F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

Did the F-14 have an apu/jfs? Did it use a start cart? Did it have an emergency power supply in the event that both engines flamed out?

It's fun how routine things are permanently in memory. I still remember the start sequence for starting a C-130.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Astro14

The digital engine controls on that engine made it more reliable on start than the hydro pneumatic TF-30 engine controls.

Astro you're the last person on here that I'd sharp shoot, but the F110-400 engine had an analog engine control, perhaps you intended to say electronic engine control. I remember that lump well when I was a young test engineer at GE Aircraft Engines. In our ESS program those controls had to work at -55C to around +80C. Potted modules, and only the best military grade components. I also remember the 18% NG minimum come alive requirement that carried through to the Fadec that the USAF adopted. IIRC it had a max weight of around 35 to 40 pounds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JetStar I'm certain you're correct. Please keep me straight.

They were electronic, whether digital or not, I don't remember after 17 years. I do know that the TF-30 was all hydro mechanical. I've seen the fuel control on that engine, an amazing collection of plumbing. I'll have to dig out the old flight manuals (NATOPS) and refresh my clearly imperfect memory..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom - no JFS, no APU, no battery. The rumor was those things were kept out to keep weight down, I don't know if that's true. There was enough real estate for them, I think, and a JFS and battery would have been nice, like the F-16.

Bu you needed start air, and electrical - standard 28v DC and 115v/400hz three phase - to get the beast going.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you flamed out both engines, you were in big trouble.

Usually, they would compressor stall, and an engine that was stalled would still provide some hydraulic power. No hydraulic power, no flight controls, and your option was to eject.

It took 295 KIAS to windmill the right engine, which provided a start opportunity and hydraulics. For some reason, the left engine needed 310 KIAS. I always reckoned that the increased load for the additional hydraulic items on the left (combined) system was the reason.

But either way, 310 knots makes for a poor glider...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Highest altitude you flew the Tomcat to ?

The F-14 NATOPS flight Manual listed the ceiling of the airplane as 50,000 feet.

However, the airplane was capable of much more. I flew an F-14A (with the TF-30 engines) in a "fleet" configuration - external tanks and weapons rails that added considerable weight and drag - to 54,000 feet while flying off a carrier. It didn't have a lot of climb rate left up there, with all the drag, but it was stable and performed well, if a bit mushy in pitch because of the aft center of pressure and the low indicated airspeed...

I flew an F-14B (with the F-110 engines) to 60,000 feet. At 1.5 IMN, and roughly 325 KIAS, it was still climbing over 1,000 feet per minute at that altitude. We started out in W-72, at about 150 miles away, but pointed back towards Oceana. I always made certain that I was pointed back towards "home plate" whenever I was trying something out...much easier to sort out a problem if you're already heading home...

I would have climbed higher, but we simply ran out of airspace. We were about 40 DME from Oceana, and going about 1000 KTs groundspeed...that didn't leave for a lot of time to go any higher, and still get the airplane turned around before we left the warning area...we would have been above FAA airspace...but we would have had to coordinate coming back down through it and we were good and supersonic...which was prohibited over land...

The jet liked being fast. Most guys who tried to go up high made the mistake of keeping it subsonic, but it really liked to climb at about 1.4 IMN. You had much better Ps at that mach number and she did well climbing.

I'm sure the statue of limitations has run out for me getting into trouble for going way over the flight manual limit..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the way fighters omit superfluous stuff like batteries and the ability to self-start in the name of weight. They like race cars in the sky.

The F-16 has a hydraulic powered starter and hydrazine powered emergency power unit but is normally started with a start cart. The F-15 has a jet fuel starter aux. engine.
 
Astro14, Were you on the East coast for your total time? I was just curious if they used the T2-C in the East for flat spin recovery training on the East coast?
I was in VF-126 at NAS Miramar 88-92 and we had 4 T2-C's that were were used for F-14 flat spin recovery training here. We were primarily a aggressor squadron made up mostly of A-4's but also had F-16N's.
I remember the T2-C's had a secondary 4" wide lap belt to help hold the pilots in position. I did see more then 1 F-14 jock come out of the T2-C with a full barf bag... They must have been pretty violent rides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: 1foxracing
Astro14, Were you on the East coast for your total time? I was just curious if they used the T2-C in the East for flat spin recovery training on the East coast?
I was in VF-126 at NAS Miramar 88-92 and we had 4 T2-C's that were were used for F-14 flat spin recovery training here. We were primarily a aggressor squadron made up mostly of A-4's but also had F-16N's.
I remember the T2-C's had a secondary 4" wide lap belt to help hold the pilots in position. I did see more then 1 F-14 jock come out of the T2-C with a full barf bag... They must have been pretty violent rides.

Yeah...VF-43 had a couple of T-2C for Spin training. They had this big belt installed to hold you more tightly into the seat than the normal harness. The jets were "bent"...lots of rudder trim changes with airspeed (it's a jet, this isn't normal)...the result of lots of unusual aerodynamic stresses over their lives.

I liked the spin flights. They were dynamic. Violent is a good word, and interestingly, if you spun the T-2C, the F-14 recovery controls worked on it too. We did both upright and inverted spins, and it was a couple of G eyeball out - that is, towards the front of the airplane. That was rough...but it was far less rough than the F-14s 6 G eyeball out.

If you didn't lock your harness in the F-14 during a departure, you could end up pinned against the instrument panel no matter how big and strong you were. That was one of the benefits of teaching spin recovery in an airplane, no simulator can throw you around like the airplane, and doing things when your body is getting punished by G forces and oscillations is far more challenging than doing them in a simulator...it prepares you better for the real thing.

(My son could drive a Lamborghini at 230 MPH on Need for Speed...doesn't mean that he's ready for the road...).

I can see why guys would get sick, it could be tough..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
... We did ... inverted spins ....

Yikes.

Is inverted spin recovery the same as upright, except, I guess, the pitch is reversed?

How fast does a big jet lose altitude in a spin?
 
Originally Posted By: Win

Yikes.

Is inverted spin recovery the same as upright, except, I guess, the pitch is reversed?

How fast does a big jet lose altitude in a spin?

I cannot speak to the spin characteristics and recovery techniques used in the Navy's T-2C, but I can speak to the spin recovery techniques taught to USAF jet pilots in our designated spin trainer, the T-37B. I was a Spin Demonstration Pilot at the Air Training Command Instructor Pilot School, where we taught USAF pilots (from F-4's, B-1's, A-10's, C-130's, etc) how to instruct new student pilots back at the Pilot Training squadrons.

On our syllabus directed "Spin rides", I would show the new IP's how a student might screw up a spin recovery procedure and exactly what the airplane would do in response to incorrect recovery inputs. It was my job to make the spin demonstration ride the most extreme experience that new IP would ever face BEFORE he/she went back to teach new student pilots.

With respect to inverted spins, we avoided them because they were a prohibited maneuver. They were hard on the airplane during entry, and most importantly, the easiest spin to recover from. The third step of our spin recovery procedure slammed the stick full aft- which would transition the airplane into an erect, full aft stick stall (if we were inverted). If the airplane was spinning in an upright attitude, after applying opposite rudder for one full turn, we slammed the stick full forward to drive the nose of the aircraft within +/- 17 degrees of the vertical, to break the spin and allow the airplane to start flying again (albeit nearly straight down). We would then aggressively recover from the ensuing high speed dive.

We lost a few airplanes over the years when conducting spin training at the USAF Pilot Training bases. Some were unintended spins entered into by students flying solo aerobatic sorties-others were IP/Student sorties where the airplane failed to respond to control inputs due to mechanical failure (e.g.- rudder failure,etc). When I was a T-38 student pilot, an IP/Student from another class both successfully ejected after getting their T-38 into an inverted, post stall gyration. They attempted recovery, without success, and then punched out as the desolate and rough terrain of West Texas rushed up at them as the altimeter continued to unwind toward ground level.

If all else failed, our MANDATORY ejection altitude of 10,000 feet above ground level, pretty well guaranteed the pilots would escape the aircraft, even with the phenomenal sink rates involved in accelerated spins.

In point of fact, you can probably enter a spin in almost any USAF aircraft. The pre-stall and post-stall gyration is well defined from comprehensive flight testing, and is well documented in every USAF aircraft Flight Manual (Dash 1). Some aircraft can be recovered, others probably not without specially fitted "spin chutes". The key to prevent an inadvertent spin, was to recognize the warning signs that could lead to a stall and subsequent spin entry. That was our prime focus teaching new student pilots- spin prevention first and spin recovery, if needed.

As Astro 14 alluded to, many fighters experience tremendous lateral G forces during the spin that may not only preclude pilot inputs to recovery but may make ejection initiation very difficult to execute.

Hope this helps yall understand spins in jet aircraft a little bit better...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WOW, fantastic read guys! Thank you Astro for posting your experience and service.

In your flight time did you ever try and intercept the SR-71?
 
DLC (Direct Lift Control) Operation

In document AFWAL-TR-80-3141, Part III: p55, it states The spoiler produces no effect above alpha = 10 deg

In NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1 2.23.6 "Direct Lift Control" it describes the use of DLC for an approach. This all sounds really good, except that I understand that an approach should be flown to the donut, i.e. indicated alpha at 14.5 to 15.5 (true alpha 11.5 to 12.5 [2]).

Obviously there is a conflict in the above, or my understanding of it.

So what I'd like to know is

1. When flying DLC, is the approach still flown to the donut, or is there a different AOA regime used.
2. Are the inboard spoilers ineffective above 10 degrees alpha
3. Are the outboard spoilers ineffective, i.e. when do you lose roll control via outboard spoilers?

I'm asking because I'm looking to implement DLC correctly on my F-14.

Thanks
--Richard

-------------
[1] AFWAL-TR-80-3141
[2] Calculation of true vs. indicated alpha based on ARI nose probe equations AFWAL-TR-80-3141 p55
 
Originally Posted By: chiefsfan1
WOW, fantastic read guys! Thank you Astro for posting your experience and service.

In your flight time did you ever try and intercept the SR-71?

Chiefsfan1 - so sorry to have missed your question earlier!

Nope, never was lucky enough to run on the SR-71...but it's a tough airplane to shoot. It flies so much higher and faster than the F-14 (or anything else for that matter) that intercepting it is very, very challenging...

The AIM-54 was a formidable weapon...but the SR was a formidable target, as hostile nations found out over and over when the Blackbird overflew them with impunity!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I successfully shot an SR-71.

shocked.gif




............... with my camera at the Cali Science Center in Los Angeles, Cali.

banana2.gif
 
Back
Top