Using the same analogy I now challenge the Su-27,mig-29 and mig-23’s performance as it has been doctored in order to sell aircraft and nothing is true heck the Su-27 cant even go over mach 1.5 with fulll AB.

Not exactly the same analogy. The speeds of Migs and Suhois can be confirmed by theirs customers.

The F-14A can go at least Mach 2.41. It’s been DONE. Deal with it.

In tests may be. But I was talking of service F-14A.

I’d like to add more confusion here:

# The F-14 was not really designed for the TF-30, or at least not exclusively, since back in the early ’70s it was pretty sure that those leftovers from the F-111B would be replaced by the F401.

True, poor F-14A had to go on with bomber engines.

# The F-14 with F110 has more drag also because it has a more draggy nozzle than the one used on the TF-30.

True. It also applies to F-16C with F-110 engine.
But much higher thrust must be taken into account.
This more than compensate for a little higher drag of wider intakes and nozzles.

# And yes, locking the variable intakes reduced inlet-engine efficiency of the Bs and Ds, that’s why their supersonic excelleration is worse than with the As

The F-14D Manual says nothing about fixing of intakes, but max speed is anyway given as 1,85 M with 4 Sparrows.

# And last: Anyboy speaking about engines w/o counting in intake and nozzle doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Of course, but engine thrust is the most important thing for ordinary jets.
See BAC Lightning or F-104. They have fixed intakes, but because of pure turbojets can manage over 2 Mach.

With lower available supersonic acceleration than possible with variable intakes, of course.

I don’t. Certainly I don’t believe most of what you post. However when it’s straight from the pilot doing the testing then yeah, I’m going to believe them.

A higher bypass engine is naturally going to have worse SFC in afterburner. Why? Because the fuel isn’t burned as efficiently in a burner as it is in the core, that should be obvious. The higher the percentage of thrust that is derived from the afterburner the worse your fuel burn is going to be.

All right, but this nonsense statement of better Specific Fuel Consumption of TF-30 than F-110, came from alledged test pilot who claim that the TF-30 has better high speed performance than F-110 !!!

It’s not better when you have your mind on other things. Like trying to stay alive. Unless you think the Flogger pilot has one hand on the stick, one one the throttle, and one on the wing-sweep mechanism? Whoops, looks like he’d need another hand. Not only that the Tomcat’s can be anywhere where the Mig-23 has what, three settings?

You are not correct.
Look at Sea Harrier in air combat. It has one more lever than ordinary jet fighter ( for TVC), but has no difficulty to win against more modern jets.

The same thing applies to MiG-23.

There is no automatic machine which can better understand the needs of a pilot in certain moment than the pilot itself.

Also if you look at the nozzle on the Spey it’s larger in diameter and shorter than the J79’s so that will increase base drag.

True, but do you think about its much higher thrust than J-79?

Something to do with the Spey’s bigger Mass Flow resulting in a bigger intake area (and drag) that wiped out the advantages in the engine SFC and thrust over the J79 was it not.

No. The Spey is wider, but is also much more powerful at T.O.

If you want more powerful engine, generally,you have to have wider fuselage and intake.
Look at F-16C with F-110 engine. Because of more powerful engine, it has wider intake.
The more drag of intake is more than compensated by more thrust.

The secret behind low performance at altitude of Spey F-4 is in its high by-pass ratio Turbofan.

Which means nothing really since those were not the only changes made. The fact remains that the fastest speed ever reached by the YF-22 was Mach 1.58 while the F-22A does 1.72 while not even in full military power. Now you can make all the irrelevant claims you want it doesn’t change that fact.

It is not good to be eluded by some propaganda statements directed to increase the number of aircraft to be bought.

The fact is that its super high static pressure ratio prevents Mach 2 speed even in burner.

I say again, there is no aircraft which is faster in service than in prototype stage. This simply doesnt happen.

Bypass ratio, bypass ratio, did I mention bypass ratio? Haven’t you been reading what’s been said (and some of which YOU wrote)? You’re starting to sound like someone pulled your string and you keep repeating the same things over and over again despite all evidence to the contrary. Here ya go:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.military/browse_thread/thread/b141e2ced652cb20/81c04f544f3f8543?lnk=st&q=&rnum=3&hl=en#81c04f544f3f8543

“The TF30-powered variants probably have a better sfc in burner than
the F100 or the F110 variants, and according to John Carrier (IIRR), who’s flown
both TF30 and F110-powered F-14s, the former actually has a thrust advantage at
higher Mach numbers, but I forget if he said at what speed/Mach that happened
at.

Do not tell me that you believe everything which can be read there.

Did you notice that it is stated there that TF-30 has better SFC in burner than F-110 or F-100.

This is, of course, a plain nonsense. Everybody can check this.
The TF-30 has the worst SFC in burner than any jet engine.

These sites are full of such incorrect statements.

“Actually if you were to compare the F14 with the F110 engines to the
F15, the acceleration at SL would be even from M0.5 to M0.9. This is
with the F14 wings set to “Auto”. If the F14 wings were set to manual
and the wings set fully aft, the F14 would be a lot faster.” “

This is why the MiG-23 has manual wing sweep control.
It is always better than automatic control.