pitch (which all help to lower wing loading). The Tomcat is not a truly unstable design, hence, it's giant stab tail is actually adding weight (tail down moment) to the main wing. AND INCREASING WING LOADING!!!!



By your illogical standards the Drakken, F-106 Delta Dart, and the F-102 Delta Dagger can fly rings around the Tomcat and easily out turn it because they all have far lower wing loading!!!!!


SERIOUSLY, STOP WITH THE TOM CRUISE WORSHIP YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE A FOOL-
Last edited by f-16adf on 25 Mar 2017, 20:55, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 756
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 19:30

Here is the last F-14D demo. Look at how LONG ITS SUSTAINED TURN IS. Looks like over 22 or 23 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwRx4XceGg
Since it was the CAT's last public airshow demo. If the F-14 was truly a 9G sustainable jet; Why didn't the pilot and the rio show us a 9G demo turn (after all the jet was shortly going to be retired, ...right????) What would be the harm in that, and show the public what the jet is "truly capable" of...?



Nope, this demo is just as lame as an F-15 Eagles.

Sorry buddy-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXYyYifwmMg

Video seems edited, the turn probably is over 23 seconds.


I believe this is the full (unedited) turn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sicTdp_PSLo


PRETTY LAME.....
Last edited by f-16adf on 25 Mar 2017, 21:17, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 20:37

gbigly wrote:Others can read the information I have consistently posted.

Your information have been consistently inaccurate
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post25 Mar 2017, 23:39

eloise wrote:
gbigly wrote:Others can read the information I have consistently posted.

Your information have been consistently inaccurate

Agreed, also the inability to understand the facts shown to him is shocking.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Mar 2017, 17:45

gbigly wrote:Repeating bullshit isn't going to make you win. Others can read the information I have consistently posted.


But he's not repeating bullshit. And he is winning. You havn't convinced a single person here. Even your posts contradict the narrative you are trying to spin.

Who are trying to convince? I am a Tomcat fan and you don't even have my vote. Most of what you post is half truth or flawed. The F-14 is a notoriously heavy airplane. It needed to be to do its job. Now you think wing loading is amazing for it? and even then that its the be all end all?

There are also other pesky facts like The F-14 in operational service was not allowed to exceed Mach 1.8 do to fear of asymmetrical engine thrust should one go out. Only test pilots were ever able to take it to the Mach 2 numbers routinely cited, and of course with no weapons or external anything and an unloaded cannon.

:doh:

C'mon man. You aren't just whizing on my leg and saying its rain. You are telling us its "money stream" even I can't suspend my disbelief here.

The f-14 tomcat can also perform a cobra but it is very hard to control the plane to prevent spin without a proper FBW system.


Indeed the Tomcat has no proper FBW system to perform maneuvers others perform with ease. Yet you insist it's superior?

Just to review the tomcat is better than the Flanker yet you admit it can't do what the Flanker can?

Interesting argument.

Tomcats are always going to be my favorite. But they were work. Pilots had to work harder to make them perform like Thier peers, maintenance crews had to work harder. It was pinnacle of 1960s tech with some 1970s engines -- Thrown on later, and even then only some of them. Their parts count was mind boggling too.

The F-22 has super cruise, thrust vectoring, and tail fins with as much surface area as an F-16s main wing. It's no contest. It was no contest back in 2006 when the tomcat was retired and the disparity only grew when we saw what F-22s could do. F-22s annihilate F-15s which routinely beat on Tomcats. Routinely. It's the guy who can't afford mcdonalds trying to tell you eats at the nicest steak house.

F-22s can actually GAIN energy in a EM fight. which is like making a dollar for every dollar you spend. teen fighters start with a certain amount and only get worse

Gbigly is not only a fanboy and possible troll. He is about 10 years late on his fanboyism. This was really only a debate before F-22s became operational and as the F-22s were being retired.

The F-22 is vastly superior. It was designed from day 1 to do things that Tomcats were never going to accomplish. Ever. Tomcats don't super cruise as 50k feet. They aren't stealthy. Their avionics were barely up to 1990s standards when they were retired. Not to mention they are fleet defenders. Shipborne interceptor missile trucks. Dogfighting was secondary.


There are hundreds of written and recorded accounts of rookie pilots saying it took YEARS to learn how to dogfight and max perform a Tomcat. A 1st day pilot can make an F-22 stand on its tail and point and shoot to his hearts content.

Image

Image

Can't wait to see footage of Tomcats doing the same thing. please post
Last edited by XanderCrews on 26 Mar 2017, 18:14, edited 4 times in total.
Choose Crews
Offline

les_paul59

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 330
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2016, 05:57

Unread post26 Mar 2017, 17:59

The best comparison for the f-14 is the Mig-31. Both interceptor's at heart, one was based on land the other at sea. But essentially they had some cool radars for their time with long range missiles, both two seat jets where the guy in the back worked the cumbersome radar.

Sure the f-14 is more maneuverable than the Mig-31 when the fight gets slow, but it sure as sh*t isn't going to fly high and fast with the mig-31.

comparing the tomcat to the f-15 and/or f-22 is a flawed, unfair comparison. gbigly is actually doing a disservice to his fellow f-14 fanboys by comparing it to much more maneuverable jets.
Offline

gbigly

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 00:23

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 09:03

Because neither of us have access to a working F-14 tomcat to prove our points either way, and since the charts you continue to annoyingly post cannot actually prove the f-14 tomcat is any less capable at sustaining High Gs without losing speed or altitude than the F-15E eagle or Su-27 Flanker, as they are only charts with no concrete evidence they are not faulty (and saying they aren't faulty because they are "FRUM DA GUBBMENT/MIWITAWY" doesn't prove anything) this will be my last post. We can argue until the end of time. The fact remains is you can't prove me wrong, and I can't actually prove you wrong in any other way than logically with some facts and information about a few F-14 tomcat demonstrations. The only way to TRULY prove the tomcat is as capable as I have been saying it is.. is to take it up into the air for some High G tests. But since we cannot do that, I am done posting about it. You can say whatever you want in response to the following information in this post, but you can't prove me wrong. I can prove you wrong logically but like I said, the only way you'll shut up and accept I'm right is if I took an f-14 tomcat up into the air and recorded the data. That isn't going to happen.

I believe that I have done all i need to do in this thread. Any honest aviation lover even remotely interested in the f-14 tomcat and why it was actually cancelled and what it's capability is... will see my posts and see yours, and see how you have consistently lied and provided factually bogus information in order to further whatever agenda you have here. They will see with all the crap I had to put up with and how in the end I really just look like a matyr going up against a cabal of bloodthirsty mob savages with pitchforks and torches. Therefore the readers will be able to properly navigate through all of the bullshit that this forum and it's biased moderators spew. And that leaves me with a feeling of satisfaction.

It is clear I have won this debate to anyone actually interested in the F-14 tomcat and it's capabilities. I now claim victory and I said before, this is my last post.

garrya wrote:
gbigly wrote:Except you fail to understand that Nz = G=load and NzW is G-load x Weight. He said CONSTANT NZW product. That means the plane was constantly at 40,000lbs x 7.5 (the g-forces)

1) to be accurate you cannot ever be at constant mass because plane will consume fuel




That goes for EVERY plane, genius. The f-14 tomcat isn't the only fighter jet that gets lighter as it consumes fuel. This clearly shows your bias against the f-14. It's pathetic.

2) the fact that it constantly pulling 7.5G is irrelevant, a sustained turn is a turn where specific excess power is larger or equal zero which means you can't lose any altitude or speed while doing the turn


Finally now we have closure. The plane is pretty damn strong despite having a very high wing loading with the wings back. So it's not the strength of the plane you have a problem with anymore. I finally got you to admit it. Good. Moving on.

gbigly wrote:If the plane in fact were not able to sustain the mach number, it would be due to poor thrust to weight ratio for some reason. HOWEVER, he said CONSTANT NZW, this means it WAS capable of sustaining it, provided you have enough thrust. F-14 has less drag and less parasitic drag when the wings are completely at 68 degrees, which is what they would all be certainly at Mach 2.

no he didn't, according to flight manual even with F-110 GE400 engine , F-14 would barely sustain 1.1G at Mach 1.9[/quote]

Probably could do more than that. HOWEVER, like I said, the f-14 tomcat can sustain 7.5gs (nzw) at mach 2.


garrya wrote:
gbigly wrote: Certainly though, this is the number for the F-14A airframe, as all models that went in service should have the same exact frame. He did not mention specifically A, B or D during the whole "constant NZW" part. And we know this anyways, as that F-14A demo for Iran with wings @ 40 degrees pulled 8.5gs and ACCELERATED.

7.5gs when wings are at 68 degrees is no stretch of the imagination. Even if it's mach 2.

a) The F-14 in iran had less than 12% fuel
b) it also did not sustained 7.5G at Mach 2. Seriously, do you know how much drag is at Mach 2 ??


What does it matter? I said sustained Gs. The entire time I said sustained Gs. Despite using some trickery with my wording in the last post and some others, I actually said absolutely NOTHING about keeping your mach number while sustaining those Gs. Certainly, as another poster has already beautifully pointed out, the entire time the plane turns those 7.5gs and sustains them, it stays above mach speed. So even at mach speeds with hot skin and engines working super hard the F-14 Tomcat can sustain 7.5gs. But I didn't say speed or altitude.

I did use some trickery because I wanted you to spill the beans. I just threw out "blah blah sustain mach number" but I did kinda back up my point here, I said. "HOWEVER, he said SUSTAINED NZW" in other words, i was saying that i understand he didn't say sustained speed. Obviously, it worked. You blabbed too much and from reading all of your posts it is now concrete that you are admitting that no plane does sustained 7.5gs at mach 2 without losing speed and/or altitude. With all your lies and all your fraudulence, this is one truthful thing you've been forced to admit. Thanks for making my job easier.


But you did do the one thing I counted on most of all. You eventually admitted that the tomcat is a seriously strong plane that can sustain 7.5gs even at mach speeds. This proves structurally that the f-14 is very very strong and is no slouch when needed to pull High G maneuvers. This brings us to the end of the debate about the F-14's STRUCTURAL abilities, as the wing loading for the cat just gets LOWER the further the wings are pulled forward allowing for higher G loads, despite you thinking it can't sustain those higher G loads at SOME SPEED OR ALTITUDE. It can still sustain the G-loads, however.

But of course, your only weapon against this plane is the whole "sustaining speed and altitude". Well, the 8.5gs dennis and don pulled and sustained sounded pretty level as they were already at low altitudes and using tons of fuel to pull that stunt.

Here's the thing you don't understand.

The tomcat and the su-27 are very complementary planes. One has slightly less wing area and fixed 42-degree swept wings, while the other has more wing area, but also weighs 4,000 pounds more and has Variable Geometry wings. They both have a flat pancake fuselage/wide nacelle configuration, swept back wings and on the su-27 that mimics the tomcat somewhat as the ailerons and flaps are also angled back further than the f-15 eagles. The funny thing is, the su-27 has 20,000 lbs of fuel maximum and for all that extra fuel it kinda shows as it's about 7 feet longer than the tomcat without those nose probes on either plane, which causes more normal drag in turning. Yet the flanker, with it's very large wing area yet good wing loading can pull and sustain 9gs (with lower than 20,000 lbs of fuel of course) at some speed and at some altitude and sustain that speed and altitude as well. So exactly what is it about you and your hatred of the f-14 tomcat that make you feel that it can't do the same thing, when it has the same basic design of the f-14 flanker? What makes you believe that the tomcat couldn't sustain 9gs with enough thrust to weight ratio without losing speed or altitude? Again, I don't care what speed and altitude the tomcat is limited to sutaining those 9gs WITHOUT losing said speed (whatever speed the f-14 needs) and altitude (whatever altitude the f-14 needs). Why do you believe it's impossible when it's so similar to the flanker in shape, design and size AND aerodynamics?

We already know the plane can sustain High 7.5gs from mach 2 downward to 1. That's with quite a high wing loading, almost as high as the f-16, but when the wings are forward you have lower wing loading, what makes you think it can't sustain higher than that? Well dennis romano said they burned the plane down to 4,500 lbs and they sustained that 8.5gs at 40 degrees of wing sweep and accelerated. At the very LEAST structurally the plane can handle 8.5gs and sustain them. And remember, you cannot turn that tight instantaneously if you couldn't STRUCTURALLY WITHSTAND IT. That means you can sustain those Gs as well.

And btw,The f-35A cannot turn instantaneously 9gs, i gaurantee it. There is no plane that creates some bullshit "vortex bubble" that would protect a plane's structure when pulling instant Gs vs pulling sustained Gs. The wind will hit it just the same. It's just a matter of aerodynamics and thrust. You certainly dont' have good aerodynamics on the f-35 but you also don't have enough wing area to even instantaneously turn 9gs. It has less titanium percentage by WEIGHT than the f-22 raptor does, yet weighs 75% of the weight of the raptor lol. You're not turning 9gs with that high of a wing loading. It's well over 100. Not even the f-4 phantom can turn 9gs and that has acceptable wing loading for a gen 3 fighter.

But of course. You still think the tomcat can't sustain the SPEED AND ALTITUDE at which to turn 9+gs. I already compared it to the flanker. They are basically the same basic design, except one has VG wings, and one has fixed wings. Exactly why is it that at some slow speed, and remember dennis and don apparently pulled those 8.5gs and accelerated to 400 knots which is not a super fast cruising speed, but what makes you think that tomcat can't sustain 9gs and also sustain speed and altitude like the flanker can? Even if you hate it so much that you have to say "well maybe it can sustain 9gs at some speed but it would be SLOWER THAN THE RAPTOR!", Ok fine, so bet it.

At least accept that

1)f-14 tomcat is a seriously strong plane and has a high sustained G tolerance (even if you don't believe it can sustain SPEED AND ALTITUDE)

2)the f-14 tomcat and flanker are very similar planes, with the flanker being quite noticeably larger than the f-14 in many ways, yet the flanker can sustain 9gs AND SUSTAIN the speed and altitude.

c)accelerating doesn't neccesary mean it a sustain turn, since an aircraft can make an instantaneous turn while nose down aka , it can trade alot of potential energy for small amount of kinematic energy. A version of this is the down spiral turn


I said sustained Gs. Not speed or altitude. Although I admit I should have clarified that. I was having too much fun.

Nonetheless, I feel that I have summed up the rest of your post, which is basically, rubbish.

I will add one more thing though.

The government and the military will lie to you. Yes you read that right. I said....

YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. So you know what that means? Your charts really mean nothing. You have to prove the data logically, and I have yet to see any actual proof of why the f-14 couldn't sustain speed and altitude while pulling 9gs. Just stupid numbers on a chart that looks pretty much identical to the f-14A charts.

Certainly, my whole argument from the get go was that this plane, the f-14 should have NEVER been cancelled and it only was due to greedy and corrupt hostile opposition from other companies and the money those companies gave to people like Dick Cheney and his henchman at the department of defense and of course the usuals, congress, presidents, etc.

YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU. And that's exactly what they did with this plane. They tried since the 70s to thwart production. The Iranian purchase of 80 f-14s saved Grumman from bankruptcy This is what you can't understand. The f-14 program was subject to continued down sizing, including the cutting of test funding, multiple control systems and softwares, and it was scruitinized every day until it's eventual retirement in 2006, not too long after the Aim-54 phoenix platform, which some ships apparently were supposed to be equipped with ON DECK (not just on an f-14) to shoot incoming aircraft. was CANCELLED. There was never any credit given to the plane because of all the lockheed martin BRIBE money thrown around secretly to help defund the f-14 and grumman corp.

The main reason the f-14 was so bashed by the government and lockheed and other companies was because the f-14 could effectively intercept an SR-71 blackbird with it's phoenix missiles, which Iran had at the time with their f-14s. Of course this also is tied to the iranian revolution, in which US backed terrorists took over Iran and ousted the Shah.

You know that's the reason the mig-25 which we all know could ALSO potentially intercept an SR-71 blackbird stopped flying over Iran during the soviet days. It's because the f-14 could intercept the mig-25 effectively with it's phoenix missiles. Of course, after word of the mig-25 got out, we stopped flying sr-71 over Soviet territory.

But that's not all. The f-14D had an effective IRST system developed by general electric. This obviously could have threatened sales of the f-22 raptor. The tomcat was retired a year after the deployment of the f-22 raptor, and guess who now owns GE's AN/AAS-42 IRST found on the retired F-14D tomcat? Lockheed Martin. They now call it "IRST-21". Funny though, seeing as the next version of tomcats was the ST-21 variant that was never built.

Oh and btw, the f-16A has a lower wing loading than the f-15C. Still pretty high, however. Then again, it's not much bigger than the mig-21 yet it's several thousand LBS heavier. That's because it's frame is stronger than the mig-21's. For High G maneuvers. This is why the mig-21 is limited to 7g. It's an old plane not designed for higher than 7gs. Period.

Aside from all of this and going off topic, I believe my final answer to this thread will be that the F-14D and F-15E are very similar planes, both dogfight and strike capable. I think the f-14 has the strike mission nailed down, the f-15E is just more simple to maintain and in a dogfight would consume a bit less fuel due to it being lighter than the F-14D. In the end, it would depend on the pilot on who would win in a dogfight, but as a strike platform that depends on range, which the tomcat has, due to VG wings and low drag installations under the fuselage.
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests