F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16 (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thanks for the kind words, but with all due respect Bill has made worse insinuations toward me than the one I made right there.

And I am not calling him a liar, but he's unwilling to admit his mistakes, which bothers me.
 
You know this could be a VERY interesting debate if it went something like this:

Soren: According to a friend of mine, a former Navy pilot, the F-14 Tomcat turns better than the F-18 F-15, the reason being that etc etc...

Bill: Well let me look into that, perhaps his words can be explained, perhaps the F-14 does turn better, perhaps it doesn't, let's look at the figures, speak of what we do know and what is said by different people etc etc...
 
Soren, you dolt, they aren't kind words man! C'mon buddy. :lol: You just don't get it.

Here's another from the Sound Barrier thread:
Bill that is a lie, I never mentioned the Mustang, all I said was I doubt that the Spitfire ever reached Mach .9 in a dive, I think Mach .82 seems a lot more reasonable.

How many times are you going to commit this sin. You are in IFC weather and about to spiral in.
 
Soren, you dolt, they aren't kind words man! C'mon buddy. :lol: You just don't get it.

Tell me something I don't know ;)

How many times are you going to commit this sin. You are in IFC weather and about to spiral in.

Well I DIDN'T mention the Mustang, so what are you going to make of that ?

I mean he hardheadedly claims that I made some claim regarding the Mustang's critical Mach number, but I infact never even mentioned the Mustang. He gets away with this all the time, claiming I said something I didn't.

PS: Note that in the very same thread he claimed that I lied about mixing up trailing edge Leading edge shockwaves..
 
From another forum, some of it is quite interesting:

"
QUOTE(Name Taker @ Jan 31 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]195405[/snapback]
Theoretically the Eagle should win against the Tomcat. The Tomcat has the advantage of speed, while the Eagle has the advantage of mobility. I don't know who has the better weapons (Probably the Eagle, but the Pheonix is good) or is more stable. In the end though it's usually the pilot.




The Eagle did not have the advantage in regards to agility. It had a wider envelope than the F-14A (Thanks to the F-14A's troublesome TF30s), however in more instances than not, the F-15 found it's self falling prey to the Tomcat WVR. When both aircraft first came online, they had the same weapon systems fundamentally. M61, AIM-9, and AIM-7. It wasn't until the AIM-120 was integrated into the F-15C that the Tomcat was given a serious disadvantage. Nevertheless, F-14B and F-14D could match not only the F-15 in a two-circle turning fight (The A could really only do horizontal), but it was more than a match for the F-16 family. A story related by Dave Parsons sums it up. "After landing after doing a Excersize against a F-16N, I remember the pilot telling me Do you know how BIG your intakes look when they're behind you?! They told us you couldn't turn with us!"




QUOTE(Spartan 120 @ Jan 31 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]195445[/snapback]

But not exclusively the pilot. The aircraft also makes a difference. Eagle Drivers had a pretty seriouys respect for the Tomcat WVR, at least the ones with the Big Engine, because it held its knots extremely well with its wings spread. The F110 engine also gave it a huge energy reserve to work with.


You're right about 75% of the way. But the F-14A could just as easily give--and did give-- the F-15 a pretty bad reputation when they entered service. Another story by Dave Parsons




QUOTE


One of young guys at Langley went to the local paper after the movie Top Gun came out saying how mighty his F-15C was and how he, too, "ate Tomcats for breakfast". OPs O at VF-101 read it and called his counterpart at Langley and said "You know what has to happen..." So 2 Eagles vs 2 Tomcats (A models) with the young boaster with his Ops O and VF-101 OPs O with a student. Both engagements were 2 zip in favor of Tomcat with OPs O gunning is counterpart (coughed a motor in process but kept on closing for guns) and student taking out the proud Eagle driver. The phone debrief included the statement from the Eagle Ops O, "I don't think he'll be talking to the papers anymore".






Another story by MDOG at Tomcat-Sunset.com


QUOTE
"As for the B in ACM, the motors NEVER stalled no matter how you jockeyed the throttles and the thing can go "over the top" at 230 kts. We would routinely use asymmetric thrust in a low speed, rolling scissors just to turn the aircraft quicker in the vertical. The only better jet in my opinion in a dogfight was the F-16N. Absolute best you could do against that Viper was a snap gun at the hard deck after a HARD, tight fight down to the deck. You'd better have killed him or he could get the vertical back before you could believe it or not, and then it's game over."

Also interesting is his following remark, something a lot of us overlook when it comes to the F-14's performance:

"Something else I should mention. Before [that] 1988 Red Flag deployment, no one could remember the USAF F-111s being run down by anything on the deck, but the Bs did it! In fact, I know Reb Edwards (former test pilot and astronaut) who did the low altitude, high-speed tests on the B at Pax River. He had it up to 830 kts at 500 ft and it was still accelerating when he pulled it back. What a machine!"




A story retold by Tom Cooper, originally by a Iranian Tomcat pilot.


QUOTE
About "early F-14A vs early F-15A":
Both the F-14A/F-15A have great visibility, both have roomy cockpits built for pilots, both have top of the line airframes, both have excellent state of the art avionics, both have powerful engines, and the F-15A/F-14A both have great maneuverability and this is well known by all, even the dumb Russians. The F-15A/F-14A, as aerodynamic platforms will both permit precise target tracking during air-to-air combat, and there are no real angle of attack limits on the F-15A or F-14A in or during combat (training yes). However, the F-15A is not as maneuverable as the F-14A, the F-15A comes close, but the F-14As variable geometry wings and airfoil qualities give the F-14A in fact a great advantage in aerial combat maneuvering every time against the F-15A. In fact at low level with 'pilots of equal skill' the F-14A will always win against the F-15A.

Now you will ask me how do I know this as fact?

Along with 3 other xxxx-pilots during 1975, I was honored to be allowed to take part in a joint USAF/USN air combat evaluation test in the United States. Our group were sent to just be observers but as the Americans found out we were xxxx-F-4E pilots we were soon (and willingly) drafted into the USAF and I was allowed to fly in the two seat F-15B during mock air-to-air combat at Nellis Air Force Base, USA for some 22+ hours of combat training. We flew the USAF F-15A/Bs against a large number of USAF F-4D/E, F-5/T38, F-106A/B, and the USN F-14A, but all of our USAF F-15A pilot host had only one wish, and that was to take on the USNs new F-14As in mock combat. The USAF F-15A pilots only wanted to fly against the best at the evaluation test, the F-14A, and only the F-14As with their USN pilots defeated the F-15A every time during these test combats. As I recall almost all of the USAF F-15A pilots and USN F-14A pilots at this test were ex-F-4 pilots and war tested by Vietnam. I can also recall that some of these pilots had even killed MIGs in Vietnam combat, and one USN pilot had in fact killed an Egyptian Air Force Mig-21FL during the 1973 War as he was flying IDF/AF F-4E. These were most excellent pilots for sure, but none were more professional then the USN F-14A pilots sent to Nellis for this test in my opinion....




This is by another tomcat driver


QUOTE
At the time, F-14 vs. F-15 ACM was supposedly verboten, mostly for political reasons. The Japanese Diet was considering an F-15 buy at the time, and the last thing anyone wanted was any bad F-15 publicity.

Meanwhile, VF-1 positioning out of Fallon, participated in a large Air Force exercise (authorized/unauthorized?) involving among others, eager F-15's.

Studying the charts, we believed that the F-15 might have advantages in many areas, but the F-14 might have some in other flight regimes. We flew as we had prepared, and surprised even ourselves with our overwhelming success over the F-15's – both in our favored regimes, and surprisingly, even in theirs.

Unfortunately, there was a covert journalist in the woodwork (Flight International, as I recall). He later published a long article on how the new Navy F-14's had really beaten up on the Air Force F-15's (which we indeed had), and that the F-14 was far superior than the F-15 (which it was not . . . at least not "far" superior . The article caused some serious, international consternation.

As you correctly indicate, we early F-14A pilots had the advantage of being combat experienced - our squadron had a couple of MiG killers - and many had prior, extensive ACM experience in the F-4. VF-1 may have been a stacked deck, but we had rookies too, and yet we still prevailed. I suspect (no, I'm sure) the Air Force also stacked their deck, and still lost.

Unfortunately, because of the publicity of our F-14's prevailing over their F-15's, our CO got in international, diplomatic, and political, hot water. But all worked out well in the end. And our early success, despite the early F-14A's real handicaps, remains.




And one more anecdote.


QUOTE
The F-14As have very straightforward handling characteristics which for me as pilot made aircraft maneuverability an extension of my dreams and imagination. With just some 100 hours flying time in the F-14A I could pull up a 25 degree angle of attack at about 75mph and roll 360 degrees. The maximum pitch rate is greater then 60 degrees per second....with this capability, I could pitch my F-14A up at a 75 degree attitude and then snap around in just over one second...to acquire...with my 20mm gun system or Sidewinder. Even today I think any pilot would be hard pressed to take on an F-14A in dogfight and win with anything but F-18 or F-22....
"
 
A pretty good comparison between the F-14 F-16:

"I am an F-16 fan as well as a Tomcat fan. While I know more about the F-16's flight performance than I do the F-14A, B, or D's, I know enough to say that it's not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be. First off, if you were to compare an F-16C Block 50/52 with CFTs and a full A-A weapons load (4xAIM-120 + 2xAIM-9 and full internal + CFT fuel load) with, say, an F-14D carrying 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9 (full internal fuel), neither aircraft would be especially nimble in the phone booth. So let's take both aircraft with only 1/2 internal fuel (including CFTs for the F-16). In this case the F-14D is still going to be heavier, but less draggy due to the semi-recessed AIM-7 stations on the "pancake" belly section. The outboard weapons stations carrying the AIM-9s probably don't add much to the overall airframe drag count either. The T/W ratio is probably somewhat comparable for both aircraft in their respective configurations as well.

Where will the F-16 have the advantage? Down low in the heart of its envelope where it can pull 9 G above its corner plateau speed range and close to 20 degrees per second within the corner plateau region. The F-16 doesn't have an exact corner velocity (usually); it has an airspeed range in which it can turn at maximum instantaneous turn rate. At medium to high altitudes, the F-14 will have the advantage due to its huge lifting area. The F-16 in question likely won't even be able to sustain 9G at 10,000 ft. let alone 15-20,000. I don't know what the F-14's G rating is in the configuration stated, but I know it can sustain fairly high load factors over a very wide range of speeds and altitudes. We're talking 7.5 G+. It can also maintain very high angles of attack... well in excess of the F-16's 25 deg. limit (which can only be sustained at 1G).

So let's say these two aircraft somehow manage to engage each other at very close ranges without an opportunity to employ their medium range air-air missiles. They both surprise each other and before either pilot (or pilot and RIO for the F-14D) have a chance to employ missiles, the two aircraft merge. The idea now is to keep from falling back into each other's weapons parameters. The fight has to stay somewhat close. Attempting to flee the fight might result in a successful rear quarter heater or, more likely, slammer/sparrow attack. The options post merge are either a rate fight or a radius fight. F-16 likely wins the rate fight at low altitude. Medium altitude is a tossup. The radius fight favors the F-14 at pretty much all altitudes. If the flight gets slow, the F-16's only hope is to engage the F-14 in a rolling scissors type engagement. The F-14's roll rate/performance is notoriously poor, and the F-16's notoriously deadly.

The F-16 is, however, a notoriously poor slow speed dogfighter in terms of turn rate and radius. This is due to its blended AoA/G limiter. HAL, as an Eagle driver once described it to me, kicks in for the F-16 making sub-300 knot turn rates and radii less than desirable. Nose pointing authority when you're pegged up against the limiter is... well... very limited. The F-16 pilot needs to force a 2-circle fight with the F-14 adversary. If he lets the fight go 1-circle, the only hope for the F-16 is to not get caught on the second merge and initiate a rolling scissor type fight. If the F-14 crew allow the F-16 to dictate a 2-circle fight, they're probably asking for trouble.

If things get really dicey and both pilots have to go into their bag of trick maneuvers, the Tomcat driver will have more to choose from. The Viper driver will be hard-pressed to force the Turkey driver to overshoot. On the other hand, the Turkey driver has all sorts of options when it comes to dumping a lot of airspeed while simultaneously rapidly changing course. The only problem for the F-14 is its poor roll authority. Even if the Turkey driver forces an overshoot, capitalizing on it is another story. He may still have to roll his aircraft through 180 or more to re-engage the F-16. Meanwhile the F-16 is making a [hopefully intelligent] maneuver go get back behind the F-14's 3/9 line.

If the fight is fought primarily in the vertical plane, the F-16 will probably have the advantage on its way up from low altitude to engage the F-14 screaming down from the heavens. You do not want to be messing with an F-16 coming up to meet you at the merge. If it's got some extra smash, that's even more dangerous because it will pull a high yo-yo turn like you'd never believe and be on your sorry behind on the downwind leg before you can even say, "S$!t Goose! I lost him!" (Or something like that... hehehe.) The Turkey driver must strive to stay below the Viper foe until a merge occurs, at which point it can use its powerful rudders and lifting body to maintain an advantageous position above and behind the F-16. A vertical fight that consists mainly of vertical turns (i.e. loops) will go to the F-16, however. Even at low speed, it can power its way up and over the top again and again. The F-14 must use oblique plane trickery in the vertical fight. Fighting in-plane with an F-16 in the vertical is a no no. Vertical rolling scissors... probably a big no no. Probably worse than a conventional rolling scissors.

Tell me folks... have you ever seen a quick, lean, and mean boxer get knocked out by a slower, seemingly lazy/lack-luster boxer? I know I have. Have you ever seen a bigger, slower point NBA point guard (Chancey Billups comes to mind) put the moves on a taller, faster defender to get to the hole and lay it in so high off the backboard that not even Yao Ming has a chance of swatting it? I definitely have. It's not just about pilot skill... it's about aircraft capabilities and pilot skill. The pilot uses his skill to avoid being in the wrong place at the wrong time when his aircraft's capabilities are inferior to his opponent's. Once this pilot's aircraft reaches a point in space and time where it's relatively equal in performance/offensive capabilities to the opposing aircraft, he uses his pilot skill and aircraft's capabilities to maintain this relative performance neutrality. Depending on aircraft mixing it up, two excellent pilots might end up trying to get position on the other without luck until bingo fuel. Then it's like a game of chicken. The outcome might be akin to a soccer (football for all the non-Americans) match coming down to the penalty kicks and one team's goal keeper ends up putting his team ahead by 1 after everyone else on both sides (except the opposing goal keeper) has either made or missed each round of kicks. You have a technical winner of the match, but you have no idea which team is really better. Perhaps you have an idea of which team's goal keeper is more adept at taking penalty shots, but really..."
 
I see what you mean Soren, nice pics. ;)

It's almost like the foreward section of the fuselage with the cockpit etc is actuall more of a cenral pod (ie P-38 ) mounted on the wing with the encine nacelles slun under the wing and not blended into a central fuselage like the F-15 or F-16.


And qualitatively it would apear that the F-14 has more lifting area availiable per weight. However as Bill has been pressing, without actual quatitative data for comparison you can't say anything definitively.



And while I don't really like to get into the whole behavior/personality issue, noth of you guys tend to talk past eachother a fair amount and misunderstand or misenterpret what the other was claiming. This is where the "liar" often comes in, the misenterpretation often seems to stem from not being clear when changing concepts you're -particularly Soren- discussing, ie starting a new paragraph, or not clarifying a claim before jumping to a seperate issue. (I think this is what happened with the span loading comment)
Then things escalate etc... Many of us here tend to be stubborn too, so that doen't help. ;)

And I think the think that gets to Bill is that you tend to state things as fact (or in a statement that apears that way) while it may just be speculation. (this current case in point)
 
I remember the pilot telling me Do you know how BIG your intakes look when they're behind you?! They told us you couldn't turn with us!"
At what speeds?

QUOTE(Spartan 120 @ Jan 31 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]195445[/snapback]

But not exclusively the pilot. The aircraft also makes a difference. Eagle Drivers had a pretty seriouys respect for the Tomcat WVR, at least the ones with the Big Engine, because it held its knots extremely well with its wings spread. The F110 engine also gave it a huge energy reserve to work with.


You're right about 75% of the way. But the F-14A could just as easily give--and did give-- the F-15 a pretty bad reputation when they entered service. Another story by Dave Parsons
If all this was so, why were F-18s sent to William Tell in lieu of the 14, and again I'd like to know the specifics.


QUOTE

One of young guys at Langley went to the local paper after the movie Top Gun came out saying how mighty his F-15C was and how he, too, "ate Tomcats for breakfast". OPs O at VF-101 read it and called his counterpart at Langley and said "You know what has to happen..." So 2 Eagles vs 2 Tomcats (A models) with the young boaster with his Ops O and VF-101 OPs O with a student. Both engagements were 2 zip in favor of Tomcat with OPs O gunning is counterpart (coughed a motor in process but kept on closing for guns) and student taking out the proud Eagle driver. The phone debrief included the statement from the Eagle Ops O, "I don't think he'll be talking to the papers anymore".
Pilot skill?

Another story by MDOG at Tomcat-Sunset.com


QUOTE
"As for the B in ACM, the motors NEVER stalled no matter how you jockeyed the throttles and the thing can go "over the top" at 230 kts. We would routinely use asymmetric thrust in a low speed, rolling scissors just to turn the aircraft quicker in the vertical. The only better jet in my opinion in a dogfight was the F-16N. Absolute best you could do against that Viper was a snap gun at the hard deck after a HARD, tight fight down to the deck. You'd better have killed him or he could get the vertical back before you could believe it or not, and then it's game over."
Again, this is low speed and the enviornment is set up for training
Also interesting is his following remark, something a lot of us overlook when it comes to the F-14's performance:

"Something else I should mention. Before [that] 1988 Red Flag deployment, no one could remember the USAF F-111s being run down by anything on the deck, but the Bs did it! In fact, I know Reb Edwards (former test pilot and astronaut) who did the low altitude, high-speed tests on the B at Pax River. He had it up to 830 kts at 500 ft and it was still accelerating when he pulled it back. What a machine!"
The F-111 and F-15 would accelerate until they started self destructing - the same with the B-1/ From a very reliable source who flew 111s, F-15s and B-1s ;)


A story retold by Tom Cooper, originally by a Iranian Tomcat pilot.


QUOTE
About "early F-14A vs early F-15A":
Both the F-14A/F-15A have great visibility, both have roomy cockpits built for pilots, both have top of the line airframes, both have excellent state of the art avionics, both have powerful engines, and the F-15A/F-14A both have great maneuverability and this is well known by all, even the dumb Russians. The F-15A/F-14A, as aerodynamic platforms will both permit precise target tracking during air-to-air combat, and there are no real angle of attack limits on the F-15A or F-14A in or during combat (training yes). However, the F-15A is not as maneuverable as the F-14A, the F-15A comes close, but the F-14As variable geometry wings and airfoil qualities give the F-14A in fact a great advantage in aerial combat maneuvering every time against the F-15A. In fact at low level with 'pilots of equal skill' the F-14A will always win against the F-15A.

Now you will ask me how do I know this as fact?

Along with 3 other xxxx-pilots during 1975, I was honored to be allowed to take part in a joint USAF/USN air combat evaluation test in the United States. Our group were sent to just be observers but as the Americans found out we were xxxx-F-4E pilots we were soon (and willingly) drafted into the USAF and I was allowed to fly in the two seat F-15B during mock air-to-air combat at Nellis Air Force Base, USA for some 22+ hours of combat training. We flew the USAF F-15A/Bs against a large number of USAF F-4D/E, F-5/T38, F-106A/B, and the USN F-14A, but all of our USAF F-15A pilot host had only one wish, and that was to take on the USNs new F-14As in mock combat. The USAF F-15A pilots only wanted to fly against the best at the evaluation test, the F-14A, and only the F-14As with their USN pilots defeated the F-15A every time during these test combats. As I recall almost all of the USAF F-15A pilots and USN F-14A pilots at this test were ex-F-4 pilots and war tested by Vietnam. I can also recall that some of these pilots had even killed MIGs in Vietnam combat, and one USN pilot had in fact killed an Egyptian Air Force Mig-21FL during the 1973 War as he was flying IDF/AF F-4E. These were most excellent pilots for sure, but none were more professional then the USN F-14A pilots sent to Nellis for this test in my opinion....
Again an opinion



This is by another tomcat driver


QUOTE
At the time, F-14 vs. F-15 ACM was supposedly verboten, mostly for political reasons. The Japanese Diet was considering an F-15 buy at the time, and the last thing anyone wanted was any bad F-15 publicity.

Meanwhile, VF-1 positioning out of Fallon, participated in a large Air Force exercise (authorized/unauthorized?) involving among others, eager F-15's.

Studying the charts, we believed that the F-15 might have advantages in many areas, but the F-14 might have some in other flight regimes. We flew as we had prepared, and surprised even ourselves with our overwhelming success over the F-15's – both in our favored regimes, and surprisingly, even in theirs.

Unfortunately, there was a covert journalist in the woodwork (Flight International, as I recall). He later published a long article on how the new Navy F-14's had really beaten up on the Air Force F-15's (which we indeed had), and that the F-14 was far superior than the F-15 (which it was not . . . at least not "far" superior . The article caused some serious, international consternation.

As you correctly indicate, we early F-14A pilots had the advantage of being combat experienced - our squadron had a couple of MiG killers - and many had prior, extensive ACM experience in the F-4. VF-1 may have been a stacked deck, but we had rookies too, and yet we still prevailed. I suspect (no, I'm sure) the Air Force also stacked their deck, and still lost.

Unfortunately, because of the publicity of our F-14's prevailing over their F-15's, our CO got in international, diplomatic, and political, hot water. But all worked out well in the end. And our early success, despite the early F-14A's real handicaps, remains.




And one more anecdote.


QUOTE
The F-14As have very straightforward handling characteristics which for me as pilot made aircraft maneuverability an extension of my dreams and imagination. With just some 100 hours flying time in the F-14A I could pull up a 25 degree angle of attack at about 75mph and roll 360 degrees. The maximum pitch rate is greater then 60 degrees per second....with this capability, I could pitch my F-14A up at a 75 degree attitude and then snap around in just over one second...to acquire...with my 20mm gun system or Sidewinder. Even today I think any pilot would be hard pressed to take on an F-14A in dogfight and win with anything but F-18 or F-22....
"[/I]
Again a lot of opinions - I could go into work and interview 4 or 5 Eagle drivers who would come up with similar stories. I think its going to depend what kind of combat scenario you place the aircraft in to see which is the better of the two. IMO BVR the F-14 has it, once its within the merge at high speed, its going to be the F-15. Jockey speeds and altitudes and the F-14 could be placed in an advantage.
 
Would not the reason the F18 was sent to William Tell be because it is supposed to be the supreme dogfighter. Another reason might be the F14 maintenance issues. Incidently, when I had the long conversation with the Tomcat driver at Gunc, he told me that often when a Tomcat came back to the fleet after service at Top Gun, the AC would be sightly "bent" and never performed as well afterwards. Early in this thread I mentioned that I had heard that since the Tomcat carried most of it's exterior stores "conformally" which eliminated much of the drag caused by these stores, it would seem that a Tomcat loaded with missiles, bombs, etc. would have a significant performance advantage over a similarly loaded aggresor AC. That was one of the arguments used in favor of the Strike Tomcat proposal over the F18e-F.
 
Tell me something I don't know ;)



Well I DIDN'T mention the Mustang, so what are you going to make of that ?

I mean he hardheadedly claims that I made some claim regarding the Mustang's critical Mach number, but I infact never even mentioned the Mustang. He gets away with this all the time, claiming I said something I didn't.

PS: Note that in the very same thread he claimed that I lied about mixing up trailing edge Leading edge shockwaves..

Soren - just a brief comment. I was the first one to mention Mustang in the context of UNRELIABLE airspeed indicators. When you posed the '1100 kmh' reference for the me 262 I first asked you if that means you believe Mustang encounter reports that claimed 'I was doing 620 mph in the dive'.

I call those reports 'unreliable' and tried to use that as a reason for you to not accept anecdotal recounts of Mach 1 achievement on face value based on instrument readings.

That was the context. I brought anecdotal references to speeds that did not exist based on flawed transonic instrumentation..

You misinterpreted what I said and called me a liar for bringing the Mustang up as YOUR reference - which I did not do. Go back a couple of pages from that 'delicate statement' and read what I said.

Many times you make an unequivocal statement and get angry when someone questions you - then it goes down hill. Most of our battles result when you step into a subject that you don't fully understand or have all the facts and aerodynamics and Structures and aeroelasticity are included in that field.


I have made mistakes and I have no problem admitting them - and won't have a problem in the future.

I called you out on your 'stream tube' theory as you either copied it or composed it yourself - without understanding what really controls the physics and the theory of lifting lines and tip vortices.

Perhaps if I had been gentler and simple said

"So, explain what you mean. Are you saying a perfect 1/2 scale F-14 with same AR, 1/2 span, 1/2 wing area, 1/2 weight, and flying in a 1/2 diameter 'stream tube will exhibit more, same or less theoretical lift line, lift distribution, and tip vortex?"

And you would have responded with precision why you think one of those woul have 'greater lift/area' than the other.

I have called you a bonehead in the past - probably when we were in the great suction = draq debate on Lednicer's model - but you are not stupid and I know that.

If I have ever called you stupid I apologise.
 
I have never heard of the Strike Tomcat proposal? any info?

A "new" model of the Tomcat was originally considered back when the Navy first started thinking about the next generation of strike platforms, which eventually resulted in the F-18E/F. Grumman proposed reopening the F-14 production line; no model number was assigned (it would probably have been the F-14E), but Grumman called it the Attack Super Tomcat 21. It probably would've gotten the AN/APG-71 radar, as well as the GE F-110 engines of the "D".
 
"The Super Tomcat 21 is a proposed multi-role adaptation of the F-14D Tomcat. It was proposed as a low-cost alternative to the Naval ATF, and drew heavily on the work done on Grumman's "Quickstrike" proposal.

Like the "Quickstrike", the Super Tomcat 21 was to have a FLIR, and was to be provided with more modes for its APG-71 radar, such as synthetic aperture and Doppler Beam Sharpening for mapping. The new multimode radar would have a two-dimensional, passive, electronically scanned array giving twice the power of AN/APG-71 of the F-14D. All of the FLIRS would be located on either side of the aircraft just below the nose. Four underfuselage hardpoints would have five munitions substations each, while the two wing glove pylons would have two substations. Navigation and targeting pods could be installed. The Super Tomcat 21 differed, however, from the Quickstrike in making an attempt to reduce its radar cross section by a significant amount. In addition, it was to have been powered by improved F110-GE-129 turbofan engines which offered "supercruise" (the ability to achieve sustained supersonic cruising speeds without the need for afterburning) and would even have included thrust vectoring capability. It was anticipated that the 35 percent increase in thrust would allow the aircraft to supercruise at Mach 1.3 with four air-to-air missiles. The Super Tomcat 21 would also have featured enlarged tailplanes with extended trailing edges giving greater area, plus newly-configured wing gloves housing additional internal fuel. It would also have featured increased-lift slotted flaps and extended-chord leading edge wing slats to allow no-wind carrier takeoffs or conventional carrier takeoffs at higher loaded weights. A new more powerful radar suite would be fitted, and the weapons delivery capability would be markedly enhanced by the adoption of helmet-mounted sights. The crew would have a single-piece canopy.

The combat radius of the Super Tomcat 21 would have been almost twice that of the F-14D. More than twice the expendables would be carried by the Super Tomcat 21, with BOZ chaff dispensers carried on LAU-7 launchers and 135 chaff/flare packets instead of 60 as carried on the F-14D. The revised airframe would have hade 25 percent greater lift and 15 percent lower landing speed.

The Attack Super Tomcat 21 was based on the Super Tomcat 21 but had thicker outer wing panels that carried more fuel. In addition, the aircraft would have provision for carrying larger external fuel tanks. Refinements to the leading-edge slats and the trailing-edge flaps were to give a 18-mph reduction in the landing approach speed. The aircraft was to have had the Norden radar that had been developed for the abortive General Dynamics/McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II. The Attack Super Tomcat 21 has received quite a bit of attention as a potential alternative to the cancelled A-12.

However, in the present military drawdown mode, both of these Tomcat 21 proposals were never proceeded with. "
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back