F15 vs F14 problem!

[+streakeagle 866]

Blasto, do you have a problem with the Tomcat winning?

I can answer that easily: people like myself who enjoy combat flight sims for the purposes of testing out the differences between various aircraft using real world tactics and maneuvers find that there is nothing learned from the process if you can't reasonably replicate known results for known conditions.

So, if the F-15 is supposed to be better in some cateogies (in some cases by a large margin), then Blasto certainly has a problem with his discovery that either the F-15 is undermodeled or the F-14 is overmodeled to such an extent that it is glaringly obvious during gameplay.

 

Of course, it is nicer if someone posts universally accepted performance charts of each aircraft and a graph of where one or both aircraft are deviating from such performance rather than just quoting thrust to weight ratios and wing loading to justify their claim... there is a lot more to aerodynamics than just those two parameters.

 

Having been involved with FM development in this sim for some time, I can say that most FMs out there are lucky if they are even within 10% of where they should be, so if one aircraft's FM is more than 10% better than it should be, the other aircraft is more than 10% worse than it should be, and the real aircraft have less than a 10% difference in performance... then you are going to encounter plenty so situations similar to this one. The effort it takes to get an FM within +/-10% over the entire Mach-Height range is tremendous, so if you don't like the FMs you are flying with, feel free to calibrate them and document the resulting performance so that you can distribute them as the less than 1% error flawless FM everyone should be flying ;)

[sparkomatic 7]

- very eloquent...please note that his point was also dis-proven yesterday and he still insists he has a point...that confounds me...I still say he has no point and is just sore because in his words, two dudes with less time than him schwacked him, so hurt feelings clearly = broken game

 

- additionally, the point is not lost that he is comparing the F-14D, which is freeware, and ranting about it as though he missed a car payment and it is not up to his standards

 

- as has been stated many times, if he is genius, then why does he not prove the rest of us wrong, and freely distribute his far superior-make Grumman envious product?

 

- please review that he stated the F-14D was indestructible...then balked when screenshots posted of burning F-14D...then he very cleverly stated "I am not talking just to talk"...that is a matter of conjecture

 

- we are anxiously awaiting him in Nigeria...

[Caesar 305]

Okay, blasto, I'm going to ask you a few questions to try to troubleshoot this as best I can. Some of them have already been asked by the other folks here, but not answered. I'm serious now, so try to answer these as best as you can.

 

1.) Are you flying with external tanks?

 

2.) At what airspeed are you fighting?

 

3.) At what altitude are you fighting?

 

4.) What is the experience of the players you're going up against?

 

All of these factor in to who has the advantage and who is going to win. If you're fighting with 3 external tanks at low altitude and airspeed, the Tomcat is going to tear you apart, especially with a skilled pilot. Jettison your tanks if you are fighting with them on, get the 'Cat high and keep the airspeed up and you'll notice the fight is a lot easier. The F-14 is noted to have a hard time at high altitudes. Closer to 30K feet I find it tough loading 6G on the Tomcat if that. I try to draw my opponents down low. If you're getting into a turning fight, remember that it's not just thrust to weight, but also profile. The Tomcat has the swing wing, and straight out is going to give a hulluva lot of lift. Keep the speed up towards 500kias. If you drop below that, especially down towards 250kias and the Turkey's Big Boys (flaps) come down, you're done.

 

Most of this has already been said, but if you can just answer those four questions, it'll give a better idea of what's going on and why you're loosing.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Caesar

[Canadair 16]

I can't see any "rant" against F-14 in blasto's words.

He just asked your opinions about his evaluation of F-15s andF-14s models

He never stated the F-14 is undestructible.

Never balked when sparkomatic showed the pics of his Tomcat splash.

He has nothing, I guess against the Tomcat.

How comes that often, on this forum, someone that "blows the whistle", (being him right or wrong, that doesn't really mattter). ends up in troubles?

 

Personally, on the other hand while appreciating the posts of knowledgebale peoples such as streakeagle or thphoid or crusader, I don't give a rat's a**, and have fun with I get, trying to improve it and mod it. Just Details, and as RL pilot, I have no problem in believing that ,at best, FMs are a hit and miss and only a picture of reality. I mean, professional flight simulators are often quite different from the real planes, mind you LOW-budget projeest such as SFP1. Specifically, out of my readings, probably the F-14 would have a better istantaneous turning rate, but again, who cares.

 

And I see no reason for snarly comments about the typhoon and f-104s etc etc. We belong to many nationalities and I believe that each and every of our government tossed our taxpayers money out of the window in silly mistakes and mismanagement; I recall a case of "date changing bug" in raptor's code and the colossal mismanagement of the A-12, and of course the huge delays of the typhoon's program.

 

oh and what has nigeria to do with all this?

Edited January 30, 2008 by Canadair

[+Typhoid 231]

Streakeagle has hit the nail on the head

 

"Of course, it is nicer if someone posts universally accepted performance charts of each aircraft and a graph of where one or both aircraft are deviating from such performance rather than just quoting thrust to weight ratios and wing loading to justify their claim... there is a lot more to aerodynamics than just those two parameters.

 

Having been involved with FM development in this sim for some time, I can say that most FMs out there are lucky if they are even within 10% of where they should be, so if one aircraft's FM is more than 10% better than it should be, the other aircraft is more than 10% worse than it should be, and the real aircraft have less than a 10% difference in performance... then you are going to encounter plenty so situations similar to this one. The effort it takes to get an FM within +/-10% over the entire Mach-Height range is tremendous, so if you don't like the FMs you are flying with, feel free to calibrate them and document the resulting performance so that you can distribute them as the less than 1% error flawless FM everyone should be flying ;) "

 

this is a flight sim, not an engineering analysis program. The other part of that is that the turn capabilities and performance varies with speed and altitude. A simplistic statement that one plane turns better than another is not valid for different speeds or altitudes. Some are better high and some are better lower down. Some do better in a vertical fight and some do better in a horizontal fight. In Vietnam, for example, the Migs would fight a turning fight down low while our Phantoms wanted to go vertical at mid altitudes. Not such a simple parameter as 14 or 16 degrees of turn.

 

I don't have any detailed performance charts for either aircraft and modelling that level of accuracy in the FM would be a very challenging project. However, its an open forum so, Blasto, if you think its wrong and should be something else, develop it and post it. Don't just sit in the corner and gripe about it. Get to work.

 

I'll make one other point on the AIM-54 performance in which I do have the advantage of access at one time to some very detailed performance specs and analysis. the AIM-54A was a beast that was good at hitting non-manuevering targets. A slight jink at long range by the target could defeat the missile. At shorter ranges the AIM-54A could do better and the Iranian AF did have some good results against ingressing Iraqi strike aircraft.

 

The AIM-54C+ block7 that was the end of the Phoenix line was a very different bird. It could see through extensive countermeasures and performed very well against manuevering targets at medium to close ranges. And the range is the key. The Phoenix had a very long burn time on the engine compared to other missiles and could therefore maintain energy and maneuveribility for a longer time. When fired within a specific tactical range it would be powered all the way to the target unlike most A-A missiles (including the AMRAAM) that burn short and coast while manuevering to the target. What this enabled was a counter fighter mode that exceeded the F-Pole of any opponent. The "No-Escape" zone of the AIM-54C+block7 exceeded the range of the FLanker with AA-10/11/12. In short, the F-14D could engage a Flanker and kill him no matter what fancy manuevers he might try with a missile that was powered all the way to the target before the Flanker could even shoot. Don't bother to ask me what those ranges/parameters are. I am merely stating the overall capabilities at a gerneral level.

 

But, in the infinite wisdom of the bean-counters, this capability was too expensive and we lost the budget wars.

 

And yes, from everything that I've heard from my contacts at China Lake, the Typhoon is an awesome dogfighter and can kick any Hornet all week and twice on Sunday. I suspect that it can kick any Eagle, Viper, Hornet and probably Fulcrum and Flanker in close. How well it does in the medium range I do not know.

[Guest Sony Tuckson]

Point is Blasto came in to comment about respective performances

 

but judged through multiplayer (hence human beings.....a real factor as Sparky put it)

 

First thing to do would be to try the same engagement by shifting planes, and then see results

 

Figures are one thing (some here seem to study them nicely enough), but they are far from telling the story as far as dogfight si concerned....

 

No single plane is superior in all aspects and certainly not unbeatable.....never forget this ;)

[+Typhoid 231]

Point is Blasto came in to comment about respective performances

 

but judged through multiplayer (hence human beings.....a real factor as Sparky put it)

 

First thing to do would be to try the same engagement by shifting planes, and then see results

 

Figures are one thing (some here seem to study them nicely enough), but they are far from telling the story as far as dogfight si concerned....

 

No single plane is superior in all aspects and certainly not unbeatable.....never forget this ;)

 

absolutely correct. Pilots, training and tactics are what rule the skies. Any plane in the hands of the right pilot can kill any other.

[GreyCap 0]

absolutely correct. Pilots, training and tactics are what rule the skies. Any plane in the hands of the right pilot can kill any other.

 

Right! Since when does an aircraft's turn rate really mean anything anyways? Din't the lumbering F-4's score a 12-1 kill ratio vs the nimble MiG's in VietNam?

[+Typhoid 231]

Right! Since when does an aircraft's turn rate really mean anything anyways? Din't the lumbering F-4's score a 12-1 kill ratio vs the nimble MiG's in VietNam?

 

after they fixed their tactics! before that it was 1 to 1

 

 

which underscores our point!

 

[JediMaster 451]

Remember the time 2 F-14As famously shot down 2 A6Ms with guns and an AIM-9 with no trouble in 1941?

 

The A6M can outturn the F-14A all day long...

[+streakeagle 866]

Offtopic Note: AIM-54C did not work for the better part of a decade after going into service.

One the problems that plagued it during that period was a publicly identified flaw in it fuzing system that resulted in the missile detonating halfway to the target.

The digital upgrade of the AIM-54C paralleled AMRAAM development, and both suffered from major teething troubles.

Obviously, both of those missiles are absolutely amazing, but like the Sparrow and Sidewinder before them, they needed a decade or more to reach their full potential.

Of course, the AIM-54C got retired, while the Sidewinder and Sparrow soldier on.

Given AMRAAM's apparent success, 1 of 2 things will happen to the Sparrow: retired to save money on maintenance or upgraded to have similar guidance with longer flight range and bigger boom.

As long as Eagles and Hornets built to carry the Sparrow continue flying in significant numbers, I see value in upgrading Sparrows.

I wonder how the military feels about it? I know how Washington D.C. feels: do whatever is cheapest and will hurt us the most in a future conflict.

[+Dave 2,319]

Offtopic Note: AIM-54C did not work for the better part of a decade after going into service.

One the problems that plagued it during that period was a publicly identified flaw in it fuzing system that resulted in the missile detonating halfway to the target.

The digital upgrade of the AIM-54C paralleled AMRAAM development, and both suffered from major teething troubles.

Obviously, both of those missiles are absolutely amazing, but like the Sparrow and Sidewinder before them, they needed a decade or more to reach their full potential.

Of course, the AIM-54C got retired, while the Sidewinder and Sparrow soldier on.

Given AMRAAM's apparent success, 1 of 2 things will happen to the Sparrow: retired to save money on maintenance or upgraded to have similar guidance with longer flight range and bigger boom.

As long as Eagles and Hornets built to carry the Sparrow continue flying in significant numbers, I see value in upgrading Sparrows.

I wonder how the military feels about it? I know how Washington D.C. feels: do whatever is cheapest and will hurt us the most in a future conflict.

 

USAF IIRC is no longer buying the AIM-7. In fact I am not sure if we are using them anymore.

[+Gocad 26]

Remember the time 2 F-14As famously shot down 2 A6Ms with guns and an AIM-9 with no trouble in 1941?

 

The A6M can outturn the F-14A all day long...

 

Yeah. They even made a big-time Hollywood film about it.

[+ST0RM 145]

USAF IIRC is no longer buying the AIM-7. In fact I am not sure if we are using them anymore.

 

AIM-7s are not being carried anymore by the USAF. USN may still have a few...??

 

Storm

[+Viggen 587]

Wouldn't the Navy use them on the F/A-18As that are replacing F/A-18Cs that are aproaching the end for airframe's life?

Edited January 30, 2008 by JA 37 Viggen

[+ST0RM 145]

Wouldn't the Navy use them on the F/A-18As that are replacing F/A-18Cs that are aproaching the end for airframe's life?

 

I could be wrong, but I think the F/A-18As are the A-plus with the software for AMRAAM usage.

 

Storm

[+Viggen 587]

Eh, what do I know anyway? I'm just a Civil Air Patrol cadet. Spend more time training to go on a SAR for some idiot who crashed his Cessna (when Mass Wing won't even let Cadets at a Crash sight ) than studying about the Hornet.

[+streakeagle 866]

To the best of my knowledge, the AIM-7 is presently being phased out of service, but is not yet 100% gone.

I am surprised that it is being phased out, that would require nearly 1 for 1 replacement of the entire stock with AIM-120s.

Where did the budget come from to do that?

Edited January 30, 2008 by streakeagle

[+Viggen 587]

To the best of my knowledge, the AIM-7 is presently being phased out of service, but is not yet 100% gone.

I am surprised that it is being phased out, that would require nearly 1 for 1 replacement of the entire stock with AIM-120s.

Where did the budget come from to do that?

 

Getting rid of 40,000 airmen.

[+Dave 2,319]

Getting rid of 40,000 airmen.

 

Exactly.

[+ST0RM 145]

Getting rid of 40,000 airmen.

 

And that wont get us anymore aircraft either. Mosley was told to stop the force reduction as it wasnt necessary, but insisted and kept on with it. Manpower and Aircraft are two separate pots of money. Congress has to approve the shift of funds.

 

He might as well start wearing a business suit instead of a uniform. So far, he hasnt done much to help out the home team.

[+Typhoid 231]

I could be wrong, but I think the F/A-18As are the A-plus with the software for AMRAAM usage.

 

Storm

 

they are all referred to as blocks now within the fleet. All of the operational F-18's in the fleet are wired for the AMRAAM and the last of the AIM-7's are going, going, going.......

 

"Offtopic Note: AIM-54C did not work for the better part of a decade after going into service.

One the problems that plagued it during that period was a publicly identified flaw in it fuzing system that resulted in the missile detonating halfway to the target.

The digital upgrade of the AIM-54C paralleled AMRAAM development, and both suffered from major teething troubles.

Obviously, both of those missiles are absolutely amazing, but like the Sparrow and Sidewinder before them, they needed a decade or more to reach their full potential."

 

no argument. The last block of AIM-54C's were awesome weapons and the broad characterization of the AIM-54 as unsuitable for use against fighters was simply obsolete at that point.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Typhoid

[+Viggen 587]

Exactly.

 

 

Then if there is one thing I've learned here, its that Mosley is a just a ****ing **** **** (BLIP) BEEP CENSORED <EDITED> @$#&*%

[sparkomatic 7]

canadair: "Never balked when sparkomatic showed the pics of his Tomcat splash."

 

Blasto: "No itsn't so. The point isn't that you can't destroy the f14d. // It is sure that in the game f14d turn better, i'm not talking just for talk. // I want to say also another thing, in the beginning we have taught that it was for the missiles so f15 dropped it, but the tomcat not and it was always better with all the loadout. It is ridicolous."

 

Sparky...so I guess I dont understand what "balked" means...the Blasto clip was taken from directly beneath the Tomcat splash post...so, Canadair...show me where I am wrong, dude.

[+Jug 99]

canadair: "Never balked when sparkomatic showed the pics of his Tomcat splash."

 

Blasto: "No itsn't so. The point isn't that you can't destroy the f14d. // It is sure that in the game f14d turn better, i'm not talking just for talk. // I want to say also another thing, in the beginning we have taught that it was for the missiles so f15 dropped it, but the tomcat not and it was always better with all the loadout. It is ridicolous."

 

Sparky...so I guess I dont understand what "balked" means...the Blasto clip was taken from directly beneath the Tomcat splash post...so, Canadair...show me where I am wrong, dude.

 

 

Wasn't there a German dude named Hartmann that walked away from WWII and 352 engagements flying a kite that was much lower capacity machine that the guys he flew against. Boys and girls, it is the heart and skill of the tiger in the seat that prevails, not the machine.