Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

No, you can't.
You don't know what he said in the first place, obviously you don't know what I said neither, you don't know how flow separation works in relationship with Reynolds number and angle of incidence, you don't know how's wing designed for controlled stall and you can't figure the Tail slide is a symmetrical stall.

So, you see, no.
You don't get to quote no one and particularly not him.

You can take your arrogance, raynolds number and angle of incidence, and stuff it

Hense why John Farley quoted the famous lines:
What the Russians showed us in Paris, made all the western fighters design look very convential.

The F-14 is by far the best looking 4th gen fighter imho, although its combat capabilites against other 4th gens in dogfighting is debatable. At long range, no other fighter could really touch it, except for the F-15. Although one must note that those huge AIM-54s couldn't hit anything smaller than a Tu-95. The Sparrows would've been a more reliable ranged weapon. Of course, close up the F-14 is still potent. The swing wings and podded engine design make it more manuverable than many Air Force pilots would like to admit. It out turned and out-fought two different types of Soviet engineered 3rd gen fighters in close combat over its service career. One must remember that most of the experts on this forum are not only AF and not USN, but single-engine style pilots who flew the antithesis of the F-14, the F-16. From what I've seen, they're not the biggest fans of any Navy craft, espescially something huge and heavy with a massive radar/missile setup like the Tomcat.

Anything with curves like the Cat' is Cruise worthy.

Although one must note that those huge AIM-54s couldn't hit anything smaller than a Tu-95.

The podded engine design makes for excessive amounts of wetted area resulting in higher skin friction drag. The glove housings for the VG wings would cause all kinds of drag due to amplifying frontal area, increasing wetted area, etc. The F-14 would be prone to flat spins inherent to the 3-body fuselage design when an engine would fail. Also there's the fact that all of those right angled corners formed between the nacelles and the flat tunnel between them (along with the glove) would be liable to cause interference drag where the boundary layers of the airflow at these corners would interact and cause large pressure gradients between the fore and aft ends of the aircraft.

Funny, it didn't have problems hitting small drones.

Agreed. On the Mig-29 and Su-27, they fixed this with slightly angled and curved the intakes inward to each other, derby nullify the interference drag between the tunnels. Alltough both Su-27 and Mig-29 shape are slightly different from the F-14 Tunnel.
Also the intakes on the F-14 are positioned more forward compaired to Mig/Su design. This also has to do with how efficient the airflow are guided into the air-intakes.
The devil are in the details on aerodynamic design.
Anyway, the real setback was not any of this, it was the engine and wing design. When the F-14 was design to achieve good low speed handeling upon landing on Carriers. There was room for improvments. There was the constant fight the keep it on the deck senter-line. Hard rudder had to be applied. and throttle handeling was a pain, in unfavored weather conditions.

Funny, it didn't have problems hitting small drones.

Then there's another problem with the F-14's wing design at least when the wings are swept at a fairly large angle: They will likely stall at the tips first as the tips are swept significantly far aft of the root so flow separation might occur there first. As a result roll control might be easily lost.