Comparison of Aircraft Wing Loadings

[column5 63]

Excel does a crap job with this kind of chart, so this is the best formatting I could manage. Read the T/W ratio from the left and the wing loading from the right. The best place to be on the chart is in the bottom right quadrant (low wing loading with high T/W ratio). Note that I am fairly sure my wing loadings for the Hornet and Falcon are too high. I need more info on the LEX and blended wing respectively.

 

[macelena 1,070]

I suggest making each aircraft a point, T/W variables in vertical and wing loading horizontal, but maybe it would take to be manually done. I´ll try

[+streakeagle 871]

You can fudge the numbers any way you want, but in reality the F-14 only turns modestly better than an F-4J until you get the wings extended. Aspect ratio greatly affects the lift properties of a wing with a fixed area and the F-14 has exceptionally high aspect ratio when the wings are fully extended. But keep in mind what speed the F-14 must stay below to get those wings out and how bad the drag will affect it because of its less than stellar thrust loading. The F/A-18 doesn't look so good according to your wing loading table, when in reality it will fly rings around an F-14 and is only marginally worse in sustained performance than an F-16 (actually marginally superior to the F-16 in instantaneous performance). The old rules of the thumb just don't work very well when you factor in LERX principles.

 

As for fuselage area, the fuselage reduces lift of the reference wing. In the case of the F-14 (and similar aircraft), the fuselage does not interfere as much as conventional layouts, so the net lift is increased, but you don't change the reference area to account for that and the additional fuselage area cannot be added directly to the reference area to show the gain achieved by the F-14 layout. What really matters is the top surface of the wing. The cleaner the top surface is, the closer the lift curves will be to the theoretical limits of the reference wing. The F-15's clean high-mounted wing scores very well in this area, but almost all modern fighters relect this benefit to some extent.

 

While F-102s and F-106s could pull some scary AoA's with their deltas, I would never call them dogfighters. Visibility out of the cockpit was horrendous and there was no close-in weapon system. I would rather have fought MiG-17s using F-104s with gun and AIM-9s than F-102s and F-106s with AIM-4s.

[column5 63]

You can fudge the numbers any way you want

 

Yes, we know that nothing in the sky can touch your precious Phantom.

 

Oh, and Adm. Gillchrist confirms the low wing loading of the Tomcat, pegging it at about 55 in his book which arrived a couple of days ago. All of this serves to confirm the crisp performance of the F110-engined Tomcats that has been reported by everyone who flew it. So, while the performance of the F-8 v. F-4 is debatable, any attempt to claim parity between the F-4 and F-14 is just pathetic.

[shotdown 8]

While F-102s and F-106s could pull some scary AoA's with their deltas, I would never call them dogfighters. Visibility out of the cockpit was horrendous and there was no close-in weapon system. I would rather have fought MiG-17s using F-104s with gun and AIM-9s than F-102s and F-106s with AIM-4s.

 

I f I'm not mistaken, the 106 could be fitted with a gun pod in the missile bay instead of a couple of missiles. Anyway, both Convair Deltas where designed as pure interceptors, so any ACM capabilities are just an extra bonus.

[column5 63]

I f I'm not mistaken, the 106 could be fitted with a gun pod in the missile bay instead of a couple of missiles. Anyway, both Convair Deltas where designed as pure interceptors, so any ACM capabilities are just an extra bonus.

 

Yes, the Project Sixshooter program added the M61 canon at the expense of the Genie station, and also a new clear-top canopy for better visibility. Everything I've read indicates that the F-106 was not a slouch when it came to ACM.

[+Dave 2,322]

Yes, the Project Sixshooter program added the M61 canon at the expense of the Genie station, and also a new clear-top canopy for better visibility. Everything I've read indicates that the F-106 was not a slouch when it came to ACM.

 

Quite correct, many thought the big delta wing couldnt fight but many found out other wise.

[Caesar 305]

I recall a conversation with "Turk" at the Sunset website that when the Tomcat came online, they would try to fight anyone willing, to include the F-102 and F-106. He seemed to indicate the same thing; a well-flown Deuce or Dart was definately no slouch in ACM.

 

The F/A-18 doesn't look so good according to your wing loading table, when in reality it will fly rings around an F-14 and is only marginally worse in sustained performance than an F-16

 

I can think of several Tomcat pilots and RIOs who would disagree, to include the father of one of my squadron mate's, with nearly 20 years and over 2000 hours in the type at his retirement, and having flown every model. To paraphrase another, pointing out the difference between the A and the B/D: "Given two equal pilots, the F-16 should ALWAYS beat the F-14A. Against a B or D, the Viper made a nice lunch after the first 9G turn." (Hoser)

 

Verily, it is tough to gauge an aircraft's relative combat performance based on wing loading and thrust to weight alone; and I will never deny that lightweight aircraft like the F-16 and F/A-18 (also with excellent alpha authority) are going to be easier to fight with in ACM than a heavier F-14 or F-15. But basing arguments only on performance charts will not give a true assessment of a fighter's full, usable ACM capabilities.

 

Talking to Hoser and Turk at the Tomcat Sunset Association, they were in regions of flight that, by the manual, the Tomcat was not supposed to be able to fly in (altitude of over 20,000 feet at under 90 knots, flaps down, still in a high-alpha rolling scissors, for example). Reading about engagements over the Nellis Test Range, Snort flying his plane at under 70 knots with the flaps down to call guns on a MiG-21 flown by Rookie Robb. Looking at the Tomcat's -1.1 manual, the airplanes were outside of their envelope, and should not have been in controlled flight at these points, and yet they were.

 

Turk, having entered the AF Reserve after his time in the Navy, also recalls flying F-4D's against F-15's and coming out on top repeatedly (he flew the F-4 before the F-14 during his time in the Navy). A well handled plane will fly rings around whatever jet if the other pilot ain't handling his own plane as well.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Caesar

[column5 63]

A well handled plane will fly rings around whatever jet if the other pilot ain't handling his own plane as well.

 

That's the bottom line, it seems. One corollary that Adm. Gillchrist reiterates in his book...the vast majority of engagements are won by the pilot who is first to acquire his opponent visually.

[+streakeagle 871]

Yes, we know that nothing in the sky can touch your precious Phantom.

 

Oh, and Adm. Gillchrist confirms the low wing loading of the Tomcat, pegging it at about 55 in his book which arrived a couple of days ago. All of this serves to confirm the crisp performance of the F110-engined Tomcats that has been reported by everyone who flew it. So, while the performance of the F-8 v. F-4 is debatable, any attempt to claim parity between the F-4 and F-14 is just pathetic.

 

The data showing the turn performance differences between the F-4J and F-14A comes from the same book used for the wing area illustration in this post. Like the F-4, the F-14 was a heavy interceptor, not a MiG-21 or F-16 lightweight day fighter. The F-15 didn't even have the aerodynamic peformance (CLmax) to out turn the F-4E, just the excess power to sustain higher rates (I cite the F-15 vs the F-4 since the F-15A IS superior to the F-14A at the high subsonic speeds where comparisons are usually made). When the wing is swept back to an intermediate position at higher speeds, the F-14's wing behaves like any other aircraft with that wing sweep, but with 60,000 lbs hanging beneath it. When the wing is fully swept, it is practically a delta and suffers all of the problems of deltas. I am sure I posted the performance charts from the F-14 book a long time ago comparing the MiG-21, F-14A, F-14B (original version from 1970s), F-4J, and MiG-23. The MiG data is largely estimated, but the F-4 and F-14A pretty much match currently available charts. The F-14A is better than the F-4 across the board, but it is not that much better when you start comparing F-16 and F-18 data. Any claim that the F-14A was a nimble dogfighter is pathetic except in very specific circumstances about as useful in typical combat situations as the Flanker's Cobra maneuver. The F-14A+/F-14B/F-14D is another subject because the extra thrust did get the F-14 up to the F-15's class of performance when the wing is in an intermediate position and I can only speculate how much better that would make it when low and slow with wings fully exteneded.

 

As I recalled, from the very same book, and used in previous discusssions about the same basic subject (F-14 vs everything else):

http://img185.imageshack.us/i/realf4jsustghm6tx.jpg/ http://img185.imageshack.us/i/f14agsust8eu.jpg/

 

Keep in mind, that the F-4J is unslatted. The slatted F-4E sustained turn numbers get really close to the F-14A thanks to about a 10% to 20% increase in CLmax for no increase in induced drag.

Edited May 23, 2010 by streakeagle

[column5 63]

Like the F-4, the F-14 was a heavy interceptor, not a MiG-21 or F-16 lightweight day fighter.

 

Incorrect. The F-14 was a maritime air-superiority aircraft, or, as some prefer, a fleet defense fighter. It was designed from the outset to be more than just an interceptor, unlike the Phantom. Its capabilities extend from point-blank ranges out to beyond 100nm across a broad operating envelope. In fact, I can think of no source (not even unreliable ones) who has identified an arena of aerial combat in which the F-4 was superior...except of course, you.

 

The F-15 didn't even have the aerodynamic peformance (CLmax) to out turn the F-4E, just the excess power to sustain higher rates

 

It doesn't matter where the performance comes from, only that it exists when the aircraft is analyzed in its entirety. The F-15 is clearly superior to the F-4, and no amount of fudging the numbers or facts will change that, nor will attempting to find specific data points that support your agenda in defiance of the big picture.

 

the F-14's wing behaves like any other aircraft with that wing sweep, but with 60,000 lbs hanging beneath it.

 

Except, of course, that the F-14 wing is not the same as any other aircraft, owing to its computer controlled variable geometry.

 

The F-14A is better than the F-4 across the board

 

Welcome to reality. You can try to minimize this fact, but stubbornly it remains.

 

Any claim that the F-14A was a nimble dogfighter is pathetic except in very specific circumstances about as useful in typical combat situations as the Flanker's Cobra maneuver.

 

Having seen the F-14A at numerous airshows, I can say from first-hand experience that you are wrong again. Also, the pilots (whom you have just called pathetic--nice) say you are wrong, which carries a lot of weight with me. Hey, remember the time you tried to tell an F-4 pilot that he was wrong about the aircraft's performance!

 

The F-14A+/F-14B/F-14D is another subject because the extra thrust did get the F-14 up to the F-15's class of performance when the wing is in an intermediate position and I can only speculate how much better that would make it when low and slow with wings fully exteneded.

 

Slow down, Hoss, let's savor this moment! Ahhh...

 

Keep in mind, that the F-4J is unslatted. The slatted F-4E sustained turn numbers get really close to the F-14A thanks to about a 10% to 20% increase in CLmax for no increase in induced drag.

 

No amount of fudging is going to make the F-4, slatted or unslatted, competitive with the F-14A in this arena.

[+Dave 2,322]

No amount of fudging is going to make the F-4, slatted or unslatted, competitive with the F-14A in this arena.

 

Can't argue that. But remember we are talking about the same person who tried to argue with a real life F-4 driver (with Mig kills) about how the F-4 flies.

[column5 63]

Heres a cool one...2 F-14s versus an F-16 and an A-4. Tomcats win this one.

 

 

 

The F-16s win this one:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60R_MCHrPhE

[Caesar 305]

Keeping up with the wing loading theme, I think I just figured out why "Snort" said an effective way to beat the F-16 or F/A-18 in the F-14 (any model) was to pull the AUX FLAP Circuit Breaker. I didn't really understand why, until last night when I checked my -1B manual; with the AUX FLAP breaker pulled, the wings won't sweep back, and I think it prevents a FLAP/SLAT Lockout (will have to recheck). End result is it forces the wings out, keeping the wing loading lower, generating lift with the flaps available for that high-alpha, slow speed rolling scissors or other slow speed maneuvering favored by him, Hoser, Turk and their ilk.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

F-4 vs F-14

 

Right about now, 12:22PM, I am scheduled to enter the thread and carry out my internal programming by poasting the F-4 has the advantage of 2 seats.

[DWCAce 19]

Uh.... I'm confused on that one.

[JediMaster 451]

How so? Isn't it obvious the F-4 with 2 seats has an advantage over the 2-seat F-14? I mean, it's the F-4, so it has the advantage, right?

[column5 63]

Maybe he meant F-15?

[DWCAce 19]

Quite possibly.

[+Crusader 2,101]

The 2 Topgun vids, they are classics.. saved them from youtube long ago

Judgingby the narrators voice, they are both from the same docu .. anyone knows from which docu or video ?

[+streakeagle 871]

A standard reference point used for comparison is Mach 0.9 at 10,000 feet. Typically, you will find the peaks of sustained g curves at almost exactly that Mach and 10,000 feet is considered a good medium altitude for comparison, though sea level and 30,000 feet are also commonly used.

 

The F-14A can sustain about 6.5g via visual interpolation, (I am too lazy to find a better chart to get a more precise number, but the value for 10,000 feet is nearly halfway between the 7g and 6g curve peaks at Mach 0.9. Exact data was observed and documented during slatted F-4E evaluation by the USAF and NASA for the standard 10,000 feet/ Mach 0.9 reference point:

The unslatted F-4E can sustain 5.68g while the slatted F-4E is 6.78g. These F-4Es and F-14A are at 1/2 internal fuel and clean per standard table conditions.

 

Now who is living in fantasy land and fudging numbers? No amount of taunting, insults, or Admiral anecdotes will alter hard numbers from objective sources. If you don't believe those numbers, I don't know what you will believe. And why do I always bring up F-4s when discussing aircraft performance? Because it is the stick by which all other aircraft are measured in almost every reference I have. F-16 vs F-4, MiG-21 vs F-4, MiG-17 vs F-4, MiG-23 vs F-4, F-15 vs F-4, F-14 vs F-4. Even combat aircraft design books use the F-4 as a primary example, because extensive data is readily available and it is comparable to anything else flying.

 

Now, since you never reply to my posts with any facts, only vague contradictions to whatever I post and sometimes selected anecdotes that favor your position, I will throw in some facts that are less related to aircraft quality, but still prove my points about relative F-4 performance: VF-302 achieved the highest number of "kills" and placed 2nd out of 12 squadrons in the 1981 Fighter Airborne Early Warning Wing Pacific fighter derby. 8 of the competing squadrons were flying the F-14. VF-302 was flying the F-4 (either F-4N or F-4S, they were transitioning to the F-4S in 1981). VF-201 took first place honors with a 15:2 kill ratio in the 1982 Felix International Fighter Meet. They flew the F-4N against F-5E, F-14, F-15, and F-16 adversaries. There is no doubt that the pilots flying the F-4s were top notch, but were all of the other pilots so bad that the mighty teen fighters lost so badly to F-4s?

 

You questioned my F-4 versus F-8 anecdotes because you said they contradicted each other, but they didn't. I am sure that the VF-96 pilot was 100% honest when he said he never saw an F-4 lose to an F-8 after Top Gun training. Likewise, why would the F-8 pilot lie about his experience against F-4s? They served in different units at different times, and had different expriences. But, even though almost all information on the F-8 versus the F-4 is anecdotal due to a lack of hard data on the F-8, when an F-4 pilot in a decent unit offers an experience that contradicts your opinion, you deem the anecdotes unacceptable? If an F-4 unit can get a 15:2 kill ratio over teen fighters and the F-5E, what do you think they did to F-8s when flown by equally good pilots?

 

Is anyone ever going to respond with flight manual data? Maybe a NASA evaluation? Mathematical analysis of observed data? Any sort of aerodynamic data from some sort of factual soruce? Or just insult me and make line-by-line contradictory statements without any supporting data? Someone else in another thread said that no matter what data was posted they would never change their opinion. And I am the one that is biased

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

taunting, insults,

 

Streak, be happy you are not a combat flight TheSims developer.

 

I don't think you ever claimed F-4 > F-14, so could alot of those good derby results be from years, decades, of institutional experience with the F-4? Also, after Vietnam there were some good improvements to F-4 most notably I can think of now is improved cockpit workload.

 

-

 

Most important regarding F-14, the F-4 had the advantage of "2 weeks"

(sorry that's my internal programming can't help it)

[column5 63]

 

<SNIP>

 

 

The evidence is clear and overwhelmingly in support of the positions taken in this thread and others, and is not extreme to any degree. The F-8 had a slight advantage in ACM over the F-4, while the F-4 possessed other advantages. The F-14 is superior to the F-4 in almost all respects. Pilot skill makes up for defects in any aircraft. These are the positions you are arguing against, and very, very few people who have studied the history are going to join you over there in the phantom phanboi section becasue the weight of the evidence from many, many sources is so stacked against you.

 

As I said before, you can find single data points to try and defend an indefensible position, but it won't change reality. Those data points could be from fudged math or foggy anecdotes that contradict years of written history, its all the same--you sitting under a naked light bulb, the air thick with smoke, eyes bloodshot muttering to yourself and banging away on a keyboard in a sad attempt to rewrite history using a chart you found in a book.

[JediMaster 451]

What difference does sustained g-performance make when the pilots will never use it? Any F-4 or F-14 pilot knew their plane was outmatched by most other fighters in turning battles, so they didn't go there. That's like saying the B-1B is a superior fighter to the B-52 because it has better sustained turn performance. That's true, but irrelevant.

[column5 63]

What difference does sustained g-performance make when the pilots will never use it? Any F-4 or F-14 pilot knew their plane was outmatched by most other fighters in turning battles

 

My opinion, informed by never having flown a plane, is that you would want the best performance you could get in any given regime of flight to expand your options in any given engagement. Why be limited to vertical maneuvers when you can use the vertical and horizontal?