Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 281

F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16

Polls Discuss F-14 vs F-15 vs F-16 in the World War II - Aviation forums; Originally Posted by Soren However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr ...

  1. #106
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,398
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr. area, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed.
    And this makes it more maneuverable? BTW it has been documented the F-4 is easier to land on a carrier than an F-14. I think its well recognized that the F-14 was designed to land on a carrier, something the F-15 was not.


  2. #107
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ View Post
    Ahhh, no it hasn't, in fact I tink just the opposite has been proven - its been shown that the F-15 has a larger wing area, lower wing loading, and higher thrust to weight ratio.
    Errr, no. The F-15 might have a lower wing loading but that doesn't tell us anything. Why ? Cause the F-14s wing produces more lift & less drag pr. area. I'd say the F-14's lower stall speed is a pretty good indicator of this

    As for T/W ratio, well it really aint that much, and in a turn it will have to make up for the extra drag of the F-15.

    Again, no one fights in the horizontal in this century unless they want to die quickly
    Have I ever disagreed with that ??? No. However there's a reason the gatling gun is there. If a lock on is impossible or if the missiles fail and you're forced into a dogfight, then the superior dogfighting capability and addition of a gatling gun will come in handy.

    I could somewhat agree on the radar depending on the scenrio and the time period. By now even the F-14D radar is bettered by many aircraft
    But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.

    Okay today the radars have become better, but in 1991 where the latest version of both a/c were in service the F-14 had a distinct advantage.

  3. #108
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ View Post
    And this makes it more maneuverable? BTW it has been documented the F-4 is easier to land on a carrier than an F-14. I think its well recognized that the F-14 was designed to land on a carrier, something the F-15 was not.
    The wing sweep action works automatically on the F-14, adjusting according to the flight mode of the a/c. If entering a tight turn the sweep is varied automatically to give the best results. This gives it better turn performance.

  4. #109
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,398
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    Errr, no. The F-15 might have a lower wing loading but that doesn't tell us anything. Why ? Cause the F-14s wing produces more lift & less drag pr. area. I'd say the F-14's lower stall speed is a pretty good indicator of this
    Prove it...The F-14's low stall speed (with the wings fully extended) is about 90 knots and it was designed for this for carrier landings, no one is disputing that, it doesn't mean the F-14 could turn better in a dogfight - as a matter of fact its taught at Top Gun (When the F-14 was operational) NOT to turn with any fighter (unless you're fighting an F-4 or MiG-25).
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    As for T/W ratio, well it really aint that much, and in a turn it will have to make up for the extra drag of the F-15.
    It makes all the differance, and again prove that the F-15 puts out more drag . The extra power enables the aircraft to remain in the turn without loosing energy and unless you have a figet that is better than a 1 to 1 TR, you will loose energy in the turn. The F-14 TR is LESS and 1 to 1


    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    Have I ever disagreed with that ??? No. However there's a reason the gatling gun is there. If a lock on is impossible or if the missiles fail and you're forced into a dogfight, then the superior dogfighting capability and addition of a gatling gun will come in handy.
    And the F-15 has the same gun, again your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.
    And it was designed to do so from the outset so it could kill Soviet Bombers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    Okay today the radars have become better, but in 1991 where the latest version of both a/c were in service the F-14 had a distinct advantage.
    Again it depends on the scenerio.
    Last edited by FLYBOYJ; 10-27-2008 at 10:49 AM.

  5. #110
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    as a matter of fact its taught at Top Gun (When the F-14 was operational) NOT to turn with any fighter (unless you're fighting an F-4 or MiG-25).
    That's odd, I've heard the exact opposite. A hard breaking turn in the horizontal was the recommended evasive maneuver against the smaller & lighter a/c of the instructors, as well as against MIG-29's.

  6. #111
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,398
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    That's odd, I've heard the exact opposite. A hard breaking turn in the horizontal was the recommended evasive maneuver against the smaller & lighter a/c of the instructors, as well as against MIG-29's.
    Vertical - the aircraft has power so it goes vertical to initiate "the egg" and possibly go into a yo-yo. Turning with a MiG-29? You'll die very quick.

  7. #112
    Senior Member krieghund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Riyadh
    Posts
    611
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Guys, to set the score straight (if that can be done) in 1999 F-14Ds from VF2 on patrol in Southern Watch squeezed off two phoenix's but the Mig-23s (or Mig-25s) depending on the teller detected the missile launch and turned away at high speed opening Vc. One missile went dumb into the ground. Both missed. An F-18 was ordered to take a Sparrow shot but range was opening very quickly. So the first combat (and only) use did not fair well.
    Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
    It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
    As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
    In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
    Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.

  8. #113
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,398
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by krieghund View Post
    Hi Guys, to set the score straight (if that can be done) in 1999 F-14Ds from VF2 on patrol in Southern Watch squeezed off two phoenix's but the Mig-23s (or Mig-25s) depending on the teller detected the missile launch and turned away at high speed opening Vc. One missile went dumb into the ground. Both missed. An F-18 was ordered to take a Sparrow shot but range was opening very quickly. So the first combat (and only) use did not fair well.
    Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
    It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
    As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
    In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
    Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.
    "There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)"

    Great Info!

  9. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pine Mountain Lake, California
    Posts
    981
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by krieghund View Post
    It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
    When you say "quite a few splashes", do you mean the F-14's scored several "kills" against the -15's?

    Quote Originally Posted by krieghund View Post
    As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
    Also, when you say "hang a pod", I assume you mean the F-16 is carrying an AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pod. So the -16 effectively "turns & burns" better than the F-15?

    Quote Originally Posted by krieghund View Post
    In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
    Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.
    Interesting info; I had no idea the EF-2000 was so maintenance intensive. I had always thought the Eurofighter was supposed to be "user friendly"; I guess not. It's good to know about the Block 60, I'm glad our defense industry is doing SOMETHING right.

  10. #115
    Senior Member drgondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Scurry, Texas
    Posts
    6,531
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    Bill,

    I don't see how it is irrelevant to the discussion when it was a direct answer to your question. You asked how the F-14's wing was more efficient than the other's. Are we not allowed to answer questions anymore ?

    My direct question was to see if you were really serious about a.) the claim relative to turn manueverability based on 'the 'stream tube' and associated efficiencies implied.

    You correctly identified your lack of knowledge about your references and the associated context.


    The answer is that given the much higher AR of the F-14's wing there is no doubt it is more efficient.

    At low speeds under 400 kts I might concede the thesis but I would like to see the data. At transonic and above the F-15 and F-16 AR don't change as the F-14 moves back to full sweepback, low AR, lower T/W.


    They all use LE slats/flaps to increase camber and reenergize the boundary layer, so in that department they're equal. However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr. area, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed.
    Soren, the reason we get into these debates is that you are opinion based, not fact based.

    If you wish to maintain the AR of the F-14 in transonic to supersonic is greater - prove it (it will be tough). If you wish to maintain the F-14 radar is superior - prove it. If you want to dismiss the huge energy manueverability disadvantage for the F-14, show how 20-25% higher T/W ratio, 20% lower lift loading and higher acceleration for both the F-16 and F-15 - is to the F-14 advantage.. prove it.

    Last - you wish to fall back to your stream tube dissertaion, and repeat slowly what you think you mean - then tell us again how 'small stream tube' implies more efficiency - help us out by proving the small, heavy swing wing F-14 has a less concentrated tip vortex and a more efficient wing than say a a U-2.

    Knock yourself out - you can use either swing wing or swept for the -14 to prove it's 'efficiency' over the much larger 'stream tube'

    I would start with L/D but that would be silly me.

  11. #116
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    40,447
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Germany
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt308 View Post
    So let me get this straight, Soren. You are professing that the AWG-9 is a better platform than the AN/APG-63V(3)? Do tell. This outta be good.
    Because Soren says so, I don't know....

    Quote Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ View Post
    Vertical - the aircraft has power so it goes vertical to initiate "the egg" and possibly go into a yo-yo. Turning with a MiG-29? You'll die very quick.
    Quit it now Joe! What do you know? You only have actual real world flight experience in high speed twin engined fighter jets, that does not come close to "real world book knowledge"!

    Last edited by DerAdlerIstGelandet; 10-27-2008 at 02:03 PM.


    fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

  12. #117
    IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO FLYBOYJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    21,398
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet View Post
    Quit it now Joe! What do you know? You only have actual real world flight experience in high speed twin engined fighter jets, that does not come close to "real world book knowledge"!


  13. #118
    Senior Member Messy1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ankeny, Iowa
    Posts
    2,659
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does the F-16 even have a leg to stand on in this discussion, or is it so far outclassed that this debate should be between the F-15 and F-14 only?

    Maybe the F-16 would have a chance with Doug Masters in the cockpit.
    Bryon O.


    "When you are at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on!" Franklin Roosevelt

  14. #119
    Der Crew Chief DerAdlerIstGelandet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    USA/Germany
    Posts
    40,447
    Country
    United States
    Country II
    Germany
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Messy1 View Post
    Maybe the F-16 would have a chance with Doug Masters in the cockpit.


    I think I am going to go and watch that movie here in a minute. They are so shitty and fake, but they are cult!

    "Where not going to take it, No where not going take it!!!"



    fly boy:"isnt that the first jet bomber becasue i have flown one in a flight sim before and i know how it handles"

  15. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Pine Mountain Lake, California
    Posts
    981
    Country
    United States
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet View Post
    Because Soren says so, I don't know....
    Okay, let's take a look at the two radar systems in question:

    AWG-9: For it's time, the most powerful airborne radar system in the world; able to track up to 24 targets at a time, and launch missles at 6 of them at one time. Range well in excess of 100 nm. However, it is based and built using analog technology from the '60's, was maintenance intensive, and was completely incapapable of being used in an a2g mode (which is why the F-14D got the AN/APG-71 digital multi-mode radar); could probably best be compared to the RP-25 Smerch radar on the later MiG-25 interceptor.

    AN/APG-63(V)3: Completely digital, multi-mode AESA technology, classified range (the broadly similar radar in the F-22, the AN/APG-77, has a range "in excess of 320 miles"), multiple LRU's, can be used interchangably in both a2a & a2g modes, LPI frequency-hopping (the AWG-9 couldn't do this).

Page 8 of 19 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93