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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 10:51

gbigly wrote: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.

Did i said only F-14 has that ? nope.

gbigly wrote: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.

Selective reading again ?. I admit nothing, i simply explained to you what a sustained turn is



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

No it cannot, learn the definition first before you post again

gbigly wrote: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.

It matters because what i told you is official definition of STR.It is what they used in manual and teaching BFM . It also makes a massive different in dogfight. When Ps is 0 or larger your aircraft can maintain that turn rate and altitude until it run out of fuel. On the otherhands, if you trade altitude or speed for G then you end up being a sitting duck very quick.

gbigly wrote:.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

No , you didn't use any trickery. You just don't know the definition of a sustained turn. You would have more dignity if you simply admitted that you didn't know instead of pretending to be a smart a$$ while you don't even understand the meaning of sustained G or wing loading.

gbigly wrote: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.

Again, a sustained G turn is defined as a turn where specific excess power is > or equal 0. In other words, no lost in speed or altitude.

gbigly wrote: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.

I lied where ?. Why don't you quote it out for everyone to see ?. Come on, i dare you :mrgreen:

gbigly wrote: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.

Using your "definition" of sustain G then F-16 structure is much stronger than F-14 since it can "sustained" 9G at Mach speed :wink:

gbigly wrote: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

Wing loading doesn't change as you move it around because reference wing area will be the same. The thing that change is the coefficient of lift. Regardless, F-14 structure limit still much lower than F-16 and the like

gbigly wrote:despite you thinking it can't sustain those higher G loads at SOME SPEED OR ALTITUDE. It can still sustain the G-loads, however.

My posts are not what i think but data direct from flight test. What me or you think is irrelevant

gbigly wrote:But of course, your only weapon against this plane is the whole "sustaining speed and altitude"

One more time, it is the official definition, if you lose altitude or speed while you turn then it is an ITR turn. That is what not only me but everyone else tried to teach you for the last 3-4 pages

gbigly wrote: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

So you argue with " sound" and " feel" now ?


gbigly wrote: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?

They are not the same. Not by a long shot.
a) F-14 has variable geometry wing and wing gloves so that quite a bit more moving parts than Su-27
b) Su-27 has LERX ( and a massive one) that things create vortex when aircraft turn at positive AoA , so su-27 CLmax is much better than aircraft without LERX. And it can achieve that CL value with very little added drag

Image
c) Su-27 is an unstable stable aircraft. So just like F-16, su-27's tail added lift rather than decrease lift, unlike F-14 massive tail
d) Su-27 has better T/W too


gbigly wrote: 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).

You don't care because you don't understand how speed and altitude affect aircraft design. For example: at low altitude F-16 STR is better than F-15, but at high altitude the situation is opposite.

gbigly wrote:We already know the plane can sustain High 7.5gs from mach 2 downward to 1

That is not a sustaining turn, F-14 can make a 7.5G instantaneous turn at Mach 2, and due to the tremendous drag it will be decelerated to Mach 1. For comparison sake F-16 can make a 9G instantaneous turn at Mach2 but no one in their right mind would say F-16 can sustain 9G at Mach 2

gbigly wrote:. 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?

a) what change when you moved wing sweep is CL rather than wing load
b) if you move the wing forward then you will have higher lift but go along with that is higher drag. For a sustained turn, higher drag is bad. One reason why F-16 is so good with STR is the fact that it can generate a lot of lift but with very little drag.


gbigly wrote: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

I already explained this. Just because the structure of aircraft doesn't break up at a certain G value doesn't mean the aircraft will be able to sustain that G value at any given altitude and speed. Why do you think they used EM graph to measure performer between F-16 , Mirage , F-15E ..etc even though they all have similar structure limit ?. It is because lift, drag , thrust matter. Like i have stated in the other thread, F-14 excess at low speed while F-15, F-16 excess at high speed dogfight
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4152&p=363465#p363465

gbigly wrote:And btw,The f-35A cannot turn instantaneously 9gs, i gaurantee it

It has already been tested to 9.9G so your " guarantee" doesn't mean anything

gbigly wrote: 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.

The vortex job is not to increase plane structure strength but to increase lift
Image
Image
Vortex creating device help reduce pressure on the upper surface of the wing. Thus lift is increased alot while at the same time drag rise very little ( to have the same amount of lift by increasing wing area then you will ended up with alot more drag)
Image


gbigly wrote: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.

a) Wing loading of F-35 is actually not that different from F-16 when fuel is equalized for similar mission profiles
b) wing loading is not how you estimate lift.

Image
F-35 has quite big CL due to its negative stable design, vortex device ( chime) , and it isn't AoA limited like F-16 which mean even if CL at similar AoA is the same or inferior to F-16, it can use slightly higher AoA for higher CL value.




gbigly wrote:Even if you hate it so much that you have to say

I don't generally hate it, but i have low tolerance for BS

gbigly wrote: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)

You really need to learn why it is called sustained G value


gbigly wrote: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.

Flanker has better lift/drag , better T/W , negative stability ,less moving parts

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

Just because something doesn't fit your world view doesn't mean it is rubbish. In fact, i believe that deep down you know you lost the argument horribly and try to find a way out

gbigly wrote: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..

Sorry but if i have to choose between flight test data and a random fanboy on the internet that lacked simple understanding of aerodynamic then i would have to go with flight test data. It is a no brainer

gbigly wrote: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

TBH, I have yet to see any logical argument from you.Moreover, the number only looks stupid when you don't understand them

gbigly wrote: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.

Don't try to dodge the question, How about F-106 ? why don't F-15C out turn F-16C significantly ?
If your argument is due to structure G limit then how come F-16 can still out turn Mig-21 at altitude where both of them has less than 7G ITR due to air density ?
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 11:14

gbigly wrote:Because neither of us have access to a working F-14 tomcat to prove our points either way

So let me sum this up, your solution to a lost argument is to come up with an impossible scenario so that opposition can't claim victory? :mrgreen:


gbigly wrote: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

It does if you know how to read them, but i understand it is very hard if you don't have the basics aerodynamic knowledge. There is no shame in that, everyone can learn if they wish to


gbigly wrote:as they are only charts with no concrete evidence they are not faulty

Those charts are data from flight test so they are as accurate as you can get. Or you can take F-16adc approach and find a video of F-14 finishing a turn quickly :wink:


gbigly wrote: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.

So after 4-5 pages of : not understand what a sustained turn is, not understand what wing loading is , not know how to read an EM charts, not know how lift is calculated, not know how vortex improve lift ....etc you still have the confident to say that i haven't proved you wrong. :drool:
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 14:33

NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.

It nor the F-15A/C/E Eagle were(are) the apex of aerospace design. Technology marches on. The Eagle and the Tomcat are from more than four decades ago. LET ME REPEAT THAT, ...OVER FOUR LONG DECADES AGO.

Just because people here are using credible material to buttress their arguments, you assume it to be false? Those are actual NATOPS documents.



1. The Mig-29 and Su-27 were designed by initially envisioning the optimum wing sweep angle (which they both judged to be 42 degrees), second, adding a large LERX, and finally the wide spaced engines. Even Mikhail Simonov (the father of the Flanker) has attested to this. The wide spaced engines/pancake are a RESULT of the large LERX, not the other way around. See, you Grummanites believe that just because any jet has wide spaced engines or a pancake you immediately come to the conclusion that: THEY STOLE IT FROM THE F-14 DESIGN. Or: IT'S A COPY FROM THE F-14.

By using that same illogical thought process, did Grumman and McDonnell Douglas copy the concept of twin vertical tails from the Mig-25 design for their jets?



2. According to Gillcrist's book TOMCAT! THE GRUMMAN F-14 STORY, pg.50, Don and Dennis burned down to 2,500lbs of fuel, not 4,500lbs as you say. Bingo fuel for the original A model was generally 42,000lbs. Evans and Romano were even under that figure.

3. Pg. 253 of the book ROGER BALL!, VX-4 aviator HAWK Smith tested his Tomcat vs a Mig-17 in turn performance: "The turn comparisons were unsettling but not surprising. With the Tomcat's wings manually set to thirty-five degrees, their forward sweep configuration, and both aircraft starting at ten thousand feet and 325 knots, the Mig-17 could maintain altitude and complete a max-rate 360-degree turn while the F-14 still had ninety degrees to go. The Tomcat also bled seventy-five knots and lost several hundred feet in the same turn. The Mig didn't have much of a power plant but it had a terrific wing."

4. You Grummanites exhibit visceral anger of other designs that have certain aerodynamic or performance characteristics superior to the F-14's.


5. And most absurd of all, you Grummanites can't get over the movie TOPGUN. Many of you were not even born in 1986. And probably some of what you learned is from an internet game with false parameters.
Last edited by f-16adf on 28 Mar 2017, 14:03, edited 2 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 15:14

gbigly wrote: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


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.[/quote]


Congrats on going full retard. Not only is a bunch of the above hearsay, conjecture, conspiracy theory, and in some cases outright lie, it's also hilariously nutty and trying to connect coincidence with fact.

So not the US government is lying and can't be believed to conspire against the mighty F-14? To what end? So you can win an argument on the internet decades later?

How do we know the government isn't lying about the tomcat from the start and it can't break mach 1 or turn beyond 5 G? Explain.

Did you know the f-4 has lower wing loading than the f-16? Yet the f-16 is the better turner by far. Can you explain that? Almost like wing loading isn't the be all end all you think. But you also can't separate facts from emotion anyway which is the signature of children

I literally LOLed at the IRST 21/f-22 conspiracy lol dumb dumb dumb. That's the lamest conspiracy I've ever heard. You can. Do better than that you fraud.

I really thought this was a troll, but the key to trolling is using a few select words to get people to go with walls of text. Since he is replying with walls of text

Eagerly waiting to see tomcats performing like f-22s post footage

Also you havn't won sh*t. I'm a Tomcat fan and you are full of it. Not even people in your own camp are on your side.

You lose. And not gracefully
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post27 Mar 2017, 15:45

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.


Fist yourself. You didn't convince a single person not even tomcat fans


YOUR GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY WILL LIE TO YOU.


So we dont have to believe any positive thing they have ever said about the godawful tomcat? The plane that lost a quarter of the fleet to engine failures? That spent it's whole career playing catch up? That was seemingly never ready until the day it was retired?

I'm a Tomcat fan but it's not a perfect airplane. Not by a long shot. It had issues. It killed a lot of its own pilots. It was safety nightmare and not surprisingly when the cold war threat ended so did the tomcat.

If it's all an "LM conspiracy" What LM aircraft replaced the Tomcat? How did LMs conspiracy contribute to the MCDONALD DOUGLAS and later Boeing aircraft that defeated and even replaced it?
Choose Crews
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 555
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post28 Mar 2017, 16:33

This thread was a train wreck.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1732
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post28 Mar 2017, 23:30

gbigly wrote: 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

You are like a 5 years old kid that can't admit that he is wrong

gbigly wrote: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.

There is no better opportunities for this photo
Image
Last edited by eloise on 28 Mar 2017, 23:40, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3291
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post28 Mar 2017, 23:34

eloise wrote:There is no better opportunities for this photo
Image

Absolutely.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Mar 2017, 01:22

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.


This was still the crown jewel of stupid. And thats really saying something.

AAS-42. 42 like Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy. Half of 42 is 21. IRST 21. The LM CFO's daughter is married to a guy who is 21 -- his favorite book is Dune. the massive government conspiracy is obvious.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post29 Mar 2017, 01:44

Image

Looking at all that conspiracy. 141 losses from 1970 to 1999.
Choose Crews
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3534
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post29 Mar 2017, 13:43

Head hurts reading all this.

For my money, F-15C wins vs. F-14A. F-15C vs. F-14D is a toss up. In either event, neither plane nor pilot would have fought so viciously as the two posters in this thread :)
Offline

collimatrix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 159
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 15:27

Unread post29 Mar 2017, 17:27

This is why it's so important to remember to take your medication.
Offline

rnvalencia

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 03 Jun 2014, 12:06

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 14:51

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.




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.


Do you have SU-27's NATOPS equivalent diagram?
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 16:19

Yes, I do.


And I didn't realize the Anatoly Kwotschur (Kvotchur) Su-27 was "lightened" substantially as compared to the baseline Su-27.
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 668
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 17:23

f-16adf wrote:NOBODY HERE HATES THE TOMCAT.


I do! I do!
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
PreviousNext

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests