You can’t just use empty weights plus stuff, because empty often excludes a bunch of other things. Stuff like pylons, or the ammunition for the gun, sometimes the gun itself. Look at the damn SAC’s you posted, they both give weights for A2A loads at 9720 lbs fuel, which is certainly not a coincidence that the test is also at that fuel amount. The F-14D with 4 Sparrows and 4 Sidewinder is 57186, significantly heavier than the listed example. The F-14A with 4 Sparrows is 53166 lighter but with the armament difference only by around 1000 lbs.
I’d presume the exact same thing is happening with the F-15, where you are missing around 500lbs of gun ammo, 4 80 lbs LAU-128 rails, the wing pylon itself(don’t know its weight, probably around 250 lbs like F-14’s wing pylon). We’ve killed most of the weight here, my guess is the rest is the adapter between the pylon and rails, the pilot, oil for the engines, chaff/flares, various stuff.
Like come on this is softball. Your own source contradicts your math. Try harder.
lol, evidence was provided that shows you’re wrong and when it’s deleted you dismiss it as though it wasn’t seen or viewable on the internet. Bad faith.
Nobody was arguing about the instant rates? It was the sustained rate this conversation was about, and those sources proved the sustained is lower on the F-14B.
Full circle, once again the F-15 has a higher rate at speeds where it won’t matter. The F-14 was also on auto sweep. This is just like when people were telling me the F-4 phantom was gonna dominate the MiG-23 in flight performance. Same deal.
Evidence was provided that shows you’re wrong.
F-14 on auto is at 0 wing sweep at 285 knots.
It’s irrelevant that it was on auto because even on manual it’d be the same result.
Why do you even keep replying, I didn’t mention 282 knots. The person I was arguing with stated as much that the F-14 out-rates the F-15 during the middle portion (where they’d be operating) even on auto wing sweep.
The F-15 beats the F-14 only at sufficiently high speeds that the pilot would not be able to sustain the turn long enough based on the charts I saw.
Oh, and the sheet for manoeuvre on, has been provided so that’s not technically an issue.
So actually, an F-15A rates approximately the same in terms of peak sustained rate as an F-14B, however the F-14B then drops off more as the wings sweep back which is to be expected. The F-15A also better sustains its rate at lower speeds.
Ultimately the F-15C with the better engines will rate even better, so yes, it’s going to fly better.
You’re forgetting; you’ve conveniently shared the graph for a mid trim f-15A, at 102% war trim the F-15A has a slightly higher top speed of M2.0.
Additionally where do your radius values come from? Best sustained radius for the F-14B is 2000ft, for the F-15A I will need to calculate it, but at M0.3, its radius is 1700ft, the actual minimum may be even tighter but I cannot graph it to find the exact value.
Meanwhile in war thunder it’s possible to use takeoff and landing flaps on both so we can expect a change in very low speed turn rates / radius though I have no idea how to calculate that or determine which would be better… along with the fact that all these heavier fighters will significantly differ based on fuel loads and such as well.
As with the MiG-23 (though not as drastic of a difference) the F-14 will have a lower perceived turn rate (instant and sustained) because of the wing sweep being set to automatic. At certain airspeeds (higher, admittedly) the F-14 will seem to underperform in comparison to the F-15 with a lower leading edge sweep. With the MiG-23 it was such a difference that people actually believed the Phantom would beat it in turn fights. Both instant and sustained.