Max RPM for the core of an F110 is about 13,500 but as noted really only a engineering detail because % is used for all indicators.
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
always found my motorcycle 4 cylinder engine sounded like a turbine when approaching redline... which was 13,000 rpm
This isn't related to how some police officers allegedly got cancer or burns from holding a radar gun right over the groin area is it?
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/nioshtic-2/00227694.html
My reason for the question is, I've often wondered about how much centrifugal force is pulling on those compressor blades at full power? Especially the larger diameter engines on the wide body planes like the 747-400, 777, 787, and the like. There sure isn't much clearance from the tip of the blades to the inside of the engine.
And when you see that engine shaking, sitting out there on the wing in turbulence, you really appreciate the engineering that went into building it. It's unbelievable they last as long as they do. And run so flawlessly during all that time.
Still my favorite jet. Growing up in Alameda, I tried to steal one when I was 12. I remember when the MP grabbed me by the collar and thru me to the ground. It was a long way down, and hurt pretty good.
Maybe I can put this here. Would be great to get Astro's input aswell.
The object is to first let the planes get close to make the fights last a bit. In reality they would be trying to kill each other before that, but it's mostly down to luck who will win. Afterwards it's about exploiting planes and weapons abilities much more.
The flanker is designed to "win" the air battle early on. I would think that's a smart decision as I wonder how long a pilot can maintain a high G dogfight before getting tired.
The object is to first let the planes get close to make the fights last a bit. In reality they would be trying to kill each other before that, but it's mostly down to luck who will win. Afterwards it's about exploiting planes and weapons abilities much more.
The flanker is designed to "win" the air battle early on. I would think that's a smart decision as I wonder how long a pilot can maintain a high G dogfight before getting tired.
“Luck”!!?
That‘s like saying Garry Kasparov was a lucky chess player.
The F-14 driver in that video exploited his opponents’ mistakes, flew smart, made good use of the vertical and smart positioning to defeat an opponent who was blessed with an airframe that should be slightly superior. The F-16N, a stunt plane with a big engine and no gun, had every performance advantage over the F-14, and yet I used to see them lose to a well-flown Tomcat.
“The quality of the box matters little. Success depends on the man who sits in it.” -Manfred von Richthofen.
That‘s like saying Garry Kasparov was a lucky chess player.
The F-14 driver in that video exploited his opponents’ mistakes, flew smart, made good use of the vertical and smart positioning to defeat an opponent who was blessed with an airframe that should be slightly superior. The F-16N, a stunt plane with a big engine and no gun, had every performance advantage over the F-14, and yet I used to see them lose to a well-flown Tomcat.
“The quality of the box matters little. Success depends on the man who sits in it.” -Manfred von Richthofen.
No, no luck in this video, but that's why they are not shooting before crossing each other...
F-14 arrival from SFO for display on the USS Hornet. Apparently this one is important to the Navy as it has said it is one of five that MUST be protected from the elements and cannot be displayed outdoors. The other four are on Naval Installations. What makes them special I do not know.
There's already one at the Oakland Aviation Museum, but it's sitting outdoors. Not the greatest looking location, but I've driven by there and seen it. For some reason they don't list it being in their collection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.733...4!1sTEHhOiyW2vGznQ6YDKS3wQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Hi Astro14.
I was watching another of the Ward Carrol videos on YouTube. He is talking with a gent called Ted 'slapshot' Carter. He - 'slapshot' - is talking about bombing missions into Serbia.
He says that 'Naval aviators do their own weaponeering'. Can you explain what this means please?
Incidentally, for those who have not seen it i recommend you watch.
Thank you.
I was watching another of the Ward Carrol videos on YouTube. He is talking with a gent called Ted 'slapshot' Carter. He - 'slapshot' - is talking about bombing missions into Serbia.
He says that 'Naval aviators do their own weaponeering'. Can you explain what this means please?
Incidentally, for those who have not seen it i recommend you watch.
Thank you.
Astro,
Regarding the sweep wing on the F-14, did you ever get a look at the main bearing it pivots on? How big, how many cycles or hours before replacement? Did it require any special grease or lubricant, or was it a sealed unit?
Also, was there a different limit to the amount of "G's" a pilot could pull with the wings extended, as opposed to being fully retracted? Or could the plane "black out" a pilot in either configuration without doing any damage to it?
Also, in regards to fighter aircraft in general, did maintenance hours vary depending how the aircraft was flown? In other words, if the F-14 was flown gently off and on a runway, with minimal stress being introduced into the air frame, would it require a different maintenance procedure than if it was racked around very hard, flying mock combat maneuvers, like in a Top Gun scenario, or actual combat?
Regarding the sweep wing on the F-14, did you ever get a look at the main bearing it pivots on? How big, how many cycles or hours before replacement? Did it require any special grease or lubricant, or was it a sealed unit?
Also, was there a different limit to the amount of "G's" a pilot could pull with the wings extended, as opposed to being fully retracted? Or could the plane "black out" a pilot in either configuration without doing any damage to it?
Also, in regards to fighter aircraft in general, did maintenance hours vary depending how the aircraft was flown? In other words, if the F-14 was flown gently off and on a runway, with minimal stress being introduced into the air frame, would it require a different maintenance procedure than if it was racked around very hard, flying mock combat maneuvers, like in a Top Gun scenario, or actual combat?
Sorry - missed this. Too busy moderating, lately, it seems...
So, "weaponeering" is the art of matching weapon selection (bomb, etc.), weapon performance, and delivery method to the desired effect on the target.
You've got a choice in type of bomb/weapon, bomb size, bomb composition, guidance, fusing, and number - optimizing all of those allows you to get the desired effect on a target.
There is a very comprehensive manual for this art, known as JMEMS - Joint Munition Effectiveness Manual.
You can tell how things are going to work against various target types - Bunker, oil tank, armored vehicle, regular house, whatever, and then optimize the weapon.
For example, you want to hit a bunker. The bomb has to penetrate 5 meters of concrete. That narrows the bomb choice down to one that can survive the impact. You'll need a delay fuse that senses the impact and goes off XXX milliseconds after so that the bomb explodes inside the bunker. You'll want a guidance package that allows precision impact, laser or GPS, depending on the operational environment. You'll want a delivery method - dive, toss, simple release, etc. - as well as fins, or stabilization, that allows the weapon sufficient energy on impact to penetrate the concrete.
It's not simple. It's actually very complex and it's part art, part science, part testing and research. One of the more important considerations is collateral damage. We mitigate that by using just enough weapon to destroy the intended target, and not everything around it, as well as ensuring sufficient precision in delivery to ensure that the target is struck, without the weapon being off target and causing unintended damage or consequences.
It's also not done well by other nations, who just drop dumb, unguided, impact fuzed weapons without regard to target accuracy, desired effect, or collateral damage.
The wing sweep pivot bearing was a large assembly. About a foot and a half across. The bearing itself was good for most of the airplane life. It was sealed, of course.
The F-14, unlike other variable geometry airplanes, was engineered to both withstand full G (6.5, though that was chosen more for fatigue life than airframe strength) as well as achieve full G throughout the entire flight envelope.
Famously, the F-111B, the USN variant, could only achieve 2G when supersonic. Fine for a bomber, really not good for a fighter. It was a function of the change in center of pressure when the wings were back and supersonic airflow experienced. The F-111B did not have sufficient horizontal tail (elevator) authority to overcome the change in center of pressure, so it was limited in its ability to pitch up.
Maintenance hours were based on cycle times of components. Engines, landing gear, tires, wheels, tail hook points, etc. all had an inspection or replacement base on number of hours, or landings, or traps.
Landing carrier style wasn't that hard on the airframe. It was built for it. Bad landings stressed the airplane, but normal carrier landings were, well, normal.
High G and in particular, high roll rates under high G, were hard on the airframe. Fatigue life in the F-14 was much more a function of what was done in the air.
The F-16s that the Navy bought as adversary aircraft in the late 1980s were a great example of this. General Dynamics had a 6,000 hour airframe life as a design parameter. The USAF took the airframe to 6,000 hours all the time before the airplanes were retired.
But the Navy didn't use their F-16s like the USAF - in a variety of missions. The Navy F-16s took off, went about 50 miles off shore, and right into max performance air combat - Max AB, full G, high roll rates - for a short flight, and then landed.
When the airplanes hit their first major inspection - at about 1,000 hours - they were all broken. A major fuselage structural component, a bulkhead that carried wing loads around the engine, was cracked on every single one of them. To repair this, the airplane would have to be completely stripped down to the bare frame and rebuilt, at a cost of several million dollars apiece, nearly what they cost new.
The Navy sent them to the boneyard. They weren't worth fixing.
They lasted 1/6 of their design life because of the way they were used - constant high G, max performance flight - instead of a more typical use pattern of varied mission profiles.
Yeah - Robert McNamera's pet project. He foisted the F-4 on the Air Force, although I heard they were actually OK with it. But the F-111 as a joint project was crazy.
MolaKule
Staff member
The radiation from the AN/AWG-9 and AN/APG-71 radar is non-ionizing RF radiation.
The radar has a bulkhead behind it so any backscatter that gets back to the cockpit is miniscule.
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part06.htm
Last edited:
The F-4 did very well in USAF service. More MiG kills in Vietnam than any other USAF fighter. The USAF was the largest user of the F-4, ahead of the Navy, for whom it was designed, and the USMC, who adopted it as well.
I believe the USAF adopted the airplane, I don't think it was foisted on them, they got it before Mac was SECDEF.
At the time the F-4 was first flown, it vastly exceeded the performance of the USAF "Century Series" fighters, and it was faster to simply buy the airplane than to develop something new.
It was replaced by the F-15 in USAF service.
I heard somewhere that it happened in 1961 when McNamara (yeah I spelled it wrong earlier) was in office. He definitely was the one who made sure that it would still be called an F-4 in Air Force service with a unified designation. Some sources claim that he directed the Air Force to at least look into using the A-7 and F-4.
The venerable Phantom design dates back to 1955 when the US Navy requested a fleet defense fighter with a powerful radar and armed only with air-to-air missiles, designated F4H early in its Navy service. In 1961, the Air Force conducted an evaluation of the F4H code named Operation Highspeed and realized that the Phantom, with its outstanding flight performance and payload, was superior to any of its own aircraft in use at the time.
In 1962 the Air Force was granted approval for the procurement of F4H-1 derivatives for the Air Force under the designation F-110 Spectre. There would be 2 versions, a tactical fighter version (F-110A), and a tactical reconnaissance version (RF-110A). On September 18, 1962, the Defense Department ordered that all Air Force, Army, and Navy aircraft be designated under a common, universal system. Because of this directive the Navy F4H-1 Phantom was redesignated F-4B, and the Air Force F-110A became known as F-4C At the same time, the separate name Spectre for the USAF's version was eliminated, both Air Force and Navy F-4s were to be named Phantom II.
