How much fuel in the 9.13 and mig 23s? It’s kinda confusing
I think that was self-evident and not my point at all. The F-14 is superior to the F-15 but has a lower T/W, just an example of swing wing superiority.
Doesn’t matter if ‘in practice’ they are almost equal. For comparison, both at equal fuel the F-14 beats it with much worse T/W.
So all swing wings are overperforming to you? I’d like to see how you gathered that assumption.
I thought it was the other way around
Definitely not all tornado says hello
I don’t know anything about the Tornado so I can’t say if it is accurate or not. Perhaps there are more available data for wings forward turn rate.
Regardless, the swing wings allow for much better sustained turn performance than swept wings by nature. The Tornado is quite a big / heavy bird and doesn’t have nearly the same wing loading if I recall correctly.
The F-14 is definitively superior to the F-15 in dogfights in both AoA, and turn rate.
From what i heard it is undperoming a bit but i was always know for being having the turning circle of a battleship
Interesting do you know why is due to the wings being so big and able to sweep
Tests are on 30 minutes of fuel normally.
1 Like
It’s an example of Gaijin being incredibly generous towards the F-14 and MiG-23 flight models. I don’t think there is any evidence of the F-14A being able to sustain the turn rates that it does in War Thunder with it’s wings fully swept forward.
In practice the F-14A loses to the F-16 in a dogfight in both Air RB and Air SB modes.
Its most likely that the F-14A and MiG-23 variants are over-performing due to being able to utilize forward swept wings that were not feasible in real life.
1 Like
I really don’t think it is that generous. Both FM’s match their sustained turn charts and specific excess power charts for auto speed and with loadings mentioned in the manuals, etc.
The F-16 has considerably larger specific excess power and as such does not bleed as badly in turns. This is where having a higher T/W ratio would come in handy depending on the design. Certainly the F-14B does not suffer as badly… but the F-16 is sort of king at rate fighting and is heavily overperforming in available AoA / stability otherwise leaving the F-14 with little in regards to a defense against it.
The F-14A certainly did sweep the wings forward for dogfighting in real life, the MiG-23 pilots were hardly ever trained on such tactics. They were used to flying with wings no further forward than 33 degrees for the higher speeds and dogfights. In-game the concerns that warranted such procedures do not exist… and it is totally plausible they could have relied on the forward sweep in real life if need be… just wasn’t done operationally.
That doesn’t mean anything when there are no charts that exist for the fully forward swept wing of both planes. Yes they are accurate-ish insofar as they match the charts at specific points but the fully deployed wing is pure conjecture.
To my knowledge neither the F-14 or MiG-23 wing sweep was utilized by pilots in the same way it’s utilized in War Thunder; i.e full forward sweep at just below Mach 1.
All the information I’ve seen on the MiG-23MLD says that even with the 33 degree wing sweep position was only recommend for experienced pilots to use as it was a rather difficult plane to fly. I’ve seen no indication that anyone ever tried to max perform with it in the full forward position…not even test pilots.
No data for it exists and it’s turning performance beyond it’s documented flight envelope is pure speculation on Gaijins part. It is no more or less accurate than the conjecture that is the Gripen flight model.
The F-14B doesn’t suffer as badly but I would still wager that it loses the dogfight to the F-16 the majority of the time.
Even the 33 degree position was an upgrade to the MLD and even then the plane was difficult to fly. The fully deployed wing flight envelope that is present in War Thunder is a pure fantasy.
1 Like
I recommend not wasting your energy on that matter. The performances of the mig23 and f14 have been discussed hundreds of times in other threads and the most accepted conclusion is that it is the best we can get ingame at the moment…
I’m not wasting my energy. It should be common knowledge that War Thunder is good enough at hitting a few data points on a chart but is also completely insane when it comes to interpolating data that isn’t readily accessible.
Look at the first iteration of the Gripen for the most recent example of this. Or even the current iteration of it…it’s almost purely speculation. The only turn rate data point they hit is a guestimation of it’s turn rate as around 20 degrees per second with the highest energy retention in the game.
There are basically two ways to interpret the way that the Gripen should perform in relation to War Thunder flight models; it’s either very similar to an F-16 and maintains high turn rates for minimal loss of speed because that’s what it dogfights against in Norway vs Sweden exercises…or it’s similar to a Mirage 2000 where it has very high initial turn and good nose authority at the cost of energy retention.
I think the later interpretation is a lot more reasonable but the interpretation that Gaijin initially went with was basically something they got from the Daily Caller written on the back of a napkin.
This isn’t really anything new; plane like the F-104 can pull 14G instantaneous turns at speeds above Mach 1…what’s even funnier is that the F-104 is competitive and maybe even superior to the Tornado F.3 in a dogfight.
1 Like
In general I agree with you, but there’s just not much that can be done about it, the devs will do as they please.
1 Like
Would you define “just below mach 1” because the wings are not fully manual, they both sweep back quite a bit before mach 1.
If you were to make graphs plotting the performance change in regards to sustained turn rate based on wing sweep I’m sure you wouldn’t find any particular outliers. My guess is that the chart would flow in an expected direction, which to be quite honest is as accurate as it can possibly get. The wings being fully forward and the aircraft being able to maneuver beyond normal operational G limits will obviously benefit the swing wings more than something such as the F-15. In another example, the F-16 can turn with AoA above 25 degrees which drastically increases the instant turn rate… and unlike the F-14 the graph would have outliers.
The problem is that the F-16’s instability is not properly modeled. It is able to maneuver well beyond the flight envelope of the real plane (disregarding the FLCS entirely here)… the real F-16 was prone to departure at such AoA as what we can pull in the game. The other issue is that it seems (to me)… and this is the only unsubstantiated part of my claims here… the F-16 is overperforming in sustained turns at lower fuel loads.
Likewise the MLD never saw combat that resulted in BFM when experienced pilots were in the cockpit. It isn’t surprising to me that they haven’t discussed it - certainly considering the strict rules and regulations in the Soviet Air Forces. Most other countries that operated it were practically ‘untrained’ in comparison (no BFM training of any kind).
Extrapolating data and following the expected curves in the graph goes well beyond “speculation”. What you are doing is speculating. What Gaijin did was not.
I don’t disagree, but we’re talking about in-game… the F-16 is overperforming here and the swing wings are afforded benefits that while plausible are not afforded to them in real life in most cases as I have been saying.
I have heard the opposite from some pilots of the aircraft. The fully forward wing envelope isn’t fantasy. It just isn’t usually performed in real world scenarios for the reasons mentioned above. The facts of the matter are that Gaijin extrapolated data according to what we have and you are purely speculating they’re wrong.
Please, show us how this is common knowledge? Surely you have an example?
It is developed based on available data points and extrapolated from there. What we have in regards to data has provided a good basis but obviously isn’t going to be perfect. When I reported the issues and provided more relevant data they adjusted it accordingly to fit the new datapoints.
If you have information that suggests ANY of these planes shouldn’t perform how they do please submit it in a report and stop wasting our time.
There is no point in arguing this topic. Both the MiG-23 and F-14 can deploy their wings in configurations that would be avoided in real life due to the risk of catastrophic damage. Even the hinge mechanism of the MLD variant had to be reinforced before the USSR felt confident enough to utilize the 30 degree sweep position.
If the benefits of straight wings at high speeds were as clearly pronounced in real life it stands to reason that the USSR would have at least experimented with deploying the wings further forward.
Instead they made a whole entirely new class of fighter that is more maneuverable. And that is the case in the real world…but ends up being the opposite case in War Thunder.
There are no instances of either MiG-23 or F-14 pilots utilizing the wing sweep mechanism in the same way that War Thunder pilots do. In real life it was used by Tomcat pilots to enhance their turn performance at low speeds and trying to keep a fight within a certain speed range where they had an advantage.
The F-16 flight model over-performs at low speeds while in manual controls. The instantaneous turn rate benefit that the F-16 receives due to exceeding the AoA limit is not really applicable at most speeds in my experience.
Fixing the F-16 flight model is also a simple fix of just forcing the plane to be in SAS Damping mode for the most part.
The whole point of the reinforcing the hinge mechanism in the wings and adding wing slats / sawtooth / vortex generators was to make the MiG-23 platform more capable at BFM. The fact that the Russians had the thought of creating a new wing sweep position for lower speed fighting means that the idea has at least occured to them…and yet nobody ever had the thought of swinging the wings even further forward?
The reason it wasn’t done in real life…not even in testing is just speculation. The idea that they could have done it if they really wanted to is also speculation.
The fact that the 23ML and MLA can also fight with wings fully swept forward is even more ergregious considering that their hinge mechanisms were not reinforced to my knowledge.
Data points on the Gripen are practically non-existent and end up contradicting each other. As far as I can tell the initial flight model that was released was based on this chart.
Even the bug report that you made was based on the interpretation of 3 different sources to land on the approximately 20 degrees per second number with one of the sources claiming that the M2K was able to maintain a higher turn rate and another saying that it couldn’t.
The difference in turn rate between the old Gripen flight model and the new Gripen flight model is 3.64 degrees per second…those are tested numbers. That’s a 20% difference between what Gaijin initially thought the Gripen could do and what they decided it could do after the fact.
Even in it’s current iteration just looking at the turn rate numbers does not tell the whole story. The Gripen ends up being at worst on par with the most maneuverable F-16 flight model…and that is on low fuel which even you think causes it to even further over-perform.
Whether or not it is even plausible is speculation. The fact of the matter is that no data exists and there are probably good reasons for that; i.e it would cause the destruction of the airframe or swinging mechanism.
Sure you have. Just like many people call the F-14 a Generation 3.8 aircraft.
The whole entire Me-163 flight model. Literally any rocket plane in the game.
I’ve already covered this. It’s not about matching a set of data points.
The old MiG-29 flight model was able to match its turn rate diagrams and so can the new one. But the new MiG-29 flight model is significantly worse than the old one in spite of an on-paper buff to its AoA.
Likewise the Gripen retains so much energy in a turn that they way that it is functionally just a better and easier to use F-16A.
2 Likes
Every aircraft in-game performs maneuvers on a regular basis that would put them out of service. Every last one.
They did… with further forward sweep… the F-14 if I recall is only like 26 degrees forward or something like that and required quite the setup to maintain reliability at just 7.xx G’s…
They made something according to a new aerodynamic scheme that reduces the static stability margin and met the new requirements for superior instant turn rate coupled with high off boresight missiles and larger radar, dual engines, etc…
There are actually several for the F-14…
It allows the aircraft to sit in a scissor or behind enemies with vastly superior low speed handling when it certainly shouldn’t. The absence of instability in pitch or yaw at any AoA is ridiculous.
The 33 degree position is a set position in the manual and marked in the cockpit… that is all. The combat maneuvering devices work at all sweeps forward of 33. The incorporation of the MiG-29’s new flight control limiter SOS-3-4 dampening system allowed them the precision and reliability of knowing when they hit the AoA limits. The aircraft had a tendency to spin in certain conditions - as did the F-14… mostly due to control reversal and such… but the MiG-23 was harder to recover. It stands to reason the F-14 could put the wings as forward as 20 something degrees and has better yaw stability… the MiG-23 pilots could put theirs forward to 33 per the manual and further forward as necessary on their own accord. Just because it wasn’t discussed doesn’t mean it wasn’t possible and it certainly WAS possible. Arguing that it isn’t possible is absurd.
These aircraft are stated in the manual to be able to fly up to the airspeeds they are capable of in-game. The aircraft could even go mach 2 with 45 degree sweep but acceleration suffers. There is no reason to limit aircraft in-game from what they could do in real life… even if it was only capable of doing so for one sortie.
Current peak turn rates are based off the Gripen fighter squadron (primary source) stating it was capable of sustaining 20 deg/s turn rate.
Arguing about the Gripen is pointless as we don’t actually have sufficient data for it. In all other cases - Gaijin made sure to match the known datapoints and carefully extrapolated the rest.
I suppose you have a report available?
Again… you are speculating that the extrapolated information is wrong. You have no evidence to prove such claims and until you do there is no sense yapping.
Please, feel free to provide something useful to the thread now. You’ve speculated enough on stuff that isn’t relevant to the F-15.
A friend was in the Red Eagles program at 4477 TES. They had the MiG 23S and MiG 23 UB, the weakest versions of the Flogger. They had a problem operating the aircraft, which makes sense if you look at the variable geometry of the wings, and the metric system was a problem too. MiG 23M,MF,ML, MLD were different beasts.
The MiG 23 was a good aircraft, with a good pilot on the Flogger even the MiG 29 and Su 27 had big problems.
1 Like
No plane in the game over-performs it’s sustained turn rate charts by the same margins as the MiG-23 ML series and F-14 series do to my knowledge.
The USSR…famous for the F-14.
And they somehow sacrificed sustained turn rate and specific excess power in the process in spite of much higher thrust to weight ratios.
Care to cite them? I’ve yet to see an instance of any report or chart showcasing F-14 sustainable turn rates being as high as they are in game or any instance of someone deliberately minimum sweeping the wings at close to Mach 1.
The speeds at where it can pull above its AoA limit are far below it’s best instantaneous turn speed. Even on damping mode the F-16 variants have no problem fighting any of the MiG-29 and Su-27 variants that we have in the game. In fact I would hazard to guess that the vast majority of the player base never even toggles to full real controls for increased AoA.
And yet they never tested it and limited the use of the 33 degree option to experienced pilots as the plane was harder to control at that sweep position. There is no reason to believe that even further forward sweep would have been desirable to the handling properties of the airplane.
Traveling in a straight line is going to subject different levels of force in different areas than trying to pull extremely high G turns with the wings swept fully forward.
Are we talking about the bug report that you made? As far as I am aware you just interpreted a graph and made the claim that the Gripen turns 1.435 times better than the Viggen.
The other two sources you cited contradict each other on the relationship between the Mirage 2000 and the Gripen…with one saying it turns better and one saying it turns worse.
As I’ve said before…the issue isn’t with Gaijin hitting known data points. The issue is with performance metrics that don’t have readily available data points that are highly suspect.
It’s a known fact that Gaijin has decided to model rocket planes the way that they have for the purposes of gameplay. The math for the Me-163 fuel consumption and thrust on low throttle settings works out to making it more efficient than the sun.
There is no hard evidence one way or the other.
The fact of the matter is that the MiG-29 had a flight model for around 6 months that was able to compete with the F-16A in a dogfight and this was considered accurate for a long time.
And this is in spite of the over-performance of the F-16A at low speeds with manual SAS.
The MiG-29 had an advantage in initial turn rate that it could leverage against the F-16 while the F-16 would have to leverage its sustained turn rate. This is by most accounts accurate to the way the fight plays out in real life with the F-16 having to remain aware of to how to force the rate fight without giving up too much position for an R-73 aspect shot.
With the changes to the flight models the F-16 variants just outperform the MiG-29 in a way that doesn’t really match up to what has been reported by pilots in real life.
So yes…both flight models hit the same data points yet something that was a balanced match-up in real life is not the case in the game.
This is relevant to the F-15 insofar as it’s relevant to the way that Gaijin decides to model aircraft capabilities.
You’re the one that started to derail the thread when someone brought up the likely over-performance of your favorite aircraft.
3 Likes
Yes but difference is huge