Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 38ruk on February 24, 2005, 05:07:49 PM
-
during a program on the F-14 , they state " The f-14 tomcat is the fastest fighter plane in the world. I thought that the F-15 was the fastest fighter in the USAF stable ? Now i must admit that Jet fighters are not my best subject , as i am more of a prop guy.
I have seen many other mistakes on the history channel, such as " the P-51 mustang was the only allied fighter able to escort bombers into germany " Well we all know that the P-38 was more than capible to do that as well.
38
-
One Thing I've noticed is they tend to get their models mixed up.
One show whenever its on Keeps showing P51 Bs and Calling them P61 Ds
-
Any chance they said "Fastest Naval fighter plane in the world"? That would be true I think.
--Peregrine.
-
i think ive seen this programme a few times...im sure it says it was the fastest naval aircraft in the world at its time of introduction...still is the fastest i think.. still pig ugly
-
I actually thought the Tomcat was faster than the F-15. I also believe the Mig 25 was faster than both of them. Maybe Ill go crack a book?:D
-
ok, The F-15 is faster.
F-15 shows 1650 mph
F14 shows 1544 mph
The Mig 25 shows 1864 mph with the Mig 31 being 1 mph faster.
-
SR71
-
the show never said anything about fastest naval fighter in the world . I was waiting for them to say naval ... but it never happened . It was even said on the commercial for the show . It was heavy metal F-14 tomcat ..
38
-
THIS HISTORY CHANNEL SAID IT?! It was on TV.. has to be true.
:p
-
The History Channel fudges up a lot of things. Dates, Times, Specs, Facts, you name it.
They really need to get in line.
-
I heard the F-14 is the only jet capable of breaking the sound barrier in a vertical climb. even though I also heard the F-15 had the fastest climb rate in the world...
-
Raptor the F-15 did have it. Not sure if it's ever been broken. I wanna say the aircraft was 119. It went to 98,425 ft in 3 minutes 27.8 seconds. It coasted to nearly 103,000 ft before it fell back towards earth. That was done back with the old F100 motors which are governed. They don't actually use all 100% of what they are actually capable of.
Streak Eagle (http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/eagle.htm)
And we don't list the actual top speed. What the public has been told is it can go to MACH 2.5 +.
-
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-14_tomcat.pl
F14 Top Speed:Mach 2.34
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/f-15_eagle.pl
F15 Top Speed: Mach 2.5+
SU-25 i'm going to take as sarcasm (Mach .8) its a ground attack yadda yadda
-
SU-25 i'm going to take as sarcasm
Who said anything about the Su 25?:p
-
Originally posted by Slash27
ok, The F-15 is faster.
F-15 shows 1650 mph
F14 shows 1544 mph
The Mig 25 shows 1864 mph with the Mig 31 being 1 mph faster.
Mig 25 is faster than anything but the SR71, however, it's not a fighter. If I remember correctly, it's maximum g loading is 5g's. It was designed to be able to intercept supersonic bombers, and thats about it.
--Peregrine.
-
SR71 not a Fighter Yucca, although it is the fastest Jet ;)
The Swedish JA37 Viggen has been brought up to Mach 2.5 aswell, it was still accelerating at that speed. Problem is the plane can only fly on full afterburner for 10 minutes before it runs out of fuel.
-
If it aint a falcon, it aint worth the money.
-
Its been verified in this post already, but I thought the 15 was faster and had a better thrust to weight ratio. The best thrust to weight ratio still belongs to the me163 if I'm not mistaken, but then again it was a manned rocket with 30mms. :rolleyes:
In any case, I'm surprised noone said anything about the F22 or the JSF. I'd be interested in knowing how those are going to compare... Even though they rely more on stealth, I figure engineers are geeks and to make it cooler, you'd have to give it a boost in HP :D
-
MiG 25 not SU25 my mistake ummmm
http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/mig-25_foxbat.pl
MiG 25 Top Speed: mach 2.83
so a bit faster then the F15.
-
Mig 25 is faster than anything but the SR71, however, it's not a fighter. If I remember correctly, it's maximum g loading is 5g's. It was designed to be able to intercept supersonic bombers, and thats about it.
Wasnt the F-14s main role a bomber intercepter? Keep the Bears away from the fleet.
I'm surprised noone said anything about the F22 or the JSF. I'd be interested in knowing how those are going to compare...
This book claims the F-22 at Mach 1.7 at 30k(1157 mph). It also states she cook along at mach 1.58 at 36k in non-after burning "supercruise" mode. Not word on her range though. This has no performance data on the X-35 JSF.
-
The Raptors thrust to weight ratio should be substantially better than the F-15 considering it has the F119 motors. Considering it does have super cruise capabilities this should be obvious. Not to start a debate but there has been an F-15 that was capable of supercruise. The fuel effeciency wasn't all that great though.
The PW 229s are only capable of about 29,000 lbs of thrust where as the F119 is capable of almost 35,000 lbs of thrust. The PW F135s are capable of 40,000 lbs of thrust. The Raptors empty weight is substantially lower than the F-15, almost 14,000 lbs lighter.
Slash I wanna say that 1.7 MACH is for a best performance scenario. I can almost guarantee that it's top speed is well beyond 1.7. If you take a look at Lockheeds site it will states it's a MACH 2 class aircraft.
-
Slash I wanna say that 1.7 MACH is for a best performance scenario. I can almost guarantee that it's top speed is well beyond 1.7. If you take a look at Lockheeds site it will states it's a MACH 2 class aircraft.
Ill check out their site Cobra, thanks. All the data I posted was from "The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft". Nice little Xmas gift:)
-
cc Slash. One other thing to remember is that plane is made up of almost 27% composite materials. That drastically cuts down on weight. There would only be a few other things that could limit the planes ability to reach the same top speeds as the F-15.
I just doubt it's speeds are much less than the F-15s. Considering it's major assets are it's maneuverability, avionics and stealth it may not need the speed though. The F-15 was designed to perform better at mach speeds than at lower speeds. The flight characteristics start to excel drastically once it gets above mach 1 and higher.
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
If it aint a falcon, it aint worth the money.
ohhhhh GAG me with a SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!
-
Tumor all F-16 guys are like that. It still makes me wonder why the Air Force ever made the F-16 it's poster child. Makes me giggle a bit because of a few incidents that happenend while I was in the desert. F-16 guys kept boasting about how good they were while we were deployed.
We were stationed in Turkey covering the Northern No Fly zone. One of our sister squadrons were there with us in the F-15Cs and us in our F-15Es. The F-16 Operations group that was there with us decided they were going put up some LGBs for the missions the next day. The AEF commander saw their config memo and told them to let the big boys take care of the bombing missions. They had to reconfig every bird late that night so they could go back to their SEAD role. The F-16 weapons crews were pissed.
The F-16 aircrews were a bit pissed too because every day we launched we came back empty. They were basically taking long and not so scenic tours of the desert. In the meanwhile we were bombing the hell out of the Iraqi AAA, SAM sites and relay centers for 45 days straight. The F-16s never even had a chance to launch on any targets while we were there. That was the most ordinance that had been dropped on Northern Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. We had dropped more ordinance in the first 3 days than our sister squadron that was there before us had done in their whole 45 day rotation.
It was also pretty amusing to watch an F-16 try to max climb on one of our down days from flying in the AOR. The F-16 took off and did a max climb. Right after they got half way down the strip our F-15E started rolling down the runway. Right about the time the F-16 leveled off our F-15 screamed pass him still in a max climb and leveled off about 7 thousand feet above the F-16. Needless to say they didn't try to out do us in max climbs after that for the rest of our rotation.
It's always fun to have those kind of inner wars going on between squadrons. Heck we made fun of the Tornados that were there with us doing photo recon. Couldn't help but raz their maintainers and ask them how much combat they had seen. Was also pretty funny to see an AIM9 mounted on the top of the wing. That was a first for most of us. Was kind of a ongoing joke throughout the AEF. Kept asking their weapons crews if they had realised they had the pylons mounted on the wrong side of the wing.
-
Originally posted by peregrin
Mig 25 is faster than anything but the SR71, however, it's not a fighter. If I remember correctly, it's maximum g loading is 5g's. It was designed to be able to intercept supersonic bombers, and thats about it.
--Peregrine.
And what would be the max G-loading of the Mig-31?
-
Cobra,
Just curious...have the F16 and F15 competed in a dogfight? If so, how did they perform against eachother...honestly.
I don't know. That's why I'm askin'.
:)
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
The best thrust to weight ratio still belongs to the me163 if I'm not mistaken, but then again it was a manned rocket with 30mms. :rolleyes:
Wrong.
Even when empty it's still <1:1 thrust to weight ratio. At full weight it can sustain speed at about 25 degree climb, increasing to about 70 just before fuel is spent. It could never accelerate vertical.
-
Originally posted by hogenbor
And what would be the max G-loading of the Mig-31?
No idea, but personally, I don't think non-deployed aircraft count for this kind of comparison.
Wasnt the F-14s main role a bomber intercepter? Keep the Bears away from the fleet.
That true, but it is also a capable fighter with a normal max g rating of 9-10.
The f22 is a much faster aircraft than f15 or f16. It may not end up winning the max speed statistic, but the supercruise capability means that its usable speed and accelleration is in a different class than any other fighter. During testing I read reports from chase pilots in f16's who couldn't keep up witha military power f22 even with full afterburner on the chase plane.
--Peregrine.
-
If I remember correctly, the engines in the 25 had to be pulled every 30 - 50 hours of operation. They put out gobs of thrust but don't last.
As for the 15 and 16 drivers out there...You are all just potential Air Medals for me and my co-workers.
Jolly Greens..."Flying where otheres fail"
lol...all in fun
Jolly FE
-
T-Bolt our pilots have done many ACBT missions against the F-16. It really depends on how the engagement is setup. There has been times where our crews have beat the F-16 consistantly. There has also been times where the F-16 has beaten us consistantly. Mind you this is against some of our F-15s that don't have JHMCS and Link 16 capabilities. With these two systems installed the F-15 could use different tactics and it wouldn't be as vunerable in wvr engagements that are happening at lower speeds. The F-16s maneuverability is a bit better than ours at lower speeds while we are much better at higher speeds. There is just to many variables to account for to say one is absolutely better than the other.
Peregrin the F/A-22s acceleration is much better than the F-16 and it is a bit better than the F-15. Hence why we used the F-15s for chase birds when they were doing their high speed test missions. There were alot of test missions that required the F-15s to fly with the Raptors.
-
I thinks it is unfair to try to compare naval and airforce planes speed and turning performance based on the requirements imposed on Naval planes for carrier landing and sea operations. Everything needs to be reinforced and heavier duty thus I would imagine with the radar and all additional weight in components the F-14 is much heavier than the F-15. From the landing gear and undercarriage support to the engines.
As far as the Mig-25's and Mig 31's go, didnt the Soviets run their speed tests with a stripped down plane without any radar electronics, ect to get their speed numbers and intimidate the West. From what I remember when the west finally got a hold of a real Mig 25 it was bogus on its speed numbers because of this. Just something I remember hearing. Good day!
Higgins
-
As far as the Mig-25's and Mig 31's go, didnt the Soviets run their speed tests with a stripped down plane without any radar electronics, ect to get their speed numbers and intimidate the West. From what I remember when the west finally got a hold of a real Mig 25 it was bogus on its speed numbers because of this.
They would never pad the stats., would they?:D
-
Could some one define "supercruise"?
I know it's some kind of high speed regime; but what's the precise meaning?
-
Supersonic speed without use of an afterburner.
If it was ever achieved before the F-22 it was pretty rare.
-
Ah; thx.
-
F-15 guys seem to be the ones that have the inferiority issues lol. Comparing takeoff powers is a bit silly considering the enormous thrust of TWO engines vs. one. The f-16 is more than capable of completing just about any mission you can give her, as well as being far cheaper and far easier to maintain. The ratio of flight time to maintenance time is about 6 hours of maintenance for every flight hour..thats just sick. Not sure about the 15 but i dont think its even close. As for dogfights the scenarios can be staged for either to defeat the other...generally the 15 has more powerful avionics due the the sheer size of the radar package..u need a dam crane to get it out. The f16 radar can easily be taken out by hand. F16s troops are very proud of their little falcon for its ability given its size..and so they should be :)
"Tumor all F-16 guys are like that. It still makes me wonder why the Air Force ever made the F-16 it's poster child."
This pretty much sums up the envy and jealousy of the mighty f15 troop. LOLOLOLOL
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Heck we made fun of the Tornados that were there with us doing photo recon. Couldn't help but raz their maintainers and ask them how much combat they had seen. Was also pretty funny to see an AIM9 mounted on the top of the wing. That was a first for most of us. Was kind of a ongoing joke throughout the AEF. Kept asking their weapons crews if they had realised they had the pylons mounted on the wrong side of the wing.
You mean Jaguars?
(http://digilander.libero.it/corsair/oldfiles/image/jaguar_gr1.jpg)
(http://www.anft.net/f-14/photo-jaguar-03l.jpg)
-
Now that is a tough little plane furball. I love the video of it taking off across the runway rather than down the runway. :aok
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Supersonic speed without use of an afterburner.
If it was ever achieved before the F-22 it was pretty rare.
Concorde? ;)
-
Jaxxo you know I gotta give ya chit. Just wouldn't be right if I didn't. The T.O.s are the only thing that make us take it down with a crane. In some forward deployed areas we've taken the array down by hand. It's really not that heavy. It's more awkward than anything and because of how high the nose sits it makes it a bit difficult to get by hand.
As far as maintenance time it just really depends on the airframe itself. I have birds here that rarely required any kind of maintenance. Our F-16 counterparts were working more often than we were. They'd be troubleshooting one jet for atleast 2 to 3 shifts if not longer. If you start adding in through flight inspections and BPOs then our maintenance time goes up. Typically the reason it takes longer to do maintenance is due to the lack of parts at our forward supply points and waiting on support equipment. A typical failure on one of our systems can be repaired in just under a half an hour if AGE is there and there is a part at the forward supply point. That includes a 2 man crew doing setup/tear down, ,ops check, CAMS and forms.
Furball yep that's them. Got them mixed up. It's a very funny looking setup.
Holden supercruise had been achieved before the Raptor and it was done by the airfame it's supposed to replace.
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Furball yep that's them. Got them mixed up. It's a very funny looking setup.
Just shows why yanks shoot at so many brits... cant even i.d. their aeroplanes
;) :D
-
lol. Yeah yeah. Hey it was almost 5 years ago that I saw it. My memory isn't always that great when it comes to things I don't deal with constantly.
-
They both great planes...simple math though tells ya..2 engines+huge airframe = more maintenance= more money. Thats why f-16s sell so well internationally.
to all the af guys :) (even you cobra :P)
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
Tumor all F-16 guys are like that. It still makes me wonder why the Air Force ever made the F-16 it's poster child. Makes me giggle a bit because of a few incidents that happenend while I was in the desert. F-16 guys kept boasting about how good they were while we were deployed.
We were stationed in Turkey covering the Northern No Fly zone. One of our sister squadrons were there with us in the F-15Cs and us in our F-15Es. The F-16 Operations group that was there with us decided they were going put up some LGBs for the missions the next day. The AEF commander saw their config memo and told them to let the big boys take care of the bombing missions. They had to reconfig every bird late that night so they could go back to their SEAD role. The F-16 weapons crews were pissed.
The F-16 aircrews were a bit pissed too because every day we launched we came back empty. They were basically taking long and not so scenic tours of the desert. In the meanwhile we were bombing the hell out of the Iraqi AAA, SAM sites and relay centers for 45 days straight. The F-16s never even had a chance to launch on any targets while we were there. That was the most ordinance that had been dropped on Northern Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. We had dropped more ordinance in the first 3 days than our sister squadron that was there before us had done in their whole 45 day rotation.
It was also pretty amusing to watch an F-16 try to max climb on one of our down days from flying in the AOR. The F-16 took off and did a max climb. Right after they got half way down the strip our F-15E started rolling down the runway. Right about the time the F-16 leveled off our F-15 screamed pass him still in a max climb and leveled off about 7 thousand feet above the F-16. Needless to say they didn't try to out do us in max climbs after that for the rest of our rotation.
It's always fun to have those kind of inner wars going on between squadrons. Heck we made fun of the Tornados that were there with us doing photo recon. Couldn't help but raz their maintainers and ask them how much combat they had seen. Was also pretty funny to see an AIM9 mounted on the top of the wing. That was a first for most of us. Was kind of a ongoing joke throughout the AEF. Kept asking their weapons crews if they had realised they had the pylons mounted on the wrong side of the wing.
I know I know hehe... it's very likely I was down at Eskan in the Targets shop same time you were up there. The "Viper" aint bad... it just aint all that :D Why the AF made it our poster-child will always be a mystery to me.
-
Re: supercruise capability
Originally posted by leitwolf
Concorde? ;)
Yes, Concorde, although it accellerated to SS speed with afterburner and switched them off after achieving speed.
The F-22 and the Eurofighter Typhoon can accellerate through transonic and cruise SS without afterburner use.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Re: supercruise capability
Yes, Concorde, although it accellerated to SS speed with afterburner and switched them off after achieving speed.
The F-22 and the Eurofighter Typhoon can accellerate through transonic and cruise SS without afterburner use.
I my little library I have found quotes that the old BAC Lightning could exceed mach one without afterburner at any height. I don't know which version and with what load however. I also have heard that the F/A-18 and the Saab Gripen can do it.
I also once saw a documentary about the British Victor bomber, they claimed that it was the biggest aircraft ever to exceed mach one. THAT I found hard to believe :D
But this is all a bit vague of course and will not compare to a real supercruise capability. I expect Widewing to jump in and give us the details :D
The rivalry between F-15 and F-16 guys is also quite funny. Closest I have ever been to them is at an airshow.
-
Hogenbor there is a reason we treat each other the way we do. It's really hard to explain though. Well maybe it's not so hard to explain. Just think of all the rednecks and how they fight over which is better a Ford or a Chevy.
There is one thing that Jaxxo didn't completely shed light to though in regards to why F-16s are so cheap. You see the F-16 is commonly used as weapon. It's not the type of weapon you may be thinking though. In order to use the F-16 as an efficient killing machine the aircrew must first follow three simple steps.
Step 1 consists of getting the aircraft airborne and headed to the nearest local community. This step is normally fairly simple so long as the crew chiefs and "integrated specialists" put the shapes back in the right holes after the previous days maintenance activities.
Step 2 consists of the almost certain engine or avionics failure where upon the aircrew will proceed to Step 3. Mind you this isn't as uncommon of an incident as some may think. Again this could be due to yet another F-16 specialist forgetting which shape goes where. It could even be due to the designers placing to big of a shape into too small of an area.
Now on to Step 3 which is the most difficult step to complete in this whole process. This is also where the aircrew rekindle a long time tradition in the F-16 world, a game of lawn darts. This step consists of flying the aircraft in a perfectly aimed ballistic profile at the closest local residence. You must be dead on the mark in order to achieve the best possible score.
The driveway is worth 2 points, the front and/or backyard is worth 1 point apiece and the house is worth 3 points. The maximum amount of points that can be achieved during this game is 7. To achieve the maximum amount of points you must spread your aircraft across all areas that are considered in play. If you miss the residence all together then it's considered a foul and you must return home. Mind you the only area that is in play is the residence itself and the area immediately surrounding the home. If you play out of bounds and into the next door neighbors yard it's considered a foul.
One important note that must be kept in mind when playing F-16 lawn dart. If the house is/was occupied when you finish the game you get 0 points and you go directly to jail.
Now just think if it weren't for so many aircrews playing a game of lawn darts then they might actually be able to spend some money on these aircraft and make them worth something. Then they wouldn't have the title of "Best Disposable Fighter of the Air Force".
-
How is that USAF ended up with F16s having F18s at hand?
-
F-16's were developed in the early 70's. I believe the 18 was a little later. Againwhy pay 50 million for a ftr when a 25 million dollar fighter can carry the role out effectively. 16'S could not withstand the landing on a carrier or the Navy (marines) would have bought them as well.
-
Cobra a few words about lawn darts would have been enough. That was alot of typing to deliver that punchline lol.
-
Lets put this into car talk...
F-16's are like dweeb porche drivers with small donuts.
F-15's are like corvettes for real men with big balls.
Simple ;)
USAF in it's infinate wisdom thinks the F16 can replace the A10. Yea right!
Now the A10 thats a real ac.
GrmRpr
-
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/f18_1.html
The link has some interesting notes in it.
-
Originally posted by jaxxo
I believe the 18 was a little later. Againwhy pay 50 million for a ftr when a 25 million dollar fighter can carry the role out effectively.
2 engines vs 1. A single engine failure means F16 down.
-
As Reschke has posted the YF-16 and YF-17 battled it out for a spot in the military. The YF-16 was chosen in the end. The YF-18 was later requested for use by the Navy.
:D . I know Jaxxo. I'm really chitty at jokes as you can see. I'm sure you figured it out after step 2 where I was going with the whole thing.
Even though they do have a single motor they are pretty reliable airframes. Most of their bad rep was due to way back when they had the chaffing problem under the right hand forward fuselage if I remember right. I do know the integrated avionics guys say there is some issues with the wafer connections. Other than that if they keep from doing stupid stuff which isn't the norm I'd say they are pretty good birds.
I do know in the past that we got jealous quite often when they'd be gone before we'd get done with our BPOs and PRDs.
They even had an IFE for smoke/fumes in the cockpit while we were in the desert. They literally checked that aircraft over for no more than about 10 minutes on an engine run and CNDd the problem. Our supervision would have had us inspecting under every door and had us run that bird for no less than an hour before we even thought of signing it off.
-
I would rather have 2 F-16s than 1 F-15.
-
So you'd rather be behind the power curve then when it comes to many of their avionics systems? Things like Link 16, JHMCS, and a radar set? That doesn't include having a weaker performance above MACH 1 and at higher altitudes.