Since when is the F-14 not the X-wing equivalent, what with the variable geometry and all?

In fact, the variable geometry in the X-wing is even more problematic than the F-14. It gives you no benefit to move the S-foils, because there is no drag in space. But the motors to move the S-foils have mass, and mass in space increases momentum, which reduces your capacity to maneuver quickly.

I would contend that all F-14s suffer the problems I brought up, sheerly by virtue of the variable geometry wing, or as my USAF buddies call it, "The best trick we ever played on the Soviets" because it doomed their MiG-23 to mediocrity.

I knew it, you got your source from AF pilots. They flew only the As which had fast but weak engines, they also could lose blades easily. The geometric wing design is one of the best designs used in the designing of new aircraft. The next step forward is the geometric body, we kinda already got that with the 71.

With the design you are allotted more safe options / flexibility when doing maneuvers. Also you can trick the hell out of enemies that are in a dog fight with you. Now each aircraft is different in design so I cant say you could do this with a MIG-23, although it should be able to, with an F-14 you can set the controls for the wings to manual and sweep them back to make it look like its passing the target at high speed and that its going to do a high speed turn. The high speed turns are good on the Tomcat but other craft can do better however after the enemy has passed the F-14 you can set the controls back to automatic and do a low energy turn, no craft can do low energy turns better than the F-14. You'll end up right behind your target.

Lots of pilots fooled by that trick in joint training exercises.

Now once the 14 got the GE turbines they could preform to their max potential as long as the body wasn't fatigued. It really is the best overall craft made for air to air combat. You should see the upgrades the Persians got, it makes be jealous, they got helmet mounted targeting hardware, stuff that the systems on 22 Zombies cant handle.

As for the MIG-23 it may have lost out to a lot of 1st world pilots and their aircraft, and when its wings movie its like using a manual shifter on a ford truck but it can do verticals better than the Israeli 16 I sufa, and Persians are better at verticals than 23s.

In the euronato joint pilot training program the Brits that got to fly NAVY Toms really really loved the craft. The only problem they saw with it was that its a big target, it cant hide well, and that really is its only problem, and fuel consumption if you look at the fuel consumption of other craft and how much they carry the 14 is a hog, but it carries enough that a lot of craft still have to leave before it does.

Since when is the F-14 not the X-wing equivalent, what with the variable geometry and all?

In fact, the variable geometry in the X-wing is even more problematic than the F-14. It gives you no benefit to move the S-foils, because there is no drag in space. But the motors to move the S-foils have mass, and mass in space increases momentum, which reduces your capacity to maneuver quickly.

Its not because of the need to change its profile that the foils move, its to better expand it firing arc and because of the location of its HS. Also I would wager is also to prevent critical malfunctions and or critical damage from carrying over to the neighboring components during combat. One reason why the F-14 has its TF spread apart like it does is to prevent both engines from being taken out if a missile where to detonates in that area. Most aircraft keep their twin TF together, theirs little chance that they wont be both taken out if a missile detonates in that area.

Where are you getting your information on the Tomcat? All of the energy-maneuvering curves I've seen for the plane suggest that it's a pig to fly. The F-4E Phantom II could outmaneuver the Tomcat up to about 20,000 feet. The F-15 is superior at all altitudes in maneuverability, as is the F-16 and F/A-18. Moreover, the F-4, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all lighter, have better thrust to weight ratios, and their airframes are rated for higher instantaneous and sustained G-loading. The F-14 may be able to pull a "trick" with its wing sweep, but that doesn't mean it actually performs better. Moreover, low-speed turns with the wings out are really not favorable for actual air-to-air engagements. It's a nice parlor trick, but when you have an opponent with an absolute turn circle advantage, an instantaneous turn rate advantage, and a better thrust to weight ratio, that slow speed turn is just going to get you high yo-yo'd into oblivion.

Vipers are the best, sorry Tomcats:

Vipers are the best, sorry Tomcats:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSlnAhSxPWY

Well in this video you posted you got NAVY Vipers, in simulated dog fights they are the most deadly Viper, and they are fighting two students in F-14s, fatigued F-14.

Students is a very loose term, given that anyone attending Naval Fighter Weapons School is an accomplished fighter pilot already. Yes, these are aggressors, but the "students" are still expected to beat the aggressors. On top of that, the tomcats aren't "fatigued." There is no evidence for that whatsoever. They are in good flying condition, otherwise the pilots wouldn't be flying them. That fact is, what you've said about F-14s above just isn't true. As far as F-16s utilized by the Naval Fighter Weapons School being somehow deadlier than all other F-16s, that's a load of nonsense.

Also, you keep mentioning Iranian F-14s as being somehow amazing, with tons of upgrades, but then decry the F-14A the USAF supposedly flew (which they didn't) as being inferior, when in fact the F-14A was the Tomcat sent to Iran.

What those planes clearly need are giant hydrogen gas bags.

What those planes clearly need are giant hydrogen gas bags.

Then they'd be dragons, and we all know how I feel about dragons.

Suspend disbelief, ye hopeful. Let's not be exclusionary toward our scaled friends.

Where are you getting your information on the Tomcat? All of the energy-maneuvering curves I've seen for the plane suggest that it's a pig to fly. The F-4E Phantom II could outmaneuver the Tomcat up to about 20,000 feet. The F-15 is superior at all altitudes in maneuverability, as is the F-16 and F/A-18. Moreover, the F-4, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 are all lighter, have better thrust to weight ratios, and their airframes are rated for higher instantaneous and sustained G-loading. The F-14 may be able to pull a "trick" with its wing sweep, but that doesn't mean it actually performs better. Moreover, low-speed turns with the wings out are really not favorable for actual air-to-air engagements. It's a nice parlor trick, but when you have an opponent with an absolute turn circle advantage, an instantaneous turn rate advantage, and a better thrust to weight ratio, that slow speed turn is just going to get you high yo-yo'd into oblivion.

My information comes from the North American NAVY and some of its best drivers like Darth, Teepee, Snort. Snort being he best one in that after awhile no one, and it didn't mter what craft they were in, couldn't beat him. He had more than 4800 hours in the Tomcat, healso was named by Grumman as th Topcat in 1991, I think, I don't remember the year. Theirs no other craft I will set fot in, excluding Civ, after being in a Super D.

Your charts prbably don't take into account that the characteristics change with geometric wing aircraft. It beat 15 and 16 a lot in training. Cats were used to represent SU-27s all the time, its not a craft your going to rep with a verry slugish aircraft. Well unles you want to make yourself feel better.

Actully its its slow speed turning capabilities that make it so deadly in a dog fight because its turns sharper than a lot of raft at high peed. It all just depends on the situation and your aoa and your enemies.

Doing the tricked mentiond above hardly resulted in being "yo-yoed" although ; don't think you want to do a yoyo right after a pass, you'll still end up infront of the 14.

My eyes. Dear lord, my eyes.

I get the feeling you don't know enough about aerial combat to continue this conversation. So, I'm going to leave it alone.

Students is a very loose term, given that anyone attending Naval Fighter Weapons School is an accomplished fighter pilot already. Yes, these are aggressors, but the "students" are still expected to beat the aggressors. On top of that, the tomcats aren't "fatigued." There is no evidence for that whatsoever. They are in good flying condition, otherwise the pilots wouldn't be flying them. That fact is, what you've said about F-14s above just isn't true. As far as F-16s utilized by the Naval Fighter Weapons School being somehow deadlier than all other F-16s, that's a load of nonsense.

Also, you keep mentioning Iranian F-14s as being somehow amazing, with tons of upgrades, but then decry the F-14A the USAF supposedly flew (which they didn't) as being inferior, when in fact the F-14A was the Tomcat sent to Iran.

By 2003 the fleet was kept under close watch because of the age of their airframes and in fact a lot of them had higher limitations set on howmany gs they could push.

Oh and that exchange pilot I wastalikg about was Lt. Cdr Clive Baylis RN.

As for NAVY Viper unless the North American Airforce has had some hardware and software upgrades or a new block altogether come out a year or two ago last I checked the N is the deadliest in simulated dogfights. Key word is simulated.

Lastly the all the crews invovled are very experienced, but the teachers re going to have more experience, most the time, dealing with diffrent types of aircraft.

I get the feeling you don't know enough about aerial combat to continue this conversation. So, I'm going to leave it alone.

It would be a bad assumption. Dale Snodgrass was also a very good teacher for Cat drivers, and I won't lie, he did do some unconventional things that got him grounded... like doing a spilt-S into a landing.

Maybe if the topic was horse breeding you'd be useful, but not for air combat.

I get the feeling you don't know enough about aerial combat to continue this conversation. So, I'm going to leave it alone.

It would be a bad assumption. Dale Snodgrass was also a very good teacher for Cat drivers, and I won't lie, he did do some unconventional things that got him grounded... like doing a spilt-S into a landing.

I have a bit of a problem here. Everything you're posting is one google search away. All of the tidbits you're dropping as though you were present for these events can be found on forum posts and articles like this one: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/the-real-top-gun-32185/?page=2

So, if you knew the individuals in question, lay out your credentials and let us know how you knew them. If you didn't know them, and are just reading about them online, that's fine, but please make that clear. In my book, it's not just dishonest, but pretty dishonorable to claim association with people with whom you are not actually associated, particularly when you are trying to claim their expertise for your own.

Again, I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but your posts make it pretty ambiguous what your claims actually are.

Maybe if the topic was horse breeding you'd be useful, but not for air combat.

I was top in my aviation class in 2000. My teacher was a Vet from Nam and he thought I should be teaching his class. Trust me I know wha I'M talking about.

Maybe if the topic was horse breeding you'd be useful, but not for air combat.

I was top in my aviation class in 2000. My teacher was a Vet from Nam and he thought I should be teaching his class. Trust me I know wha I'M talking about.

Perfect. Which aviation class? Which branch of the service? What specific class number? What was your instructor's name? What aircraft were you flying?

I once met Ernie Hudson at a smorgasbord in Solvang. That's a true story.

I once met Ernie Hudson at a smorgasbord in Solvang. That's a true story.

That's awesome! I've been to Solvang and to a smorgasbord there. I used to go to UCSB back in the day, so I went to Solvang quite a lot. Cute town.

Nothing beats the Æbleskiver and Danish thin pancakes at the Viking Garden, except perhaps the eclairs at the bakery down the street.

Nothing beats the Æbleskiver and Danish thin pancakes at the Viking Garden, except perhaps the eclairs at the bakery down the street.

Honestly, it's been so long since I've lived in Cali, it took me a second to even remember where Solvang was. It's off the 154, right? I guess I could google maps it. But yeah, it was fun. I liked the 154, lots of hilly driving. I wish I'd thought to take up hang gliding back then, I lived in the paradise of hang gliding.

And he conveniently logs off when asked for that information...

Maybe if the topic was horse breeding you'd be useful, but not for air combat.

I was top in my aviation class in 2000. My teacher was a Vet from Nam and he thought I should be teaching his class. Trust me I know wha I'M talking about.

Perfect. Which aviation class? Which branch of the service? What specific class number? What was your instructor's name? What aircraft were you flying?

My class was in 2000 and my Instructor was Nam Vet Pilot, I don't remember his name, my ecords are a mess, I was accepted into Spartan University, although my best training was from the officer from the NAV I mentioned before. I got into a F-14 one time. After the Vice President at the basically destroyed my dreams about flying the f-14 I decided that non-military flying was a better choice, I also didn't like what I was seeing going on in the middl east. In the end I don't like the idea of killing someone that I don't actully know, and for someon elses reasons. I was ready for a full NAVY carear up till that point. I'm very much concidering taking classes for aerial fire fighting after I'm done with my current job.