User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:07:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IDK, as a system it gets compared alot to the Soviet Schmel system that was far more successful for a variety of reasons (including the fact it was very light), mainly due to how it was better integrated with the R73 and KOLS on the mig29 for example. I think VTAS was ok, but really it was limited by sidewinder seeker limits, and if you are talking about the 70's it was being used with rear aspect missiles like the 9G/H, which also had limited G reserves compared to later missiles. So like if you can't take an all aspect shot with an HMS whats the point? If your missile can't pull enough G like an R73 then you have a far more limited launch envelope etc. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: VTAS was advanced for its time, but it just wasn't advanced enough for the pilots to WANT to use it. The biggest reason I am aware of is it added about 2 lbs to the weight of a normal helmet which in turn made the VTAS helmet way too damn heavy under G. VTAS helmets were pretty cool to play with on the flight line though! IDK, as a system it gets compared alot to the Soviet Schmel system that was far more successful for a variety of reasons (including the fact it was very light), mainly due to how it was better integrated with the R73 and KOLS on the mig29 for example. I think VTAS was ok, but really it was limited by sidewinder seeker limits, and if you are talking about the 70's it was being used with rear aspect missiles like the 9G/H, which also had limited G reserves compared to later missiles. So like if you can't take an all aspect shot with an HMS whats the point? If your missile can't pull enough G like an R73 then you have a far more limited launch envelope etc. I never said it was the best, and wouldn't it be more accurate to compare a MiG-29 to an F-18? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:14:19 PM EDT
[#2]
I have not read this thread, but I thought I read somewhere that the top speed of the F14 is faster than that of the F22? I don't know if that's accurate, but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere. And didn't ole Dick the Dick Cheney have a vendetta against the F14 and Grumman? I thought I read that somewhere too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:28:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have not read this thread, but I thought I read somewhere that the top speed of the F14 is faster than that of the F22? I don't know if that's accurate, but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere. And didn't ole Dick the Dick Cheney have a vendetta against the F14 and Grumman? I thought I read that somewhere too. Would you rather be fastest or fast enough and invisible? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:28:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OH FFS the radar technology from then to know is literally eons different. And that's before talking stealth capability. Biggest fail I've read on here yet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: F-14>f-35 I once accidentally filled an AWG-9 system with hydraulic fluid instead of Coolanol. I don’t know if that hurt or helped the system’s capabilities. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:33:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Concerning top speed, the Tomcat could sweep its wings. Pretty sure that's a point towards going fast, although TF-30 engines are a point against.
The GE engines in the D model make up for that. Top speed is a very relative thing for front line fighters. To get to their true top speed you need a clean jet that has just gotten topped off from a tanker. Unusual circumstances since they are almost always flying with at least an extra tank or 2, never mind weapons load. If memory serves the Tomcats standard tactic for getting away from trouble like ground fire was to go really high and fast. Hornets don't carry that much gas so they got left behind on a few occasions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:51:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Concerning top speed, the Tomcat could sweep its wings. Pretty sure that's a point towards going fast, although TF-30 engines are a point against. The GE engines in the D model make up for that. Top speed is a very relative thing for front line fighters. To get to their true top speed you need a clean jet that has just gotten topped off from a tanker. Unusual circumstances since they are almost always flying with at least an extra tank or 2, never mind weapons load. If memory serves the Tomcats standard tactic for getting away from trouble like ground fire was to go really high and fast. Hornets don't carry that much gas so they got left behind on a few occasions. The TF30's were actually better at high speed than the GE engines. The GE engines were better in pretty much every other aspect, but high mach flight the TF-30 was better, and the A's IIRC were actually faster on the top end than the B/D, esp if they had the glove vanes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:54:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never said it was the best, and wouldn't it be more accurate to compare a MiG-29 to an F-18? I never meant to imply you did. VTAS was cool for its day, but while the helmet and the SEAM cueing probably worked ok, the bigger issues were integration with the FCS and the missiles that were less capable in the 70's at least. I'm sure with a 9L/M with better G capability and all aspect seekers it was/would have been better. Still probably not as good as the R73/KOLS combo but likely good enough. IIRC there was a VTAS2 but I don't recall how much actual use it saw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 5:55:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I once accidentally filled an AWG-9 system with hydraulic fluid instead of Coolanol. I don’t know if that hurt or helped the system’s capabilities. Depends, did they turn it on while it was filled with hydraulic fluid? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 6:15:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The TF30's were actually better at high speed than the GE engines. The GE engines were better in pretty much every other aspect, but high mach flight the TF-30 was better, and the A's IIRC were actually faster on the top end than the B/D, esp if they had the glove vanes. Some of that I believe came from the inlet ramp scheduling. The TF-30 powered models were optimized for high mach numbers whereas the ones with GE F-110 engines the ramps were geared to give more umph in the trans-sonic range. The TF-30 planes were placarded at 2.34 and the GE engined birds at 1.88, though I believe the latter was more of a soft limit for practical and safety reasons than a hard limit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 6:24:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some of that I believe came from the inlet ramp scheduling. The TF-30 powered models were optimized for high mach numbers whereas the ones with GE F-110 engines the ramps were geared to give more umph in the trans-sonic range. The TF-30 planes were placarded at 2.34 and the GE engined birds at 1.88, though I believe the latter was more of a soft limit for practical and safety reasons than a hard limit. Probably true. I'm not much of an engine aficionado. But I did know that lil tidbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 6:27:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Top speed is a very relative thing for front line fighters. To get to their true top speed you need a clean jet that has just gotten topped off from a tanker. Unusual circumstances since they are almost always flying with at least an extra tank or 2, never mind weapons load. On an amusing note, western designs/specs typically mandated clean jets for these sorts of tests under the aforementioned conditions. Soviet charts are a bit more "pragmatic", so for example, while "clean" western jets could hit Mach2+ clean. Soviet charts showed well over mach2 for jets with full combat loads, for example the mig23 2.4 was a limit with a full combat load... I read an interesting article that suggested a full loaded F15C couldn't really do above M1.8... So its all in the details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 10:42:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some of that I believe came from the inlet ramp scheduling. The TF-30 powered models were optimized for high mach numbers whereas the ones with GE F-110 engines the ramps were geared to give more umph in the trans-sonic range. The TF-30 planes were placarded at 2.34 and the GE engined birds at 1.88, though I believe the latter was more of a soft limit for practical and safety reasons than a hard limit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The TF30's were actually better at high speed than the GE engines. The GE engines were better in pretty much every other aspect, but high mach flight the TF-30 was better, and the A's IIRC were actually faster on the top end than the B/D, esp if they had the glove vanes. Some of that I believe came from the inlet ramp scheduling. The TF-30 powered models were optimized for high mach numbers whereas the ones with GE F-110 engines the ramps were geared to give more umph in the trans-sonic range. The TF-30 planes were placarded at 2.34 and the GE engined birds at 1.88, though I believe the latter was more of a soft limit for practical and safety reasons than a hard limit. The TF-30s were also very good below 10,000 feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 6:12:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I once accidentally filled an AWG-9 system with hydraulic fluid instead of Coolanol. I don’t know if that hurt or helped the system’s capabilities. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: F-14>f-35 I once accidentally filled an AWG-9 system with hydraulic fluid instead of Coolanol. I don’t know if that hurt or helped the system’s capabilities. No big deal, when I was flying the Eagle we had some guys use hydraulic lines in place of wave guides. It almost worked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 6:18:22 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On an amusing note, western designs/specs typically mandated clean jets for these sorts of tests under the aforementioned conditions. Soviet charts are a bit more "pragmatic", so for example, while "clean" western jets could hit Mach2+ clean. Soviet charts showed well over mach2 for jets with full combat loads, for example the mig23 2.4 was a limit with a full combat load... I read an interesting article that suggested a full loaded F15C couldn't really do above M1.8... So its all in the details. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Top speed is a very relative thing for front line fighters. To get to their true top speed you need a clean jet that has just gotten topped off from a tanker. Unusual circumstances since they are almost always flying with at least an extra tank or 2, never mind weapons load. On an amusing note, western designs/specs typically mandated clean jets for these sorts of tests under the aforementioned conditions. Soviet charts are a bit more "pragmatic", so for example, while "clean" western jets could hit Mach2+ clean. Soviet charts showed well over mach2 for jets with full combat loads, for example the mig23 2.4 was a limit with a full combat load... I read an interesting article that suggested a full loaded F15C couldn't really do above M1.8... So its all in the details. it might have been able to, I did 1.8 with a training load, center tank, ACMI pod and captive AIM-9, at 55,000 feet chasing an F-4 above me and faster than me. Going that fast always takes a lot gas, so you can't do it for very long, just short dashes, but you go pretty far distance in those short dashes. The Eagle was spec'd at 2.5 but that was with the VMAX switch used, which was prohibited and clean and before they de-rated the engines for engine longevity, but also before the big engines were put in, so it is kinda hard to really tell. Going that fast has limited utility. If you kill everything premerge, you don't need the speed to leave, it all depends on how many of them there are, how many you have ( and how many missiles ) , and if the lawyers let you kill people pre-merge. A press interview with a Thud driver in SE Asia went something like this : " why were you going 1000 knots? " because it wouldn't go any faster" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 9:37:59 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: it might have been able to, I did 1.8 with a training load, center tank, ACMI pod and captive AIM-9, at 55,000 feet chasing an F-4 above me and faster than me. Going that fast always takes a lot gas, so you can't do it for very long, just short dashes, but you go pretty far distance in those short dashes. The Eagle was spec'd at 2.5 but that was with the VMAX switch used, which was prohibited and clean and before they de-rated the engines for engine longevity, but also before the big engines were put in, so it is kinda hard to really tell. Going that fast has limited utility. If you kill everything premerge, you don't need the speed to leave, it all depends on how many of them there are, how many you have ( and how many missiles ) , and if the lawyers let you kill people pre-merge. A press interview with a Thud driver in SE Asia went something like this : " why were you going 1000 knots? " because it wouldn't go any faster" Speed and altitude of the Phantom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 11:40:27 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: it might have been able to, I did 1.8 with a training load, center tank, ACMI pod and captive AIM-9, at 55,000 feet chasing an F-4 above me and faster than me. Going that fast always takes a lot gas, so you can't do it for very long, just short dashes, but you go pretty far distance in those short dashes. The Eagle was spec'd at 2.5 but that was with the VMAX switch used, which was prohibited and clean and before they de-rated the engines for engine longevity, but also before the big engines were put in, so it is kinda hard to really tell. Going that fast has limited utility. If you kill everything premerge, you don't need the speed to leave, it all depends on how many of them there are, how many you have ( and how many missiles ) , and if the lawyers let you kill people pre-merge. A press interview with a Thud driver in SE Asia went something like this : " why were you going 1000 knots? " because it wouldn't go any faster" Yeah, there are ton of variables with speed and actual load. I can't find the interview with the eagle driver that made the 1.8 claim but thats the number I remember. And yeah, lots of gas, though IIRC the mig25 could hold M2.8 for like nearly 40min in AB at high alt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 5:13:01 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm surprised we haven't seen a bunch of "SuperTomcat 21" what if posts in this thread yet.
I'll start: 1st gen thrust vectoring. Go!  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 6:13:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Speed and altitude of the Phantom? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: it might have been able to, I did 1.8 with a training load, center tank, ACMI pod and captive AIM-9, at 55,000 feet chasing an F-4 above me and faster than me. Going that fast always takes a lot gas, so you can't do it for very long, just short dashes, but you go pretty far distance in those short dashes. The Eagle was spec'd at 2.5 but that was with the VMAX switch used, which was prohibited and clean and before they de-rated the engines for engine longevity, but also before the big engines were put in, so it is kinda hard to really tell. Going that fast has limited utility. If you kill everything premerge, you don't need the speed to leave, it all depends on how many of them there are, how many you have ( and how many missiles ) , and if the lawyers let you kill people pre-merge. A press interview with a Thud driver in SE Asia went something like this : " why were you going 1000 knots? " because it wouldn't go any faster" Speed and altitude of the Phantom? we were almost co-altitude, he was maybe a few thousand above me, IIRC he was doing 1.8 also or close to it., I climbed up and did a level stern conversion to 6,000 feet behind him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 6:39:50 PM EDT
[#19]
As the F-14 was retired were all the Phoenix missiles expended in one last hurrah?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 6:41:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As the F-14 was retired were all the Phoenix missiles expended in one last hurrah? Very unlikely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 6:56:26 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm surprised we haven't seen a bunch of "SuperTomcat 21" what if posts in this thread yet. I'll start: 1st gen thrust vectoring. Go! https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/470117/Screen_Shot_2022-10-15_at_13_39_42_png-2564233.JPG Imaginary aircraft can do practically anything. Heck, we could come up with a Super Tomcat that is powered by a quantum singularity. Then we could send it in against a four ship of Gunstars. End that debate once and for all.  Is the Gunstar a Better Design than the Starfury? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 7:04:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Imaginary aircraft can do practically anything. Which is why GD has a fetish for every military aircraft that was never produced or operational. Empty buckets into which you can pour whichever magical capability you can imagine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 7:20:05 PM EDT
[#23]
If you can't fly Grumman, fly Martin-Baker!
 Tomcat Night Ejection |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 9:35:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: we were almost co-altitude, he was maybe a few thousand above me, IIRC he was doing 1.8 also or close to it., I climbed up and did a level stern conversion to 6,000 feet behind him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: it might have been able to, I did 1.8 with a training load, center tank, ACMI pod and captive AIM-9, at 55,000 feet chasing an F-4 above me and faster than me. Going that fast always takes a lot gas, so you can't do it for very long, just short dashes, but you go pretty far distance in those short dashes. The Eagle was spec'd at 2.5 but that was with the VMAX switch used, which was prohibited and clean and before they de-rated the engines for engine longevity, but also before the big engines were put in, so it is kinda hard to really tell. Going that fast has limited utility. If you kill everything premerge, you don't need the speed to leave, it all depends on how many of them there are, how many you have ( and how many missiles ) , and if the lawyers let you kill people pre-merge. A press interview with a Thud driver in SE Asia went something like this : " why were you going 1000 knots? " because it wouldn't go any faster" Speed and altitude of the Phantom? we were almost co-altitude, he was maybe a few thousand above me, IIRC he was doing 1.8 also or close to it., I climbed up and did a level stern conversion to 6,000 feet behind him. It sounds like they never saw it coming! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 10:43:13 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It sounds like they never saw it coming! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: it might have been able to, I did 1.8 with a training load, center tank, ACMI pod and captive AIM-9, at 55,000 feet chasing an F-4 above me and faster than me. Going that fast always takes a lot gas, so you can't do it for very long, just short dashes, but you go pretty far distance in those short dashes. The Eagle was spec'd at 2.5 but that was with the VMAX switch used, which was prohibited and clean and before they de-rated the engines for engine longevity, but also before the big engines were put in, so it is kinda hard to really tell. Going that fast has limited utility. If you kill everything premerge, you don't need the speed to leave, it all depends on how many of them there are, how many you have ( and how many missiles ) , and if the lawyers let you kill people pre-merge. A press interview with a Thud driver in SE Asia went something like this : " why were you going 1000 knots? " because it wouldn't go any faster" Speed and altitude of the Phantom? we were almost co-altitude, he was maybe a few thousand above me, IIRC he was doing 1.8 also or close to it., I climbed up and did a level stern conversion to 6,000 feet behind him. It sounds like they never saw it coming! It was a large scale exercise off the coast of Florida and he was a red air high fast flier. I shot him in the face with 2 AIM-7Ms at range and did a stern conversion in case of PK failure. Plus when you are going that fast and that high, the turn radius is the size of a medium sized state. He wasn't going to get away unless he ran out of the operating exercise airspace! That was the fastest I had ever gone operationally except for functional check flights with a very clean Eagle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 12:15:14 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a large scale exercise off the coast of Florida and he was a red air high fast flier. I shot him in the face with 2 AIM-7Ms at range and did a stern conversion in case of PK failure. Plus when you are going that fast and that high, the turn radius is the size of a medium sized state. He wasn't going to get away unless he ran out of the operating exercise airspace! That was the fastest I had ever gone operationally except for functional check flights with a very clean Eagle. Wait, are you saying the F15 was an.... INTERCEPTOR? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 12:32:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a large scale exercise off the coast of Florida and he was a red air high fast flier. I shot him in the face with 2 AIM-7Ms at range and did a stern conversion in case of PK failure. Plus when you are going that fast and that high, the turn radius is the size of a medium sized state. He wasn't going to get away unless he ran out of the operating exercise airspace! That was the fastest I had ever gone operationally except for functional check flights with a very clean Eagle. How long did it take to catch him after the stern conversion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 12:58:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How long did it take to catch him after the stern conversion? A proper stern conversion puts you in the WEZ for follow-up shots immediately. If you bone up the checkpoints during the conversion and are too far aft, you may as well not even be there as it is rarely possible to "chase down" like aircraft types from any range that is outside a SRM WEZ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 1:49:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait, are you saying the F15 was an.... INTERCEPTOR? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It was a large scale exercise off the coast of Florida and he was a red air high fast flier. I shot him in the face with 2 AIM-7Ms at range and did a stern conversion in case of PK failure. Plus when you are going that fast and that high, the turn radius is the size of a medium sized state. He wasn't going to get away unless he ran out of the operating exercise airspace! That was the fastest I had ever gone operationally except for functional check flights with a very clean Eagle. Wait, are you saying the F15 was an.... INTERCEPTOR? yep, mulit-role baby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 1:58:30 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A proper stern conversion puts you in the WEZ for follow-up shots immediately. If you bone up the checkpoints during the conversion and are too far aft, you may as well not even be there as it is rarely possible to "chase down" like aircraft types from any range that is outside a SRM WEZ. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How long did it take to catch him after the stern conversion? A proper stern conversion puts you in the WEZ for follow-up shots immediately. If you bone up the checkpoints during the conversion and are too far aft, you may as well not even be there as it is rarely possible to "chase down" like aircraft types from any range that is outside a SRM WEZ. exactly rolled out 6000 feet in the stern but I called him dead based on the 2 AIM-7M at high aspect. Did it anyway because you don't get many chances to practice a high fast flyer, above 50,000 , we should not have been there, and one going over mach 1.5. So I did the stern conversion just because it is good to do in case those high aspect shots don't pay off. As it was he was slightly walking away from me because I lost some knots during the turn and the turn was slightly uphill. The reality is that doing a stern conversion on somebody really high and really fast ie greater than 60,000 feet and greater than mach 2.0, all you are going to get are high aspect shots because even if you get behind him at short range, he will be walking away pretty fast. High altitude isn't easy. It was the only high fast flyer intercept I ever did outside the sim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 2:00:49 PM EDT
[#31]
That's cute............. F-15 was way better!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 2:31:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hilarious that people still believe this bit of propaganda, especially the "any opposing aircraft" part. The F-14 and the Phoenix might have been able to slay a couple of Bears in formation 75 miles away, which is what it was designed for. But, beyond that, against any maneuvering target of the day (especially out at range) it was essentially useless. The way Top Gun has allowed people to make the Tomcat into this mythological Green Giant of a 1970s fighter is impressive. Same goes for the AIM-54; there's a reason no other fighters ever were designed to employ it. F-14 carried much the same as the F-18. For fleet cap it was better because of it's legs. Probably a better strike fighter too since it was more of a truck than the hornet. Maintenance did it in, and to a lessor extend, cost of upgrades over new fighter due to congress looking to spend money in their districts. As congressmen come and go, so does seniority. Brand new fighter designs are a good way for newly senior congressmen to get spending into their districts. I was surprised the Navy accepted the F-35C as their replacement fighter when they did. Navy doesn't like single engine fighter jets. Too dangerous losing an engine on take-off and landings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2022 7:56:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably a better strike fighter too since it was more of a truck than the hornet. "More of a truck" could not overcome the Bombcat's serious employment limitations and lack of integrated avionics....as discussed earlier in this thread. No, it was nowhere near a better attack aircraft than a Hornet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2022 7:46:55 AM EDT
[#34]
These keep popping up in my YouTube feed.
 F-14 Tomcat Demo |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2022 7:48:33 AM EDT
[#35]
 Interview with Alan "Shoes" Mullen - TOMCAT Pilot and TOPGUN Instructor Pilot Pilot mentions what it was like to go head-to-head with F-5's, A-4's & F-15's in the Tomcat. Long vid with great stories thrown in. He straight up says the F-15 was better, and you could get your butt kicked by an A-4 or F-5 if you weren't careful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2022 3:24:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He straight up says the F-15 was better, and you could get your butt kicked by an A-4 or F-5 if you weren't careful. That applies to literally any fighter. When I flew as a Bandit in the AT-38C, I scored kills on a variety of US fighters F-15C, F-15E, F-16, A-10, F-18, AV-8. Now, that doesn't tell the whole story, because those kills were wildly offset by the vast majority of BVR and WVR engagements in which our little MiG-21 simulator Talons got our asses absolutely handed to us...but every so often someone would make a mistake that we could capitalize on. Exhibit 1:  T-38 vs F-22 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2022 4:04:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The TF30's were actually better at high speed than the GE engines. The GE engines were better in pretty much every other aspect, but high mach flight the TF-30 was better, and the A's IIRC were actually faster on the top end than the B/D, esp if they had the glove vanes. Glove vanes had shit to do with making speed. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/qa-with-a-former-f-14-tomcat-rio-dave-bio-baranek-answers-your-questions/ Were the “glove vanes” effective? First, the true purpose of the glove vanes might surprise some people: they were intended to REDUCE STABILITY at high speed, to paraphrase the NATOPS manual. Yes, reduce it, because at high speed with the wings swept the F-14 was too stable in pitch, which meant it couldn’t turn. The speeds I’m talking about are above Mach 1.35, which is where the computer-programmed deployment of glove vanes started. The glove vanes allowed the F-14 to meet performance requirements for supersonic maneuverability. The pilot could also deploy glove vanes at lower speeds. Were they effective? I think so, in their intended purpose. But did they have a significant impact on F-14 performance? That’s debatable, because we rarely flew above Mach 1.35, and below that speed they just didn’t have much effect on aircraft performance. But the glove vanes also came out in “Bomb” mode on the wingsweep, so they helped stabilize the aircraft during high angle bomb runs. Also, they were deactivated and then deleted, so the Navy and Grumman considered them “expendable.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2022 8:16:11 PM EDT
[#38]
 Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2022 12:04:42 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2022 12:19:53 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did we ever fire a Phoenix in anger? Never successfully. From Wiki U.S. combat experience An AIM-54 hitting a QF-4B target drone, 1983. On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target. On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north. Despite the much-vaunted capabilities, the Phoenix was rarely used in combat, with only two confirmed launches and no confirmed targets destroyed in US Navy service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2022 8:26:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Glove vanes had shit to do with making speed. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/qa-with-a-former-f-14-tomcat-rio-dave-bio-baranek-answers-your-questions/ Were the “glove vanes” effective? First, the true purpose of the glove vanes might surprise some people: they were intended to REDUCE STABILITY at high speed, to paraphrase the NATOPS manual. Yes, reduce it, because at high speed with the wings swept the F-14 was too stable in pitch, which meant it couldn’t turn. The speeds I’m talking about are above Mach 1.35, which is where the computer-programmed deployment of glove vanes started. The glove vanes allowed the F-14 to meet performance requirements for supersonic maneuverability. The pilot could also deploy glove vanes at lower speeds. Were they effective? I think so, in their intended purpose. But did they have a significant impact on F-14 performance? That’s debatable, because we rarely flew above Mach 1.35, and below that speed they just didn’t have much effect on aircraft performance. But the glove vanes also came out in “Bomb” mode on the wingsweep, so they helped stabilize the aircraft during high angle bomb runs. Also, they were deactivated and then deleted, so the Navy and Grumman considered them “expendable.” Hm. Yeah I know all that, though I thought I read somewhere they helped reduce drag somewhere in the flight regime. Yeah at any rate they got deleted cuz they were a huge maintenance PITA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/26/2022 10:10:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Again with the TF-30s. They were in a flat spin, headed out to sea!
 Surviving F14 Tomcat Spin  Surviving F14 Tomcat Spin Part II  Surviving F14 Tomcat Spin Part 3 Conclusion |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2022 1:17:19 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again with the TF-30s. They were in a flat spin, headed out to sea!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaeA9Ri4EZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YhjCsepMNM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2wh5nGX0vQWell, someone just cost me $5.99 at Amazon Prime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/27/2022 8:56:58 PM EDT
[#44]
I swear I'll stop posting these
 This is another take on the "flat spin" story posted above. The pilot in that case went on to become an admiral. (He was worried about his career, but was reminded after the accident board that ALL of the Tomcat admirals had an ejection under their belt.) I tagged the video to the point where he started talking about the D. Then he goes into a very interesting and informative talk on the acquisition process and how fucking broke it is. EDIT: It's not letting me tag. FFWD to the 30:00 mark.  F-14 Tomcat Pilot's Wild Flat Spin Story |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
