F-14D Cockpit
-
You mean its variable geometry gives it an advantage? The MiG-23 is also quite hard to shake if you let it get behind you.
-
VG wing,variable intake and lifting body design.
In the case of МиГ-23,it may easy to catch up with you as you at the control on a Eagle or Falcon.But,in the other hand however,with it’s ‘’‘excellent’‘’ maneuverability and agile,that’s really a easy prey as you can force the Flogger to do a series of turn with you.:-D
-
I can only say I’d beat the Mig-29S from FC3 in my BMS F-16 anytime.
But both are beautiful…:)
TBH that was the first time I heard the F-14 had such a G limit. I was under the impression it was 8G.
Anyone? -
I can only say I’d beat the Mig-29S from FC3 in my BMS F-16 anytime.
But both are beautiful…:)
TBH that was the first time I heard the F-14 had such a G limit. I was under the impression it was 8G.
Anyone?Designed to be 7.5G fighter. However when it became clear the navy won’t be getting as many as they wanted, it was operationally restricted at 6.5G during peace time to preserve the airframe. Originally projected lifetime was 7000 hours of flight time and carrier operations abuse. The navy managed to prolong this lifetime to 8-9000 hours for most planes, with some being retired after 10000+ hours. Compare that to the usual lifetime of an airframe and the toil of carrier landings and it becomes clear why the restrictions. The Cats outlived the early hornets, when you take into account the dates of entering service.
-
The only reason I would like a F-14 is to replay Top Gun moments and to use the “mother goose” in a sentence. Please continue your work and make my dreams come true.
-
The only reason I would like a F-14 is to replay Top Gun moments and to use the “mother goose” in a sentence. Please continue your work and make my dreams come true.
i’m with this guy
-
You already got mother Dave on this forums. 5 virtual beers to the chap who names his callsign.
-
Hello!
New to BMS, stumbled upon this thread today, and spent a long time reading about your progress.
You have some REAL talent. You are producing a product that most other people would ask money for.I am sorry to hear about your bike wreck, I have seen several friends get seriously injured over the years to bikes.
I look forward to your release!
-
There hasn’t been a motivational video in quite some time, here is a nice one for all of us, trap hunters
-
You mean its variable geometry gives it an advantage? The MiG-23 is also quite hard to shake if you let it get behind you.
A few things-the only way to model over-G for an F-14 is to have a bunch of maintainers show up and give you a thumbs down after a virtual daily inspection results in a virtual conditional that shows virtual overstress. No F-14 came apart in mid air due to over-g. They have been tested to +9/-4 and operated beyond that. So there is no point in modelling over-G. A pilot in a combat situation will pull what is necessary. However, that being said-the F-14 FM is pretty good in that yes you can pull and get angles but you’ll bleed speed as well. The F-14 (please read beyond overstated, misquoted TF-30 doom engines) with 10k of fuel or less and a clean loadout, is not something any pilot will want to mess with at speeds of 350kts below 15,000 feet. It will turn inside you at lower speed and lower g and sustain it. If you want to win, keep your altitude up, your speed up, and keep a lot of energy in reserve. Most good F-14 drivers who made the switch to the super hornet would still prefer the F-14 for an Air to air engagement because its an energy maker throughout the fight, whereas the Superbug has 3 insane turns that usually result in a win or youre out of energy and cant get it back as fast as the F-14,15,16 and legacy 18. This isn’t internet opinion, its fact backed up E-M diagrams.
Of course, If you plan on taking an F-14 full of gas, with tanks and 7-8 missiles with AIM-54 pallets to a dogfight, you’re just not right in the head- but thats true of any fully loaded aircraft. This is where the relativelly low internal fuel capacity of the F-15 is at a distinct advantage as they drop their big 600 gallon fuel tanks and engage at “fighting trim” even with an 8 missile loadout. -
and I just broke my own rule about not letting this become an F-14 vs XX thread. Guilty as charged, off to play SF2:NA until this mod is released and the F-14 doesnt roll due to loadout. Great work, keep it up, and hopefully model a RIO that flips off hornet row when launching from a waist cat….
-
This isn’t internet opinion, its fact backed up E-M diagrams.
I got some E-M diagrams about F-14. They said F-14 is superior in almost all zone of combat envelope… The Ps value of F-15 on same alt with same speed is higher, this means F-15 can maintain same turn rate while Eagle is clibing. Because of the climb the projected turn radius is smaller as F-14 do the same turn rate with same speed. —> F-15 can be inside the turn of F-14 AND can climb above it. The horizontal acceleration capability of F-15 is another dimension, beats easily all 4. gen figher even the F-14B with GE engine not mentioning the ‘A’ with TF30…
-
Seriously guys…it sounds that you guys have enough information/material to realistically tweak the FM together with someone that knows how… Is this correct?
Molni would you share your material? TurkeyDriver?Metcalf? Would it just be a matter of starting to consolidate between the three of you the material you have now?
-
Metcalf sent me, but I have only at home the diagram what he sent. Will post here today.
-
Holy -****-
I cannot believe you built this from scratch!
-
Metcalf sent me, but I have only at home the diagram what he sent. Will post here today.
Aye, though we only have the ITR and G-loading based on mach number. I did some calculating based on sustained G-rates you sent me, the relative performance assessment between F-14A VS slated F-4E, and the specific excess power of the F-14A, and as a result a have a probable STR curve for the F-14A at sea level. Can’t vouch for it (as it was me who did the math) but if you think it would be useful i may share it.
I even tried to modify it for the 20% increase of specific excess power given by the GE engines and got an STR curve for the F-14 B/D models. Both curves don’t work below mach 0.4 though…. -
… No F-14 came apart in mid air due to over-g. … The F-14 (please read beyond overstated, misquoted TF-30 doom engines) …
this and this……
You can generally push every plane up to 20% pass its design limit, but you are bound to make emergency stress and frame fatigue checks after landing. That’s why the F-15s (even F-4s) are noted to have pulled over 11Gs for short instants.Many are aware of the TF-30 troublesome nature because of compressor stalls caused by rapid throttle changes and/or irregular air flow originating from hard maneuvering. What most people usually avoid mentioning (or have stopped reading before they got to it) is that after the nave became aware of it, a rather simple procedure was developed to work around it. The stalls never occurred during full military power or afterburner operation of the engines. This of course meant that the overall mission endurance would be lowered if a plane was to enter prolonged dogfights. Having to mind the engine regime at all times during hard flying, is what eventually led to the proverb, “you had to fly the engines, not the plane”. The turkey was never an easy bird to handle…but was more rewarding for it
-
Two speed-turn rate (Ps) diagram about F-14.
At 10k or 15k feet.
Likely at 30k feet.
F-15’s diagram at 5G turn.
Yes, they are not the same, but explanation comes soon.
The alt and weights are unknown for me but Mike said it is clean config. The altitude is my estimation, these diagrams are made typically at 15k and 30k feet. (med-hi)
Stand by…
-
Ok, in VERY short about capabilites.
Ok, compare these points, these were the boundaries about 80-90% of dogfights in the latest 40 years AND where we have data currently. (95% of air combats happened below 25k feet since 1967).
On F-15’s diagram you can see the Eagle has defined drag (clean) and weight and G value. You can check Ps value on the diagram. To compare these data you have to move on F-14’s diagram on the red lines, which represent the 5G turns.
At same speed with same G the turn radius is the same therefore the turn rates are the same. Ok, only one point, you can do the rest.
Because F-14 altitude data is not known, but first time Mike said maybe it is on sea level… So, if diagram shows data on SL you can skip the comparison, the difference is so clear that explanation is not required. The max. speed on diagram suggest me maximum 10k feet or SL alt because of M1.4 top speed. Assume the better case for F-14, diagram represents the 10k feet performance.
M1.0 - 10k or 15 feet.
F-15 - 10k between 600 and 800 ft/sec, about 700 ft/sec.
15k, between 400 and 600 fe/sec, about 500 ft/sec.
F-14 - About 0 ft/sec. Uh…What does this mean? With the same turn rate F-15 is able to climb very well, F-14 can perform 5G turn only with constant alt… Should I explain how hard this difference?
The CL max (maximum lift) even for much heavy F-14 is far left, this mean you can perform a quicker turn but in this case Ps is negative —> You loose speed or you have to sacrifice alt for maintain your speed. (Kinetic energy - potential energy “trade”.) Because F-15’s Ps is very high and min Cl. is far, this mean it can perform thigher turn - yes, with higher G - but it can keep it’s speed.
About CL on F-14’s first diagram. Yes, it is on lower speed for F-14, but it is pointless because of very big negative Ps values, even as an instantaneous turn cannot be maintained, you loose your speed very quickly.
If you check all point you will find how superior or equal the F-15C comparing with F-14. Yes, this is one case (5G), but there are no miracles. If you go to higher of lower G zones, the relative values won’t change. Why? Much different t/w ratio and 7 tons + weight difference. For climbing you need thrust, for turning you need thrust. Low wing load and weight push left the CL max, but both AC more or less have the same values. —> 7+ tons weight difference is too much…
Just check at the Ps at M1.0 at 30k feet in 5G trun for F-15, about -400. What about F-14? It is close to Cl max line… Ps beyond to -1000… (The second F-14’s diagram concerning on 30k or higher alt because of M2.4 top speed.)
No comment…
Of course this is few for a new FM but shows what sould be experiance in the game. No offense but in dogfight the F-14 is very weak. I do not know what F-14 type is on the diagram but if the GE eqipped, just imagine how weak is the ‘A’. If the ‘A’ the ‘B’ is a bit better bot not much.
I hope that even this limited data help to dispel the myths about the dogfight capabilites of Tomcat…
-
I can vouch for only 2 things on that chart, it’s a clean configuration with 100% fuel load and it’s a TF-30 powered F-14A.
As for the analysis, i partly agree with it and the ultimate conclusion is the same, the energy advantage and sustained turn rate goes to the F-15C, while the turn radius advantage and nose authority at low speed go to the F-14A. However i don’t think we can equate the sustained turn rate based on specific excess power alone. Not in the lower part of the envelope. The higher the mach number, the more important factors are the total thrust and the ultimate G-load capability. However the lower the mach number, drag and aerodynamic efficiency become more prevalent. And….we also have comparable analysis available that can serve to adjust our data. Namely the slated F-4E diagrams. Officially, the F-14A has 20% better STR (between mach 0.4 and mach 1.1) the F-4E, which makes it similar to the “light” F-4s (17% increase of STR over the F-4E).This is what i got BTW…
(the blue line should be STR at sea level)