F-14 and F-18 replied by Shotgun @ Sun, 11 May 2008 22:50:43 +0800

Shotgun — Sun, 11 May 2008 22:50:43 +0800

I see, interesting. I'm not sure if any jet today can fly level at 60 degrees bank angle without gravity induced yaw, assuming no pilot inputs to correct.

For tomcat fans, this is a great Tomcat site. Enjoy.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/

F-14 and F-18 replied by 16/f/lonely @ Sun, 11 May 2008 12:02:00 +0800

16/f/lonely — Sun, 11 May 2008 12:02:00 +0800

Originally posted by Shotgun:

Oh, Bank angle... Erm... Is there anyway to link the full article about this?

Cos from what I understand, the F-14 can bank more than 60 degrees... I mean, all combat aircraft, interceptors, fighters can roll and achieve level turning flight even at 90 degrees bank. So normally, we talk about the angles that an aircraft can fly at, its usually referring to the AoA, the angle of attack ie: How far the nose can deviate from its flight path without stalling the wing.

The F-14 is still a potent dogfighter despite its size. Its definitely no slug when going up close and personal. Of course, it would fight with a different approach as opposed to an F/A-18C. Like how the P-51 would have a different dogfight style as opposed to a Spitfire.

The F-14 as mentioned, is a fleet interceptor. I think one of its best capabilities is really climbing high and fast. Once it gets up at high alt and airspeed, its able to launch the Phoenixes over unbelievable distances. Definitely a shame to see it out of service.

60 degrees, level, straight flight. Article I no have. But I have a book that was made in the late 70's, where the F-14 and F-15 were fairly new, and the F-16s were starting to emerge as the number 1 light multi-role star. F-18s have yet to enter service. In fact the book includes the A-18, as a separate airframe.

F-14 and F-18 replied by Shotgun @ Sun, 11 May 2008 00:10:02 +0800

Shotgun — Sun, 11 May 2008 00:10:02 +0800

Heh, I figured the Spitfire and P-51 was good enough. The Spitfire was an excellent turning fighter. The P-51 OTOH, was a great energy management fighter. It couldn't compete in a turning fight, but its able to zoom away, regain energy quicker and turn in for another slashing attack.

F-14 and F-18 replied by arball @ Sat, 10 May 2008 23:59:14 +0800

arball — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:59:14 +0800

lols shotgun... think a p-38 and zero would be a better analogy...

F-14 and F-18 replied by Shotgun @ Sat, 10 May 2008 23:42:22 +0800

Shotgun — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:42:22 +0800

Oh, Bank angle... Erm... Is there anyway to link the full article about this?

Cos from what I understand, the F-14 can bank more than 60 degrees... I mean, all combat aircraft, interceptors, fighters can roll and achieve level turning flight even at 90 degrees bank. So normally, we talk about the angles that an aircraft can fly at, its usually referring to the AoA, the angle of attack ie: How far the nose can deviate from its flight path without stalling the wing.

The F-14 is still a potent dogfighter despite its size. Its definitely no slug when going up close and personal. Of course, it would fight with a different approach as opposed to an F/A-18C. Like how the P-51 would have a different dogfight style as opposed to a Spitfire.

The F-14 as mentioned, is a fleet interceptor. I think one of its best capabilities is really climbing high and fast. Once it gets up at high alt and airspeed, its able to launch the Phoenixes over unbelievable distances. Definitely a shame to see it out of service.

F-14 and F-18 replied by 16/f/lonely @ Sat, 10 May 2008 20:18:00 +0800

16/f/lonely — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:18:00 +0800

Originally posted by edwin3060:

Although the planar nature of the F-14s midbody is interesting (it provides 72% of the lift at Mach 2 for example), the assertion that this is special and allows for greater maneuverability seems to be flawed to me.

Firstly, all aircraft to some extent are able to generate lift from their fuselage-- the F-15 for example, while having a conventional layout for a fighter jet, is able to fly and land on only 1 wing-- indicating that the fuselage lift is very significant as well.

Next, the nosecone and cockpit of a fighter jet disrupt the airflow over the fuselage-- at high angles of attack, the fuselage would 'stall' before the wings 'stalled' --thus fuselage lift cannot be a contributor to low speed maneuverability.

Finally, the distribution of mass over a greater transverse plane (i.e. the aircraft being wider) actually increases the angular inertia of the aircraft-- thus for a given wingspan it would be harder for the aircraft to roll. IIRC, the F-14 was designed as an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter, so linear velocity and stability for weapons launch would be prioritised over maneuverability.

The F-14 was a unique airplane but let's not make it out to be what it clearly is not. It was designed for long range defence against Russian bombers, not dogfighting with fighters.

But I do find the F-14's shape pretty interesting.

Wait a second. With the demise of the Tomcat doesn't it spell the end of the NFOs as well?

And the Gulf War Bombcats! Can't forget that.

F-14 and F-18 replied by stellazio @ Sat, 10 May 2008 18:02:41 +0800

stellazio — Sat, 10 May 2008 18:02:41 +0800

we should get the yanks to sell us the raptors..

2 F5 sqns will be closing, 1 F15 coming in, so we need 1 more!

F-14 and F-18 replied by edwin3060 @ Sat, 10 May 2008 17:57:13 +0800

edwin3060 — Sat, 10 May 2008 17:57:13 +0800

Although the planar nature of the F-14s midbody is interesting (it provides 72% of the lift at Mach 2 for example), the assertion that this is special and allows for greater maneuverability seems to be flawed to me.

Firstly, all aircraft to some extent are able to generate lift from their fuselage-- the F-15 for example, while having a conventional layout for a fighter jet, is able to fly and land on only 1 wing-- indicating that the fuselage lift is very significant as well.

Next, the nosecone and cockpit of a fighter jet disrupt the airflow over the fuselage-- at high angles of attack, the fuselage would 'stall' before the wings 'stalled' --thus fuselage lift cannot be a contributor to low speed maneuverability.

Finally, the distribution of mass over a greater transverse plane (i.e. the aircraft being wider) actually increases the angular inertia of the aircraft-- thus for a given wingspan it would be harder for the aircraft to roll. IIRC, the F-14 was designed as an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter, so linear velocity and stability for weapons launch would be prioritised over maneuverability.

The F-14 was a unique airplane but let's not make it out to be what it clearly is not. It was designed for long range defence against Russian bombers, not dogfighting with fighters.

F-14 and F-18 replied by rokkie @ Sat, 10 May 2008 14:53:44 +0800

rokkie — Sat, 10 May 2008 14:53:44 +0800

post more picture lah

F-14 and F-18 replied by 16/f/lonely @ Sat, 10 May 2008 09:45:12 +0800

16/f/lonely — Sat, 10 May 2008 09:45:12 +0800

Originally posted by Shotgun:

hmm please clarify the 60 degree angles part? Are we talking about angle of attack or what? Cos I don't remember the tomcat being able to do that. =D

The angle the plane can bank.

F-14 and F-18 replied by Shotgun @ Fri, 09 May 2008 21:59:21 +0800

Shotgun — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:59:21 +0800

Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:

The F-14 can fly level at angles exceeding 60 degrees due to the significant lift generated by the large skin between the 2 engines.

The Tomcat is unique because unlike other fighters whose bodies are compact, and the engines are often mounted together behind the pilot, the Tomcat's engines are longitudinally-mounted resulting in a large space between the engines that gives the above-mentioned lift and ample fuel storage.

I've always found this fact rather interesting, because it was this that allows this heavy-weight fighter to show some very surprising agility, and is also what gives the Tomcat its range.

hmm please clarify the 60 degree angles part? Are we talking about angle of attack or what? Cos I don't remember the tomcat being able to do that. =D

F-14 and F-18 replied by 16/f/lonely @ Fri, 09 May 2008 21:18:36 +0800

16/f/lonely — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:18:36 +0800

The F-14 can fly level at angles exceeding 60 degrees due to the significant lift generated by the large skin between the 2 engines.

The Tomcat is unique because unlike other fighters whose bodies are compact, and the engines are often mounted together behind the pilot, the Tomcat's engines are longitudinally-mounted resulting in a large space between the engines that gives the above-mentioned lift and ample fuel storage.

I've always found this fact rather interesting, because it was this that allows this heavy-weight fighter to show some very surprising agility, and is also what gives the Tomcat its range.

F-14 and F-18 replied by Xcert @ Fri, 09 May 2008 19:39:15 +0800

Xcert — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:39:15 +0800

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

i does hit many aircraft (iraqi) in combat ...go and read the book. Not propaganda ...its very thoroughly researched.

now...the problem is where to download the ebook...

F-14 and F-18 replied by tankfanatic @ Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:10 +0800

tankfanatic — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:09:10 +0800

Originally posted by Sepecat:

Has the F14 AIM54 s hit anything in combat ? Never heard that they ever did. Only read that AIM54 are next to worthless in real combat since they never came close to hitting anything.

Super Hornets are a very big improvement over the F 14. Dont forget that F14 s are from the bygone era of the analogue age whereas the Super Hornets are fuly digitised.

i does hit many aircraft (iraqi) in combat ...go and read the book. Not propaganda ...its very thoroughly researched.

F-14 and F-18 replied by tankfanatic @ Fri, 09 May 2008 10:07:00 +0800

tankfanatic — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:07:00 +0800

Originally posted by Xcert:

U have the physcial book or the ebook?

Anyway there was a documentary on the decommissioning of the F-14s...some of them are being stored in a desert facility to be recalled into active service at short notice if required.The rest are taken apart for their parts and those parts go back into US inventory in case Iran wants them illegally for their cannot-fire Tomcats...

i read the book at the book shop...quite expensive

oh boy ...after the tom cat decomm...there were hundreds of attemp by middle man to buy Tomcat parts...for iranian.

after reading the book youd be surprise that the F14 can fire all their weapon and use all their system.....after all the american only manage to sabotage 18 Pheonix only...the rest were operational.

also the american didnt destroy the huge pile of tomcats parts the iranian held (just not enough time) what they did is they destroy the inventory list of the spare parts....it takes Iranian 20 years to figure out which is which.

F-14 and F-18 replied by stellazio @ Thu, 08 May 2008 23:34:51 +0800

stellazio — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:34:51 +0800

tomcats are cool, but they have the raptors now as well as the up and coming lightning II..

F-14 and F-18 replied by Sepecat @ Thu, 08 May 2008 23:30:22 +0800

Sepecat — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:30:22 +0800

Has the F14 AIM54 s hit anything in combat ? Never heard that they ever did. Only read that AIM54 are next to worthless in real combat since they never came close to hitting anything.

Super Hornets are a very big improvement over the F 14. Dont forget that F14 s are from the bygone era of the analogue age whereas the Super Hornets are fuly digitised.

F-14 and F-18 replied by Shotgun @ Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:48:40 +0800

Shotgun — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:48:40 +0800

In any case, I think the Superhornets are big and scary too.

Its big and has a drag index of a dump track. Pretty scary to fly.

F-14 and F-18 replied by edwin3060 @ Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:12:39 +0800

edwin3060 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:12:39 +0800

Originally posted by arball:

hey, just an idea,

would you think if it would be feasible for f-14s and 18s to be complementing? ( dont mind the fatigue) ... sort of like the f-15 and 16 combination liddat, Heavy-light combo

They used to have it, now they replaced it, with a F-18 C/D, F-18 E/F combo. Before the F-35 comes, 95% of the deck of their carriers will be Hornets or superhornets, since the F-18G will replace the E/A-6B, and the F-18F can already replace their K/A-6. They end up with a mix of F-18 Hornet/C-2 Greyhound airframes, which, I guess, would help with the insane maintainence situation.

F-14 and F-18 replied by Xcert @ Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:10:15 +0800

Xcert — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:10:15 +0800

Originally posted by tankfanatic:

close.... lol

Book: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
By Tom Cooper & Farzad Bishop

Osprey Combat Aircraft . 49

U have the physcial book or the ebook?

Anyway there was a documentary on the decommissioning of the F-14s...some of them are being stored in a desert facility to be recalled into active service at short notice if required.The rest are taken apart for their parts and those parts go back into US inventory in case Iran wants them illegally for their cannot-fire Tomcats...

F-14 and F-18 replied by F-15 @ Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:52:53 +0800

F-15 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:52:53 +0800

Navy fighters, f-18 and f-14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_uGw0HtfZY&feature=related

Watch this & judge it yourself

F-14 and F-18 replied by tankfanatic @ Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:05:12 +0800

tankfanatic — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:05:12 +0800

they allready do that if its a good idea...unfortunately the navy prefer hornet only fighter, bomber. My be because they were waiting for the F35? the Superbug just a transition aircraft.

F-14 and F-18 replied by arball @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:17:22 +0800

arball — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:17:22 +0800

hey, just an idea,

would you think if it would be feasible for f-14s and 18s to be complementing? ( dont mind the fatigue) ... sort of like the f-15 and 16 combination liddat, Heavy-light combo

F-14 and F-18 replied by Shotgun @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:49:28 +0800

Shotgun — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:49:28 +0800

Not to mention the countless hydraulics fluid leaks + lubricant patches where F-14s are stored. The Superbugs are pretty cool in terms of man-machine interfacing.

F-14 and F-18 replied by |-|05| @ Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:18:06 +0800

|-|05| — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:18:06 +0800

Originally posted by kenn3th:

The most iconic feature of the tomcat would be the swept wings.

And the Tomcat's variable-sweep wings give the F-14 a combat maneuvering capability that could not have been achieved with a "standard" fixed planform wing.

=( sigh, why cant there be any more variable sweep wing platform planes.

the only one surviving in the US army would be B-1 left.

If i recall correctly the F-14 combat maneuvering capability has been exceed by "standard" fixed winged platforms with the advent of aircrafts that are designed to be unstable like the Eurofighter and B-2 bomber.

These planes will not be able to fly level without the many many minor corrections made by their flight computers.

As such variable sweep wing planes have fallen out of favour.

PS:personally i prefer flying wings and blended wing bodies then variable swept wings :P

Recent Posts in 'F-14 and F-18' | sgForums.com