F-14D Cockpit
-
… 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) -
And yet, I know that some of the top Navy and Air Force pilots took up their respective steeds in a verboten 2v2 in 1978 and the Eagles were both gunned in about 90 seconds with one at about 14,000 feet, the other nearly 34,000 feet. The A-model Tomcat at 54,000 pounds just about consumes the MiG-21bis and MiG-23’s envelopes in terms of both Ps and Max Rate at about 4 times the weight, and, on top of that, the envelope you’re showing (A-model) is based on a 565 sqft model, never taking into account lift generated by the pancake. That’s pretty impressive to me. Twin 2v1 setups by Eagles against a single A-model Tomcat yielded 4 gun kills in the F-14’s favor, because the Tomcat driver forced the fight slow, dropped flaps, and curled well inside the Eagles every time - when asked his opinion of how “difficult” the F-15 was for him to fight in the F-14A, he simply points to a picture of his pipper on an Eagle driver’s helmet, the shot taken from the 2v2 all those years ago (too easy!). The B, when introduced, proved itself a bear to deal with for F-15’s and even challenging for F-16’s. Early fights against the F-14B with F-16’s showed the Vipers trying to perform a one-circle rate turn against the Tomcat like they could do the A. Didn’t work out as well with the GE engines, one Viper driver quipping after a fight “Do have any idea how BIG your intakes look when you’re gunning us?” (He had tried to escape vertical when the Tomcat started gaining on him in the one-circle, only to have the Big Motored Turkey follow him and call guns as he bled speed). Try to take the fight slow, the Viper gets out alpha’d by the Tomcat, which has no limiters and can (and has) outpitch the F-16, especially in a slow speed scissors (got historic examples of this, too for both A and B, from both sides of the fight). Unsurprisingly, during 99, the eldest A-model F-14’s managed to better MiG-29G’s at visual range, to include valid gun kills.
I bring these things up not because I’m trying to hate on the Eagle or Viper or Hornet or whatever - I love all those jets and they continue to serve in our front line, receive new systems, etc. to keep them some of the deadliest fighters out there, and just as I know examples of them being soundly defeated by Tomcat crews, I know of as many opposite instances as well. I bring it up because based on the charts, these things can’t happen, and yet they did quite commonly. I’ve seen an A model F-14 enter and sustain an 18 deg/sec turn - it can’t do that, but it is doing it right now. Factors? About 330KIAS, clean pancake assisting lift, and maneuver flaps adjusting wing camber. The F-14 handled very differently depending on how it was configured, with Phoenix pylons or without (565 sqft lift vs 1008 sqft max possible lift), full flap augmentation at slow speed (never reflected in charts), split thrust and harsh rudder inputs to increase yaw rate/slice, etc. and above all else, the pilot and RIO were factors on how the F-14 handled. I am quite content in saying that every Tomcat driver and RIO I’ve ever spoken to would staunchly disagree with your assessment of even the under-powered A model as being a “poor dogfighter.” I hope that this historic example provides some different insight to math on a chart; what DID happen, versus the theoretical outcome (and, yes, I am quite familiar with the charts for the Turkey).
-
Thanks guys!
Interesting stuff but at this point I really don’t know what to do with it…it goes in my files though, maybe one day I will learn how to work on FM!
Really small update of what I have been up to a few hours this weekend and tonight while watching “Predator” (GET TO THE CHOPPA’) on TV.
This is for the Left Vertical Console, and its the gear and airbrake panel. I managed to implement it in the cockpit already so another small detail to look for on the next update! :headb: Its MUCH more useful than the airbrake position indicator on the F-16 (which I can never find). Its very visual and looks great in the pit!
I’m really loving going into the detail of some of the graphics in the cockpit. I find graphics really really well done over all in the pit (original! not mine!) and its a real pleasure to see how they are designed. I guess graphics need to be really high quality when people’s life are on the line.
Anyway, I know its a cheeky update but I really like that image and its better than nothing!
Take care!
Pepe
-
And yet, I know that some of the top Navy and Air Force pilots took up their respective steeds in a verboten 2v2 in 1978 and the Eagles were both gunned in about 90 seconds with one at about 14,000 feet, the other nearly 34,000 feet. The A-model Tomcat at 54,000 pounds just about consumes the MiG-21bis and MiG-23’s envelopes in terms of both Ps and Max Rate at about 4 times the weight, and, on top of that, the envelope you’re showing (A-model) is based on a 565 sqft model, never taking into account lift generated by the pancake. That’s pretty impressive to me. Twin 2v1 setups by Eagles against a single A-model Tomcat yielded 4 gun kills in the F-14’s favor, because the Tomcat driver forced the fight slow, dropped flaps, and curled well inside the Eagles every time - when asked his opinion of how “difficult” the F-15 was for him to fight in the F-14A, he simply points to a picture of his pipper on an Eagle driver’s helmet, the shot taken from the 2v2 all those years ago (too easy!). The B, when introduced, proved itself a bear to deal with for F-15’s and even challenging for F-16’s. Early fights against the F-14B with F-16’s showed the Vipers trying to perform a one-circle rate turn against the Tomcat like they could do the A. Didn’t work out as well with the GE engines, one Viper driver quipping after a fight “Do have any idea how BIG your intakes look when you’re gunning us?” (He had tried to escape vertical when the Tomcat started gaining on him in the one-circle, only to have the Big Motored Turkey follow him and call guns as he bled speed). Try to take the fight slow, the Viper gets out alpha’d by the Tomcat, which has no limiters and can (and has) outpitch the F-16, especially in a slow speed scissors (got historic examples of this, too for both A and B, from both sides of the fight). Unsurprisingly, during 99, the eldest A-model F-14’s managed to better MiG-29G’s at visual range, to include valid gun kills.
I bring these things up not because I’m trying to hate on the Eagle or Viper or Hornet or whatever - I love all those jets and they continue to serve in our front line, receive new systems, etc. to keep them some of the deadliest fighters out there, and just as I know examples of them being soundly defeated by Tomcat crews, I know of as many opposite instances as well. I bring it up because based on the charts, these things can’t happen, and yet they did quite commonly. I’ve seen an A model F-14 enter and sustain an 18 deg/sec turn - it can’t do that, but it is doing it right now. Factors? About 330KIAS, clean pancake assisting lift, and maneuver flaps adjusting wing camber. The F-14 handled very differently depending on how it was configured, with Phoenix pylons or without (565 sqft lift vs 1008 sqft max possible lift), full flap augmentation at slow speed (never reflected in charts), split thrust and harsh rudder inputs to increase yaw rate/slice, etc. and above all else, the pilot and RIO were factors on how the F-14 handled. I am quite content in saying that every Tomcat driver and RIO I’ve ever spoken to would staunchly disagree with your assessment of even the under-powered A model as being a “poor dogfighter.” I hope that this historic example provides some different insight to math on a chart; what DID happen, versus the theoretical outcome (and, yes, I am quite familiar with the charts for the Turkey).
WOW…What he said!:rolleyes:
Thanks for passing by C.
Pepe
-
WOW…What he said!:rolleyes:
Thanks for passing by C.
Pepe
True, once you hit the high alpha regime, you get 60% increase in lift and this is actually documented. Even if you take into account my projected STR for the A model, it’s not that far behind the Eagle. Combined with the tight TR this makes both planes a close match in the guns arena. Once you factor in the GE engines though the Eagle loses all advantage in STR up to 400-450knots. Actually the only restriction on the Turkey at this stage is the structural limit.
EDIT (just for you Pepe):
-
well guys those all are subjective… why??? cause they all depend mostly on the human factor…
How many hours did the pilots had on their birds (I’m sure the tomcat pilots had way much more time in their birds meaning they new by heart how to react).
LOL 1978… and when eagles and f-16 joined the arena?Tomcats joined 1974 that is 4 years of experience
F-15 joined mid 1978 same year as the F-16… So yes comparing bricks with oranges is the same thing…
-
well guys those all are subjective… why??? cause they all depend mostly on the human factor…
How many hours did the pilots had on their birds (I’m sure the tomcat pilots had way much more time in their birds meaning they new by heart how to react).
LOL 1978… and when eagles and f-16 joined the arena?Tomcats joined 1974 that is 4 years of experience
F-15 joined mid 1978 same year as the F-16… So yes comparing bricks with oranges is the same thing…
The largest operator of the F-15 is the United States Air Force. The first Eagle (F-15B) was delivered 13 November 1974.[38] In January 1976, the first Eagle destined for a combat squadron, the 555th TFS, was delivered.[38] These initial aircraft carried the Hughes Aircraft (now Raytheon) APG-63 radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle
I’m not arguing that the given example isn’t subjective, but I feel that saying two years gave the Navy time to make Super aces is an equally subjective excuse, at least imho.
-
The slighty better low speed turn rate IMHO is useless because using better med-hi speed perfomance of F-15/F-16, they can climb above F-14 while they are turning. Because of the flight path projection, the turn radius on the horizontal plane is smaler than F-14’s at low speed. Higher alt + same turn radius during climbing –-> Definite advantage for F-15/16. The only advantage what F-14 have in an acting dogfight the two-man crew. Only problem that F-15 have dual seat version, which is fully capable only its EW (ECM) capabilit is different from single seat variant.
BTW haven’t you ever noticed that the most succesful jet from teenager series is the double seater F-15 if you count the specific kill ratio? During wars since 1982 only an F-15B was able to achive tripe kill during one mission in 1982, and it had more than one double kill in IAF. During Peace for Galilea and just after a months 33 air victory was gained by IAF’s F-15s by weapon usage. From 33 kill 9 was gained by F-15B. From the 24 available F-15s, only two was F-15B. This means that 8% of fleet gained the 27% or kills. (25 F-15s was bought, one was lost before 1982 and another one single seater heavily damaged which was flown by the younger Shapira.)
The sample is not huge but IMHO is very interesting. IT suggests that the king of fighters in '80s was not F-15A but F-15B. (If you do not need ECM.)
-
well guys those all are subjective… why??? cause they all depend mostly on the human factor…
How many hours did the pilots had on their birds (I’m sure the tomcat pilots had way much more time in their birds meaning they new by heart how to react).
LOL 1978… and when eagles and f-16 joined the arena?Tomcats joined 1974 that is 4 years of experience
F-15 joined mid 1978 same year as the F-16… So yes comparing bricks with oranges is the same thing…
That’s the thing, isn’t it? The human factor is the single biggest factor in deciding who wins in a dogfight, not airframe (which is why these arguments to me are silly to begin with). But, they aren’t entirely subjective, nor is this comparing “bricks to oranges”; the pilots involved in example 1 had similar amounts of experience. Though not active until 1976, the F-15 had already begun participating in the ACEVAL/AIMVAL trials, for which workups began late 1975, and was involved totally from 1976-1977, through ENDEX 1978 when the pilots involved got into their forbidden fight. Of the two Tomcat crews, one pilot and one RIO had been part of the Tomcat inaugural cruse in mid 1974, pulled from F-4 Phantoms (both in the jet at 34k at the time of their “kill”), the other pilot had been selected after 2 combat cruises in the F-8 and one in the RA-5 (he was actually still part of the RA-5 community at the time). All of his Tomcat experience was ACEVAL/AIMVAL, same as the Eagle drivers. So, not all that different.
In terms of kill ratios, hell yeah the Eagle holds the best overall! I’m not trying to argue that, and I think it’s awesome that such a machine continues to fight in our arsenal. What I am saying is that the Turkey could and did more than hold its own in a dogfight when it had to. Any well flown aircraft can do amazing things, and the F-14 was no exception.
-
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)I do not understand your line. Sustainable turn rate means, Ps = 0 at a certain turn rate. On your lines the values for F-14 are much higher as Ps = 0 line as in the first F-14 speed-turn rate (Ps) diagram. For ex at M0.8 turn rate of F-14 while Ps = 0 is about 14 deg/sec and not 18 as in your diagram.
Did I misunderstand something?
I’m still not sure about the flight level in the first and second diagram. F-15/F-16 can reach M1.4 on about 10k feet, but F-14’s variable wing maybe allows a slighty bigger top speed at low.
-
To sum up, not a soul will argue that the F-15 isa masterwork of design that resulted in a proven dog fighter and interceptor. The F-16 also speaks for itself. The only issue arises when yet another person has decided Internet info means that the F-14 isn’t a comparable dog fighter. You will always guess at charts until the performance data is declassified, if ever. The most accurate thing you can say at this point is they the F-15 rules the transonic region of the fight while the F-14 owns the lower speed arena but the differences aren’t that huge. The wing of the F-14 stalls before the tunnel does. A clean or aim-9 and aim-7 armed tomcat has an insane actual wing loading.
-
I do not understand your line. Sustainable turn rate means, Ps = 0 at a certain turn rate. On your lines the values for F-14 are much higher as Ps = 0 line as in the first F-14 speed-turn rate (Ps) diagram. For ex at M0.8 turn rate of F-14 while Ps = 0 is about 14 deg/sec and not 18 as in your diagram.
Did I misunderstand something?
I’m still not sure about the flight level in the first and second diagram. F-15/F-16 can reach M1.4 on about 10k feet, but F-14’s variable wing maybe allows a slighty bigger top speed at low.
The line is adjusted to account for the higher lift to drag ratio and to match the know performance when matched with an AC we do have the STR available (F-4E). We can’t guess at the performance through specific excess power only. At lower mach numbers induced drag plays ever greater role. Still i do not claim my curve to be correct. In fact it is only one of several possible curves, extrapolated through the sustained G-loads as provided and the known envelope of the slated F-4E.
-
I do not understand the base of adjustment. The first F-14 diagrams shows what it shows.
-
And doesn’t account for the pancake (565sqft wing model), and is inaccurate in terms of -Ps as you move behind the hump in the Ps=0 line. The chart can give you an idea of performance, but it isn’t the whole story, like I said before.
-
And doesn’t account for the pancake (565sqft wing model), and is inaccurate in terms of -Ps as you move behind the hump in the Ps=0 line. The chart can give you an idea of performance, but it isn’t the whole story, like I said before.
No. Ps tells you the whole story. This is why so amazing the E-M Theory by John Boyd and Tom Chrsite. It was used illustrating AC dogfight capabilites. In the same case where an AC have bigger Ps that is the better AC in that case. End of the story.
-
i love it when someone sez end of story…
-
The slighty better low speed turn rate IMHO is useless because using better med-hi speed perfomance of F-15/F-16, they can climb above F-14 while they are turning. Because of the flight path projection, the turn radius on the horizontal plane is smaler than F-14’s at low speed. Higher alt + same turn radius during climbing –-> Definite advantage for F-15/16. The only advantage what F-14 have in an acting dogfight the two-man crew.
Exploiting the vertical is definitely what you should do when facing virtually any opponent in an F-15. But and this is a big BUT, it by no means assures a victory. Every displacement turn or high Yo-Yo bares the risk of losing visual contact with the enemy and when facing a pilot with an equal (presumably high) skill, actually forcing this loss of contact. Not to mention that to actually use this tactic you need to be on the opponent’s six to begin with. Try to force a vertical pass from a neutral merge and you invite a tail shot up those warm pipes when facing a plane that pitches its nose better then you.
No. Ps tells you the whole story. This is why so amazing the E-M Theory by John Boyd and Tom Chrsite. It was used illustrating AC dogfight capabilites. In the same case where an AC have bigger Ps that is the better AC in that case. End of the story.
LOL
Dude, Boyd theory is just one way of looking at things. It’s by no means the only one or the best at that. It has it’s advantages for sure, but to quote another authority on ACM (one with more aerial kills then Boyd ever had), “the energy advantage determines when will the engagement start, the angles advantage determines how it will end”.Now, as to why specific excess power isn’t the whole story and with a concrete example of the F-14A. It is documented in video materials and photography that during air shows the F-14A was constantly being able to do a full 360 at minimum turning radius of about 1000ft without losing air speed in about 20 second. That is a circle the length of about 6300ft. The sustained turning rate in these examples is about 18deg/s. Doing a 6300ft circle in 20 seconds translates to about 315ft per second or about 185-190 nautical miles per hour (knots) air speed. Performing this at airshow means this is practically at sea level wish would mean a mach number of about 0.28. Now take a look at he Ps values around mach 0.3. Based on Ps alone, the F-14A should be able to pull no more then 10 or 11deg/s at best. Let’s presume that the aircraft performing this aerobatics at airshows are probably running an extremely light configuration with only 10% internal fuel. The empty weight of an F-14 is 43,735 lbs. Maximum internal fuel capacity is 16,200 lb. If our chart describes a clean AC with a 100% fuel tank that would account for a 59935lbs Tomcat. The airshow Tomcat would be 45355lbs in comparison. 75-76% the total mass. Are you trying to tell me that a 25% decrease in mass results in 44% increase in sustained turning performance??? There is something not accounted for here mate, something that Ps alone can not quantify. That’s where the lift coefficients and induced drag come to play. At the lower edge of the envelope. For the F-14 that’s between mach 0.2 and mach 0.7.
You already know the higher wing aspect gives the F-14 decrease in induced drag twice as large compared to the F-15. The NACA 64A209.65 mod 64A208.91 mod airfoil has a similar lift coefficient at the tip to the NACA 64A006.6 NACA 64A203 (used on the F-15), but unlike the F-15 which provides no effective lift at the root, the F-14’s has lift coefficient of 0.2. Add the 40% increase in lift experienced when going from 16 to 25 deg AoA a as a result of the body-glove vortex flow lift…… Do you need more evidence?As for what did i modify on my test chart, well it was an F-4E STR chart which i tweaked with the F-14A Ps curve and added the 20% increase in STR (of the F-14 VS F-4E) as documented by NASA. It still doesn’t tell the whole picture as the F-14 and the F-4 have very different aerodynamic properties especially on the left side of the diagram.