Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Maneuverability: F-4E Vs F-14  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17353 times:

I've been told the F-14 is more maneuverable a fighter than an early model F-4. However, the F-4E, with it's maneuvering slats was substantially more maneuverable than the early model F-4's.

How did the F-14 fare against the F-4E?

Blackbird

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 17370 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
How did the F-14 fare against the F-4E?

The F4E could hold it's own up to about 10,000'. Above that the F14 would walk all over the F4E.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12179 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 17004 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
How did the F-14 fare against the F-4E?

The F4E could hold it's own up to about 10,000'. Above that the F14 would walk all over the F4E.

I believe it is actually quite a bid higher than that, for the F-4E vs. the F-14A. IIRC, the old Phantom could out manuver the Tomcat up to about 23,000'. That is for a turning and burning fight. Anything above that, the 'Cat had the old jet.

The F-4E could take some 10.5 instant "G"s, and 7.5 "G"s sustained. The F-14A could take 8.75 instant "G"s, and 7.75 sustained "G"s.

The F-15A could out manuver both of these fighters at any altitude, as could the F-16A.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 16990 times:

F14 isn't exactly a turn on a dime fighter.

Which is why Top Gun was so badly needed to teach F14 pilots NOT to get in knife fights with the russian built planes. You can bet a good many students got some humility when the "obsolete" and "crap" F5's handed them thier ass in mock combat because they decided to play its game instead of just leaving for a bit when the inital engagement didn't work out.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 16985 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The F-4E could take some 10.5 instant "G"s, and 7.5 "G"s sustained. The F-14A could take 8.75 instant "G"s, and 7.75 sustained "G"s.

The G limits were much lower than that. IIRC the G limit depending on the weight was no more than 7.33 if you were very light, and if you assymetrical loading it was much less. It's been about 27 years since I've flown them but when we were up against the 14, if you stayed below 10,000 you could normally win. Above that and you didn't have a chance.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4003 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 16955 times:

I always suspected the F-14 was seriously overrated as a dogfighter. but I still thought it was reasonably good - at least much better than other swing-wing combat aircraft.

And now you're telling me it couldn't even beat an F-4E at lower altitudes? I'm surprised.

What caused the F-14 to perform poorly at low altitudes? The TF30?

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16785 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):
F14 isn't exactly a turn on a dime fighter.

No it was not. However for a fighter it's size it was rather manuverable. Especially with the wings out the pilot could lay that stick over and drop the nose like nobody's business.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):
Which is why Top Gun was so badly needed to teach F14 pilots NOT to get in knife fights with the russian built planes.

Top Gun was badly needed becasue of the abismal kill ratio early in the Vietnam War. It was not to teach F-14 pilots not to get into a turning fight with russian built jets. Especially since the F-14 had not even flown when Top Gun first started. Guess those pilots in 1981 and 1989 really screwed up since they got into a turning fight with Soviet built aircraft.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):
You can bet a good many students got some humility when the "obsolete" and "crap" F5's handed them thier ass in mock combat because they decided to play its game instead of just leaving for a bit when the inital engagement didn't work out.

Trust me, no student expects to hand an instructor his head the first time out. Plenty of F-15, F-16, F-18 pilots have been cought in the gun sight of an F-5.


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16679 times:

I always preferred to avoid the knife fight in a phone booth because there were too many variables to guarantee a victory. I've looked at a lot of Ps curves to see what regions of the envelope could be exploited but the hands down preference is to send the missile into BFM the adversary. The planes I least liked to do dissimilar with were AV-8s and A-10s.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16676 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 6):
Especially since the F-14 had not even flown when Top Gun first started

I know this, however its been widely stated that one of the reasons that it was started was due to losses from "obsolete" aircraft due to faulty tactics being employed by the heavier and larger fighters the USN was using. People were not happy when thier shiny new toys were getting killed by korean era junk.

The F14 for all its ability is even worse than the F4 in that kind of close in dogfight. So it was even more important that they get experience with fighting "obsolete" fighters like the F5 that were nasty handfuls in close.

Quoting F4wso (Reply 7):
The planes I least liked to do dissimilar with were AV-8s and A-10s.

Its one of the reasons I see the attempt to use the F35 to replace those two planes as a faulty idea. The larger the speed difference the less able the faster plane is able to deal with the slower. I can only imagine the hell that would be a properly set up helicopter designed as a mobile sam site. Disappears into folds in the earth, nearly impossible to lock on, and plenty capible of tossing a missle into your backside.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 16398 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
The F14 for all its ability is even worse than the F4 in that kind of close in dogfight.

How do you figure?

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 8):
So it was even more important that they get experience with fighting "obsolete" fighters like the F5 that were nasty handfuls in close.

This contradicts your previous statement.....

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 3):
Which is why Top Gun was so badly needed to teach F14 pilots NOT to get in knife fights with the russian built planes.

There's only one way to get experience against smaller fighters in close. That's to get into a "knife" fight as you say.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3762 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 16385 times:

When looking at the combat statistic and overall performance, was the F-4 a good fighter then?

I mean it is still used today in some countries, and is certainly a platform which was ahead of its time in many respects. But what about combat record against foreign fighters?

I always wondered why the Luftwaffe ordered the F-4F and removed all high tech staff from the F-4E. Todays F-4F ICE is certainly much better, but in the beginning, it was bought as a dog-fighting aircraft. Was that really a wise decision in the 70s?


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 16380 times:

the F-4 could easily make 180 degree turn in less than 2-3 time zones!

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16345 times:



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):
How do you figure?

F14 is larger and heavier. It is measurably worse at "knife fights" or tight turning matches with other fighters. Its hard to imagine for many people that the flying tank that is the F4 is actualy a decent fighter, and that the Gee wiz super budget F14 with all its toys can in any way be worse than it... But there it is. The F4 is better than the F14 at somethings. Its the price the F14 had to pay for its advantages over the F4.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):


This contradicts your previous statement.....

No it doesn't. The F5 is light and manuverable. If you play its game in a F14 or F4 you will get your ass handed too you. The Mig-17 was proving that it was plenty capible of taking out pilots in thier "superior" fighters when the pilots made the wrong choices. The F14 widened the gap between it and the russian fighters in the area of manuverablity Vs speed compared to the F4. So wrong tactics became even more deadly to the F14 pilots compared to the F4.

Which is what top gun was about. Not how to fly better. Its about fighting smarter.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10):
When looking at the combat statistic and overall performance, was the F-4 a good fighter then?

I think its the stand out fighter of its era. I know many people dismiss it because its "slow". It also looks strange, -ugly- even to people who wanted elegant pointy nosed fighters. However it was tough, manuverable, and best yet a very capible weapons platform. Its done whatever people have asked for it for decades showing its flexiblity.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 16267 times:

Actually, I remember they actually had a real flyoff between the F-4J with the leading edge slats and the F-14A and the F-14A literally flew rings around the F-4J, mostly because the F-14A could fly tighter turns without losing speed.

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 16212 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
F14 is larger and heavier. It is measurably worse at "knife fights" or tight turning matches with other fighters. Its hard to imagine for many people that the flying tank that is the F4 is actualy a decent fighter, and that the Gee wiz super budget F14 with all its toys can in any way be worse than it... But there it is. The F4 is better than the F14 at somethings. Its the price the F14 had to pay for its advantages over the F4.

If it's size and weight then that would mean an F-4 could out manuever an SU-27.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
The F14 widened the gap between it and the russian fighters in the area of manuverablity Vs speed compared to the F4. So wrong tactics became even more deadly to the F14 pilots compared to the F4.

Once again how do you figure?


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16196 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
It is measurably worse at "knife fights" or tight turning matches with other fighters.

A GE powered F-14 with a skilled pilot could hold their own against anything in the air during it's days...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
Its hard to imagine for many people that the flying tank that is the F4 is actualy a decent fighter, and that the Gee wiz super budget F14 with all its toys can in any way be worse than it... But there it is.

Ahem - Bullsh¡t.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 12):
The F4 is better than the F14 at somethings. Its the price the F14 had to pay for its advantages over the F4.

Stop the hate - the F-4 was better at nothing than the F-14, maybe in slinging large quantity of dumb bombs and that's about it.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 13):
Actually, I remember they actually had a real flyoff between the F-4J with the leading edge slats and the F-14A and the F-14A literally flew rings around the F-4J, mostly because the F-14A could fly tighter turns without losing speed.

Yup, the USN conducted the flyoff themselves from what I remember.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 14):
If it's size and weight then that would mean an F-4 could out manuever an SU-27.

Or an F-15 for that matter...


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3762 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16163 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Stop the hate - the F-4 was better at nothing than the F-14, maybe in slinging large quantity of dumb bombs and that's about it.

And that might be one of the reasons why it is still serving in some countries, while the F-14 has been retired already. Of course, larger quantities play a role, as well, however if it were as expensive as the F-14, it would never have been sold in such large quantities in the first place.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15960 times:

What kind of high-lift devices did the early F-4's use? Before the F-4E?

Did they use droops, slats (smaller ones that couldn't be used for maneuvering and mounted inboard of the wing-fold line?) or just the dog-tooth on the leading edge?


Blackbird


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15894 times:

I believe the F-4E did not have the leading edge slats on the wings initially. They were introduced with the F-4J model, which were F-4E's rebuilt with the upgraded wings, which made them much more formidable opponents against the MiG-17's and MiG-21's.

User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 15822 times:

The plane had no LED's at all?

User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 15808 times:



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 19):
The plane had no LED's at all?

Correct....


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 15705 times:

They only had the ones that were tied in with the flaps and uncovered the leading edge Boundary Layer Control (BLC) ports. They were not used for maneuvering. Later USAF F-4s were modified to only use the half flap setting so the trailing edge BLC could be disabled. There were a few exceptions, like the 148th FIG, MN ANG, that benefitted from the reduced landing speed on icy runways.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15681 times:

F4wso,

So it was like a blown leading-edge? Did the leading-edge droop as well, or just extend forward?


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15638 times:

They just drooped exposing the bleed air ports. I was amazed on my first air to air in the slatted E model after being used to the geometry of the hard wing RF-4C. I was ready to call an overshoot as the other E was rolling in on us but he just saddled up in a text book single turn conversion intercept.

Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 15603 times:

The only part that drooped on the old F-4's were the part of the wing inboard of the wing-fold line (the part of the wing that can fold up for storage when the plane used to be used on carrier-decks)?


BTW: The F-4E's slats and so on's slats were full span, even the outboard wing right?


Blackbird


25 Post contains images F4wso : The outboard slat actuators are barely visible in these two pictures These two show hardwing F-4s with leading edges retracted and extended. Gary Cott
26 Post contains links and images Vzlet : I don't know how similar the "E" and "S" slats were, but this shot offers a good comparison of slatted and not: View Large View MediumPhoto © Mar
27 Blackbird : The F-4 also used blown flaps correct? Hard to believe you'd need so much effort to give the F-4 a reasonable landing speed. It doesn't have ridiculou
28 Pyrex : Oh, just how that fly-off the USAF conducted against the IAF's Su-27s to prove they needed some Raptors? Never trust the judgement of someone who wan
29 Mjstormtrooper : The F-14 is the heavyweight of the fighters. The Tomcat already has the advantage once it's in the air. It's the other aircraft that needs it's A game
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Maneuverability: F-4E Vs F-14
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F-22A Vs F-14 Which One Sound Better? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 17:33:07 by 747400sp
F-4 Vs F-14 posted Mon Dec 26 2005 20:48:45 by 747400sp
F-14 Vs F-15 Which Sound Better? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:34:09 by 747400sp
Data On The F-14 Vs. F/A-18 Super Hornet. posted Fri Jun 21 2002 23:03:18 by CX747
F-14 Vs F-18 posted Mon Oct 29 2001 14:34:11 by Warlord
F-14 Vs F-15 posted Sat Sep 29 2001 09:06:44 by Sin777er
Mil Mi -17 At Klex 4/14 posted Tue Apr 17 2012 05:43:04 by gulfstream650
S-IC Stage Vs. SRBs Question posted Sat Mar 24 2012 10:00:30 by Thrust
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
Rafale Vs Typhoon Again In The UAE posted Sun Nov 13 2011 06:21:48 by Devilfish
F-22A Vs F-14 Which One Sound Better? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 17:33:07 by 747400sp
F-4 Vs F-14 posted Mon Dec 26 2005 20:48:45 by 747400sp
F-14 Vs F-15 Which Sound Better? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:34:09 by 747400sp
Data On The F-14 Vs. F/A-18 Super Hornet. posted Fri Jun 21 2002 23:03:18 by CX747
F-14 Vs F-18 posted Mon Oct 29 2001 14:34:11 by Warlord
F-14 Vs F-15 posted Sat Sep 29 2001 09:06:44 by Sin777er
Mil Mi -17 At Klex 4/14 posted Tue Apr 17 2012 05:43:04 by gulfstream650
S-IC Stage Vs. SRBs Question posted Sat Mar 24 2012 10:00:30 by Thrust
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
Rafale Vs Typhoon Again In The UAE posted Sun Nov 13 2011 06:21:48 by Devilfish

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format