F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

[AutoMechanic]

Don't be sad, @AutoMechanic - the threads will be closed for new replies, but can still be searched and read. Better to start new threads for new discussions.

This thread, however, isn't really affected by time. We are talking about an airplane that first flew in 1970 and was retired in 2006. The discussion remains accurate and relevant.

That must be why all the older threads I was seeing from the early 2000s were locked. Not planning on replying but I was wondering about it so glad to have an answer now. Still fun to read all of them so glad they are staying.

 

[53' Stude]

Still my favorite airplane and a beautiful jet. BITOG is closing older threads, most of which are no longer relevant, so this is just a bump to keep this particular thread alive, just in case folks are interested in talking more about it.

Cheers,
Astro

Sir: where you on conventional powered aircraft carriers and Nuclear ones both? I still say the “tomcat” is my favorite aircraft

 

[Astro14]

I deployed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (nuke, CVN-71) twice, and on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67, conventional) once.

In addition, I've got traps/been aboard the following:
Conventional carriers
USS Ranger CV-61
USS America CV-66
USS John F. Kennedy CV-67
Nuclear
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69
USS Carl Vinson CVN-70
USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72
USS George Washington CVN-73
USS John C. Stennis CVN-74

The Nimitz - Class ships (the nukes) were all nearly identical. Right down to the compartment numbers and where everything was located. Very easy to find my way around. Struggled a bit when I walked aboard Ranger, a much older design. America and Kennedy were very similar to the Nimitz class with some important differences, but were easy for me to get around.

 

[y_p_w]

I deployed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (nuke, CVN-71) twice, and on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67, conventional) once.

In addition, I've got traps/been aboard the following:
Conventional carriers
USS Ranger CV-61
USS America CV-66
USS John F. Kennedy CV-67
Nuclear
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69
USS Carl Vinson CVN-70
USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72
USS George Washington CVN-73
USS John C. Stennis CVN-74

The Nimitz - Class ships (the nukes) were all nearly identical. Right down to the compartment numbers and where everything was located. Very easy to find my way around. Struggled a bit when I walked aboard Ranger, a much older design. America and Kennedy were very similar to the Nimitz class with some important differences, but were easy for me to get around.

Didn't get a chance on the Big E?

 

[Astro14]

I'm embarrassed to admit that I forgot to list the Big E.

No traps, so, didn't see her from a landing perspective, but I did spend a week aboard waving*

Very cool ship. Managed to get a tour of the plant, 8 nuclear reactors, 4 plants in all. Not easy to get down into the engineering spaces, you need to be added to the radiation monitoring program, wear a measuring device, and a host of other protocols. I knew a very senior officer aboard who facilitated the tour.

*I was a landing signals officer. LSO. At the time, training and qualifying pilots in the F-14. LSOs are responsible for landing safety and the act of performing those duties was known, colloquially, as "waving" from the old days when LSOs had paddles that were moved to show the pilot what corrections to flight path needed to be made. So, though the paddles are long gone, LSOs are known as "paddles" and when performing their job, they are "waving".

 

[y_p_w]

I'm embarrassed to admit that I forgot to list the Big E.

It was home ported in Alameda for at least a couple of decades so we remember it pretty well around here. And of course it was supposedly part of the plot of Star Trek IV even though a different carrier were used for filming. I frankly kind of surprised the Navy allowed it when the plot included trespassing and collection of leaking energy from the reactors.

I've known a few people who had ties to a few carriers. When I was working a college job, one coworker's husband was an officer on the Carl Vinson. She had a photo of him in his summer whites. Another coworker was enlisted on (I believe) the Stennis. He had that canned (I can neither confirm nor deny) answer when anyone asked about nuclear weapons.

 

[53' Stude]

I deployed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (nuke, CVN-71) twice, and on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67, conventional) once.

In addition, I've got traps/been aboard the following:
Conventional carriers
USS Ranger CV-61
USS America CV-66
USS John F. Kennedy CV-67
Nuclear
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69
USS Carl Vinson CVN-70
USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72
USS George Washington CVN-73
USS John C. Stennis CVN-74

The Nimitz - Class ships (the nukes) were all nearly identical. Right down to the compartment numbers and where everything was located. Very easy to find my way around. Struggled a bit when I walked aboard Ranger, a much older design. America and Kennedy were very similar to the Nimitz class with some important differences, but were easy for me to get around.

I wonder how much fuel oil a conventional carrier went thru on a underway day especially doing fighter, planes in general operations

 

[y_p_w]

I wonder how much fuel oil a conventional carrier went thru on a underway day especially doing fighter, planes in general operations

Didn't they use JP-5 jet fuel for everything? I mean - it's just a variant of kerosene with a high flash point? I couldn't find anything other than that the USS Ranger had a capacity of 2.1 gallons of fuel stored in about 100 tanks.

 

[Astro14]

I didn’t spend a lot of time on conventional boats, but I thought they made steam with fuel oil. Heavy stuff… heavier than no.2 diesel I believe.

Burn that in boilers, create 1100 PSI to turn the steam turbines, which drive the shafts through planetary reduction gears about the size of my house.

Nukes use the same turbines but they heat with, well, nuke…

The machinery is amazing. The shafts are nearly 300’ long and nearly as big across as my reach.

When they are under full torque, they twist, 360 degrees of twist over their full length.

A 300 foot steel shaft that has one full twist in it is hard to imagine but the boat can do it to reach the speed it needs.

 

[y_p_w]

I didn’t spend a lot of time on conventional boats, but I thought they made steam with fuel oil. Heavy stuff… heavier than no.2 diesel I believe.

Burn that in boilers, create 1100 PSI to turn the steam turbines, which drive the shafts through planetary reduction gears about the size of my house.

Nukes use the same turbines but they heat with, well, nuke…

The machinery is amazing. The shafts are nearly 300’ long and nearly as big across as my reach.

When they are under full torque, they twist, 360 degrees of twist over their full length.

A 300 foot steel shaft that has one full twist in it is hard to imagine but the boat can do it to reach the speed it needs.

I've taken a few public tours on US Navy destroyers and cruisers, and when I asked what the smell was, I was told that it was JP-5 used to power their turbines. But they use turbines that are just modified jet engines. I'm not sure that was the case though. I'm reading that F-76 fuel used to by the US Navy to power most turbines, although I'm pretty sure they can run on JP-5. This says that a marine turbine can be run off liquified natural gas. It might even be the ideal fuel.

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/default/files/GE-marine-gas-turbine-fuel-flexibility.pdf

My experience discussing fuel oil was with someone at a miniature railway that my kid likes to ride. The chief engineer there said that they power their locomotives with #2 fuel oil, which he said was pretty much just #2 diesel with red dye. He said that in a pinch they could easily use road diesel, but it would cost more. I joked about using bunker fuel once, and he said that stuff is nasty. It has to be heated and burns really, really dirty. We had a ship leak bunker oil in San Francisco Bay, and it was really tough to clean it up.

I did find something saying that the US Navy transitioned from "Navy Special Fuel Oil" (#5 fuel oil aka bunker B) to "Navy Distillate Fuel" (NATO F-76 - pretty much diesel I think) in the 70s. So it wasn't JP-5 like I thought. This is from the late 80s where it sounds like settling on JP-5 for all uses was considered:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA248542​

In the early 1970s, the U.S. Navy switched from use of Navy Special Fuel Oil NSFO NATO F-77 to Naval Distillate Fuel NATO F-76 in shipboard propulsion and electric generating systems. Presently there are two fuels being utilized in shipboard operations. NDF F-76 is utilized in propulsion and electric generating systems, and JP-5 jet fuel is used for aircraft operations and as an emergency fuel for systems utilizing F-76. Since the conversion from NSFO to F-76, there has been interest in an additional conversion to a shipboard single-fuel operation. Due to the unique requirement of jet aircraft engines, single fuel, from necessity, would have to be JP-5. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the potential benefits and problems associated with a shipboard single-fuel operation. All shipboard systems, including boilers, turbine engines, and diesel engines should continue to operate satisfactorily, and in some instances, with increased efficiency with JP-5. The greatest benefit from such a conversion would be the convenience of handling only one fuel, and eliminating the possibility of fuel contamination. The major penalties would include higher fuel cost, and difficulty in procuring adequate supplies of JP-5 to meet the total U.S. Navy shipboard fuel requirements.​

Here's an article on a former engineer on the Kitty Hawk. Makes it sound like it was a high stress, thankless job keeping the boilers working.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-life-and-times-of-a-u-s-navy-chief-engineer

 

[Astro14]

Thanks for that.

So…

The US Navy back-spec’d carriers to the thin stuff!??

Who knew?

 

[y_p_w]

Thanks for that.

So…

The US Navy back-spec’d carriers to the thin stuff!??

Who knew?

I'm guessing you would know? But heating up a boiler isn't any kind of magic. Heating up bunker fuel to get it to flow has always been a pain. And then it's corrosive as heck.

I'm wondering why carriers never used gas turbines other than they needed boilers for steam anyways.

 

[Astro14]

Steam is actually great at moving heat around and extracting work. Steam catapults, for example, are both powerful and efficient. But the mix of hot steam and steel requires a lot of maintenance for corrosion control and lubrication.

The 1200 PSI turbines are also very efficient at turning that heat into work.

The nukes use basically the same turbine and gearbox set up.

The Forrestal class was the first to use the current turbines, as I understand it. Prior to that, the turbines were a 600 psi set up.

Big improvement in efficiency with the higher pressure.

Gas turbines are great in small ships. Powerful. Lightweight. Modular. Inexpensive to install. Simple to replace.

But they don’t have the efficiency of steam.

 

[y_p_w]

Gas turbines are great in small ships. Powerful. Lightweight. Modular. Inexpensive to install. Simple to replace.

But they don’t have the efficiency of steam.

There's cogeneration. A lot of big cruise ships seem to be using gas turbines with cogeneration for better efficiency. I get that the compactness of a gas turbine is a huge benefit in a small space. But for military applications, the ability to drop in a replacement in less than a day and getting a ship ready to move in minutes would seem to be a huge advantage.

 

[53' Stude]

Didn't they use JP-5 jet fuel for everything? I mean - it's just a variant of kerosene with a high flash point? I couldn't find anything other than that the USS Ranger had a capacity of 2.1 gallons of fuel stored in about 100 tanks.

I was as told by a engineering officer that was on the USS CONSTELLATION they used F-76 or diesel fuel or fuel oil. Can anyone confirm?

 

[53' Stude]

This is heavy fuel oil or as my old engineering officer said “residual fuel oil” basically what’s left over from refining oil. Nasty stuf to say least

 

[4WD]

I deployed on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (nuke, CVN-71) twice, and on the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67, conventional) once.

Must have been late 1998 and we were coming from the Atlantic to Halifax. Suddenly we shut down and the Captain said “come see” … Whoa - CVN-71 was right there - and was going through departure protocol on the radio.
He said you’ll want to hear and see this routine … He was right.

 

[y_p_w]

I was as told by a engineering officer that was on the USS CONSTELLATION they used F-76 or diesel fuel or fuel oil. Can anyone confirm?

As far as I can tell, F-76 is still the standard fuel. This mentions developing/testing renewable sources for JP-5 and F-76 from 2012, but not replacing them (I guess like the USAF replacing JP-4 with conventional jet fuel).

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/5_kamin_roundtable.pdf​

Not Replacing JP-5 or F-76:
Approving New Sources and Production Processes To Produce JP-5 and F-76​

I thought maybe they'd settled on a single fuel since boilers can usually handle all sorts of fuel and a single fuel would mean a less complicated delivery system. Even gas turbines can take almost anything include natural gas, jet fuel, and diesel as long as the delivery system is there for that specific fuel.

Also - my previous post should read 2.1 **million** gallons.

Part of the problem using residual fuel is that the refining process is so much better now that there's less of the dregs, and even then there are processes to turn the dregs into more valuable stuff like syngas. This paper (which is really about power generation gas turbine fuel flexibility) mentions making syngas from residual fuel as well as other feedstocks.

https://www.ge.com/content/dam/gepo...ng-gas-turbine-fuel-flexibility-version-b.pdf​

Also called “syngas” and mostly derived directly from abundant fossil carbon (refinery residuals, coal, lignite, tar sands, and shale oil), they represent great potential for the carbon-constrained economy, provided they are subjected to carbon capture.​

 

[y_p_w]

Must have been late 1998 and we were coming from the Atlantic to Halifax. Suddenly we shut down and the Captain said “come see” … Whoa - CVN-71 was right there - and was going through departure protocol on the radio.
He said you’ll want to hear and see this routine … He was right.

I'm pretty sure that I've seen an aircraft carrier before, but the only time it was ever memorable was during the 1997 San Francisco Fleet Week where they did about four catapult launches from the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). It was kind of disappointing because it was well of shore. While we could see them take off, they looked like specks in the distance.

It is pretty dramatic seeing an aircraft carrier crossing under a bridge. I guess these guys on the Golden Gate Bridge (USS Constellation back in 2000) had a better look than I got from Fishermans Wharf in 1997.

 

[billt460]

..... The machinery is amazing. The shafts are nearly 300’ long and nearly as big across as my reach.

When they are under full torque, they twist, 360 degrees of twist over their full length.

A 300 foot steel shaft that has one full twist in it is hard to imagine but the boat can do it to reach the speed it needs.

That is amazing! Did the shafts take a set at all, or would they unwind to their original shape when not under a load? I can't imagine the torque loading to create that type of condition. On a large Super Carrier like the Carl Vinson, when starting out, about how long did it take to reach full speed in relatively calm seas?