F-22 vs. F-14? Would there be any competition?

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

Who would win in a fight? (Please post reply to topic too)

F-22
154
91%
F-14
16
9%
 
Total votes : 170

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gbigly

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 00:23

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 03:49

gbigly wrote:Stress fatigue is due to old age, not plane design you doofus. The f-14 pilots would turn 9gs constantly in the f-14 on newer blocks.

Structure G limit according to F-14 flight manual is about 6.5G and go down if aircraft weight go up. You can theorically turn higher G but there could be structure problem such as a few rivets felt of here and there


You are posting propaganda. It figures. The structural limit of an airplane isn't about age, it's about design. Older planes can't turn 9gs without cracking in half. Go ahead, send your f-15Cs that haven't been upgraded and maintained properly in ages and see if you don't create stress cracks by turning sustained 9gs over and over again. Surely, you could probably do it a few times, but it's extremely rare you'd ever see that again, due to the fact that the last F-15C was built in the 1980s and is simply too old to withstand the stress.

Somehow you fail to recognize that manuals are not some kind of underground field guide to suppressed technology details. They are going to push the same bullshit cheney and his minions pushed ages ago. "Blah blah blah the tomcat sucks and is 60s technology". Oh really? And the f-15 eagle coming out 2 years after that looks almost identical to the tomcat AND STILL HAD THE HYDROMECHANICAL FLYING CONTROL SYSTEM installed isn't 60's technology? LOL.

gbigly wrote: Well actually that's not true, during a fly off an F-14A that's A model mind you, one of the first batches of F-14s as well.. had a fly off against an F-15A eagle to see which plane the Shah of Iran wanted to buy. The f-15A was limited to 7.5gs because of it's frame design

No, the structure G limit on both F-15C and F-14 are similar ( airframe design), all aircraft can excess the recommended structure G limit but there could be problem ( even though not always)
Image


No, the f-15A was limited to 7+gs. Period. The tomcat has much lower wing loading than even the f-15C at 40-45 degrees of sweep, allowing the tomcat to outperform the eagle. There is a reason navy planes are so heavy. It's because they are made more durable. I think you forget that the tomcat must land on a carrier and has to withstand far more abuse than an eagle could even dream of. Add to the fact taht the tomcat has a far lower wing loading in most settings, and you can easily see why the tomcat in theory has a higher g load limit than even an f-15C. Even if we built BRAND NEW f-15cs, which we haven't done in a VERY long time. And of course to be fair, the tomcat should be built brand new as well. But of course that isn't going to happen without some kind of executive order I'm sure.

gbigly wrote:
Tom Cruise here talks about turning 9.5gs in the backseat of an F-14A during Top Gun filming. https://youtu.be/l36BVi8K1uo?t=3m46s

Here is also a video of what looks like an ACTUAL F-14D with it's counter set at "9.1gs" under "current g" indicator during what looks like a training mission.
https://youtu.be/u9IK0QaoBlM?t=11m57s

an exception shouldn't be treated as the rule,there are cases of F-4 turn 12 G and Mig-25 turn 8G before. Given the right speed and right altitude, they can turn very high G. But those are not recommended.


Again, the tomcat has MUCH lower wing loading than the eagle. This, coupled with it's 100% pure titanium wingbox and overall stronger frame allows the tomcat to turn tighter. I'm sorry but you are wrong. While both planes use practically identical technology available at the time, and we're talking when the best of them were first in service, the tomcat is stronger because it is a carrier suited plane. The eagle is not. That is why it is 50% lighter than the cat.








The whole point of stealth is to reduce RCS enough so that adversary radar can't get enough return to distinguish/detect your aircraft from background and internal noise. Even in best case scenario, APG-71 will not be able to detect F-22 return much further than visual distance.
Secondly, the extremely long detection range of IRST is only achieved in perfect condition ( good weather, tail aspect target against sky background, minimum FoV ). In less than perfect condition such as against head on aspect, the detection range is much shorter.
Image


Ah yes. The whole "but it only works in good weather!" argument, which of course is always rebutted by the mere fact that an f-22 raptor cannot fly in bad weather. And since the military cannot predict the weather even though they may actually try to control it, non-clear weather can easily bring about rain and so I don't think it would be wise to fly an f-22 raptor in anything but sunny weather. Nice try, no cigar. Also, we are comparing an early 1990s plane to a mid 2000s. You really think that they wouldn't have been able to improve IRST operability by then if allowed to?

Btw, we can talk radar if you like, but the APG-71 system itself is capable of longer range than most of the radars found in the raptor. The problem is the antenna for it was designed purposely so it would not be able to realize it's full potential. It cut it's maximum range in HALF. Also, the phoenix missile is faster and longer raneg. The tomcat has a very good chance with it's IRST to take out your F-22 Raptor.

Note: we do not currently have any planes in service that use IRST. Of course they plan on putting some on the F-16V and F/A-18 super hornets... but guess what? That IRST is an upgraded version of the AN/AAS-42 found on the F-14D tomcat, LOL.

Moreover, IRST scan rate is much slower than radar, especially in case of AAS-42 which is a scanning array IRST.So it will need something else to cued


Slower? it's a heat sensing pod. It can target planes and send information to radar and therefore missiles. It can kill an F-22 raptor. The IRST that was on the F-14D can operate in passive mode, btw.

Also, General Electric invented the AN/AAS-42, not lockheed martin, just in case you were wondering. Funny how lockheed martin owns it now, especially after the F-14D was cancelled about a year after the raptor was introduced :D

No, F-14 excess at low speed dogfight while F-16 and F-15 excess at high speed dogfight


The wings are computer controlled and depending on how tight you need to turn and whether or not you need to sustain it, the computer will control the wings for you if you desire. You can turn it off, but it can, in a dogfight, allow the wings to reach 20 degrees for maximum turning power. Your charts mean nothing. Weight and thrust to weight ratio is everything. Lower amounts of fuel can fix any weight issues, and the F-110s made the tomcat almost realize it's full potential. But they were going to have 40,000 lbt engines in there, but that of course never happened. The tomcat was stunted from birth with shitty engines, and then shitty electronics and virtually no upgrade options, unlike your precious eagles and falcons which got whatever they asked, for the most part.

As can be seen from the flight manual, for example at 5000 feet, F-14 maximum sustained turn rate is around 14 degrees/second at around Mach 0.6-0.65.


No, the f-14A could turn 7.5gs with about half fuel at mach 2+. Again, your charts mean nothing. You are wrong. The real specifications of the tomact are classified. And when things are classified, you simply don't talk about it. Unless you have never worked at grumman or for the government. Then you can say wahtever you want. it's just not... "official". Which of course is just another word for "mines bigger than yours".

F-16 maximum sustained turn rate is around the same 14 degrees/ seconds but at around Mach 0.85. So It like the Hell Cat vs the Zero all over again. F-16 will try to stay fast while F-14D will like fight slow


F-14 fights better faster actually. It's too heavy with tf-30s to fight slow. it can't accelerate with those sh*t engines. F-14b and D a little better, but again, note the fuel pounds.

However, main advantages that F-16 and F-15 have over F-14 are their much superior T/W. So at any point they can take the horizontal fight to vertical where F-14 cannot follow them.If we consider that F-14 pilot fly around the best speed to turn ( Mach 0.65) then he will have even less kinetic energy to follow F-15, F-16 pilots. Another advantage of F-16 is roll rate because it is a single engine aircraft with very high wing loading
[/quote][/quote]

The f-14B and D models can rocket straight up into the sky perfectly vertically even immediately after takeoff. He can go vertical with eagle and falcon as long as his weight isn't too gross. Remember you can always lower the amount of fuel you have, and of course the tomcat has more maximum fuel, about 2,000 lbs more than the eagle. So that wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
Offline

gbigly

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2017, 00:23

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 04:39

zero-one wrote:
gbigly wrote: Well actually that's not true, during a fly off an F-14A that's A model mind you, one of the first batches of F-14s as well.. had a fly off against an F-15A eagle to see which plane the Shah of Iran wanted to buy.

So you apparently aren't aware how the F-14 cheated huh? Let me help


Whoa, having a prototype bomber engine and having to lower the fuel to get the proper thrust to weight ratio that should have been given to a fully loaded tomcat with better engines is somehow cheating? Tell that to the F-14B and F-14D pilots who could easily sustain those turns with LOTS of fuel due to the much better F-110 engines. Try again.



gbigly wrote:It's wing loading is much lower than that of the raptor, but it's wing area is really the deal breaker. The tomcat when it's wings are in maximum turning mode will out turn even an f-16. That goes for maneuverability. The f-14 wins.

Also, the eagle is a superior turner compared to the f-22 raptor. The raptor turns sluggish and in a dogfight the F-15 EAGLE will whip the sh*t out of it.


Whew where to start. Lets see wing loading?

F-14D:
Empty Weight: 43,735 lbs
Wing area: 565 square feet
Max Thrust: 56,400 lbs
Wing loading (empty): 77.4 lbs per square feet
Thrust to weight (empty): 1.28

F-22A:
Empty Weight: 43,340 lbs
Wing area: 840 square feet
Max Thrust: 70,000 lbs
Wing loading (empty): 51.6 lbs per square feet
Thrust to weight (empty): 1.61


Another armchair avaitionist wannbe. First of all the tomcat has a wide nacelle engine configuration. It's effective wing area is 1,008 square feet. B3wahahahahaha. Also, the tomcat therefore has anywhere from 44-48 psf per square feet. It's a superior turner. The problem with your raptor is it's gigantic, draggy and heavy bomb bay. This seriously impedes it's turning performance. The tomcat is all sleek curves and lovely lines. It's a much better dogfighter. And this is a 1970s plane my friend.

Btw, the raptor's wing loading is 77+ lbs PSF. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... 28F-22A.29

I'm sorry brother. You are sh*t out of luck. That was taken from wikipedia and a presentation from mike cinemera, former Grumman Vice President. You have simply lost this battle. Now please go crawl back into your raptor hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F ... 28F-14D.29
https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A?t=17m12s


both airframes have body lifting properties. The Raptor has the added advantage of generating vortex lift when turning because of chines, the F-14 does not.


Lift vortex? I think you mean turbulence, because the f-22 raptor is a draggy piece of resin/plastic/potato bag crap. Also the tomcat has more wing area and better wing loading. It's less bumpy to ride because of it's center line stability undernearth the body in between the engines. They say it drives like a cadillac, a cadallic on AIR. Funny, as most cadillac owners i've talked to tell me that their car's suspension is "like riding on the air". Hmm.

The Raptor also has relaxed static stability meaning that the tail is lift loaded making the horizontal stabilizers an effective lifting surface, the tomcat on the other hand is a stable design, the horizontal stabs do not produce lift.


It doesn't need to. It has a wide nacelle and the aerodynamics and lifting pancake design of the tomcat allows it to even perform a cobra WITHOUT the use of thrust vectoring. Your raptor cannot perform this maneuever without thrust vectoring at all, primarily due to it's draggy and turbulent bomb bay. The tomcat does not have this problem.

And before you say "tomcat can only do 77 degrees super stall not a cobra!". That's an F-14A with shitty engines and even that maneuver was prohibited due to the frequency of engine stalls. Tf-30s suck. F-110s didn't have that problem. But then again, the only reason the Su-27 family jets can perform the cobra maneuver without thrust vectoring is because of their Fly by Wire system. Makes sense to allow the tomcat to have a fly by wire computer as well, am i right?

The Raptor has a canted tail design, which also increases lift the F-14 does not.


Yes this hurts the f-22's turning performance. Funny though, seeing as turning performance is how you win air to air combat.

So in a high speed fight where maneuverability is lift and thrust limited, there not a plane on earth that equals the Raptor.


Unless it's a tomcat, eagle, falcon, super hornet, sukhoi air superiority, mig dogfighters etc. Totally.

So lets go with slow speed, the F-14s forward swept wings might offer an advantage there, but the Raptor has TVC controls and can maneuver at 0 air speed. the F-14 can't do post stall.


Yes it can. I have already covered this. EVen the f-4 phantom had a quite suprising high angle of attack. It could very acceptable back flips, similar to a cobra but it wasn't very controllable. The f-14 has a wide nacelle design and ventral fins underneath, and a delta wing shape when the wings are swept back somewhat. That is basically the design of the sukhois and migs, which is exactly what gives them their ability to perform cobras without thrust vectoring.

Again, f-14a data means squat.


thats what billions of dollars of YF-22 kinematics research will do. remember its sole purpose was for air frame sciences research, you know Stealth and performance.

Avionics and sensors were tested on a different aircraft, the Boeing 757 FTB,


Yeah i love talking to robots. Good night.
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 05:22

gbigly wrote:You are posting propaganda. It figures. The structural limit of an airplane isn't about age, it's about design. Older planes can't turn 9gs without cracking in half.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, structure G limit has a lot to do with design. A brand new 747 still wont be able to turn 9 G


gbigly wrote: Go ahead, send your f-15Cs that haven't been upgraded and maintained properly in ages and see if you don't create stress cracks by turning sustained 9gs over and over again. Surely, you could probably do it a few times, but it's extremely rare you'd ever see that again, due to the fact that the last F-15C was built in the 1980s and is simply too old to withstand the stress.

Again, irrelevant, flight manual are not made at the end of aircraft life time. They are made to help pilots understand capabilities of their aircraft. They do not give a damm about some internet armchair expert

gbigly wrote:Somehow you fail to recognize that manuals are not some kind of underground field guide to suppressed technology details. They are going to push the same bullshit cheney and his minions pushed ages ago. "Blah blah blah the tomcat sucks and is 60s technology"

So you think they made flight manual purely to deceive all these pilots and personnel who operate the F-14A/D for all those years that the Tom Cat suck ? great imagination you got there :doh:



gbigly wrote:No, the f-15A was limited to 7+gs. Period.

F-15 is limited to around 7.5G, and F-14 is limited to 6.5G. Like it or not, those are still fact.

gbigly wrote: The tomcat has much lower wing loading than even the f-15C at 40-45 degrees of sweep, allowing the tomcat to outperform the eagle. . Add to the fact taht the tomcat has a far lower wing loading in most settings, and you can easily see why the tomcat in theory has a higher g load limit than even an f-15C

Lower wing loading doesn't necessarily mean better ability to produce lift. Lift coefficient of different airfoil and airframe are not the same. Moreover, the ability to generate lift isn't the only thing that is important, drag is a very important factor to consider for a sustained turn ( otherwise all fighter would look like glider with jet engine)
For example: F-4 actually has lower wing loading than F-16, yet F-16 can turn much faster.


gbigly wrote:Again, the tomcat has MUCH lower wing loading than the eagle.

F-106 , F-4 , F-15 have much lower wing loading than F-16. Yet none of them will beat F-16 in a turn at low altitude


gbigly wrote:This, coupled with it's 100% pure titanium wingbox and overall stronger frame allows the tomcat to turn tighter.

Irrelevant, ability to generate lift is not depend on airframe material. Better material can lead to better structure strength but Northrop Gruman already recomemded 6.5 G limit for F-14

gbigly wrote: I'm sorry but you are wrong

Well no, iam correct and iam able to demonstrate that by both aerodynamic theory, graph and number. You, on the other hand, only argue by emotion since the start of this conversation

gbigly wrote:Ah yes. The whole "but it only works in good weather!" argument, which of course is always rebutted by the mere fact that an f-22 raptor cannot fly in bad weather.

hahahahahahahahah what
Are you serious :doh: ffs

gbigly wrote:Also, we are comparing an early 1990s plane to a mid 2000s. You really think that they wouldn't have been able to improve IRST operability by then if allowed to?

IRST doesn't work in bad weather or through cloud due to the simple fact that infrared radiation themselves are absorbed by humidity. You can get a more sensitive sensor but you can't modify the physics that came with it

gbigly wrote:Btw, we can talk radar if you like, but the APG-71 system itself is capable of longer range than most of the radars found in the raptor. The problem is the antenna for it was designed purposely so it would not be able to realize it's full potential. It cut it's maximum range in HALF.

Let me guess, you must have got that from Wikipedia ? :wink: So you saw the 740 km value and assume that APG-71 has better range than any others fighter radar ? Ever heard about radar cross section? radar gain? resolution cell? If not I would say you should first read this https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/
and this
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... s-part-ii/
then came back


gbigly wrote:. The tomcat has a very good chance with it's IRST to take out your F-22 Raptor.

F-14 has around 0 chances of surviving

gbigly wrote:Note: we do not currently have any planes in service that use IRST. Of course they plan on putting some on the F-16V and F/A-18 super hornets... but guess what? That IRST is an upgraded version of the AN/AAS-42 found on the F-14D tomcat, LOL.

Sniper-XR can be used as IRST, and one of the reasons why IRST wasn't very popular is that they are not all that useful compared to fire control radar. They only came back to fashion since fighters radars are near useless against stealth assets


gbigly wrote:Slower? it's a heat sensing pod. It can target planes and send information to radar and therefore missiles.

Your " heat sensing pod" has a FoV ( imagine like looking through a straw), and if it doesn't move/scan that FoV around, it will cover only very tiny part of the sky. Moreover, given that AAS-42 is scanning array, it will have to scan even inside that FoV

gbigly wrote:The IRST that was on the F-14D can operate in passive mode

All IRST operate passively. But without help of LRF or radar they can't measure range to target or velocity. No range => no fire solution => no BVR engagements.


gbigly wrote:The wings are computer controlled and depending on how tight you need to turn and whether or not you need to sustain it, the computer will control the wings for you if you desire. You can turn it off, but it can, in a dogfight, allow the wings to reach 20 degrees for maximum turning power.

The more folding out the wing is , the more lift you can possibly generate but come with it is the massive drag. Moreover ,the chart already take into account optimum wing angle for each speed value

gbigly wrote:Your charts mean nothing. Weight and thrust to weight ratio is everything

Firstly, the charts are from actual flight test data, they are the most accurate regarding aircraft kinematic capability. Whether you like it or not, that fact will not change
Secondly, the only thrust/weight ratio that you would know is calculated by taking static thrust/combat weight. But in reality thurst of engine change with altitude and speed, so your way of calculation will never give you the accurate value. Moreover , it is not thrust/weight that is important but (thrust-drag)/weight.


gbigly wrote:No, the f-14A could turn 7.5gs with about half fuel at mach 2+

So you changed from F-14 can sustained 7.5G at mach 2 in the other thread to F-14 can turn 7.5G at Mach 2 in this thread ? :lol: realized your mistake ? or still dont understand the different between ITR and STR ?
BTW, F-16 can turn 9G at Mach 2, surprise?
Image



gbigly wrote:Again, your charts mean nothing. You are wrong

Sorry honey, but my charts mean everything, whether you like it or not. Since they are used for pilot trainning unlike what you can possibly read on Wikipedia

gbigly wrote:The real specifications of the tomact are classified. And when things are classified, you simply don't talk about it

So the real numbers are classified and no one talk about them but somehow a guy like you would know and can conclude that Northrop Grumman flight manual are wrong and only proparganda ?

gbigly wrote:F-14 fights better faster actually.

It doesn't, stop making things up to push your agenda



gbigly wrote:The f-14B and D models can rocket straight up into the sky perfectly vertically even immediately after takeoff

So are F-15 , F-16 , F-35 , F-22..etc

gbigly wrote:Remember you can always lower the amount of fuel you have, and of course the tomcat has more maximum fuel, about 2,000 lbs more than the eagle.

You got more fuel but also one extra engine. Moreover the F-14 is also quite abit bigger than F-16 so fuel consumption isn't going to be the same
Last edited by garrya on 15 Mar 2017, 20:57, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

garrya

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 494
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 05:44

gbigly wrote: Tell that to the F-14B and F-14D pilots who could easily sustain those turns with LOTS of fuel due to the much better F-110 engines

Flight manual data of F-14D doesn't seem that much better than F-14A
Image

gbigly wrote:
Another armchair avaitionist wannbe.

If there is any armchair wannabe here, its you. Not only you lack in knowledges, you are also very stubborn.


gbigly wrote:
First of all the tomcat has a wide nacelle engine configuration. It's effective wing area is 1,008 square feet. B3wahahahahaha. Also, the tomcat therefore has anywhere from 44-48 psf per square feet. It's a superior turner.
I'm sorry brother. You are sh*t out of luck. That was taken from wikipedia and a presentation from mike cinemera, former Grumman Vice President. You have simply lost this battle. Now please go crawl back into your raptor hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F ... 28F-14D.29
https://youtu.be/SsUCixAeZ0A?t=17m12s

It funny how you mentioned lifting body for F-14, yet at the same time ignore the exact same case for F-22? , not to mention the fact that F-22 horizontal tail will also contribute to total lift unlike F-14 horizontal tail which deduces from total lift generated by the wing.


gbigly wrote:
Lift vortex? I think you mean turbulence, because the f-22 raptor is a draggy piece of resin/plastic/potato bag crap

Lift is produced as a result of pressure different, a vortex on top of aircraft help generate more lift per unit of wing area.One popular design that takes advantage of this phenomenon is LERX on aircraft such as F-16, F-18 ..etc. The value of lift coefficient can be improved significantly
Image
Image

gbigly wrote:
It doesn't need to. It has a wide nacelle and the aerodynamics and lifting pancake design of the tomcat allows it to even perform a cobra WITHOUT the use of thrust vectoring

Cobra is irrelevant, unstable design mean the tails doesn't counter lift produced by the main wing ( which could be quite significant in case of F-14)
Image


gbigly wrote:
Again, f-14a data means squat

Some of those graph belong to F-14D flight manual from Northrop Grumman. It kinda hilarious how a hardcore fanboy like you never seen a manual before

gbigly wrote:
the tomcat has MUCH lower wing loading than the eagle
First of all the tomcat has a wide nacelle engine configuration. It's effective wing area is 1,008 square feet. B3wahahahahaha. Also, the tomcat therefore has anywhere from 44-48 psf per square feet. It's a superior turner.

Since you pretty much obsessed with wing loading, i will give you this
Image
a lower wing loading only mean that there is less weight per unit of wing area. However, the only time ,you can conclude that an aircraft can turn faster from wing loading is that those aircraft in comparison has exact same aerodynamic ( shape, air foil ..etc ). In others case, wing loading value doesn't mean squad since there are massive different in CL with different airfoil
Image
Last edited by garrya on 15 Mar 2017, 11:46, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1676
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 11:38

Favorite lines in this thread..

"The F-22's weapons bay (internal, mind you) makes is a draggy POS". But the F-14, with external weapons isn't? :) If you're really convinced a 1960's era F-14 trumps the F-22, we should be raiding the boneyard/museums of F-14B's/D's and bringing them back into service.

Trump wants to go big on defense, I'd get his ear... :)
Offline

mike5560

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2016, 06:03

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 13:50

F-22 Fox threes at 10 miles, head on then breaks into notch; splash one. Whether or not the F-14 detects the F-22 is irrelevant. 1980s missiles are no match against 5th gen ECM + LO.

Raptor will see Tomcat long before the Tomcat sees the Raptor even in the most favorable conditions. Raptor has 1.6 mach in dry thrust to position wherever he wants. No comparison here.
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 14:22

Once again show me any F-14 (A,B,D) completing a 360 turn anywhere near the time of Solo Turk's Block 40 F-16C.

Here is the video demonstration:

Solo Turk's turn begins at :34

[YouTube]www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBlEU62e8c[/YouTube]

That's about a 15.1 second turn.



So please show me a demonstration with the Tomcat beating the Viper's time-



And what's funny is the Block 30 Viper turns even a little faster and tighter than the above Block 40 (because it's lighter).
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 17:06

So lets get this straight? the Flat surfaces under the Tomcat produce lift but the wider smoother flat surfaces on the Raptor produce turbulence? I don't know what you're smoking, but its a bit scary.

So apparently you don't know how Wingloading and Thrust to weight ratio is calculated. Well let me explain it to you slowly.

Wing Loading: The current weight of an aircraft divided by the wing area
Thrust to Weight ratio: The maximum thrust of an aircraft divided by its current weight.

So these aren't fixed figures doofus. You can't go to Wikipedia (Which I edited by the way) and see the Wing loading and say "aha thers the permanent, nonchanging, everlasting wing loading value of this plane" its not like that.

But even if you take into account the F-14s tunnel as another wing that produces lift, Fact is the F-22 has the same flat surface (your infamous bomb bay) that produces just as much if not more lift.

The Raptor also has Horizontal stabs and canted tails that further increase lift which are all absent on the F-14.

Anyway lets see what the pilots think. Hers a Topgun pilot who flew F-14s and transitioned to F-16s

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33 ... ary-hotrod
not to say that an F-14 could not win a turning fight with an F-16, but it would require a superior job by the F-14 crew and mistakes by the threat pilot. The F-16 simply enjoyed a significant maneuvering advantage over the Tomcat.


Now heres an F-16 pilot who fought against an F-22 in a dogfight
https://theaviationist.com/2012/12/10/viper-dogfight/

However, the toughest of the fighter jet to face in aerial combat, at least if you are seated in an F-16, is the F-22 Raptor: “It’s not a matter of trying to kill him, but to see how long you can survive!” as “Rico” says in “Viper Force: 56th Fighter Wing–To Fly and Fight the F-16” book by Lt. Col. Robert “Cricket” Renner USAF


Do we see the difference.

BONUS:
F/A-18 vs F-14
https://theaviationist.com/2012/11/21/tomcat-vs-hornet/
In close air combat, the Super Hornet is much maneuverable (with a good authority at slow speed and high AOA – angle of attack)


F/A-18 vs F-35A
http://centralblue.williamsfoundation.o ... che-rnoaf/
When asked about my first flight in the F-35, I compared it to flying a Hornet (F/A-18), but with a turbo charged engine. I now can quote a USMC F/A-18 Weapons School Graduate after his first flight in the F-35: “It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!” (His point being that the F-35 can afford to operate at high Angle-of-Attack and low airspeed, but that it will regain the airspeed quickly when needed).


So to recap:
F-16:simply enjoyed a significant maneuvering advantage over the Tomcat
F/A-18:"In close air combat, the Super Hornet is much more maneuverable"
F-35A:"It was like flying a Hornet with four engines!”


You can make up all the assumptions you want fact is, the F-14 is the least likely to win a dogfight against all the teen series fighters.
An Eagle will out turn it or out climb it, a Viper would also out climb and out turn it specially at high speeds, a hornet would out point it at slow speeds (higher AOA). The Raptor can do all of the above and better. Sorry, but its no contest.
Last edited by zero-one on 16 Mar 2017, 07:11, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1390
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post15 Mar 2017, 20:42

gbigly wrote: rebutted by the mere fact that an f-22 raptor cannot fly in bad weather

Don't go full retard
Image
Image
Image
Bonus: F-35 in the rain, climate testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5JI8VWHvAQ
Image
Image
Image

zero-one wrote:An Eagle will out turn it or out climb it, a Viper would out turn it at high speeds, a hornet would out point it at slow speeds (higher AOA). The Raptor can do all of the above and better. Sorry, but its no contest.

Th Viper can out turn , out climb and out roll the Tom Cat
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1676
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post16 Mar 2017, 14:41

I think we may have done it, he hasn't posted a rebuttal LOL

I love the F-14, especially the D. But unless you're living in a fantasy world, it loses both the BVR and WVR fight every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The F-22 simply has far too many advantages, and they aren't subtle. It wins without even breaking a sweat..
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4341
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Mar 2017, 15:49

gbigly wrote:Unless it's a tomcat, eagle, falcon, super hornet, sukhoi air superiority, mig dogfighters etc. Totally.


God, I hate stupid people who have enough time to post walls of bull$hit. :doh:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5167
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Mar 2017, 15:49

Gbigly. Lol its Almost impossible you are this stupid lol wow. Trying to act like putting F110s on a Tomcat gives it an ability to exceed the raptors vectored thrust that it's had since day 1.

Even the movie top gun got it "the jets you will be flying against are smaller, faster, and more maneuverable" well well. A-4s can out box a tomcat. And I'm a Tomcat fan

We know F-14s struggle against F-16s because we had the Novembers at Miramar they've played before. We know the same thing with mig-29s and F-15s and countless others that F-14s struggled against.

So the F-14 had a a hard time beating F-15s, but it can handle F-22s? That's like someone who can't beat up his sister telling you he would kill Mike Tyson lol.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 16 Mar 2017, 16:07, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4341
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post16 Mar 2017, 15:50

eloise wrote:
gbigly wrote: rebutted by the mere fact that an f-22 raptor cannot fly in bad weather

Don't go full retard


WAY too late for that person. Happened virtually the moment he opened his pie-hole.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post16 Mar 2017, 18:01

duplicate
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 421
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44
  • Location: US

Unread post17 Mar 2017, 01:47

What is the point of keeping this stupid thread open?
u = (CB)⁻¹(cvdt_des - CAx)
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests