F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16 (3 Viewers)

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

Same reference as that on F14 gives the F15 at takeoff weight of 41,500 pounds gives a wing loading of 681 pounds/SF. When half fuel is used that drops to 571 pounds/SF. Says nothing about the fuselage providing lift.
 
The F-14's fuselage is shaped like an airfoil, unlike the F-15 or F-16's. The F-14's fuselage is actually pretty thin, and the engines a seperated to create a large airfoil like body, the lift body design, generating a very large amount of the lift the a/c generates. The fences on the top of the fuselage are put there for a reason as well, the a/c acting like one big wing.

f-14a.jpg


drgondog said:
I didn't 'miss' it Soren.

Yes you did, you just don't want to admit it cause you see it totally ruins your comparison.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Amd they'll do it every time if an engagement is played out within the merge and the F-15 driver knows what he's doing (which again would be most of the time). Again the F-14 was a great fleet defender and bomber killer and it could take on some fighters and win most of the time, it its not going to consistently win against an F-15 and I think that was clearly shown.

I agree.

All I wanted to point out was that the F-14 turns better in the horizontal. But that's not at all what makes it better IMO, that would be its radar armament, if the timeframe is right.
 
From Wiki...


Some aircraft with wings also employ bodies that generate lift. The Short SC.7 Skyvan produces 30% of the total lift from the fuselage, almost as much as the 35% each of the wings produces. Fighters like the F-15 Eagle also produce substantial lift from the wide fuselage between the wings.
Apparently, because the F-15 Eagle's wide fuselage is so efficient at lift, an F-15 was able to land successfully with only one wing. (Videos available on YouTube).

On the summer of 1983, an Israeli F-15 staged a mock dogfight with Skyhawks for training purposes, near Nahal Tzin in the Negev desert. During the exercise, one of the Skyhawks miscalculated and collided forcefully with the F-15's wing root. The F-15's pilot was aware that the wing had been seriously damaged, but decided to try and land in a nearby airbase, not knowing the extent of his wing damage. It was only after he had landed, when he climbed out of the cockpit and looked backward, that the pilot realized what had happened: the wing had been completely torn off the plane, and he had landed the plane with only one wing attached. A few months later, the damaged F-15 had been given a new wing, and returned to operational duty in the squadron. The engineers at McDonnell Douglas had a hard time believing the story of the one-winged landing: as far as their planning models were concerned, this was an impossibility.
 
Here's what I got:

""On May 1, 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, a F-15D collided with a A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nedivi, and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was torn off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The pilot managed to regain control of the aircraft and prevented it from stalling, ultimately landing the crippled aircraft successfully. The F-15 was able to stay in the air because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the large and effective stabilators and the surviving wing. Landing at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary lift, although the tailhook was torn off completely during the landing, Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 feet (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted as saying "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened."
 
The F-14's fuselage is shaped like an airfoil, unlike the F-15 or F-16's. The F-14's fuselage is actually pretty thin, and the engines a seperated to create a large airfoil like body, the lift body design, generating a very large amount of the lift the a/c generates. The fences on the top of the fuselage are put there for a reason as well, the a/c acting like one big wing.

Yes you did, you just don't want to admit it cause you see it totally ruins your comparison.

Did you see my post 157 before your 162 - in reply to KK on that question?

Ahh - you care to venture an opinion as to why the F-14 cannot compete with either the F-16 or F-15 in ROC - as an 'all wing design'. Surely that would help compensate for a lower T/W ratio.

Do you have any data regarding lift contribution as a function of AoA for any of these ships to produce a fact base comparison of the wing-body

You care to post the L/D for the F-14 wing body versus the other two to demonstrate that the incremental lift of the F-14 fuse overcomes the F-15 body lift at high AoA?

Do you have a Drag Polar for comparison purposes to back up your claim?

Is your primary fact base your mark one eyeball or do you have data?
 
Here's what I got:

""On May 1, 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, a F-15D collided with a A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nedivi, and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was torn off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The pilot managed to regain control of the aircraft and prevented it from stalling, ultimately landing the crippled aircraft successfully. The F-15 was able to stay in the air because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the large and effective stabilators and the surviving wing. Landing at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary lift, although the tailhook was torn off completely during the landing, Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 feet (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted as saying "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened."

Would you say that the F-15 does NOT have body lift characteristics?
 
On the F-14:
"According to Bill Gunston, the F-14 would employ essentially swinging versions of the same wings used by Grumman's A-6 Intruder subsonic bomber[citation needed]. It had not only a large wing area, but a wide, flat pancake body to increase lift and lower drag. Flaps and slats could be deployed at full forward sweep for full maneuverability even at combat speeds, while special maneuvering flaps were designed, though later disabled after tests showing reduced stability. This gives an edge to the F-14 at very slow and supersonic speeds compared to fixed wings optimized for low supersonic speeds.[10] Engineering manager Bob Kress says that the wings gave very good turning performance. Maneuverability was predicted to be twice that of the F-4, especially at high speed and altitude, later verified in tests against F-4Js.[11]

The F-14 with wings at full forward sweep resembles a huge bat. Since the adoption of the F-14, the fighter slang term "bat turn" has been used to describe a maximum G 180 degree turn in full afterburner, a signature tactic of Tomcat crews[citation needed]. Aviation writer Bill Gunston, however notes that opposing pilots have learned to read the F-14's wings to judge its energy status and speed."
 
No, but not near as much as the F-14.

And you quantify your 'feelings about this', How?

What is 'near as much', or 'slightly less' or 'far superior' in your world Soren?

You live in a world of extreme absolutes, and do not have the capacity to respond well when people question the 'irrefutable'..
 
Ahh - you care to venture an opinion as to why the F-14 cannot compete with either the F-16 or F-15 in ROC - as an 'all wing design'. Surely that would help compensate for a lower T/W ratio.

No, not in a near vertical climb, a flying wing (Which the F-14 isn't) doesn't possess any advantage there at all, you should know that. A T/W ratio of more than 1, like that of the F-15, means you can climb vertically or very close to, which is much faster as apposed to doing it at say 60 degrees from the horizontal.

And YES the lifting body design does help the climb rate of the F-14, but not in the vertical.
 
There's a reason the engines are seperated they way they are Bill, unlike on the F-15. And there's a reason for the fences on top of the F-14's body as-well.
 
No, not in a near vertical climb, a flying wing (Which the F-14 isn't) doesn't possess any advantage there at all, you should know that. A T/W ratio of more than 1, like that of the F-15, means you can climb vertically or very close to, which is much faster as apposed to doing it at say 60 degrees from the horizontal.

Soren - a 'fying wing' has generally SUBSTANTIALLY less parasite drag - which is why the B-49 and the B-2 are such efficient airframes.

If the wingbody combination of the F-14 remotely approached a flying wing in overall airframe efficiency, it would be a major advantage in energy bleed.. but guess what, the F-14 apparently loses energy faster that the F-16 and F-15..

so how do you explain that with the marvelous flying wing capability represented by the 'airfoil like (as you describe it) fuselage of the F-14?
 
If the wingbody combination of the F-14 remotely approached a flying wing in overall airframe efficiency, it would be a major advantage in energy bleed.. but guess what, the F-14 apparently loses energy faster that the F-16 and F-15..

And exactly how have you come to that conclusion ??

In the horizontal it gives it an advantage yes, but not in the vertical where the T/W is the dominant factor.
 
Yes you did, you just don't want to admit it cause you see it totally ruins your comparison.

Soren, this is exactly the typical post tenor from you that grates on people. It is one thing to disagree, but another to effectively call Drgondog a liar. You may have issue with Drgondog's conclusions, but to refute his conclusions one must engage with the argument logic.

I personally believe you are so damn hard headed that you are unable to admit that you cannot substantiate your argument to a level that is offered by the opposing side. To continue to debate your position without a commensurate technical refutation by yourself only serves to depict you as an insufferable "know-it-all" who bases his position upon emotion. Right or wrong, this only serves to paint your character as one steeped in arrogance and egotism.

You offer some good basis for discussion in support of the F-14. However, inability to admit that your knowledge in a given field just might be somewhat limited, or perhaps even one of your points might be fraught with technical errors, or maybe just one of your arguments cannot be substantiated by an area of science in which you might have technical ignorance frankly is tiresome. There are bigger dogs in the world than Soren the Almighty.

Sorry buddy, but when arguing logical conclusions based upon math, you either identify the mathematical error(s) or keep your mouth shut so that your ignorance of fluid dynamics does not become glaringly apparent to the masses. I don't purport to be a master in this area, but you don't see me issuing perjoratives to another forum members who clearly demonstrates a superior knowledge base for their argument derived from extensive professional experience. Perhaps you too might wish to take heed. To do otherwise only supports my second paragraph.
 
yup....guys this is a very interesting discussion, and i for one would really not like to see it terrminated for the dumbass reason that people are not able to respect the views of other members. Guys, these are just opinions, nobody is making you change your minds....but nobody can force another to change their minds either. And we are going to change nothing by simply discussing the issue. So, my two cents worth, show some respect for each other for christs sake...that means you soren...I know you have a lot of knowledge on a lot of things, but you have this way of getting on the wrong side of people which just goes wrong
 
I know you have a lot of knowledge on a lot of things, but you have this way of getting on the wrong side of people which just goes wrong

Well said, parisfal. And for the record, I UTTERLY agree with the bold. Soren, you are a valuable member of this forum. And you do have an extensive knowledge base.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back