Falcons v Tomcats

[Guest ruhzyo]

Interesting, to say the least.

 

Edited March 21, 2009 by ruhzyo

[SGCSG1 0]

We're sorry, this video is no longer available.

[+Viggen 591]

It works. I got it to show up. Just refresh.

 

Edited March 21, 2009 by JA 37 Viggen

[Guest ruhzyo]

My editing skills are only rivaled by my skinning technique. Same vid.

 

[+streakeagle 866]

Wings out 100% = dead meat

The wings being extended all the way out means that the Tomcat pilots got very slow.

 

Despite the movie Top Gun and the beliefs of F-14 fantatics, it is not a dogfighter compared to the F-16.

The Tomcat is somewhat more maneuverable than an F-4 and generally comparable to the F-15, but nowhere near the F-16.

 

The way they should have tried to win was by keeping their speed up above 400 kts and using mutual support to cover each others tails (no different than the F4F vs the A6M).

Well flown F4Fs smoked A6Ms: In 2 vs 2 or larger fights, good tactical decisions by the pilots generally cancel out the advantages conferred by speed and agility.

In this case, the F-16s have the better pilots and the better dogfighter.

 

Hopefully, the Tomcat pilots in this video learned some valuable lessons and got a chance to try a similar mission again.

I bet if the instructor pilots had been in the Tomcats and the students had been in the F-16s that the results would have been the same.

 

Now as always in air to air combat, the pilot is generally far more important than the crate he flies.

[Guest ruhzyo]

I suspect it was an AF 'train the brain' sim'. "This is what to do in a MiG-2+ dogfight."

 

Thank the Lord for the USAF and their surplus.

Edited March 22, 2009 by ruhzyo

[markkyle66 0]

Wings out 100% = dead meat

The wings being extended all the way out means that the Tomcat pilots got very slow.

 

Not exactly true, a tactic from NFWS and the fleet was for Tomcat pilots would manualy vary the sweep in the aircrafts wings on purpose so that the opponents would have a hard time identifying their energy state when they met at the merge... or any other time when the Turkey was visible : ] Those Naval Aviators aren't suckers : ] even though I regard my big bro as one.

Edited March 22, 2009 by markkyle66

[+streakeagle 866]

Manually maneuvering the wings to lie about energy state would be bad.

The original schedule was based on maximizing lift rather than minimizing drag.

It was found to overstress the wing in dogfights.

Wings out at high speeds while maneuvering hard = bent wings.

Why would they risk damaging their wings? Doesn't make sense to me for F-14 pilots to do this on any regular basis.

 

As for this particular incident, I think the footage shows the F-16s were able to swing their noses all around them.

For that to be true, the speed should have been 350 knots or less, where the F-16s would absolutely own them in sustained performance.

For a brief moment, the F-14s could turn with the F-16 (the wings out is actually very effective for turning until they lose too much speed), but they would bleed speed badly and/or have to ease off their turns at some point.

Above 400 knots, the F-16 is limited by pilot and airframe to 9g, which the Tomcat can pull as well, so the fight would be a lot more fair in terms of turn rate and turn radius.

This video shows the F-14s trying to spiral with F-16s, which just isn't smart at all.

F-15s have no maneuvering flaps and fixed wings. They have to drop below 250 knots to use landing flaps... so they turn even worse than the F-14.

But smart F-15 pilots stay above 400 knots and use their vertical performance in addition to good tactics to handle close in fights.

 

A more interesting fight would be F/A-18A/C versus F-16A/C with equally skilled pilots.

The YF-17 was very close to the YF-16 in maneuverability, but the thrust-to-weight advantage of the F-16 gave it better sustained turn performance.

The F/A-18 ended up a bit heavier than the YF-17, but retained instantaneous performance over the F-16. Over time, the F-16 got heavier, but also got a much better engine. So, I would be curious to see which airframe could out maneuver the other for a guns kill. Could the F-18 yank its nose around and get a quick snapshot before its speed bled off? Are the aircraft close enough in performance that even the slightest difference in pilot skills and tactics would determine the outcome? Make no mistake, the F/A-18 has pitch authority comparable to the Su-27. So I would love to see both Hornets and Falcons in 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 gunfights pushed to their limits.

[Guest ruhzyo]

A more interesting fight would be F/A-18A/C versus F-16A/C with equally skilled pilots.

This would equal to an ass-stomp. (unless the Iron Eagle kid is involved)

 

The vid, I believe, was to show the 16's superiority over 'clumsy'. Whether that be Soviet built or not, the Falcon is still a bombtruck.

[+Typhoid 231]

I don't think any Tomcat pilot would realistically state that his plane could outdo a Lawn Dart at the merge or after.

 

The Tomcat's killing capability was in first shot capability before the merge.

[Caesar 305]

"Hoser" Satrapa sez: "In the "A-" Turkey v Viper, you had to trick the hell outta 'em. In the B or D, the Viper made a nice lunch after the first turn!"

 

You can also find a 2v2 (2 F-14 v 1 F-16 and 1 T-38) on Youtube where the Tomcat bags the Viper after the initial turn, his wing gets taken out by the T-38, but the vid ends before the fight finishes, with the Turkey in a hard turn.

 

It's the pilot, not the plane.

 

EDIT: About the manual wingsweep: that was one of Hoser's tricks, but it was a one-time use thing "if the Viper pilot had a brain in his head" Wings aft, Vanes out, and if the Viper pilot isn't paying attention to the Vc, he'll think the F-14 is at >1.4M. After the merge, flip wings to manual, "Zone 6", go vert and gun his ass.

Edited March 22, 2009 by Caesar

[gbnavy61 1]

Read about Hoser's trick, too. Good stuff.

 

Disagree w/ streak's conclusion - switch the pilots and the F-16 still gets the F-14? I don't think you can say that for sure. Kinda odd, though, since streak then goes on to say that the pilots make the difference. Or perhaps he meant switch planes and the instructors would still win?

 

I'd still rather fly a Tomcat.

Edited March 22, 2009 by gbnavy61

[GreyCap 0]

F-14 students getting whooped in a knife fight with F-16 instructors... no big surprise there I think. Cool vid though!

[gbnavy61 1]

Saw another vid, Caesar - maybe the one you were talking about, but it was 2 Tomcats vs an F-16 and an A-4. The F-16 in that one goes down pretty quickly to the lead F-14A. However, Dash 2 gets bagged by the A-4. Then, the F-14 and A-4 go at it and it sounds like somebody gets a kill, but then the "knock it off" comes over the radio. Can't make out the last bit.

 

Does seem to support the two-place crew concept, at least for the second set of eyeballs, particularly when you're looking for something as small as an A-4/F-16. Though it seems like even with that advantage, Dash 2 lost sight of the A-4 quite a bit.

 

Here:

Edited March 22, 2009 by gbnavy61

[+Jug 99]

This would equal to an ass-stomp. (unless the Iron Eagle kid is involved)

 

The vid, I believe, was to show the 16's superiority over 'clumsy'. Whether that be Soviet built or not, the Falcon is still a bombtruck.

Wrongo, moosebreath. The Falcon was designed from the ground up as a cheap lightweight overpowered fighter. The bomb truck it turned into was the result of Pentagon wars over which would be the air superiority fighter (F-16 or F-15) and which would be the bomber. They both ended up trucking bombs and doing a pretty good job of it when reality set in and the Army told them they didn't care who won the air war. Own the turf, win the war and air superiority plays only a minor role in that.

 

However, unload an F-16 and it is back to what it was designed to do, eat up the other guy, which, bye the way, it does handily against the F-15 and F-14 (depending on the driver). (eg F-16 in the adversary role in Red Flag and Top Gun training environemnts) Remember the Israelies have many F-16 air to air kills in the Bekka valley where the bomb load was carried into the air to air engagement. The F-15E and the Bombcat cannot do that very well (once again depending on the driver).

[+Brain32 265]

This is what one real(now retired) F-16 pilot told to me about "fighting" different planes:

...the most humbling A/A engagement I've ever had was at the hands of an F-14 crew 2v1 vs. me and our weapons officer. They fought specific anti-F-16 tactics, and were one of the senior crews of their squadron (LCmdr driving, Cmdr in the pit IIRC.) They rarely got above 140 kts, and just used their higher alpha to point at us (and the extra pair of eyes to call the switch) and keep us both beaten down on energy. They wouldn't have wanted to do that in a bigger engagement, but in this training enviornment, it worked well. By the same token, F-18's could be easy or hard, depending on who was flying, and what their training emphasis was. The Marines at Iwakuni never gave us many problems A/A, but the Canadians out of Sollingen were another matter. Then again, were I a FAC, I'd want to talk to the Marines first. Though the Canadians were still more than capable A/G, the Marines trained for that more.

[JediMaster 451]

Because as has been stated time and again, in a guns-only fight it's the pilot not the plane.

 

However, in modern air combat you'll hear some pilots say it's the missile now. A good enough missile defeats everything now.

[MigBuster 2,876]

A 2v2 and above is probably more down to team work and tactics - a comparison of airframes would be 1v1 guns only with equal pilots in which case the planes you were in would matter - especially if you were in an F-14A which is not only less agile but has underpowered compressor stalling engines!

[JediMaster 451]

You could argue a good pilot would never get into a 1v1 guns only fight flying an F-14A.

[+Typhoid 231]

You could argue a good pilot would never get into a 1v1 guns only fight flying an F-14A.

 

now a "D" maybe...........