Read the forum code of contact
By: - 31st July 2008 at 11:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-14 had nice capabilities on paper but in reality it was something different.
Its glove vanes were little short of useless, so that it was concluded that it was better to weld them retracted.
Its leding edge slats were of little use because it was restricted to 5 g maneuvers with them extended. Also the AIM-9 firing was forbiden with extended slats !!!
Its max allowed loading was 6.5 G. Too low compared to Mig-21 bis or MiG-23 ML (8.5G).
Its specific excess power was patheticaly low.
In fact it was a Phoenix missile carrier. Not more.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-14 had nice capabilities on paper but in reality it was something different.Its glove vanes were little short of useless, so that it was concluded that it was better to weld them retracted.
Its leding edge slats were of little use because it was restricted to 5 g maneuvers with them extended. Also the AIM-9 firing was forbiden with extended slats !!!
The USN can operate their F-14s any way they like!! If they decide that they don't need the vanes, well that's their call, other air arms might think differently. If the USN feel it isn't safe to fire AIM-9s under certain conditions, thats their call as well. I wonder what sort of operational conditions the Iranians have imposed on their Tomcats - they may be quite different from those of the USN
Its max allowed loading was 6.5 G. Too low compared to Mig-21 bis or MiG-23 ML (8.5G).
True, or maybe not, ask pilots in the Iraqi and Libyan AFs if it makes a whole sh!t load of difference - a few of their fellow pilots came to premature demises against F-14s... while flying MiG-21 and MiG-23s.
More relevantly, ask pilots of the Backfire bomber if a 6.5 G restriction on the F-14 would make any difference to their surviviability or not.
In fact it was a Phoenix missile carrier. Not more.
Just as the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are nothing but battle taxis for the AA-6 and AA-9 missiles as well... and neither of those MiGs spent a lot of time pulling above 6.5 G either:rolleyes:
By: - 31st July 2008 at 13:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know for example that the F-16, F-18, Su-27 have wingtip antiflutter weights that double as missile wing tip rail launchers, however the F-15 has cropped raked wingtips doing the same fuction the antiflutter weights do
By: - 31st July 2008 at 13:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good stuff Floggerman, keep it comin! :cool:
By: - 31st July 2008 at 14:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The USN can operate their F-14s any way they like!! If they decide that they don't need the vanes, well that's their call, other air arms might think differently. If the USN feel it isn't safe to fire AIM-9s under certain conditions, thats their call as well. I wonder what sort of operational conditions the Iranians have imposed on their Tomcats - they may be quite different from those of the USN
Sure, they could decide whatever, but bear in mind that this unnecesary peace of equipment (glove vanes) adversely effects combat weight. Its all internal mechanicm was an unnecesary ballast. Just as if you have rocks in your pocket.
True, or maybe not, ask pilots in the Iraqi and Libyan AFs if it makes a whole sh!t load of difference - a few of their fellow pilots came to premature demises against F-14s... while flying MiG-21 and MiG-23s.
Do not forget that Libyan Mig-23's had AA-2 ATOLL rear hemisphere missiles and Tomcats had latest head-on Sidewinders.
Don't mix quality of the missiles with quality of aircraft.
Imagine what would happen with Tomcats if Libyans had R-60M or R-73 !!
More relevantly, ask pilots of the Backfire bomber if a 6.5 G restriction on the F-14 would make any difference to their surviviability or not.
Of course not, but we are talking about fighter vs fighter combat. The Mig-23 with 8.5 G airftame, tremendous Specific excess power and armed with head-on R-60, is highly dangerous to any Tomcat.
Just as the MiG-25 and MiG-31 are nothing but battle taxis for the AA-6 and AA-9 missiles as well... and neither of those MiGs spent a lot of time pulling above 6.5 G either:rolleyes:
Not so. Remember that Mig-25 is fast at low level also (1300kmh, earlier versions 1200kmh). It is in fact capable of 11 G pull-outs with subsequent safe landings, which was proved.
The Mig-31 has even stronger airframe than Mig-25.
At 18.000 m altitude , Mig-25 has a 100 m/sec climb rate, with 4 large missiles.
Compare that with 16.000 m service ceiling of F-14D !!
It is not very helthy to underestimate MiG-25, as one F-18 pilot in Iraq has learned in a hard way.
The MiG-25 is lightning fast and can come suddenly from nowhere. Arm it with more modern missiles and you will get very dangerous beast.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 14:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not so. Remember that Mig-25 is fast at low level also (1300kmh, earlier versions 1200kmh). It is in fact capable of 11 G pull-outs with subsequent safe landings, which was proved.
But we are talking about over gs and special cases there, i agree that ppl understimate the agility and airframe strenght of the foxbat (specially the agility at height), mainly due cold war myths , and because ppl claim the g limit as 5-4 gs, when that is under supersonic speed, anyway at low level the plane is not a dogfighter specially against a 4th gen plane
BTW...welcome back...
By: - 31st July 2008 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not very helthy to underestimate MiG-25, as one F-18 pilot in Iraq has learned in a hard way.
It is not very healthy to underestimate the F-14, as many Iraqi pilots learned the hard way.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-14 had nice capabilities on paper but in reality it was something different.
Actually the aerodynamics suited the mission, which was flying longer legs and landing on aircraft carriers. 100% of your MiG-21 would have stalled on approach.
Its glove vanes were little short of useless, so that it was concluded that it was better to weld them retracted.
From the information I have on this glove vanes I agree. It looks like the priorities were shifted in its early career (less M2).
Its leding edge slats were of little use because it was restricted to 5 g maneuvers with them extended. Also the AIM-9 firing was forbiden with extended slats !!!
Different than other aircraft it has plenty of lift available when wing are swept forward. LE devices are for landing and take-off only. The MiG-23ML is not even allowed to pull 5g when having wings forward.
And in a combat situation the Sidewinder will fire regardless of the slat setting.
Anyways, this is a rather pointless detail.
Its max allowed loading was 6.5 G. Too low compared to Mig-21 bis or MiG-23 ML (8.5G).
We've been over this a 100 times. The F-14 first of all has 7.33g, secondly it is designed with a different mission in mind. The fact that the structure accepts more g does not make an aircraft automatically the more useful.
Its specific excess power was patheticaly low.
The MiG-23ML may have nice excees power in some more or less irrelevant corners of the flight envelope, but as soon as you start to turn your energy drops like hell. For maneuvering flight the MiG-23 is a very bad aircraft. Specific excess power only tells you about 1g, if you look at 3 or 5g you start to see the difference.
In fact it was a Phoenix missile carrier. Not more.
If I remember correctly it carried Sparrow and Sidewinder and actually scored kills with it, at least more than the MiG-23 with its missiles.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 14:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not so. Remember that Mig-25 is fast at low level also (1300kmh, earlier versions 1200kmh). It is in fact capable of 11 G pull-outs with subsequent safe landings, which was proved.
Limit is 4.5G. If you quote g-limits, either take the official ones or take the ultimate ones, but stay consistent. An F-4 has pulled 11.5g and stayed in one piece.
The MiG-25 is barely able to break the sound barrier at low level. Its flight performance aside the high Mach and high altitude region is pathetic at best.
The Mig-31 has even stronger airframe than Mig-25.
Correctly set: the MiG-31 has a slightly less weak airframe.
Compared to contemporary fighters, both are useless for close combat.
At 18.000 m altitude , Mig-25 has a 100 m/sec climb rate, with 4 large missiles.
Compare that with 16.000 m service ceiling of F-14D !!
Great, where does it climb then? Intercepting the ISS? Any Sparrow or AMRAAM will have better climb rate.
You forgot to mention that at more relevant speed of Mach 0.9 and 10000m, just where the MiG-25 stays most of the time, its climb rate is far worse than that of the F-14 or F-4 or anything else.
The MiG-25 is lightning fast and can come suddenly from nowhere. Arm it with more modern missiles and you will get very dangerous beast.
The chance of a MiG-25 to score a kill is very limited. Its radar is the biggest light bulb in the sky, its missiles are short ranged and after a pass the MiG either runs or loses its energy in a turn. It is an interceptor and not more.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 14:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
*edit* nevermind i dont want to start all that mess again..
Anyway about the topic, if somebody have the mechanical diagram of the 14's swift wing?, how it controls it angle? with gearing or with mechanical breaks?
By: - 31st July 2008 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I looked it up again. the F-14's glove vanes are designed to reduce the drag at supersonic maneuvering. It translates into a huge advantage once supersonic and pulling some g's. The gloves vanes effectively reduce the static margin. Most supersonic aircraft of the 1950ies and 60ies were control authority limited above Mach 1. For a swing wing aircraft this is even more worrying as the neutral point shifts back anyways. No problem for 1g flight (F-111, Tornado) though.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 17:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And one post especially for firebar.
MiG-25RB maximum vertical load factor:
[ATTACH]164207[/ATTACH]
3.8g are not much.
The flight envelope:
[ATTACH]164208[/ATTACH]
No Mach 1 before 5000m.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no way to discuss with firebar. He is living in an own world. ;)
By: - 31st July 2008 at 17:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There is no way to discuss with firebar. He is living in an own world. ;)
As you use to say ... for the benefit of others.
By: - 31st July 2008 at 18:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I looked it up again. the F-14's glove vanes are designed to reduce the drag at supersonic maneuvering. It translates into a huge advantage once supersonic and pulling some g's. The gloves vanes effectively reduce the static margin. Most supersonic aircraft of the 1950ies and 60ies were control authority limited above Mach 1. For a swing wing aircraft this is even more worrying as the neutral point shifts back anyways. No problem for 1g flight (F-111, Tornado) though.
From Joe Baugher's site:
"These vanes are automatically deployed when the speed exceeds Mach 1.4 in order to push up the nose and unload the tailplanes, giving them enough authority to pull 7.5 g at Mach 2. The vanes can be manually deployed between Mach 1 and Mach 1.4, but will not operate when the wing sweep is less than 35 degrees because that would lead to too much pitch instability at low speeds. However, the benefit of the vanes proved in practice to be only marginal at speeds below Mach 2.25, and since they added weight and complexity, in the field they were locked shut and their actuators were removed. "
By: - 1st August 2008 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But we are talking about over gs and special cases there, i agree that ppl understimate the agility and airframe strenght of the foxbat (specially the agility at height), mainly due cold war myths , and because ppl claim the g limit as 5-4 gs, when that is under supersonic speed, anyway at low level the plane is not a dogfighter specially against a 4th gen planeBTW...welcome back...
Thanks.
Of course, it is not dogfighter as is Mig-21 or F-18, but multi role Mach 3 combat aircraft.
To design multi role Mach3 aircraft is by itself extraordinary feat because you have to include many contradicting requirements.
That is where the YF-12 failed.
It has strong airframe, capable of carrying heavy bomb loads, 4 tonnes and later 5 tonnes.
By: - 1st August 2008 at 10:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is not very healthy to underestimate the F-14, as many Iraqi pilots learned the hard way.
When you have AWACS, EC-135 and 100:1 numerical superiority it is not matter what a/c you have.
The 10 P-51 overwhelmed 1 Me-262, much less 100 :1.
By: - 1st August 2008 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually the aerodynamics suited the mission, which was flying longer legs and landing on aircraft carriers. 100% of your MiG-21 would have stalled on approach.
True, but high subsonic maneuvering needs high allowed G. In such condition the F-14, with it 6.5G and no slatts alowed over 5G, is a deadmeat.
LE devices are for landing and take-off only. The MiG-23ML is not even allowed to pull 5g when having wings forward.
And in a combat situation the Sidewinder will fire regardless of the slat setting.
The forward wing setings are for TO and landings only, in every VG a/c.
But the Mig-23 MLD has combat flaps. This is a big advantage over F-14.
As for Sidewinder firings, the Tomcat pilot can risk to fire Sidewinder when slatts are extended but departure is likely to occur in such condition.
And Tomcat is not known for good behave in a spin.
The F-14 first of all has 7.33g.
Why do you think so?
Manuals for both A and D versions say 6.5G max.
The MiG-23ML may have nice excees power in some more or less irrelevant corners of the flight envelope, but as soon as you start to turn your energy drops like hell. For maneuvering flight the MiG-23 is a very bad aircraft. Specific excess power only tells you about 1g, if you look at 3 or 5g you start to see the difference.
But The Flight mechanics say otherwise.
In order to have good subsonic sustained turn rate, you have to have high aspect ratio wing, low wing loading and high T/W ratio.
The MiG-23 has both. It has also very low induced and parasite drag coef.
The F-14 had about the same wing aspect ratio, higher wing loading and far lower T/W. Its Specific excess power was miserable compared to Mig-23.
By: - 1st August 2008 at 12:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Limit is 4.5G. If you quote g-limits, either take the official ones or take the ultimate ones, but stay consistent. An F-4 has pulled 11.5g and stayed in one piece.
You are right about F-4. But the MiG-25 also pulled about 11 G and landed safely. These are of course ultimate G loads, not allowed for normal service use.
Divide this with 1.5 coef. and you will get service permited G loads.
I wanted to point out that This proves great strengtsh of Mig-25.
Imagine what would happen to YF-12 in an 11 G pull.
The MiG-25 is barely able to break the sound barrier at low level. Its flight performance aside the high Mach and high altitude region is pathetic at best.
I would not agree.
What other Mach 3 aircraft has 1.06 M sea level speed.
The SR-71 was limited to 450 KT as sea level. That is pathetic.
Correctly set: the MiG-31 has a slightly less weak airframe.
Compared to contemporary fighters, both are useless for close combat.
I did not say that they are designed for close combat. Far from this.
But remember that neither the Me-262 was designed for close combat.
I hope you will not say that, because of that, the Me-262 was not a good fighter.
With extraordinary combination of altitude and speed, the MIG-25 and 31, are capable of killing much more maneuverable fighters ( like F-18 ), in spite of AWACS support.
Great, where does it climb then? Intercepting the ISS? Any Sparrow or AMRAAM will have better climb rate.
Both Sparrow and AMRAAM are useless at heights above 18km. There is no enough air for their tiny control surfaces to maneuver.
These missiles are virtualy balistic at these heights.
They can be of a threat to MIg-25 only at TO or when it goes for landing.
At its operational height and speeds, it is untouchable.
The chance of a MiG-25 to score a kill is very limited. Its radar is the biggest light bulb in the sky, its missiles are short ranged and after a pass the MiG either runs or loses its energy in a turn. It is an interceptor and not more.
Its radar can not be jammed, and titanium plated AA-6 is very fast and with 80 km range , not so short ranged.
It is interceptor, of course, but a hell of interceptor.
By: - 1st August 2008 at 12:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The forward wing setings are for TO and landings only, in every VG a/c.
But the Mig-23 MLD has combat flaps. This is a big advantage over F-14.
The MiG-23 has higher wing loading and much higher drag at high lift coefficients. Therefore someone gave it "combat flaps", to remedy this problem.
But The Flight mechanics say otherwise.
In order to have good subsonic sustained turn rate, you have to have high aspect ratio wing, low wing loading and high T/W ratio.
The MiG-23 has both. It has also very low induced and parasite drag coef.
The "high aspect ratio wing" is limited for the MiG-23 to a very small band and it is definitely not intended for combat. The T/W ratio is roughly comparable. the induced drag of a 45 or 72° MiG-23 is impressively high.
The F-14 had about the same wing aspect ratio, higher wing loading and far lower T/W. Its Specific excess power was miserable compared to Mig-23.
Once again: specific excess power is not the mark for everything. You need to maintain acceptable excess power at higher lift coefficients, something the MiG-23 is unable of.
What other Mach 3 aircraft has 1.06 M sea level speed.
By its operational limits (that is the same like the 6.5G you quote for the F-14, or the Sidewinder with slats, operational limits), the MiG-25 is neither Mach 3 at altitude nor Mach 1 at sea level. See posted flight envelope above.
Posts: 3,010
By: MiG-23MLD - 27th July 2008 at 05:55
Grumman F-14A Tomcat
In January 1969 the Grumman Aerospace Corporation was named the winner in a design competition for development of a Navy fighter to fill the role for which the F-111 was rejected. First flight of the new fighter, known as the F-14A Tomcat, took place on December 21, 1970, and the first operational squadrons were deployed on the U.S.S. Enterprise in September 1974. In addition to the previously described combat-air-patrol (CAP) mission, the F-14A was designed to fill several other roles including escort of carrier-launched strike forces, deck-launched interceptions, close-in air-to-air combat, and low-altitude strike missions. These varied missions spelled the need for an aircraft [329] with a combination of high cruise efficiency at subsonic speeds, good maneuverability at high-subsonic/transonic speeds, and a supersonic capability extending to Mach 2.4. Finally, as in all Navy fighter aircraft, low approach speeds compatible with carrier operations were required. As a consequence, it came as no surprise that the F-14A turned out to be an aircraft featuring variable-sweep wings.
Photographs of the F-14A are presented in figures 11.30 and 11.31, and the wing-planform shape is shown in figure 11.32; physical and performance data for the aircraft are contained in table V. As compared with the variable-sweep F-111, the Tomcat has distinct differences in appearance. Among the distinguishing features of the F-14A are the large two-dimensional horizontal-ramp supersonic inlets. In accordance with the Mach number, the angle of the upper ramp, that is, the inside horizontal surface of the upper part of the inlet, varies automatically at supersonic speeds to maintain high inlet pressure recovery. Another identifying feature of the aircraft is the two vertical-tail units necessary for adequate directional stability and control at high angles of attack and high Mach numbers. The crew of the Tomcat is accommodated in a tandem arrangement, in contrast to the side-by-side seating in the F-111.
An examination of the physical data in table V shows that the F-14A is significantly lighter than the F-111 and has a lower wing loading, a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, and a much shorter length. All....
these differences increase carrier compatibility. Two Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-412A afterburning turbofan engines power the F-14A; this is a version of the same engine used in the F-111. Repowering the aircraft with a more modern engine was originally planned; but so far, this has not taken place.
Wing sweepback angle of the Tomcat varies in flight from 20° to 68° to decrease the space required for storage on the aircraft carrier, the wing span is further reduced by increasing the wing sweepback angle to 75°. Wing thickness ratio (in the streamwise direction) varies from 9 percent for the low sweep position to 5 percent for a sweep angle of 68. An important difference in the wing geometry of the F-14 and F-111 is shown in figures 11.28 (F-111A) and 11.32 (F-14A). In terms of the wing semispan in the low sweep position, the pivot of the F- 14A is 10 to 12 percent farther outboard than that of the F-111. According to the paper by Kress in reference 155, the more outboard pivot location results in a much reduced rearward movement of the center of lift with increasing sweep angle. As a consequence, trim drag is reduced and available pitch-control power is increased. The favorable effect of locating the pivot in the proper outboard position is, of course, in accordance with NASA basic research. (See chapter 10.) An interesting feature of the F-14A wing is the retractable vane located on the fixed portion of the wing; the vane is shown in figure 11.32 in both [331] the retracted (low wing-sweep) and extended (high wing-sweep) positions. The function of the vane is to reduce the rearward shift in the center of lift that accompanies an increase in Mach number from subsonic to supersonic values. (See figure 10.15.)
Leading-edge slats and trailing-edge flaps are used to improve maneuverability at high subsonic speeds as well as to increase wing maximum lift coefficient at low speeds. The auxiliary flap shown in figure 11.32 is used only at low speeds to increase maximum lift. In normal operation, the maneuvering flaps, wing-sweep angle, and vane position are automatically controlled by a computer in accordance with a stored program that utilizes inputs from several measured flight parameters such as angle of attack, static and total pressures, and temperature. Manual operation of the wing is also possible. Roll control of the aircraft is provided by a combination of wing spoilers and differential deflection of the horizontal-tail surfaces.
Although available performance information on the F-14A is sketchy, the data in table V show maximum Mach numbers of 2.4 at...
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch11-6.htm