column5

Clearly you need to take your own advice, as you are the one who entered this thread with accusations of "fudging' numbers as we worked on getting the numbers correct for our various comparisons earlier in the thread. This thread contains some data on a range of aircraft that can be interesting when considered in light of the many discussion here about relative performance and how certain aircraft might perform in roles for which they were not designed. Your own (typical) knee-jerk response to anything that threatens your phantom phantasy has turned it into something else, which is fine by me since you lose that argument every time. Also, you clearly have a reading comprehension problem, evident in most of the threads you post in, but specifically here with regard to quoting Admirals. To bring you up to speed (if that is even possible), Admirals have been referenced three times: 1. A quote attributed to Admiral Connelly regarding the F-111B's low thrust/weight ratio. 2. A paraphrase of Admiral Gillchrist's comments on the F-14 wing loading, which supports figures in a published F-14 reference work. 3. A reference to Admiral Gillchrist's comment that first visual identification of the enemy usually leads to victory in ACM. None of these quotes were used to buttress any arguments about aircraft performance relative to one another, except, I suppose in your mind.

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?

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.

Maybe he meant F-15?

Gentlemen...we have finally found a republican with balls. Her name is Jan Brewer and she is the Governor of Arizona. This woman must be President.

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

In this game you fly a Supa Honet with a pregnant female sailor in the back seat while Hussein Obama talks to you on the radio and tells you to drop water on a flaming oil rig without harming any Illegales who are swimming by. Then you have to sit on a court martial for a Marine who shot at a terrorist.

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. 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. Except, of course, that the F-14 wing is not the same as any other aircraft, owing to its computer controlled variable geometry. Welcome to reality. You can try to minimize this fact, but stubbornly it remains. 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! Slow down, Hoss, let's savor this moment! Ahhh... No amount of fudging is going to make the F-4, slatted or unslatted, competitive with the F-14A in this arena.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice! I'm considering a Genesis 3.8 Track myself. Hyundai has come a long way.

Two West Memphis cops were killed this afternoon when they apparantly pulled over a pair of drug smugglers. One of the officers killed was the nephew of the Chief of Police. The suspects were later killed in a shootout with police at the West Memphis Wal-Mart. Going out wihtout your strap sounds like a bad idea. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/may/20/west-memphis-police-officer-killed-another-injured/

The current administration is unlikely to back the South should fighting start. I also doubt that they will do anything other than give some lip service to any sort of sanctions for the sinking of the ship. North Korea is this administration's ideological comrade.

Tomorrow is "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day." http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/facebook-fracas-breaks-everybody-draw-mohammad-day/

http://www.bertisevil.tv/

Done!

Very interesting, DWCAce. I have not seen that info before! I updated the wing loading chart with that information. Given that the info is creditied to Grumman, it seems safe to accept it. To get the numbers to come out right, it means that a full 45% of the Tomcat's weight is being borne by the fuselage rather than the wings. That is pretty impressive.

This chart compares the aspect ratio of the various aircraft's wings. All else being equal, a wing with a higher aspect ratio will produce a lower roll rate. For variable geometry wings, the blue bar is the fully swept AR and the red bar is the full extended AR.

Updated tables with tweaked F-14 info. Added A-5A and F-14B.

I did not take that into account for the F-14, or the F-16. If we conservatively estimate that 20% of the F-14s lift comes from the fuselage (I've heard as high as 40%) then the loding becomes more comparable to the F-5.

As a companion to the above chart, here are the dry and wet thrust to weight ratios for the same aircraft (at combat weight). Note that I installed the J52-P-408 engine in the A-4E for a more interesting comparison. Now...let's see...Kentucky Straight Rye Whiskey...

As western society continues its slide into the slag heap of history, NATO considers decorating soldiers who avoid using force. This plan would have worked well in the Ardennes in 1944.