To reiterate again,

I think your missing a critical point. CL max between the F-14A and the D will be largely the same. The aircraft’s corner speed will be similar.

The “D” has greater thrust which will slightly improve sustained turn rate, but is partially offset by increased weight. The AoA will be higher to generate the same amount of lift. At low level, both the “A” and the “D” are impacted by imposed structural G limit at higher speed. What you can see is, for example at Mach .8 FL 100 the F-14D has more Ps. But that right side of the envelope is G limited.

While the F110 has much greater thrust at sea level, we don’t know the dynamic thrust at different speeds and altitudes. One thing is for sure, the dry thrust of the F110 was far superior to the TF30.

Instantaneous turn rate won’t be much different because again, CL max and or load factor are the limits. What the E-M diagrams don’t show is the impact on acceleration, the F110 powered Tomcats were supposed to have far superior acceleration through much of the envelope (except approaching Mach 2 at higher altitudes) Perhaps the inlet was optimized for the TF30? IDK. The F110 powered F-14’s could regain energy faster, which was one major handicap of the TF30 powered F-14’s, they ran out of Ps and were dead ducks at high altitude after a few hard turns.

Besides, the much lower SFC in afterburner , greater dry thrust, and improved climb and acceleration (and the aforementioned less threat of compressor stalls) were enough to make the A+ and D superior to the early Tomcats.

That Il-38 was landed without nose gear by a 73 year old test pilot BTW.

Karl Yeager-ski?

Frankly, FBW, this is the pot calling the kettle black.
All we have on western side is the declaration of the Pentagon that all of 104 missiles has hitten their objective and some picture taken well after the strike occurred.
?

Frankly, you should take you comments back to Russiadefense.net. I’m sure you buddies there can explain it all to you, i’ll not waste me time with someone who pretends objectivity.

As for lemmings, I would say that’s a very appropriate analogy. You and a few others have run off the cliff separating sceptical from delusional. Feel free not to respond to me or my posts.

BDA is not very useful in this case either. The missiles were programmed to strike in rapid sucession to incinerate any toxins present at those three sites. The large number of missiles striking a small target is the veritable “making rubble bounce”.

One, none, 76 shot down….I don’t think there is any chance of detailed analysis to accurately assess the success/failure of the Syria defense. All of this was shaping the message. US strikes three sites claimed to be chemical weapons related as a message. Russia makes noise, though they were probably in contact with US forces the whole time on targets, time, size of response. Syria claims success in “intercepting” cruise missiles. All white noise.

Probably a source, maybe. And you? Do you know anyone in aeronautics apart from F-16.net chest bumping asshole teens?

Do you see me on there often? I’ve read your comments there. Have to be honest, I don’t see much difference between you and the most bias of them. With one exception, they don’t edit poorly sourced hit pieces on the Rafale for an online aviation blog, I can’t say the same thing about you in regards to the F-35.

And no, I am aware you were a JTAC, does that make you an expert on fighter performance? And yes, in the 2000’s I did have contact with engineers with P&W, Boeing. Careers change.

Like to ask the mods if they can restore the Su-57 thread, cleaned up of whatever got it axed in the first place.

It was one of the more active and interesting threads.

Close-up of the TVC nozzle.

https://twitter.com/xinfengcao/status/987647894671966209

That look familiar to anyone? Industrial espionage or cooperation?

While there’s no doubt that the RB199 was a handicap in high altitude performance, it was actually a decent engine given the F.3’s intended role (especially over water patrol of G-I-UK gap and North sea).

The choice of a high bypass turbofan was critical to provide range and endurance, but those early turbofans had comparatively poor performance at higher altitude (not exactly an issue considering the RB199 was initially fitted to a low level strike aircraft). The F100 is really the first turbofan I can think of that provided a decent mix of endurance and high altitude performance, and it experienced significant teething troubles.

I would say it was similar to the F-14A in that the engines, which at the time enabled the aircraft to be a long range interceptor, were a handicap as a fighter.

already posted above by OP-the Hushkit interview gives a very fair overview of the aircraft:
https://hushkit.net/2016/05/01/interceptor-how-how-to-fight-survive-in-phantom-and-tornado/