As you can see here, the maximum sustained turn rate for the F-14A in war thunder is actually above the maximum sustainable turn the pilot can handle indefinitely based on my prior chart. At no point is the pilot able to indefinitely sustain the maximum turn rate for any fuel setting, but maybe if there is still a full load of missiles it would be possible.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1130268377756225616/image.png
An F-15A is only able to sustain >9G’s below 10,000ft even when clean.
Some gen 4’s have a much lower T/W.
Some gen4s have much better aero, lift, weight, and their engines are optimized for different airspeeds.
Well, there is this graph, tho idk exactly where its from. And when it comes to nose authority, im almost certain the F-14 has the F-15 beat, considering its superb nose authority and the fact that ive read F-15 pilot accounts regarding dogfighting the F-14A which stated the “AOA Cat” was extremely dangerous in the first few turns, but due to its problematic engines, it couldnt keep up with the F-15’s in sustained fights.
Like I said; being able to sustain over your G-Limit is a special attribute only some aircraft have. Anyways, main point being, the F-15 out-rates the F-14, and definitely beats it at low speed.
Ye I don’t believe those numbers are accurate, or atleast fairly compared, the numbers I’ve given are for the same altitude and config.
Your numbers sound like they comes from this graph, and its an F-14A in this graph and even then its skewed even more in favour of the F-15 by nature of the F-14 having 2xAIM-54’s
My numbers come from official sources rather than wherever these are from.
Pretty sure that ones just multiple official sources compared to eachother but might be wrong
Although most of that looks accurate.
Could very well be from a quick glance.
It’s not a special attribute. It’s solely linked to aircraft weight, altitude, and speed.
The F-16 has the same issue, the F-15 will suffer the same way but out-rating the F-14 at higher speeds due to the wing sweep issue and beating it when the F-14 is heavy on fuel is not proving much.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1130269862187507812/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1130269923181068339/image.png
Notice the F-16 at no point even on 30 minutes of fuel sustain it’s peak turn rate indefinitely… it’s true that the peak sustain turn rate is not at the peak G capacity of the aircraft… but turn rate most definitely goes up as long as the increase in speed increases engine thrust and not just drag.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1130270722506379404/image.png
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1130270640486756423/image.png
As seen here, again, the MiG-29 has the same issue. Peak turn rate is > pilots sustainable overload. In this case, the engine thrust ramps up drastically as speed increases and the peak turn rate is > than the maximum overload tolerance. This is not remotely sustainable, and in fact the Russians were unable to go near their peak STR in real life due to airframe strength limitations and the operational overload restrictions.
My point is that if the F-15 requires the F-14 to have a large amount of fuel and ordinance to beat it in a sustained turn rate, it doesn’t beat it in a sustained turn rate. If the charts do not explicitly show the wings full forward for the maneuverability graph… it’s probably not accurate for the assessment. I can see the F-14 performing worse when the engines and wings are not at an optimal airspeed for maneuvering like 0.2 mach… but I don’t know any competent pilot who will be trying to sustain a rate fight at that speed either. The low speed handling with full flaps in war thunder will also drastically improve the F-14’s ability to maneuver at low speed in comparison to the F-15 as well. It’s superior to the Mirage 2000 *Currently.
Ahhh that’s where our issue is…. Sustained Rate ≠ Pilot Sustainable Rate…
Sidenote, are we sure the MuG-29 is performing correctly? Ive never heard anywhere of the MuG-29 outrating the F-16, adn afaik, very VERY few aircrafts have ever been able to. I know the 29 and F-16 where similar in flight performance, but afaik the F-16 skewed towards turn rate vs the 29’s turn radius.
Your graphs help me understand why the MiG-29 always feels like such bullshit to fly against in WT
The MiG-29s flight performance is accurate, the operational restrictions prevented pilots from pulling a high sustained turn rate as mentioned. Limited to 7G above a certain airspeed.
The other issue was fuel consumption, as speed increased the MiG-29 burned through its’ fuel in less than 6 minutes with full internal. This poses a serious issue if you want to dogfight on full afterburner and turn towards a sustained turn rate that could last several minutes… keep in mind you need to get to the fight but also spare fuel to return home.
You can test it yourself to compare.
That is one of the issues, don’t boil my entire argument down to a single aspect. My original argument is that the F-15 will not offer much over the F-14 unless it comes with better armaments of some sort. It’s possible to give it AMRAAM and AIM-9M, etc. Even a helmet mounted sight. I have no issue with it being added as an early variant though, it adds variety. Just like the other tech trees around rank 5 when stuff like La-15, Yak-30, or MiG-15 were all options for the Russians.
It will offer a vastly easier plane to fly and thats more than enough in WT
According to that chart, and my in-game tests it sustains ~7G at around 400 knots sea level which is accurate. @MythicPi There you go, the MiG-29 seems to be accurate in war thunder per the charts.
