# Could an F-14 "Splash a Zero" without firing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 29, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322 "2018-04-29T21:47:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/21 "2018-04-30T16:24:23Z")
Way back when I a new pilot, there was a clip of a P-51 trying to shoot down a Piper Cub that was flying around a huge oak tree. It failed miserably. It was a training film IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/22 "2018-04-30T16:29:03Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Can you explain what “totally out-maneuvered” means in this sentence? The lower your stall speed, the higher your turning rate and the smaller your turning radius can be. A slow but quick-turning and maneuvrable airplane can keep a faster but slower-turning one its sights more easily than vice versa, and can break away quicker if it does get in the faster plane’s sights. The fast plane has the advantage at a distance, but the slow one can actually have it up close. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/23 "2018-04-30T16:34:19Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > So I recently came upon a YouTube clip [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pa3-1x5BpY) where apparently the Japanese Pearl Harbor attack fleet has been transported through time to modern Hawaii. (I’m actually not familiar with what movie this comes from). Two F-14s have been dispatched and after initially “playing” with some Japanese Zeros they’re finally given the job of blowing them away. I’m wondering if due to the extreme differences in power and speed between the two types of planes if the F-14s could have buzzed the zeros so close so as to force them down with just their jet wash. > > Or more to the point let’s say the jets were not armed when they encountered the Zeros, what would be the best way, if any, of forcing those planes down without firing upon them? I don’t think the planes are even launched completely unarmed…even when they are flown aboard I think they have the guns with at least a few shells in them. Though this is just my guess, I never served on a carrier nor was I part of naval aviation in any way. That said, I’d guess that an F-14 flying all out come seriously disrupt the flight characteristics of a WWII era air craft, and the ‘Zero’ was pretty notoriously flimsy. The plane was fairly unstable normally (which was a characteristic of all agile fighters of the period) and also light (needed to do all of that agile maneuvering), didn’t have much armor or self-sealing tanks or the like (not that these would matter for this particular scenario but just generally they weren’t built very sturdily, being built more for agility and speed). Even if the F-14 didn’t tear it apart (or tear a wing off) by coming in at 1500 mph+ it would send the thing out of control. Maybe the Japanese pilot could have regained control, but even if they did they would be shaken. With war loads on the planes and flying at only moderate height coming in from the sea I’d say the odds would be good that the F-14 could knock down a ‘Zero’ just with the shockwave and jetwash. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/24 "2018-04-30T17:05:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > The lower your stall speed, the higher your turning rate and the smaller your turning radius can be. A slow but quick-turning and maneuvrable airplane can keep a faster but slower-turning one its sights more easily than vice versa, and can break away quicker if it does get in the faster plane’s sights. The fast plane has the advantage at a distance, but the slow one can actually have it up close. I still must be missing something. The F-14 is 5 times as fast as a Zero. How can a Zero keep an F-14 in it’s sights if the F-14 just decides to max throttle and climb as vertically as possible? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/25 "2018-04-30T17:10:59Z")
That’s how the Tomcat regains the advantage - by putting distance between it and the adversary, horizontal or vertical doesn’t matter as long as it’s distance. The Zero only has the advantage up close, and can’t force the Tomcat to get close, so you’d still rather have the Tomcat. Just don’t get cocky and don’t close up. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/26 "2018-04-30T17:17:11Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Can you explain what “totally out-maneuvered” means in this sentence? People are fond of quoting “g’s” for the turning capability of aircraft, but that’s only one aspect of turning. The other aspect is “degrees of arc per second.” The relationship between the two parameters is governed by forward speed: for a given lateral acceleration (# g’s), higher airspeed means fewer degrees per second. Consider an anlogous situation in your car: if you’re going 5 MPH, you can get through a 90-degree turn fairly quickly while inflicting modest lateral acceleration on your passengers - but if you’re going 50 MPH, with the same lateral G limit, you have to make a longer-radius turn and take more time doing it. 90 degrees, more time, means a slower turning rate (degrees per second). You can also see this at an airshow: the F-16 (flown by the USAF Thunderbirds) and the [Extra 300](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-300) (a small, single-prop aerobatic plane) have similar G limits, but the Extra flies _much_ slower; I think their top speed (~250 MPH) is probably less than the lowest speed the Thunderbirds fly at during their performance. And it shows in the maneuvers: the Extra can snap through 90-degree turns in a second or two, while the T-bird, flying perhaps twice as fast, takes much longer. The upshot of all this is that since the Zero can fly slower than the Tomcat, the Tomcat will have a hard time approaching the Zero without the zero likewise keeping its machine guns pointed at the Tomcat. Once they zoom past each other, the Zero can get turned around much more quickly than the Tomcat; the only way the Tomcat can stay safe is to retreat to beyond the range of the Zero’s guns and go for a missile kill. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/27 "2018-04-30T17:28:34Z")
What they said. Also note that the OP isn’t asking if a Zero can shoot down an F-14, only the reverse. The Zero doesn’t ever have to fire its guns. Only survive. I do think that a supersonic pass close to the Zero will trash it. Get out of sight, swing around to the Zero’s 6, sweep back the wings, punch the afterburners and see if you can rub paint. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/28 "2018-04-30T17:50:47Z")
For anyone wondering how violent the turbulence could be in the wake of a high-speed, high-G maneuver, take a look at [this sneak pass during a Blue Angels airshow.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ba2wWgc8cU) Happens at t=11 seconds; he pulls up from low altitude (and not all that hard), and the resulting vortex pair “walks” downward and tosses everyone’s beach umbrellas. And now imagine that instead of sitting on a beach a couple hundred feet below the flight path (and waiting for those vortices to migrate downward and dissipate a bit along the way), you fly right through them a couple of seconds after they’ve been generated. Note also that the Zero is a small, light aircraft compared to an F-14; the latter, pulling high Gs, is making a LOT of lift and pushing a LOT of air around; it’s not surprising to learn that a Zero (or at least the comparably-sized imitator they used in filming The Final Countdown) could be tossed around violently by a Tomcat pulling up hard through its flight path. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/29 "2018-04-30T18:06:26Z")
The (multiple) threads on the mechanics of match ups between the two sides in The Final Countdown are in GQ, not CS. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/30 "2018-04-30T18:11:02Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > I > Agreed. They might try the V2 tactic of flying along side and whacking a wingtip with the F-14’s wingtip. Pretty risky, and the Zero’s pilot isn’t just going to sit there and let it happen. V1. the V2 was the missile. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/31 "2018-04-30T18:15:51Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > a Zero (or at least the comparably-sized imitator they used in filming The Final Countdown) Almost certainly T-6’s with custom canopies and some bits of sheet metal tacked on. [There’s an entire squadron of them](http://www.toratoratora.com/home.html) that do a Pearl Harbor program at airshows. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/32 "2018-04-30T18:32:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s how the Tomcat regains the advantage - by putting distance between it and the adversary, horizontal or vertical doesn’t matter as long as it’s distance. The Zero only has the advantage up close, and can’t force the Tomcat to get close, so you’d still rather have the Tomcat. Just don’t get cocky and don’t close up. I guess I see. So when someone says “Realistically, the F-14 has to smack the Zero down fast, because otherwise the jet is totally out-maneuvered” they mean only if the F-14 pilot flies the F-14 like a Zero. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/33 "2018-04-30T19:10:32Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Almost certainly T-6’s with custom canopies and some bits of sheet metal tacked on. [There’s an entire squadron of them](http://www.toratoratora.com/home.html) that do a Pearl Harbor program at airshows. I think those are the exact planes that were used. Your link says that those modified T-6s were used in the movie “Tora, Tora, Tora” - and [The Final Countdown’s Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Final_Countdown_(film)#Production) says that it used the “Tora, Tora, Tora” planes. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/34 "2018-04-30T19:38:51Z")
I just can’t imagine a zero withstanding a jetwash going at 2.3 mach. Exceeding the speed of sound was a difficult task for aircraft specifically designed to do so. We’re talking about winds 5 times greater than it was ever supposed to fly at. In fact Zeros were known to have issues that caused them to smash full speed into the ground if they approached the sound barrier [Sound barrier - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier) see early problems. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/35 "2018-04-30T21:17:16Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > V1. the V2 was the missile. Oops, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/36 "2018-04-30T22:27:10Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > People are fond of quoting “g’s” for the turning capability of aircraft, but that’s only one aspect of turning. The other aspect is “degrees of arc per second.” The relationship between the two parameters is governed by forward speed: for a given lateral acceleration (# g’s), higher airspeed means fewer degrees per second. Consider an anlogous situation in your car: if you’re going 5 MPH, you can get through a 90-degree turn fairly quickly while inflicting modest lateral acceleration on your passengers - but if you’re going 50 MPH, with the same lateral G limit, you have to make a longer-radius turn and take more time doing it. 90 degrees, more time, means a slower turning rate (degrees per second). > > … > The upshot of all this is that since the Zero can fly slower than the Tomcat, the Tomcat will have a hard time approaching the Zero without the zero likewise keeping its machine guns pointed at the Tomcat. Once they zoom past each other, the Zero can get turned around much more quickly than the Tomcat; the only way the Tomcat can stay safe is to retreat to beyond the range of the Zero’s guns and go for a missile kill. To quantify this on the F-14 side, see the energy maneuverability diagram for F-14D about halfway down the page on this forum thread > **[View topic - F-16C, F-16E vs F-14D • F-16.net](https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28783)** > > Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130. This is for 10,000 ft, there would be a diagram for each altitude. Lots of lines on these diagrams but the key is contours of ‘Ps’, specific excess power which is whether the a/c will accelerate (positive Ps) or will lose speed at the particular point on the chart. The Ps=0 line is the maximum the a/c can sustain based on thrust. So following the Ps=0 line from lower to higher speed (bottom axis) we can see the a/c can sustain a maximum of around 14 degrees per second at Mach .6 (pulling around 5g’s). Up at Mach 1.2 the sustained turn rate drops to a few DPS and the a/c’s max speed at this altitude is around Mach 1.5 (actually flying above around M 1.2 is rare for such a/c in combat). OTOH the a/c can turn at a maximum rate more like 20 DPS at nominal structural limit but not sustain it because not enough thrust. Unfortunately real diagrams like this don’t exist for WWII fighters. Some sim game makers have calculated them. Most turn data actually for WWII fighters is calculated rather than that measured back then (even the modern diagrams obviously are filled in by calculation not every single point tested). So with a grain of salt but here’s an example of calced turning ability of the Zero 21 (the early war version aka A6M2 though the IJN almost never called it that, anyway…), 180 degrees in 5.1 seconds 35 DPS, starting at 200mph slowing down to a sustained speed of 110mph. [http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/a6m2.htm](http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/a6m2.htm) So especially if the idea is to make an extremely high speed pass to destroy the enemy by wake (doubtful IMO but a different point) that automatically means giving the target the ability to turn sideways or head on to the attack by the time the faster a/c gets there, unless the slower one is taken by surprise. In a less fanciful vein, this was a drawback of straight line ‘boom and zoom’ gunnery passes by faster WWII fighters against slower ones. ‘Avoid turning with the more maneuverable opponent’: sounds good. The problem was if the slower opponent was not taken by surprise he’d have time to turn and present a ‘high deflection’ shot, at a target crossing the field of view, requiring careful determination of lead angle, and few pilots could master that (late in WWII practical lead computing sights addressed this somewhat). OTOH if the enemy was taken by surprise from astern (which often happened) it didn’t really matter as much what your intended tactic was other than simply doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2018, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/37 "2018-05-01T00:44:12Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I just can’t imagine a zero withstanding a jetwash going at 2.3 mach. Exceeding the speed of sound was a difficult task for aircraft specifically designed to do so. We’re talking about winds 5 times greater than it was ever supposed to fly at. Yes; I’m reminded of the old short story _Hawk Among the Sparrows_ where a supersonic fighter was sent back to WWII. The first time it tried to attack it couldn’t hit anything, as its weapons weren’t designed to target those pre-jet-engine kinds of aircraft (low heat, low radar return). The \*second \*time it flew it didn’t bother even trying to use weapons and just flew at supersonic speed near the old aircraft, ripping them to shreds with the shock wave. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2018, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/38 "2018-05-01T00:59:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes; I’m reminded of the old short story _Hawk Among the Sparrows_ where a supersonic fighter was sent back to WWII. The first time it tried to attack it couldn’t hit anything, as its weapons weren’t designed to target those pre-jet-engine kinds of aircraft (low heat, low radar return). > > The \*second \*time it flew it didn’t bother even trying to use weapons and just flew at supersonic speed near the old aircraft, ripping them to shreds with the shock wave. Which brings up the question of how close one has to fly to the other aircraft to do this, and is that reasonable to do not risking collision. Can precision flying be done at supersonic speeds? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2018, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/39 "2018-05-01T11:03:03Z")
> [@drewder](#): > > I just can’t imagine a zero withstanding a jetwash going at 2.3 mach. Exceeding the speed of sound was a difficult task for aircraft specifically designed to do so. We’re talking about winds 5 times greater than it was ever supposed to fly at. In fact Zeros were known to have issues that caused them to smash full speed into the ground if they approached the sound barrier [Sound barrier - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_barrier) see early problems. The jet wash isn’t going at Mach anything though. The F-14 might be travelling at Mach 2.3 but the air it’s moving through isn’t. The jet exhaust itself has the most relative speed when the jet is stationary. The downwash / wake turbulence from the wings is strongest when a heavy aircraft is travelling slowly. The shockwave is a different matter, it can break glass, but how much will it disrupt another aeroplane? Bear in mind that the shockwave is not air moving supersonic, it is a wave of pressure within the (relatively) stationary air. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2018, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322/40 "2018-05-01T12:31:43Z")
[quote=“Richard\_Pearse, post:39, topic:813322”] … > [@](#): > > The jet exhaust itself has the most relative speed when the jet is stationary. Relative to what? The jet, the other plane, or the ground, (or the ice cream truck :D)? Stationary ground level would give the highest back pressure, if that leads to highest pressure against the turbine blades/cc which is the thrust, and the highest exhaust velocity, I’m not sure. It could be at mid or high altitudes where front air pressure is high, back pressure is low. > [@](#): > > The downwash / wake turbulence from the wings is strongest when a heavy aircraft is travelling slowly. > > The shockwave is a different matter, it can break glass, but how much will it disrupt another aeroplane? Bear in mind that the shockwave is not air moving supersonic, it is a wave of pressure within the (relatively) stationary air. Yes I think it’s the shockwave that we are talking about, but the wake turbulence may also come into play. The pressure wave can/will cause skin stress which would be transferred to the supporting structure which may cause failure. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-an-f-14-splash-a-zero-without-firing/813322.md?page=3)