RA-5C Vigilante. A real beauty, IMHO.

That first one is an A-5A.

I would think that if Russia was going to conduct airstrikes on Georgia, there would be a lot more aircraft involved than reported. But then, Russia didn’t start this, and they weren’t planning for a war today.

I’m glad Georgia isn’t in NATO. Can you imagine the mess if this had started when those US Marines were there? 😮

What an idiot move this attack is! Did Saakashvili expect Russia would run home with its tail between its legs?

True, but high subsonic maneuvering needs high allowed G. In such condition the F-14, with it 6.5G and no slatts alowed over 5G, is a deadmeat.

The F-14 doesn’t need slats at high subsonic speeds, and it can pull all the G the pilot wants. The problem the F-14 has is not G limit, its thrust to weight ratio.

The forward wing setings are for TO and landings only, in every VG a/c.

And cruise. But the F-14 would use its forward sweep in combat if it got slow.

But the Mig-23 MLD has combat flaps. This is a big advantage over F-14.

No advantage at all. The F-14 has manuver flaps as well, and a better effective wing loading.

Why do you think so?
Manuals for both A and D versions say 6.5G max.

My sources also list a 7.3 design G load. The 6.5 limit was added later to preserve the airframe.

The F-14 had about the same wing aspect ratio, higher wing loading and far lower T/W.

The F-14 generated a lot of lift with its tunnel, If you factor that in, it could generate much more lift than the MiG, or nearly anything else in the sky. The T/W was a little lower, not a lot. The MiG-23 is no F-16.

Its glove vanes were little short of useless, so that it was concluded that it was better to weld them retracted.

The vanes don’t extend until above mach 1.4. ACM rarely takes place at such speeds. The vanes were designed to cure the excessive stability that VG aircraft have at full sweep and high mach. They did what they were supposed to do.

Its leding edge slats were of little use because it was restricted to 5 g maneuvers with them extended.

A fighter doesn’t want to get so slow that it is in the part of the flight envelope where those slats deploy. But if an F-14 gets that slow, it can out turn next to anything at that speed.

Its max allowed loading was 6.5 G. Too low compared to Mig-21 bis or MiG-23 ML (8.5G).

G limits have relevency for fatigue life, not combat.

In fact it was a Phoenix missile carrier. Not more.

I know of some libyan Su-22 and MiG-23 pilots who would strongly disagree with that, if they survived.

hehehe or shall i say hahahaha, all of us are in a parabolic trajectory, why? because the the planet is round and spining in its own axis even wabbling,

Because the planet is round????? So what would the Earth’s orbit look like if the earth was shaped like a cube?? :rolleyes:

if the earth was flat you can say all airplanes fly and rockets have parabolic trajectories, however if you know the concept of limit taken from calculus, you know when X is close to 0 the Gradient seem to be a point but when X is X>0 or bigger than zero it seems to be a slope, however for our planet a plane is flying a parabolic trajectory due to gravity, in fact if you do not follow a parabolic trajectory you will get out of the earth`s gravity and go into orbit or out of earth`s gravity pull

Airplanes DO NOT follow a parabolic trajectory, unless they are falling and pulling 0 g. Astronauts train for 0 g in a 707(?) that flies in an arc to achieve 0 g. Thats approximately a parabolic flight. I suppose you could say a plane in level flight is travelling in a circle, because the Earth is round and the plane would fly all they way around the Earth if it had enough fuel – but its not going nearly fast enough to say its in orbit.

Since you can not see thet kilo newtons is a measure to see force

“Newton” is a unit of force, not “kilo newton”.

and to see the acceleration a mass can reach then you can not see a lighter mass will get higher acceleration, the Su-24 is lighter and has a higher thrust at military power therefore it needs less kilo newtons to achieve the same speed an F-111

No, the Su-24 is not a rocket in space. The top speed is all determined by thrust and drag. Mass is only an issue in acceleration. I think Sens told you that too.

This proves you that gravity exerts to a mass of one kilo 9.8 newtons, a higher thrust to weight ratio exerts then higher acceleration and therefore the Al-21 is not using its max SFC it has when it has the same thrust the TF-30 has its max SFC at military power

This is total nonsense.

rocky are you still in the middle ages when people thought the world was flat?

Actually, its funny you should say that. You wrote that objects follow a parabolic trajectory. When one calculates the path of an artillery shell on a parabolic trajectory, that is actually a simplified approximation that assumes a vacuum and that the Earth is flat. It works over short distances. At less than escape velocity, objects in ballistic motion are actually following the path of an ellipse. The Earth goes around the Sun in an ellipse, satelites go around the Earth in an ellipse, and when you throw a rock, its path is an ellipse, until it runs into something like the ground. An object travelling faster than escape velocity follows a hyperbolic trajectory. An object travelling exactly at escape velocity follows the path of a parabola.

The F-111 never carried tanks, except for ferry flights, although the FB-111A always carried tanks on alert. In Vietnam, the F-111A cruised the with the wings forward, but then were swept back to 45 degrees in the combat area. The bomb bay was never used as a bomb bay, except when filled with nukes. The USAF put a canon in the F-111 bomb bay. The F-111F had a PAVE TACK laser designater stowed there later in its career. I can’t say what the Australians did, but they have PAVE TACK now. The F-111 did have four pylons under each wing, but the outer two are fixed, so the wings can’t be swept back when mounted, so they were never used, except on the FB-111A.

I don’t think the Su-24 ever had anything like PAVE TACK. I have been told by an F-15E Strike Eagle pilot that the F-111F was a better bomber than the F-15E, which is quite a testament. I would say the F-111F is better than the Su-24.