F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Thanks !

I can only imagine the stress level during those moments.


There is a famous (notorious?) study that was done during the Vietnam era. Fighter pilots were wired up to measure heart rate/stress.

Landing on the boat caused a higher stress rate than dodging SAMs in combat, or fighting MiGs.

I am here to tell you that the most scared I've ever been was during one particular night landing on a carrier*. Combat was easier.


*It's a bit of a story. Had a massive fuel system failure, leading to a leak of about 1,500#/minute. A tank ruptured, and the airplane was gushing fuel from every possible exit in the skin. I was 100 miles from the boat, at night, with overcast skies, moderate sea state, cold weather. I had 12,000# of fuel. 8 minutes. Not enough to get home at the rate it was bleeding...and the prospect of ejecting into the cold sea dozens of miles away left me with poor survival chances.

I managed to get it controlled by pulling the circuit breaker that controlled the system. RD2. Right side panel, by the pilot's calf, second column, fourth from the top...it should be clear why I can still remember that one...at the point that I got the leak under control, we were 80 miles from the boat. Problem 1: fuel leak, solved.

Problem 2: max landing weight was 6,000# of fuel. We had 12,000#. How to fix that? Can't use AB (not with fuel leaking everywhere...not a good idea to light 30 feet of flame in the vicinity). Can't jettison/dump, because that valve was de-energized by pulling RD2, and pushing it back in was likely to restart the leak.

So, we burned down to 6,000# by flying at full power on the left engine, while we shut down the right. Why shut down the right?

Problem 3: the fuel failure was in management. The system (normally automatic) had forced all the fuel into the left wing/left drop and aft tanks. With RD2 pulled, the system went to isolated operation. Right engine feeds from right/front tanks. Left engine feeds from aft/left tanks. No fuel remained in the right side. Well, about 400# remained, but that's gauge error...and about 500# per engine was needed for a full instrument approach...which I'll get to in a minute.

Problem 4: the limit for the airplane's Center of Gravity (CG) was a 2,000# difference between forward and aft tanks. We had 6,000# aft, and 400# forward. WAY out of CG limits. The airplane was handling poorly. Very unstable in pitch. Right wing down trim required to fly straight.

Problem 5: when this first started, we didn't have enough fuel to make it to the next landing cycle. So, once we had burned down to landing weight, we set up for an emergency landing....

Problem 6: not enough fuel to run the right engine normally for landing. So, I started the right engine (while flying a very precise instrument approach) and left it at idle. The additional hydraulic system powered by the right engine helped with control. But the airplane needed a bunch of left rudder trim to counteract all the thrust from the left with the right at idle... Did I mention that it was unstable in pitch? NOT an easy approach. Not only did I have a messed up airplane, it was at night. In the rain.

Which leads us to...

Problem 7: Because it was an emergency landing, the lens (visual glideslope) did not get turned on in the rush of events. So, when I broke out of the clouds, and was struggling to see the deck, I had no reference. The LSO, Robert John (BJ) Dwyer, talked me down. His calm, precise guidance over the radio was enough to get me in the wires and to a happy ending.


Compared with that night, combat was pretty low stress...


Night carrier landings. I talked about them a bit just on this page. But I wrote a detailed discussion on the anatomy of an F-14 landing in general in this thread years ago.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2911273/

Cheers,
Astro

 

[y_p_w]

Cool stories. Haven't gone over all 26 pages of this discussion, but when I was a kid (pre Top Gun) I always thought that the F-14 was the coolest looking thing in the sky. I've only seen an operational one once, which was one on display at the Edwards AFB Open House in 1997. I talked to the pilot, who was talking about refueling during the Gulf War where they'll just lined up for fuel from USAF tankers. But I took a photo (not sure where it is now since it was on film) of that same pilot sitting on the wing (or whatever you call that deck between the tails) while there was an F-117 demonstration.

I guess my first awareness must have been in the late 70s when my dad said I could buy a plastic model, and the one I chose was a Revell F-14A with the Jolly Rogers scheme. It was fun too with wings that meshed and where they moved together. Never really painted it, but just sort of glued it together.

The other thing I remember talking to some friends who were aviation enthusiasts was one guy claiming that the most important member of the crew was sitting in the back seat. I don't necessarily buy that, but of course there are those TV shows and movies that make it seem like the guy in back is merely an observer with little more to do than watch the radar and be a second set of eyes. I get that the F-14 was really meant to be a big platform for the AWG-9 and the Phoenix, which were of course controlled from the back seat.

Also - I remember the short-lived ABC series Supercarrier. I think it lasted about a dozen episodes before it got shelved. They used up a whole bunch of footage from Top Gun. However, I remember the really odd plot line of a Soviet Air Force pilot looking to defect, where they are trying to get him to land on the deck of the carrier so they can get access to a new Mig. The plane they used for the flying footage was an F-16N repainted in a Soviet-style color scheme. They persuade him to try by showing that they'll have a net barrier. Of course he can't manage it and he ends up ejecting, but it looked like they different footage the Navy had of nets being set up, a plane (looked like an A-6) trying to go into a net, and ejection footage. Looked totally weird, but they did what they could without modern visual effects.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Astro14
I flew about 50 different airframes. Perhaps more. I'll have to check...


Ever fly an F-22?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Astro14
I flew about 50 different airframes. Perhaps more. I'll have to check...


Ever fly an F-22?


No. Would love to, but it entered service after I left military flying. There are no 2 seat versions of that jet, so anyone flying one has gone through the entire training program and is assigned to an F-22 unit.

When I say 50 airframes, I meant 50 individual F-14s. So, if an F-14 is sitting in a museum, there is about a 1/10 chance that I flew that airplane.

 

[billt460]

Astro,

Correct me if I'm generalizing too much here as I have no experience. But when you first get accepted in flight school, (and after getting through basic flight training like Richard Gere did in, "Officer And A Gentleman". Smiling, sitting on his motorcycle watching Louis Gosset Jr. tear into the new, fresh off the street recruits before he drove off at the end.) What was the first airplane they put you in? And what percentage actually washed out in those first 12 weeks, and never got to sit in the inside of the cockpit of a running airplane?

That movie made it look like anyone who wanted to sign up for flight training made it into basics like the Army. In reality do you have to go through a tougher selection process before they attempt to waste 12 weeks on you if you don't pan out? Like grade transcripts from school, etc.

 

[Astro14]

I'm not certain what the statistics look like now, Bill, but back in my day (1986) we were growing the size of the military, and it was pretty competitive. Minimum was a 3.0 GPA in science/engineering, a passing grade on the AQT/FAR test (USN, the USAF had the AFOQT) which wasn't easy, the SAT was a piece of cake by comparison, there was a physical exam, a physical fitness test, an interview, a background check and recommendations.

Richard Gere's character wouldn't have been selected...

These days, I've seen kids with 4.0 GPA, masters degrees and very competitive records fail to be selected. It's very, very competitive to get a flying slot.

My class in AOCS started with 50 kids who made the cut, academically, physically, background check, interview.

But just 20 of us graduated from that program after 14 weeks.

An Officer and a Gentleman does a credible job illustrating the pressures, academic, military, physical, etc. Candidates dropped out for failure to maintain academic standards, or physical standards, or just plain quit. The dunkers and other water survival training weren't easy, either. Not everyone could handle them. Some candidates never passed, some quit as a result.

"DOR" was still the phrase in my day. We lost 4 to DOR the morning we did our "rifle run" - a 5 mile long run, on the beach in Pensacola, in combat boots and fatigues, in August, holding an M1 Garand.

Not easy.

The Drill Instructors were supposed to be tough. If you couldn't handle getting yelled at, or doing a few hundred push-ups for making a mistake, then how could you handle the pressure of combat? Or night carrier landings?

Back in my day, once you graduated from AOCS, you were commissioned as an Ensign, and you started flight training in a T-34C (turboprop single, aerobatic, retractable gear) and depending on your grades there, and the needs of the service, you went into a pipeline: helicopters, prop planes (C-130, P-3, etc.), E-2/C-2, or jets. These days, the new trainer is the T-6, an even better airplane with more HP and an ejection seat.

That selection*, which determined your future, was pretty tough, it was based solely on flight training grades. Every flight and every simulator was graded. I finished primary flight training in Corpus Christi, TX in August of 1987. There were 10 of us (only me from my original AOCS class) who completed that week. The Navy wanted 8 helo drivers, one prop, and one jet. Those were the pipeline choices. I was in a group that included several Academy graduates. I was #1 in the class, and I got jets. No jets slots left. One guy went props. When all of them, the entire rest of the class, got helicopters, you can imagine that there was some disappointment.

I went off to flight training (what was called intermediate and advanced strike back then) in jets. I flew the T-2C "Buckeye". Great airplane. Straight wing, twin engine jet that we flew in formation, on instruments, in simulated air to air gunnery, and finally, carrier landings. I will never forget landing on a carrier for the first time in April, 1988. USS Lexington. From the T-2, we went to A-4s. The TA-4J "Skyhawk" was another great airplane. Vietnam-era attack aircraft, with great handling and performance. We flew them on instruments, in formation, dropped bombs and strafed with them, learned the basics of dog-fighting, and yeah, landed them on carriers. October, 1988, I landed the A-4 on the USS Lexington once more.

Upon completion of advanced, you're done with flight training, you get your wings of gold. It was a big deal. My parents flew down to Meridian, MS for the ceremony.

Intermediate and advanced are now one program: the T-45 "Goshawk" has replaced the T-2 and the A-4. Students still do the same missions and training, but training time is shorter because you don't have to learn two airplanes.

Your grades in advanced, along with, yep, needs of the service, determined what airplane you were assigned in the fleet. Same selection process as when you finished primary and got your pipeline*. You could finish first in the class, but if there were no F/A-18 slots, you weren't going to fly F/A-18s. In my class, which was winged in October 1988, there were no F/A-18 slots. So, #1 in the class (Mike Connell, who now flies for Delta) got A-7s (which would eventually transition to F/A-18s as the airplane was replaced), and #2 (me) got F-14s. The other 18 guys got what was left over. Some weren't very happy with their assignments...

In my original AOCS class, 12 of us finished flight training and got our wings, so we lost 8 more to washing out in flight training.

Of that original 50, I was one of three to get jets. The only one to get fighters.

"Don't ever tell me the odds" Han Solo famously said.

I'm glad no one ever told me the odds...



*Selection was simple: Every student places their desired assignments, in order, on a selection sheet. The Navy published the available slots. Students were ranked by grades. From #1 to # last, slots were given out based on what was available as that student's record came up. Being #1 in your class assured that you would get what you want, IF it was available. As you went down the list, there were fewer and fewer of the choices available as the slots were assigned, so, fewer and fewer students got their first choices.

 

[Astro14]

y_p_w - I saw that episode of Supercarrier and it was so technically egregious (along with really wooden acting, terrible writing, and unlikely plot) that I never watched it again. It deserved to die a quick death.

The most exciting and dramatic operating environment in the world: the aircraft carrier, and Hollywood couldn't sustain interest...which says a lot about TV writers...

The F-14 really was a two person cockpit. Both were essential for the mission.

Now, I've given "fun" rides to midshipmen and VIPs, so, if you're not on mission, the RIO isn't critical.

But with one set of flight controls (none in the back) the pilot is always critical...

 

[john_pifer]

Astro, from your posts, and from discussions from others who have flown fighters, I've gathered that training of the pilot flying it is the biggest single factor in how well a fighter performs, followed by electronics/avionics. But, which foreign-made tactical jet (or adversary) do you think would have been able to give you "a run for your money" during the time you were serving?

During your training, in which I'm sure you were extensively briefed on the performance of foreign-made jet fighters, as well as tactics and training of potential enemies, which ones did you think to yourself, "Hmm, I better really be on my toes if I ever go up against them!"?

 

[billt460]

Thanks. When you finished your career in Naval aviation, and move on to the airlines, are they pretty much chomping at the bit to get their hands on guys like yourself, who have all that experience and flying hours in so many airplanes? As opposed to say a Embry Riddle graduate who, "knows just enough to be dangerous", so to speak. It seems the lesser trained civilian pilots end up flying for commuter airlines, and take longer to move up into the bigger planes.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Astro14
y_p_w - I saw that episode of Supercarrier and it was so technically egregious (along with really wooden acting, terrible writing, and unlikely plot) that I never watched it again. It deserved to die a quick death.

The most exciting and dramatic operating environment in the world: the aircraft carrier, and Hollywood couldn't sustain interest...which says a lot about TV writers...

I heard it was always kind of boring. Didn't the job require several hours of desk duty for every hour of flight time? Stuff like supervising enlisted personnel?

 

[y_p_w]

I guess you mentioned something about possibly flying around 50 different F-14s in your career. I suppose some of them had the upgraded GE engines that seemed to more powerful and more reliable. Did you prefer those if available?

Also - I guess there's the movie trope about military pilots having their own personal aircraft with their name/rank/callsign, but of course you get whatever aircraft is available after it's maintained. I've heard you do get your name painted on **a** plane, but they're more or less assigned to crews as available? Also - did you always have the same RIO for an entire deployment or were crews mixed?

And the thing about Top Gun and other movies that really seemed odd was that they've always got the visors up and the masks off so you can see the actors' eyes and perhaps seeing them move their mouths. In the combat scenes they showed the masks on though. After going to some airshows and talking to pilots, they say it's totally unrealistic, especially in daytime combat where they're going to get blinded by the sun without the visors down.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by billt460
Thanks. When you finished your career in Naval aviation, and move on to the airlines, are they pretty much chomping at the bit to get their hands on guys like yourself, who have all that experience and flying hours in so many airplanes? As opposed to say a Embry Riddle graduate who, "knows just enough to be dangerous", so to speak. It seems the lesser trained civilian pilots end up flying for commuter airlines, and take longer to move up into the bigger planes.


Military aviators in general have good success in seeking airline jobs, fighter pilots included. There are those in HR who believe that fighter pilots are arrogant, or too hard to work with. They've predicated that opinion on Hollywood portrayals and dramatizations, of course... In the current hiring climate, fighter guys are getting hired very quickly, though I think chomping at the bit might be a bit much.

Civilian background guys are getting hired as well. I would argue, of course, that the first 1,500 hours for a civilian pilot are simply not comparable to a fighter track.

For example, I soloed at 20 hours in an aerobatic, 450 HP, retractable gear, turboprop. Most civilians solo at similar time (20-30 hours) but in a piston airplane with fixed gear. Totally different. Flying a fighter is totally different than airline or commercial operations. The management of the airplane as an airplane is completely subjugated to the execution of the mission. You're flying, yes, but flying the airplane is a very small part of your task load. If I can operate a very high performance airplane with only part of my attention, then, I'll argue that I can fly an airplane really well if I am 100% focused on a lesser-performing airplane as I am when engaged in airline flying.

Maybe those HR folks aren't wrong about us after all...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by y_p_w
Originally Posted by Astro14
y_p_w - I saw that episode of Supercarrier and it was so technically egregious (along with really wooden acting, terrible writing, and unlikely plot) that I never watched it again. It deserved to die a quick death.

The most exciting and dramatic operating environment in the world: the aircraft carrier, and Hollywood couldn't sustain interest...which says a lot about TV writers...

I heard it was always kind of boring. Didn't the job require several hours of desk duty for every hour of flight time? Stuff like supervising enlisted personnel?


Life on the boat may be boring. Sure, I did lots of paperwork, and the hours I spent on the Schwinn Airbike that was tucked under the anchor windlass were boring, too.

But the operating environment on the boat remains one of the most dramatic anywhere on this planet. With that as a backdrop, the writers managed to create a boring, wooden script.

Pathetic...

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted by john_pifer
Astro, from your posts, and from discussions from others who have flown fighters, I've gathered that training of the pilot flying it is the biggest single factor in how well a fighter performs, followed by electronics/avionics. But, which foreign-made tactical jet (or adversary) do you think would have been able to give you "a run for your money" during the time you were serving?

During your training, in which I'm sure you were extensively briefed on the performance of foreign-made jet fighters, as well as tactics and training of potential enemies, which ones did you think to yourself, "Hmm, I better really be on my toes if I ever go up against them!"?


Hey John.

There is an old saying in chess: you play the board, not the player.

In the fighter world, you can never assume that your adversary is weak, or will not use his capabilities to the fullest. So, even a MiG-21 can be deadly if you don't take the threat it presents seriously and treat it as such. That's why we trained against that kind of threat. A MiG-21 that comes nose on at, say a mile, is very, very hard to see, so you must keep sight all the time when faced with a small airplane like that. Even though you can shoot him down long before he even knows you're there, it is possible that ROE, or the tactical situation, may get him close to you and if that is the case, you must respect that threat.

The Brits with whom I've flown are disciplined, aggressive, capable pilots. I can say the same for the Germans with whom I've flown. I've not personally flown against any other nations*.

But going back to that principle of playing the board, and not the player, I respected, and studied, every nation's tactics and aircraft. I used to read our "sources", which I still can't discuss, and knew very well what the airplanes were capable of. Trust me. We knew exactly what they could do.

Our tactics were developed against those threats as if every single airplane was flown by their best pilot. TOP GUN staff worked on this issue, tactics development and training, frankly, it was their raison d'etre, and we trained to that standard - that the enemy will do their very best, and play their very best, should we encounter them.

The MiG-29 and SU-27 were formidable airplanes in terms of performance. They would be a hard fight, particularly as their weapons were continually improved. They fit your description of "run for your money".

The Eurofighter looked like it would be a hard fight...but it was on the drawing board the entire time I was flying fighters. I got tired of hearing how great it was going to be from the Brits. Like listening to a kid tell you how they're going to buy an awesome car, and then beat your car with it. Sure kid, but what are you driving today? Hmmm?

Our own USAF guys were generally very good. The F-15 in particular had great speed, range, and weapon system. The F-16 had great maneuvering performance. I would not want to face the USAF in combat. Ever.

Our USMC Hornet drivers were also very good. Aggressive, focused on winning, lived to fight. Wouldn't want to face them, either.



*Well, there was this one time against the French, but that was such a laughable encounter, I was behind the guy, with my gunsight on his airplane, having decisively crushed him in maneuvering, and he was calling a missile shot on the radio, against ME. It's like wrestling, and you've got your opponent on his back, shoulders firmly into the mat, and the ref would be calling the pin. That's what a gunsight on is like. But, then since he called a missile shot, which was impossible but heard on the radio, he claimed to his squadron that he won the fight...yeah, sure, pal...but I don't believe that he was representative of his nation or service.

 

[CT8]

I would agree that Military pilots will be exposed to bad weather, night and pushing themselves in situations that most would have the choice to avoid.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by CT8
I would agree that Military pilots will be exposed to bad weather, night and pushing themselves in situations that most would have the choice to avoid.

Civilian pilots do that too. But in general they're not too worried about anyone firing weapons at them. They just need to fly the plane.

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Military aviators in general have good success in seeking airline jobs, fighter pilots included. There are those in HR who believe that fighter pilots are arrogant, or too hard to work with. They've predicated that opinion on Hollywood portrayals and dramatizations, of course... In the current hiring climate, fighter guys are getting hired very quickly, though I think chomping at the bit might be a bit much.

Isn't the whole macho fighter pilot thing kind of overblown? I mean - not the big egos, but that Hollywood makes it seem that pilots are almost reckless taking chances. I've known plenty of ex US military, and they were always telling me that screwing up or being reckless could end a career pretty fast.

I do remember seeing a 25th anniversary video of Top Gun where Tom Cruise's personal pilot (Bozo) was talking about his time at Miramar, where he was saying "There's no Top Gun trophy. We'd all be risking killing ourselves to get it."


Originally Posted by Astro14
Life on the boat may be boring. Sure, I did lots of paperwork, and the hours I spent on the Schwinn Airbike that was tucked under the anchor windlass were boring, too.

But the operating environment on the boat remains one of the most dramatic anywhere on this planet. With that as a backdrop, the writers managed to create a boring, wooden script.

Pathetic...

I've known a few people who served on carriers or were related to someone who did. A coworker at a summer job had a husband who was an officer on the Carl Vinson. One of my coworkers served as an officer on the Carl Vinson (I think that was it) before getting a civilian job. But what I most remember was some radio program that tracked the USS Stennis for several days, interviewing some of the crew. The one I remember was someone whose "military job" was to load vending machines.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/206/somewhere-in-the-arabian-sea

 

[Astro14]

Yeah, we're really not reckless, or we would have been dead a long time ago...

 

[y_p_w]

Originally Posted by Astro14
Yeah, we're really not reckless, or we would have been dead a long time ago...

Dead would seem to be a quick way to end a military career.

 

[CT8]

Years ago When I was taking automotive continuing education classes I didn't feel like taking a class but to remain a continuing student I took a Helicopter maintenance class. In the class was a Coastie Helo pilot who after a while asked If I could give him a ride home on occasion. He would arrive at the class at the San Carlos California airport in a Coastie Helo. We got to chat on the way home and I asked him why the Army Helo pilots had more accidents. He said the Army Helo pilots have to do things we do not do.