F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

[lubricatosaurus]

Thing that always bothered me for years, is why the F-14 didn't use at least some of the stealth tech the Air Force knew about in the early 1960's, 3 years before Grumman was even sketching the first VFX prototypes (F-14 eventually).

The SR-71 flew in 1964. The Air Force was in contact with Kelly Johnson for years about what to do to reduce radar cross-section. Here is a summary of early 1960's implementation, not just theory: "Surfaces had to be redesigned to avoid reflecting radar signals, the engines moved to a subtler mid-wing position, and a radar-absorbing element was added to the paint. Then a full-scale model of the Blackbird was hoisted on a pylon for radar testing at a Skunk Works’ secret location in the Nevada desert. With tests carefully scheduled to avoid Soviet satellite observations, the results were impressive: The Blackbird model, more than 100 feet in length, would appear on Soviet radar as bigger than a bird but smaller than a man. The team had succeeded in reducing radar cross section by 90 percent."

Fastest Plane in History: The Blackbird

Learn about the creation of the Blackbird, the world's fastest plane, by Kelly Johnson and the Skunk Works team at Lockheed Martin.

www.lockheedmartin.com

At least the paint maybe! Cant the tails in a little, slab-flat face the sides, bottom, etc., at least a little to help keep these things in the air against SAM and A-to-A radar.

 

[53' Stude]

Astro14: when did the U.S. NAVY officially retire the F-14's?

 

[Malo83]

F-14 Data

HOME OF M.A.T.S. - The most comprehensive Grumman F-14 Reference Work - by Torsten Anft!

www.anft.net

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: car51
Astro14: when did the U.S. NAVY officially retire the F-14's?

Sometime during the 2000's.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
3. Never...it went out on the top of its game...it was flying combat missions in Afghanistan the year it was retired...using its high payload, long endurance and range to fly Close Air Support for our guys on the ground...not its intended design purpose, but a role it performed very well.


And until the new Top Gun 2 movie arrives, we have (Tomcats in Afghanistink):

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Best F-14 mission ever:

March 27, 2003: The U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcats Attack On Saddam's Yacht

Bounty Hunters F-14s vs Al Mansur. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was a huge success for the U.S. Navy’s F-14 squadrons: over Iraq, Tomcat pilots and radar

theaviationist.com

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Originally Posted By: car51
Astro14: was te F-14 the most enjoyable plane hands down you ever flew?

I really like the Hornet. Great jet.

But comparing the two was like comparing a '68 L88 Vette and a new Miata...

The Hornet had great ergonomics, nice cockpit, intuitive weapons system, fine handling, better reliability (partly because it was newer). But it was slower, by a lot. It couldn't carry as much. Decent range when on profile, but poor endurance regardless.

Most of these issues were addressed in the Super Hornet redesign.

There was similar commentary regarding hornets taking over in Oz, when the F-111s were phased out (guy a year ahead of me in highschool was killed in one when the ground hugging that was being trialled got too close to the ground).

The Hornets needed to be refueled between Oz and our most likely action host, where the F111 could get there and back, and do something over there.

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

The Hornets needed to be refueled between Oz and our most likely action host, where the F111 could get there and back, and do something over there.

Back when I worked at McDonnell-Douglas in the early '80s, I was always amazed the F/A-18 was as to a new Navy fighter/attack dual role aircraft.
It was a heavily modified (read: heavy-mass!) evolution of the YF-17, was always overweight, had trouble meeting roll rate requirements, was underpowered, and clearly didn't have the aspect ratio for decent subsonic range. I think, to this day, someone in the Navy/DOD/congress must have been on the secret payroll of McD-D and Northrop (F-18L hopes alive). >>>> It just proves that if you throw $$$billions at an airframe, you can still manage to make it "good enough" in a multi-role fighter configuration.

The above bad decisions to throw so much money to keep band-aiding the F/A-18 to fix all its problems led directly to the anger and disgust **** Cheney demonstrated in 1990 when he cancelled the stealthy A-12 Avenger program abruptly. In other words, an F-14/A-12 fleet would have been much better to this day. Cheney was angry that so much money was being dumped into the F/A-18 (momentum and contracts juggernaut by '90) that he reacted with a hatchet to the A-12 to send a message, although by terminating the A-12 (instead of further F/A-18 evolution) he really screwed us. Of course Cheney was also partially motivated to ax the A-12 due to the Cold War being over, yet now we find ourselves needing something that might need to defeat Syrian air defenses from carriers.

 

[Jetronic]

How much is left of Syrian air defenses?

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Originally Posted By: Jetronic
How much is left of Syrian air defenses?

Recent news: Russians are there, and they brought lots of the latest SAM upgrades/equipment. That is what I was referring to. Sure it works to fly non-stealth aircraft in easy non-SAM situations, but once in a while, China or the Russians supply pretty good SAM.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: car51
Astro14: when did the U.S. NAVY officially retire the F-14's?

I saw them fly for the last time at Oceana in 2006. IT was AWSOME!!

Lots of planes there, but most of the crowd seemed to be there to see the last f-14 flights.

 

[Jetronic]

Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Recent news: Russians are there, and they brought lots of the latest SAM upgrades/equipment. That is what I was referring to. Sure it works to fly non-stealth aircraft in easy non-SAM situations, but once in a while, China or the Russians supply pretty good SAM.

but the syrians have no experience or training with the latest stuff...

Maybe there would be russian operators aswell, but then you'd be fighting russian air defences... and russian migs aswell, which won't be like an iraqi or syrian mig...

I'm pretty sure any lands held by Assad is now a no-fly zone for NATO

 

[lubricatosaurus]

Back to the F-14:
What is the max roll rate (at a given airspeed)? I remember when the F-18 had trouble meeting the Navy's requirements using ailerons + stabilator, and the F-14 has only spoilers + stabilator. You'd think it would be a problem achieving high roll rates.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

There was similar commentary regarding hornets taking over in Oz, when the F-111s were phased out (guy a year ahead of me in high school was killed in one when the ground hugging that was being trialed got too close to the ground).

The Hornets needed to be refueled between Oz and our most likely action host, where the F111 could get there and back, and do something over there.

Big airplanes generally have a range advantage...it has to do with the percentage of the airplane's weight devoted to various requirements: structure, fuel, weapons system, weapons, crew. Crew stays the same as the jet gets bigger...so, more weight is left over for fuel...

An oversimplification, but the F-111 version that you had was the final iteration of that airplane...lots, and lots, of fuel...a very long range airplane.

And it was designed for long range. That was part of the design specification.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Lots of planes there, but most of the crowd seemed to be there to see the last f-14 flights.

Official retirement ceremony was 22 September, 2006. Nine years ago. I was there, at Oceana, with my son. Speeches were made, awards presented, and the airplane took off, and performed one of the most lame, timid fly-bys I've ever seen from a fighter.

That tepid fly-by was the result of political controversy that happened that weekend at the big party at Oceana (at which I was present) and I'll simply surmise it by saying that the decision to make the flyby lame protected several senior officers...from even more senior officers who didn't like the Tomcat community...

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Official retirement ceremony was 22 September, 2006. Nine years ago. I was there, at Oceana, with my son. Speeches were made, awards presented, and the airplane took off, and performed one of the most lame, timid fly-bys I've ever seen from a fighter.

That tepid fly-by was the result of political controversy that happened that weekend at the big party at Oceana (at which I was present) and I'll simply surmise it by saying that the decision to make the flyby lame protected several senior officers...from even more senior officers who didn't like the Tomcat community...

I saw them during the airshow, not the official ceremony. I'm just glad i got to see them in person, I was also there with my wife and son.

Astro14, I thank you for your service and you ability to fly such an awesome jet!

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Win
I meant to ask last time this thread was active, but forgot, what is the noise level in the cockpit?

Do you have any noise cancellation devices, or is it just well insulated, or is it loud as heck?

Stupid question, probably, but it is pressurized? Do you have climate control with a/c, or just heat?

What happens as you transition across the speed of sound and back? Bump? Or just punch through like nothing happened? Is the wing loading / weight enough that you get a smooth ride? Or can you feel the air you're flying in?

What kind of comm radios did you have? VHF/UHF aeronautical band? Sateliite? HF? All of the above?

Thanks for taking the time to answer all these questions.

Noise level in the jet was high. So high, that you really couldn't hear the engines run. Seriously!

It was the result of a very effective environmental control system. The ECS took compressed engine air (16th stage of the engine? Again, aging memory) and ran it through a heat exchanger that was between the left engine and the fuselage. It was very hot coming off that part of the engine, like 1100F at full RPM

In flight, the heat exchanger was cooled by airflow, while on the ground, an electric fan moved air over it. The ECS air then went through an expansion turbine, located under the right side of the RIOs seat. The turbine first compressed (and heated) the air.

From the turbine, it went to another heat exchanger, on the other side of the jet, and back through the turbine, where it was expanded and cooled. Now, you had expanded, cooled air.

You mix that cool air with hot air (post primary exchanger, pre-turbine), and you can get any temperature desired in the cockpit. Even in the 115F heat of El Centro, California, in the blazing sun, under the big plexiglass cockpit canopy, the jet was comfortable.

But all that cold/hot air was distributed through tubes under the canopy rail...and the shriek of that air going through small holes in those tubes was deafening....like a bunch of badly blown woodwind instruments...I wore earplugs under my helmet to quiet everything down...

That airflow was used to pressurize the cockpit to 5 PSI over ambient. Ambient pressure was kept until about 8,000 feet. Then the cockpit stayed at 8,000 feet pressurization until 5 PSI was reached (about 25,000') and then, a 5PSI differential was kept as the airplane climbed. Cockpit altitude was about 20,000' at 50,000' aircraft altitude...pretty thin...can't breathe that for very long and stay conscious. You're not adapted like a mountain climber who has weeks to adjust...

We wore O2 masks from takeoff to landing. They had to be on for all carrier operations, including taxi...and you wanted them on. If you had the mask on for about 30 minutes, you would purge all the N2 from your blood. If you had N2 in your blood, and lost cockpit pressurization, you would get the bends, just like a scuba diver...and it nearly killed a friend of mine who, you guessed it, thought he was too cool and didn't need the mask...

Supersonic transition wasn't really anything you could feel. The rise in drag across the transonic region (about 0.95 IMN to about 1.2 IMN) slowed the airplane's acceleration just a bit...but it was a fast jet, and cut through that speed range in a matter of seconds...that's right, it added over 150 MPH in a matter of seconds...it liked being fast...the engines worked better with lots of air coming down those big intakes!

VHF/UHF was standard in the jet. Nothing fancy...that I can talk about...

;-)

 

[tom slick]

Interesting to learn about cockpit pressures and how loud it was.
To help your memory and if I remember correctly, the F110 used 5th (or 7th) stage bleed air for climate control. The high pressure compressor had 9 stages.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: tom slick
Interesting to learn about cockpit pressures and how loud it was.
To help your memory and if I remember correctly, the F110 used 5th (or 7th) stage bleed air for climate control. The high pressure compressor had 9 stages.

Was referring to the TF-30, I'm certain you're right about the F110. I don't recall the details on that engine...

The TF-30 took bleed air from the 7th for mid compression bypass, and use 12th and 16th for other engine/airframe functions...

Just looked it up. Book says 9th for ECS from the F110-400. 5th for engine anti ice and engine functions.

Cheers,
Astro

 

[tom slick]

9th stage air would certainly be hot! I guess it needs that for pressure?

I never worked on or studied the TF30, 16 stages is a lot. I did work in a shop that had both TF30 and F110 (base was transitioning from F111 to F16), the TF30 looked like a dinosaur sitting next to a F110. I later went on to work on even older dinosaurs, the T56.

 

[DeepFriar]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

VHF/UHF was standard in the jet. Nothing fancy...that I can talk about...

I was lucky enough to be responsible for the grandchild of Link4/Link11, the Link16 JTIDS/MIDS, at BAE briefly in the early 2000's. Magic. You'd have loved it.