SchorschSchorsch, when comparing the F-4 against the F-14A, dont forget the TF-30 engines were only an interim solution. The final F-14A with proper engines would have kicked any Phantoms a$$ with ease.
There was no problem to equip the Phantom with later models of engines, like the Brits did with the Spey engine. That cost some top speed, but the aircraft gains in fuel economy and acceleration.
Schorsch“F-14/F-4 Comparison
The F-14 has these percentage improvements over the F-4.
-40% better turn radius
-27% better maneuvering climb
-21% better sustained G
-21% better acceleration
-20% better rate of climb
-21% better roll performance
-80% more combat radius on internal fuel
-50% more loiter time with 6 Phoenix missiles
(Compared to Sparrow-equipped F-4)
-100% more loiter time with 4 Sparrow missiles
-More than twice the radar range
-More than 2 1/2 times the missile range”
Thanks you printed the numbers and gave the sources.
I don’t want to state that the F-18 or the F-4 were better aircraft for the mission of the F-14, I just want to challenge some statements that the F-14 is overrally a more capable aircraft, as fighter and bomber.
I don’t have numbers on my hand besides some data from flight manuals. Most useful would be performance data, something like specific range or comparable. I have such for F-18C, but to be honest, it requires quite a bit of effort to really get some information for a particular mission out of it.
F-14/F-4 Comparison
Lacking version, I guess F-4J. I used F-4F. Slight difference.
-40% better turn radius
-27% better maneuvering climb
-21% better sustained G
At speed and altitude? As I said, the F-14 will most likely outperform any fighter at low airspeeds, like an F-18 outperforms an F-16 at low airspeeds.
-21% better acceleration
Which is kind of surprising given the equal TWR (at least when compared to F-4F). Altitude and speed would be nice to know, too.
-20% better rate of climb
I guess over a complete climb from deck to 30000ft. Would make sense given the better glide ratio of the F-14.
-21% better roll performance
Roll control by elevator.
-80% more combat radius on internal fuel
-50% more loiter time with 6 Phoenix missiles
(Compared to Sparrow-equipped F-4)
-100% more loiter time with 4 Sparrow missiles
One must take in consideration the relative weight. Generally it be interesting how the conditions were as a Phantom can carry quite a bit of external fuel. It isn’t exactly fuel efficient of course.
-More than twice the radar range
-More than 2 1/2 times the missile range”
That the F-4’s weapon system cannot compete against the F-14’s is not surprising I guess.
Overall, either the numbers I gave above are completely incorrect (which is doubtful, I checked various sources), or the F-14 can do miracle beyond the understanding of normal physics.
SchorschIf you were actually half as smart as your mouth you’d be running your department, maybe even the company.
From my answer you can deduce that my opinion of you is very low.
Not that I didn’t knew that before, and not that give a …. about it.
SchorschIt still doesn’t answer my question.
My dear Robert,
your question was not answered by my post, as you have concluded successfully. Further on, from the fact that I answered a later post, you can conclude that I read your question. So, but I did not reply to your post, which can have following reason:
– I have no clue
– I do not want to answer
Second option hits the nail on its head. I actually don’t see this as question and answer game, with me being the answering machine. As you have access to the internet (otherwise you wouldn’t be here), you can use your own fingers and have the answer to your question right at your command. It is called Google, and would have yielded the answer in less than 10 seconds (just checked).
Now have fun googling it yourself. It is really a no-brainer.
SchorschHow ’bout comparing apples to apples? The latest Tomcat (F-14D) with the latest Phantom.
Or compare latest Sopwith Camel to latest F-16? Wouldn’t make sense, would it?
I compare two aircraft that were available and produced at the same time.
SchorschHydrogen powered engines is another option under consideration – where the main by-product would be a water (which, as it happens, may have negative consequences at high flight levels).
The technology could be made to manufacture a hydrogen jet engine, although there are two problems. Firstly, the storage of hydrogen I think is around 1:15 so for 1 tonne of H you would need 15 tonnes of storage infrastructure (quite a problem where space is somewhat limited at airports.
Secondly, similar to other ‘clean’ fuels, it is not carbon neutral. Unless the H is generated through the likes of a wind farm (which would take a long time), the H would have to be generated through means of e.g. a fossil fuel power station.
So to back up Schorsch’s point, the best savings at the moment (I reckon) will have to be made through more efficient aircraft and engine design before any major breakthroughs are reached in the fuelling area.
Symon
And production of hydrogen includes new losses. Finally we may ask: Considering the small amount of aviation is contributing to global carbon emissions, and considering the fact that on other opportunities we can save much more carbon by similar money investments (better housing, more efficient cars, better powerplants).
Changing aircraft to hydrogen would cost tremenduous money, wouldn’t be the huge gain in carbon (unless we use nuclear power), will have climate impact anyways.
SchorschI note you didn’t dispute the figures above, so I guess we have now concluded that the F-14 is an average fighter and does not really present a big advance compared to latest F-4 models.
This is not news. An F-18 has an initial advantage in acceleration due to its higher T/W ratio, but from (I’m making up numbers here) Mach 1.1 to Mach 1.5 the F-14 is going accelerate faster.
In any case, I’m not trying to say that the F-14 is a better fighter than the F-18. It isn’t, but its a far better interecpter, and thats where speed becomes important.
The Tomcat fights in the inner circle of defense. Sure it needs the capability to catch a target. Let’s think of a situation where a pair of F-14’s needs to dash to catch an incoming target before it reaches its missile launch point for attack on the CVBG. Starting from subsonic it will accelerate on a vector given bei E-2. You’ll see when you do the math, that the capability to successfully complete such a mission does not really change if you restrict max speed to Mach 1.8 or Mach 2.3. With weapons it won’t really get above Mach 2 anyways, so the surplus thrust bought by complex inlet is wasted weight, as the thrust becomes not effective.
We have not built an intercepter since the F-14. The MiG-31 is even faster, and that is not a mistake. The MiG-31 sucks as a fighter, but its a damn good intercepter.
Good you didn’t built one. What for?
Its the size. You can’t stuff an AIM-54 warhead and the fuel to hurl it 100 miles into an AIM-7. A Sparrow will never make a good ICBM either, no matter how small the electronics get.
The AIM-54 warhead is only 20kg heavier than that of a Sparrow.
SchorschIt’s all in presentation 😉 It’s not an EA-15F it’s simply an F-15F with some ECM mods to make up for the lack of stealth and the USAF’s lack of a dedicated EW aircraft. Much like the Super Hornet is showing it’s vaule as a tanker :diablo: the F-15F would serve as an EW aircraft. “The F-15F combines soft kill and hard kill into one package 😉 “.
You know the system better than I do, I suppose. 😀
SchorschI’m sure the USAF would like an aircraft with some range.
Different than the Navy the USAF has plenty of tankers. Hanging bombs and pods on an F-16 doesn’t exactly yield best range, either.
You mean like the A-7 and F-4? Why on earth would they want a Super Borenut when they’ve got F-15s, F-16s and F-22s? If they need the ECM so bad just incorporate the “Growler’s” (ROFL what a name!) system into CFTs and put them on new-build F-15Es. Sure someone will complain about the expense but it’s not like having the USAF add another maintenance pipeline for SHs would be free.
My comment was meant as ironic remark concerning the rivalery of USAF and USN. If the USAF really goes for ECM aircraft again, they will surely take the EA-18G, as no other aircraft is available and development of an EA-15F would surely be trashed by Congress.
SchorschThe F-14 is a much better fighter. The T/W ratio is about the same, but the F-14 has a much better wing loading. The tunnel between the engines creates a lot of lift, and this is usually neglected because its not the “wing”. The F-14 accelerates faster and climbs a little bit faster. At low speed the F-14 can out turn anything. Cockpit visability is far better in the F-14. Remember, the F-14 replaced the F-4, and the F-14 was designed to dogfight. The F-4 was not, although the F-4F got the slatted wing to improve turning ability.
Actually, when doing real air2air combat you don’t need that lift as you should remain in the linear angle of attack region.
Let’s check the numbers: F4F F14A
OEW [kg]: 14640, 18500
Full internal Fuel[kg]: 5332, 7350
4 AIM-9 and Pylon[kg]: 350, 350
TOW [kg]: 20330, 26200
Fuel Fraction [-]: 0.26, 0.28
Wing Area [m²]: 49.2, 52.5
Wing Loading [kg/m²]: 413, 499
Thrust (SLS*) [daN]: 15920, 18980
Thrust/Weight [-]: .78, .72
Rocky,
what you wrote above is basically flawed. The area between the wing counts as wing area, on any fighter. The F-14 has the advantage of better visibility, on the other hand it is the largest thing in the whole sky and even a blind pilot can keep track. There are many soft issues we can throw around, fact is that flight performance (and that is what we are talking about) of the F-14A compared to latest (basically still carrier capable) Phantom models hasn’t improved that much. When we compare that with advances made by the F-15 (flying just some time later) have been much more.
The F-14 doesn’t have things like relaxed stability or supercruise, which are not covered in this kind of basic “linear” comparisons. It isn’t stealthy, and in case of air2air combat against fighters, it would normally rely on Sparrow missiles and Sidewinders.
The F-14 was the child of a very tough requirement and it fulfilled this requirement. It was as such a successful aircraft, like basically any aircraft (otherwise they are not procurred). But the F-14 wasn’t much more. It didn’t at any time had the attractivity of a Phantom, an Eagle or the Hornet.
————————–
* I often complain about using internet numbers on thrust, as installed thrust differs significantly, especially as we are more interested in the instaled thrust at M.9 and 30kft than on the runway at brake release. But J79 and TF30 should have comparable characteristics, the TF30 will lose out at dry thrust for higher Mach approaching M1.00
SchorschThe F-14A would go Mach 2.34 clean. Not in combat, of course, but it illustrates the higher performance over the Mach 1.8 F-18 when clean.
Those charts must have something to do with structural limitations or thermal limits, rather than performance. Neither jet has a top speed of Mach 2 clean, let alone with pylons and a couple of missiles. The F-14D had a top speed of Mach 1.8 because the intakes were pinned. An F-14D pilot once told me that the top speed of an F-14D is Mach 1.8 with either a full load of Sparrow or Phoenix, which didn’t make sense to me until I learned about the intakes. If a loaded F-14D can go as fast as an F-18 clean, thats a big difference.
Rocky,
3 years and nearly 500 posts on this forum should have helped to figure out what really matters in fighter performance. It obviously didn’t.
The time required and fuel spent to accelerate to speeds like M2 are restrictive. Basically what an aircraft needs is the ability to accelerate to M1.5 in an acceptable time and hold this speed for a few minutes. Long distance supersonic dash is impossible with most aircraft, including F-14 (all versions).
The M2.34 are the flawed thinking of the 60ies, where top speed was still a major requirement. If the Navy and USAF had opted for an aircraft that flew M1.8 instead of M2.5 at altitude and subsonic instead of supersonic at deck, the F-111 would have been a fabulous aircraft
I always wondered why so much money was spent on the AIM-54, finally developing a system that could only be used on one aircraft, instead of making the available missile (AIM-7) more lethal and possibly longer range. Maybe electronics weren’t up for that in the early 70ies.
Which would be a correct assumption if we were talking about any other plane than the F/A-18 E/F/G. If you drop the tanks, you will obviously get rid of some drag, but you’ll keep the pylons, which are all canted outwards, creating lots of drag.
But do you know how much? “Lots of” is kind of loosely defined. I saw drag charts for some aircraft and some configurations, and pylons make drag. Most aircraft achieve the required performance with some pylons.
SchorschSuprised this has not been posted already…and suprised that VS might loose out to Air New Zealand!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7017694.stm
At least progress is being made…but probably the ‘greenies’ will have something to moan about it just for the sake of moaning or probably because we are just trying a concept that might actually reduce aviations impact on the environment!:D:diablo:
My stance still remains the same though, that other areas where carbon emissions are higher than the aviation industry’s total output need to be looked at first and foremost.
Any comments/opinions, please feel free to share them.
Just that recent reaearch proved that aternative fuels are anything but a real alternative. Besides the carbon spent to make them, the necessary agricultural area is lost. To make the biofuel for a company like Lufthansa, you would need about 10% of German soil.
The hype about “bio-fuel” is unfortunately screening many other more useful efforts to reduce carbon footprint. As always, a problem becomes hysteria and people start doing senseless stuff, even spending millions on it.
If Virgin replaced its elderly B747-400 with state-of-the-art aircraft, they had would reduce the carbon footprint by 15 to 20%. Much more cannot be assumed to come out from this action, taking all losses in account.
After all, it’s marketing the Al Gore way.
Schorsch8 missiles on 4 pylons and 3 drop tanks on top of that (4 dry and 2 wet wing pylons)? :confused:
Thats very draggy compared to what could be 4 AAMs on the outboard pylons, and 4 recessed under the fuselage [with two drop tanks under the nacelles].
I meant the F-18E, which is supposed to take the F-14’s role. Draggy doesn’t matter, if he needs performance urgently, he drop the tanks anyway. And if he has more drag while loitering at M0.78, who cares?
1 is better for the F-18, 3, again, I would like to think is better. 2 is not, we know its not – given the known limitations of the F/A-18 over Afghanistan vis a vis the F-14 it would seem that 2 is so bad it more than ‘compensates’ (if thats the right term :D) for 3.
Or the claims about the superior range are fishy.
Yeap, they are more complex, and difficult to maintain – thats a given. Considering they were essentially the first generation swing wing aircraft, I don’t think they were too bad.
After all – how long were the first swept wing aircraft around?
Second generation swing wing? Will not come, as it was an interim technology created by basically flawed specifications. 10% less required performance does not reduce mission performance by 10%, but more by 1%, but it eases the design and finally a much more efficient design will appear.
See my opinion on why speed is needed above. The -14A had rubbish engines, and was a danger to its crew as much as then enemy.
IIRC the F-14A had nearly half the turn radius of an F-4 [unknown variant] (equal subsonic speeds – 300 kts or something).
What means rubbish? The later TF30 were OK, the J79 or early F100 were no super engines, either. Engine problems are common for nearly all aircraft.
The F-14 will outturn any fighter below 300kts IAS, but who cares for that? An F-14A versus an F-4F (both produced at the same time) in a comparable configuration will in my opinion not see one definite winner.
Different thing with the F-15 versus F-4.
SchorschDoes this mean the end of BA 747’s?
James
Will the B747-400 disappear from major airlines in the next 5 to 10 years?
Yes. And I guess that when next downturn strikes, the desert will fill up with B747-400s. Like it did with DC10, L1011 and A300 the last times. The gap in fuel efficiency of the -400 to last models like B777-300ER or the A380 is just too big.
Will the B747-8 take the roll of the B747-400?
Most probably not.
SchorschSo are you are or you are not saying the F/A-18 has longer range than the Tomcat?
F-18E can load 4 AIM120, 4 AIM9 and 3 drop tanks.
I would guess that for a CAP mission (which basically consists of loitering) the F-18E with drop tanks will have better endurance and eventually range.
For someone who presents himself as knowing alot about aerodynamics, I’m quite surprised you don’t seem to consider the L/D ratio as important. I can throw up the Breguet eqn for range if you want (but I’m quite sure you are already aware of it).
Which actually uses
1. fuel fraction,
2. lift over drag and
3. sfc.
I guess #1 and #3 are better for F-18, can #2 be so bad?
Unfortunately my sources are not so detailed 🙁
(that is not the same as saying they are inaccurate)
The problem is that you are relying heavily on pre-digested sources, quoting articles from magazines and stuff you read here or there. Add your own “digestion”, where the Flight Journal with dismissal claims about the F-18 is lying on top of the 10+ praisals of the official USN offices. Finally, you start to read and remember what you like.
If swing wings did nothing for speed, drag and range, then why does the B-1 have them, why does the Tu-22M have them, why does the Tu-160 have them and why does the MiG-23 have better acceleration than an F-16?
With limitations of the 60ies, sometimes strange specifications (Mach2 and short field performance) and the general positive attitude versus more complexity, the swing wing makes sense. Both fighters (MiG-23, F-14) with swing wings have not outlived their predecessors (Phantom, MiG-21), were phased out earlier and never produced in similar numbers, while their successors (F-18) were produced in larger numbers over longer periods.
You’ll find a sweet spot where a MiG-23ML will have better acceleration than an F-16, but overrally the F-16 has much better performance, weights less while carrying similar payloads, has comparable speeds in combat (while losing on the top speed), weights 4 tons less when empty, has better fuel fraction, superior range for most missions. That the Soviets started production of the MiG-23ML while the USA/NATO started production of the F-16A, is always an amazing example of superior technology.
Nearly all swing wing aircraft have been designed with a set maximum speed, normally in excess of Mach 2. Take this requirement away, and you’ll find the swing wing superfluent, even in the 1970s.
I can’t prove it but I would guess that latest F-4 models (namely F-4F) will have generally better performance over F-14A, at least when one looks on the overall mission spectra.
Sign In
