Caesar

Good luck!

Happy Birthday!

x2! Of course, the other problem you'll run into using data points as your only "solid" evidence is that in manuals, to what I've seen, these points are only applicable to pilots/aircrews who would follow the manual to a T. Try calculating the F-14A's turn rate at 12.2G at 600kts. By the 1.1, you can't, but you'd better believe it happened (TACTS range recorded it in a fight vs an F-5E). What about at 10G to evade a SAM over the skies of Iraq during Desert Storm? Again, manual says "plane can't do that". It did. G-limiter pegged to get the hell outta the way. At times, like in the case of the 12.2G yank the objective was specifically to get slow quick, and get the Tiger off the Turkey's tail. End result was a slow speed rolling scissors which the F-5 was loosing after being on the offensive and unable to match the F-14's turn rate from the yank. KIO Deck was called before the Turkey driver called guns on the Tiger. Both the F-5 and F-14 drivers in the incident concur on that point. I use the F-14 in these examples, because it is a plane that I've researched; but the same must hold true for any other jet without hard limiters. For that matter, those charts don't talk about fighting in the full three dimensions of air combat. What is the rudder performance at high versus low speed? Can the plane out-yaw another? How about spoilers or the horizontal tail coupled with the rudder and other surfaces? A common maneuver of Tomcat drivers in a slow fight against a more nimble plane was to use opposite stick to rudder, where at slow speeds, the airplane would generate a high yaw rate in the direction of the rudder/snap roll, keeping the plane's nose on the target, when the target aircraft thought it was getting away. Climb rate with or without flaps? What about at combat altitude? How does the jet perform outside of those envelopes, both on the high side, and on the low side? Clearly that's not going to be in there. A lot of this has to come from the folks who flew the jets, because they were pushing them beyond the envelope, outside of the area covered in the manuals. I also continuously hear from pilots who "grew up" in the era before all-aspect heaters (Hoser, Turk, Hawk, Snort, and various pilots they flew with and against) that dogfights could commonly turn into slow-speed ordeals (even F-4 vs F-4), where the pilot with the better handling of his aircraft at such speeds (under 200kts), especially in a scissors (regardless of type vs. type, and executed time and again against smaller aircraft) would be the ones who came out on top. Today, that might not be as much the case, as most modern fighters at combat weight have better than 1:1 Thrust to Weight ratios (F-14B/D, F-15A/C, F-16C, MiG-29, etc.) and so can sustain energy better; but the idea that fights don't get slow, or that dragging an opponent to a slower speed than his own max performance speed doesn't happen seems ludicrous to me. Even more, looking at the weapons systems of today, high off-boresight missiles have massively changed the dogfight; the first person to get the target within 60-degrees of the nose is going to have the first shot. It's quite a bit different now.

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.

Playing Defender on my Atari today reminds me that the VCS/2600 had some ports that went pretty well, and others that did not. Verily, the first Defender didn't look as good as its arcade counterpart, but was still pretty fun to play. If you ever get the chance, plug in Defender II and you'll be surprised at how good it looks and plays; doesn't flicker nearly as much as the first game, and better simulates the terrain, player and enemies of the arcade machine. Relating more to the original subject, Pac-Man was one of those ports that, to me, did not work well. Aside from looks, it just feels different and somewhat sloppy. Now Ms. Pac-Man's port was pretty faithful, given the limitations of the VCS/2600, and I still enjoy playing that on the Atari. Space Invaders is loads of fun, either in a stand up machine or on the Atari, IMHO.

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. 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.

Well, happy 30th to Pac Man! We've actually got a Mrs. Pac Man stand up here in the break room of the radar. Still fun after many years.

<S>

Looks like Jon and Crusader beat me to it; Mr. Stevenson's book indicates the Tomcat has 1008sqft of lift total (WS 20), 565 from the wings, 443 from the fuselage/pancake. If its kept clean (no phoenix/rails) or with AIM-7's, the aircraft has a humongous boost in lift. The fuselage also stalls at a different speed than the wings; Skogs and Magic (IIRC) over at the sunset site talk about how, with the pancake clean, you could keep the F-14 flying with both wings stalled thanks to the fuselage (saying something to the effect of "it wasn't pretty, but the plane was flying and totally controllable"). 'Fraid I can't comment on the other aircraft...not enough research.

I was going to say; the later models were an improvement. Earlier models, like those tested by the 4477th were attrocious in a turning fight, departed very quickly and unexpectedly, but had extraordinary acceleration.

A lot of hypotheticals there. In the real world, the Tomcat flew sorties during Frequent Wind, but no MiGs came up to play. Had the war been continued on a larger scale, both it and the F-15 would have provided more capable frames to both the Navy and the Air Force within visual range, but considering that the USN F-4 crews had shown what that airframe could do with good ACM training, I do wonder if the kill ratio would be significantly different. For that matter, the long range, powerful radars of the F-14 and F-15 would have helped find opponents, but considering the ROE, they would probably not have had any easier time launching missiles at range against opposing aircraft. I don't feel the A-10 would have had that great an impact either; namely because the A-1, F-105, A-4 and even F-4 were providing CAS. Would they have helped? Tactically they could have, but given all of the airframes already involved, I don't think that those frames would have made a huge turning point in the war. History generally tells me that the equipment is less important than the tactics, training, leadership and luck of any force.

Felix Natalis Tibi!

Of course I'm voting F-14 for the poll, but like I wrote in my blog, the majority of comparisons are moot and either side of any comparison can be argued validly.

As per usual, I'm with the "it's not the aircraft, it's the pilot" crowd, but I do recall one F-8 driver who had two cruises in Vietnam with the Crusader relate that (after getting some Phantom hops) initially he understood why the F-8's beat up on the Phantoms so often. But after gaining some experience with the F-4, especially with its raw power and vertical performance, he stopped understanding how they had been beating up on the Phantoms so often, and began to think the F-4 should win every time...if its crew were aggressive and lusting for a knife fight. I'm personally a fan of the F-8, but don't know enough about it to make an educated argument against the F-4; of course, as I've said about other aircraft vs. aircraft debates, and indicated in my first sentence, the majority of the time, it's the pilot that decides the outcome moreso than the plane.

It seems to me Saitek gets mixed reviews here (the preferred being CH Products), but I have an X52 myself and it has worked for me now for about three years, and I've been satisfied.

Felix XXX Natalis Tibi!

Damn, I wish I could do that!

Damn nice lookin' pit!

This just gave me a great idea! Maybe we can put this guy in front of our phased-array up here! I'd be willing to bet that the data processors could steer a beam at such a frequency that would it would fix his head! Now, by fix, I mean we'd have to drag his carcass off the side of the radar wall (preferably with a long hook so as not to get into the RADHAZ zone ourselves) but at least he wouldn't be making such absurd comments anymore. That be an effective fix in my book!

I love modern fighters, but hate modern weapons; point and shoot ain't no fun. Fix action: SF2I install with no weapon pack installed, and all A/C modified with a start/end year of 1970. Result? Huzzah! Modern aircraft with GUNS as the only truly effective weapon! Just yesterday, I got into a 1v4 in an F-14D (Typhoid's v1.4) against Su-35's. After a long turning, climbing and rolling fight, Big Boys down, GUN/6000RPM selected, and a few green tracers flashing by the cockpit every once in a while, the Sukohi's were NO MORE! Spotted two Fishbeds and jumped them as well. One got away, the other, not so. So I guess it's a love of Vietnam to 1980+ aircraft, with Vietnam era weaponry. I find it quite enjoyable to actually use the maneuverability of these aircraft to fight another aircraft, rather than just have it be a neat statistic and still get bagged by a next-gen missile/vice-versa. Makes the kill that much sweeter. (Voted "Vietnam Era" as I like the planes from that era too)

That flat sucks. <S>