HI all

I had a dispute with my Uncle about a 180 degree turning radius of the F-14 Tomcat and the X-31 Vector plane. I know from a Magazine article that the X-31 could make a 180 degree turn in half the distance, but cannot remember what the other plane the article had mentioned, and I think it was an F-14.

I did do a google search but couldn't find anything, even Wiki just says the variants of the Tomcat with percentages of better maneuverability for the newer models.

Does anyone know where I could find such info on the Tomcat and the X-31?

Thanx,

Ear-ick

------------------
Me, I sell engines, the cars are for free, I need something to crate the engines in....
Enzo Ferrari....

Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines....
Enzo Ferrari...

Today they are called garage's, yesterday, they were stable's! Eric Jacobsen.... An advancement, of other
voices I came across.

S.F??, hint, it's a car manufacturer....

Do not walk infront of me, I may not follow. Do not walk behind me, I may not lead. Walk beside me and be my friend forever.
-unknown- found here: http://crystal-cure.com/love-quote.html

All planes can make a 180 deg turn--some in a big arc (radius) some in a smaller one. 180 is a U turn, or "J" turn when using post stall or Herbst maneuver.
Depends on the altitude and speed, regarding which one had the tighter turn radius.

As mentally unstable as I perceive you... Expected:

TR-B3


I hope that's real.

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: As mentally unstable as I perceive you... Expected: TR-B3 I hope that's real.

Oh good Lord--it's nuclear. Don't let Purple86GT find out.

They told us they cancelled the A-12! They laid everyone off! http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...glas_A-12_Avenger_II

Sneaky bastiges.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Depends on the altitude and speed, regarding which one had the tighter turn radius.

Speed ... and the maximum sustained G loading that the airframe and pilot can tolerate.

G Loading = Speed² / Turn Radius = Angular Rate of Turn² x Turn Radius

quote Originally posted by pavo_roddy: Does anyone know where I could find such info on the Tomcat and the X-31?

Either the Russian or Chinese governments would probably be the most authoritative sources for such information. For reasons that should be obvious, the U.S. government does not publish performance data on active weapons systems.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-05-2013).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Oh good Lord--it's nuclear. Don't let Purple86GT find out.

That came to mind too. There is a video on lliveleaks of this plane. If it is real, it is p-cool.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=08b_1362520923

[This message has been edited by ls3mach (edited 11-05-2013).]

HI all

Is there any kind of table that would show the different numbers of a given Fighter?

Thanx,

Air-eek

Just search the next airshow for some former F14 pilots. They will be happy to tell you all you want to know. In the military community, F14 pilots are especially noted for their honesty and tendency to underplay the abilities of the airplane.

I flew F4 Phantom IIs. A lot depends on the speed. Wide open in afterburner I could take 50 miles to make a circle. Its also not limited to the Gs the airframe can take...no Air Force pilots can take more than 10Gs max. Planes with flying stabs (whole elevator surface moves, not just the back section) can turn faster if they dont exceed the G limit on airframe/pilot. F86 Sabre was the first to use them, as do most newer aircraft...including my F4. Thrust vectoring also adds a lot to the ability to maneuver...but still you cant exceed G limits. One reason they are working toward pilotless planes is you can make the airframe able to take more Gs...but your always stuck with the pilots 10G limit.

quote Originally posted by heybjorn: Just search the next airshow for some former F14 pilots. They will be happy to tell you all you want to know. In the military community, F14 pilots are especially noted for their honesty and tendency to underplay the abilities of the airplane.

Quit watching Top Gun, pull the CD out of the slot and fling it as far as you can. It's a farce.
They are among the biggest liars in the world--and pilots and aircraft crews are all renowned liars to some degree.
The Tomcat is way down the list in modern aircraft performance specs.
Originally rated at 7.4 G but soon down rated to 6.5Gs as soon as a few hours added up on the airframes and that 6.5G is "Pilot saving mode". It can't do it with hard point stores (under wing munitions and fuel tanks) without ripping some of them off the hardpoints--or worse. Might do it in air show configuration. That too, depends on different factors. Angle of attack, rate of roll, and velocity affect G loading--and all are electronically limited by the on board computers nowadays. Not to say a f14 can't pull 9 Gs, but it will seriously shorten the aircraft's life, if not tear it apart. By the book, according to Grumman, 6.5 G is the safe limit. 7Gs with a medium combat and fuel load on the old pussycat.
The F-4J Phantom was "officially rated" at 6.3G medium combat load. Exceeded often.

For today's modern US aircraft, the G load limits are quite a bit higher.

F-111A/D/E/F 7.33g
F-111B 6.5g
F-111C 6.5g
F-35B (VSTOL) 7 g
F35A- 9g
F-35C-7.5 G

F-15A max and ultimate load limits were something like +7.33 g and +12 g respectively--doubt the pilot can handle 12 Gs tho.

F-16 all variants-- 9g

At the top of the list--F22.--"Officially -3 to +9g".
Just because an aircraft can do it, it doesn't mean the pilot can, for more than just a very few seconds.

The Raptor is not an air superiority fighter. It is an AIR DOMINANT fighter.
It's not whether you can shoot it down--it's just a matter of how long YOU will survive against it.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-05-2013).]

You are one of the last people that I thought sarcasm would be wasted on, mj. I am disappointed.

It wasn't wasted. You simply failed to take it to the full measure of it's potential.

F-22's fly over my place every day heading from Langley out over the Atlantic. Quite a sight and a notably different engine sound compared to the F-18's that also fly over from Oceana.

Coming back they're usually in formation with an F-5 which I assume is an Op-For guy. Looks like a flying needle next to the HUGE F-22.

And in my whole AF enlistment, id never seen an F4 have a structural failure on its own.....they are the tank of the sky.

If you want to read about an interesting airplane, the British Electric Lightning (fuel capacity and consumption notwithstanding) was a screamer, a Mach 2 capable aircraft with a very high service ceiling for it's day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...h_Electric_Lightning

[quote]In 1984, during a major NATO exercise, Royal Air Force Flight Lieutenant Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height of 66,000 feet (20,000 m), where the aircraft had previously been considered safe from interception. Hale climbed to 88,000 feet (27,000 m) in his Lightning F3.[75][/qute]

The Lightning was also interesting for having stacked engines instead of side by side.

One of my favourite memories is of an F15 at the London airport. He was cutting figure 8's around the control tower. One loop was over the end of the runway, the other loop was around the control tower. When he banked for the turns, he'd hit the afterburner and it just plain went around. He did this for about 10 minutes and then went vertical

It was sort of the old adage, "put enough thrust under a brick" if you follow. Magnificent machine though

Arn

You do realize that the only country flying F-14s is Iran and they are having fits finding spares.

You do realize I was talking about an F15 not an F14, and I think Canada still has some F14's on duty too but , alas, Canada never did have F15's