Caesar

Congrats on the release! Gonna take her for a spin!

Happy New Year!

Happy Birthday!

I like the assertions being made about the F-35 and this new plane, when neither are in service and the only one here with much of any intelligence (which he can't share) on the F-35 is JSFAggie, maybe FC as well. And is it just me, or does that thing's nose and vert stabs look like they came right off of the F-35? (Just an observation, and yes, I know, both Eastern and Western aviation industries have "copied" each other many times in the past.) Thanks for posting the shots, though!

It's kind of sad to me...at Thule, we ran into NCO's that fell into the "2d Lt" category of that chart, and 2d Lt's that had to, by necessity, drive themselves to be "Major"+ by that chart. Of course, we also had some NCO's (esp. my NCOIC, our KOM, and the STAN/EVAL NCOIC) that fit the "Sergeant" category of the chart too! Those NCO's were worth well more than their weight in gold.

<S>

All versions of the F-14 used both spoilers and the horizontal stabilizers for roll control, until the wings reached a certain sweep degree. After that point, all roll control, as well as pitch control, was provided by the horizontal stabs. Ref 01-F14AAA-1 para 2.21, dated 15 May 2003: "Roll control is effected by differential stabilizer deflections and augmented by spoilers at wing−sweep positions less than 57º (62º in aircraft BuNo 162611 and subsequent and earlier aircraft incorporating AFC 717)." The F-14B and D NATOPS read similarly at para 2.23, only that those aircraft lock down the spoilers at 62º rather than 57. So, as previously stated, all F-14's use both spoilers and differential horizontal stabs for roll control; later model A's, B's, and D's just lock down the spoilers at higher sweep angles than older A's.

<S!>

RIP Leslie. I just wanted to tell you both, good luck, we're all counting on you

<S>

If it were a missile, I'm pretty sure we'd know - that thing would have punched right through the UEWR's coverage at Beale AFB (UEWR = AN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radar; the same system we operate at Thule AB, ours is just a little newer ).

Best of luck, from the Top of the World! And congrats to Storm as well.

I know I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'd like to hear what Streak Eagle has to say about the Phantom's envelope - from what I understand, he's researched the hell out of it. For that matter, on the deck, you're going to have more "g" available with denser air moving over your control surfaces at any given speed. Your "g" authority, both sustained and instantaneous gets lower, or requires higher speed to reach, at higher altitudes. It follows that if an F-4 can perform a 7g+ turn at, say, 450KIAS at 20,000 feet, it can most definitely yank that same "g" at low altitude. As can a MiG-29 match an F-15C's 9g turn at low or high altitude. Also, how are your aircraft loaded? "g" limits change for any number of reasons, not the least of which is loadout and weight. If your jet is flying with external tanks, or high internal fuel quantities, its placard limit is not going to be the same as the actual limit at that weight. To make it easier, say we have aircraft X. Aircraft X's placard limit is 7.3g - say this is at a weight of 45,000 pounds. If aircraft X is loaded to 50,000 pounds, its "g" limit is 6.5g. At 55,000 pounds, its "g" limit is 5g. As weight burns off (either as fuel, or weaponry) the limit increases back to the structural placard limit at 7g. Every airframe, for the purposes of making it last for a long time, has this same "changing" g-limit due to weight/loadout. Also, if tanks are loaded, the limit can drop enormously. I recall reading an unclassified report from an exchange pilot on the MiG-29, indicating it only has a 4g limit while the centerline tank is installed and still carrying fuel. Good luck fighting an F-15A, C, E, or otherwise anywhere with a 4g limit, and an alpha limit as well in that configuration! (EDIT): That limit is also a symmetric "g" limit. Rolling limits are slightly or sometimes significantly lower than the symmetric limit, because the aircraft has differential "g" being loaded on the airframe during rolling and pulling maneuvers. Of course, in air combat, I can't think of any pilot who would follow "g" limits religiously if his/her own life, or that of the crew, were in peril. If you need to put on a 10g or 12g+ instantaneous turn to get out of the way of that missile, or to exchange energy for turn performance to kill that enemy who has been trying to kill you, you do it. Better to bring back an airframe with less available hours of flight remaining than to sacrifice the life of the aircrew because of some line on a chart, and I think every pilot I've spoken to who has been fired at has told me just that. We must also remember that "g" and "g" limits aren't everything. I've been fortunate enough to talk to a good number of F-14 drivers and RIO's who were, or rode with, excellent sticks that mastered slow speed BFM/ACM. Constantly loaded up on alpha, and rarely getting up to or higher than 3g once the fight slowed down, they'd mercilessly beat smaller, more nimble aircraft that didn't handle as well at such slow speeds, due to their higher wing loading, or where their pilots were uncomfortable flying right at the edge of stalling. One of those pilots I had the pleasure of speaking with would do the same thing in the F-4D as a AF Reservist against F-15 drivers (A or C), and come out on top at high or low altitude. But more than the plane, alpha or "g" limits is the pilot. The better pilot, who knows his/her own plane AND the enemy's, who understands the advantages and disadvantages of each airframe, is going to have the advantage in a dogfight. This was said earlier in the thread, I've said it before myself, and I will never be of an opinion otherwise. Pure fighter performance? I'd give it to the MiG-21 across the majority of low to mid-speeds in a turning fight, with the F-4 just catching up at higher subsonic speeds, but never really exceeding the MiG-21's turn performance. In the vertical, the F-4 seems to me the better candidate.

Happy Birthday!

I was in 10th grade biology class when we first heard of it. Initially thought to be an accident, but watching that second plane it, dear Lord! When I heard the Pentagon was hit as well I didn't believe it. "Don't we have some sort of defense around such a key military building?" Then I saw the pictures - guess not. Still can't believe it's been 9 years.

Certainly seems like Groundhog Day to me. Pratt and Whitney gets the initial contract, then GE develops a more powerful/reliable engine, then that engine gets threatened to be cut, but winds up being selected in the end. Kind of like the F-101/-110 and its derivatives that wound up in the F-14, F-15, and F-16.

For $8, you probably won't have any regrets buying it like I did for about $30 at the time. They went for a realistic game on a console and wound up making some of the most sluggish, undermodeled FM's I've ever seen. Now, if these planes were at max loadout, I could see (and expect) such a performance issue, but I'd be flying at about 50% fuel, guns only, no missiles on any rails and still have a terrible pitch and roll rate, and piss-poor G authority/build at all but high-subsonic/supersonic speeds (by this, I mean you'll have difficulty maintaining, say, a 4G turn in an F-14 at 350kts, full burner, at 50% fuel with no missiles remaining). With the missions having you fight multiple aircraft and expending your missiles early on, then having you engage a second set after a short FMV sequence with maybe 1 or 2 heaters and your guns left, it got frustrating quick going up against a fully loaded MiG-29, or Su-27 in a plane that still handles like a pig. You might like it, and for only $8, it's probably worth checking out, but I am definitely not a fan.

.