F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away

Originally Posted By: tom slick
These were the upgraded -100. If memory serves me correctly they added "A" and "B" to pri and sec mode and it had logic to make different decisions on faults on the ground or in the air.
I also worked on a few -129 and F101-102. We did a lot of TCTOs on those engines.
This was all at the engine shop at Edwards AFB.

I think I still have the GE information that the rep would use to inform the mechanics of upcoming changes.

If I remember correctly SEC mode is NO burner, Nozzle closed down, Igniters on full time, Main control goes to the hydromech, Fadec only provides fan speed limiting based on T2. I can't remember if the idle speed gets bumped up a bit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: tom slick
SEC mode is OMG land now mode!

The SEC mode description is accurate...but it's OMG land mode now in a single engine airplane...not a twin...the real issue with SEC (aside from the loss of AB) is that you don't know what max thrust you'll get...so a dual engine SEC mode in a twin is an OMG land now situation and part of the preparation for landing is a configuration performance check at altitude...you have to know if the airplane will climb with gear down and full flaps...if not, then an another configuration (like no flaps) will have to be used for shipboard recovery so that enough performance exists for a wave-off...

Because you lose AB and the max thrust setting is unknown, single engine in SEC is a reason to dis-engage from a tactical situation and recover the airplane aboard. There are some carrier landing considerations, too...divert fuel requirements go up because the thrust is unknown, so the climb and descent performance are unknown...

In the early days of the F-14B, some guys used to deliberately select SEC on both engines to close the nozzles (instead of allowing them to vary), incorrectly believing that the fuel usage on a idle descent would be less...you can imagine the shock of the GE enginers when they found this out...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
Years ago I saw something about the bomb load capacity of an F-14, and if I remember correctly it can carry more weight in bombs than a B-17, or a B-24 could.

Yeah but can it take off from a carrier with that many bombs?

The thrust requirements are getting to be crazy. EMALS is really interesting.

EMALS is a big "bet on the come" for the FORD class ... but the railgun is a really fascinating bit of technology...being able to impart that much energy into a metal (aluminum, right?) slug and direct it at a target will be transformational in the ways that gunfire is employed in the Navy...the power exists on the ships...focusing it into weapons, instead of just propulsion, will be very interesting to watch...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Did the F-14 have any ASW capabilities??

I missed this question earlier, please forgive me...

No real ASW in the sense that traditional ASW platforms had capability...we had no Magnetic detectors, no sonobuoys, no SONAR and we couldn't carry torpedoes...

But we could see the feather of a periscope...and once in a while, a sharp-eyed fighter pilot was the one to locate the sub near the carrier, much to the chagrin of the dedicated ASW platforms...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anatomy of a Carrier Landing:

The basics of landing on a carrier are simple: get the airplane into the wires with the right angle of attack, right speed, on centerline…

However, beyond that it gets complicated…the first topic is the physical layout of the deck, Wikipedia does a good job in describing the boat here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier

and for simplicity’s sake, I will stick to a Nimitz-class description…there are some minor variations even in that class, but the principles remain the same.

The angle deck (a British invention, back when they still had carriers…), is part of the landing area (LA), it allows the airplane to get airborne in the event it misses the wires. It’s about 650’ long. A centerline is marked, and there are “foul lines” that denote the edges for safety reasons…

The 4 arresting gear wires are spaced 40’ apart and are transverse to the LA. The machinery for the AG is located just below the flight deck, on the O-3 level, and those “engines” are big hydraulic cylinders that put resistance on what is called a “purchase cable” – the actual steel cable that pays out as the airplane stops. The purchase cable is connected to a thicker replaceable steel cable element about 80’ long known as the “Cross Deck Pendant” and that CDP is what the airplane’s hook engages…it has to be tough…and it gets replaced fairly often…

The wires are numbered from stern to bow (direction of aircraft arrival), so the 1-wire is the closest to the stern, where the LA rounds down in a ramp at its rear most edge. From ramp to 1-wire is about 170’. The next 120 feet are the rest of the wires, leaving just over 300 feet from 4-wire to the top of the angle, where the airplane would have to be flying again.

The whole construct is designed to work within the engineering limits (load, etc.) of the airplane and the ship. The amount of strain that the AG engines can handle is limited…the F-14 pushed that limit…among the many elements of coordination for each landing was to set the resistance (weight setting) on the 4 AG engines…and each engine crew would check in with the weight setting for each landing. I mentioned previously that the max engaging speed for the F-14 was 119 KTs relative to the ship…that limit was hook strength at max landing weight of 54,000#, but abnormal landing configurations (like flaps/wingsweep, etc.) would change that engagement speed limit too…

The airplane approaches on a 3.5 degree glideslope, relative to the ship. This is slightly steeper than you would see at a regular airport but it accomplishes a couple of things: keeps the airplane farther above the ramp, keeps the airplane farther above the turbulent air of the deck until the last minute, and balances sink rate and power response of the airplane’s engines. Because the ship always has some amount of wind over it, the apparent glideslope, relative to the sea, is closer to 2.8 degrees with a nominal approach speed of 140 KIAS and 25 knots of wind…

The wind is interesting, the carrier can, of course, make its own wind, but the landing area is angled off the ship’s centerline by roughly 9 degrees, so when the carrier is making its own wind, there is ALWAYS a crosswind. Further, in that case, the turbulent airflow around the carriers own island (superstructure) creates a rough spot just aft of the ramp, where the airplane’s performance is affected. A quick response on the throttles is needed to compensate… On a perfect day, the carrier would manage its course and speed to get the combination of natural wind and ship’s wind right down the angle…this happens rarely, but it makes everything easier on the pilot. The ship is still a warship, and tactical considerations (threat, speed, sea room, course) trump landing considerations…

The airplane itself is designed for an approach angle of attack. That angle of attack (not airspeed, though for a given weight, the AOA produces a precise airspeed) ensures that the hook and landing gear are at their designed relationship for successful wire engagement. That AOA also ensures that the pilot’s eye is in the correct relationship to the hook (more on that in a minute).

Keeping the airplane on centerline is critical – for big wing airplanes, like the E-2, F-14 and S-3, an off center landing can result in a collision with parked airplanes on the flight deck. For all airplanes, centerline is important for the AG wires and for the accuracy of glideslope information. If the hook engages the CDP more than 10 feet off center, it causes unequal runout in the purchase cable and that wire has to be either re-set of the CDP has to be removed before the next landing.

And the next landing is 45-60 seconds later…

So, we have wind, AG setting, glideslope, AOA and centerline…now it gets interesting. If you were to get out a calculator, some math would reveal that on a 3.5 glideslope, 40 feet horizontally would be 30 inches vertically. The optical reference for the pilot, compensated for the airplane type, and presuming the airplane is at design AOA, targets the hook point exactly half way between the 2 and 3 wire…the precise middle of the wires in the LA.

So, to engage the 3-wire, the airplane has to be within 15 inches of the perfect glideslope, as well as on centerline and on AOA, while approaching at 140+ knots…In fact, to be on or above the 1-wire and on or below the 4-wire, the airplane has to be within 4 feet of perfect. Miss the 4 wire and a “bolter” is the result…the airplane has to get airborne again within the 300+ feet remaining. All Navy pilots select full power on touchdown in the event of a bolter.

The glideslope indicator (a Fresnel lens, known colloquially as the “meatball”) that pilots reference is extremely precise. At ¾ of a mile, the pilot can tell if they’re 10 feet high or low and at touchdown, the 15 inches is easy to see as well…the challenge is in controlling the aircraft with that degree of precision. While the basic angle for a carrier landing is set to 3.5 degrees inclination relative to the carrier, it can be raised to 3.75 degrees or 4.0 degrees in the event exceptionally strong natural wind, to get back to the apparent 2.8 degree glideslope that I mentioned earlier.

The lens itself projects a plane of light. That plane is inclined to the ship at the basic angle…but interestingly, that plane of light can be tilted left or right to adjust the height of the light plane over the centerline, thus compensating for the Pilot’s eye/Hook relationship unique to each aircraft type. As an example, Hook-eye on a Tomcat was 19.8 feet (vertically, at approach AOA) while it was roughly 15 feet for an F/A-18C. So, if the lens was set wrong in roll (compensation for hook-eye) then it’s pretty clear to see that the airplane could be several feet off in height…and as we saw above that’s the difference between a good landing and a complete miss…

To maintain the degree of precision needed for a successful landing, the pilot is constantly adjusting power, pitch, and angle of bank the entire way down…rapid, precise, minute adjustments to maintain AOA, centerline, and glideslope. The reward is an arrested landing. If any parameters exceed a reasonable deviation, then the Landing Signals Officer (LSO) will “wave off” the pilot – who has to select full power and climb away from the deck to try again.

In the daytime, the approach to the carrier is a completely visual affair – no radar, no air traffic controllers, just airplanes who know what order in which they should recover, and pilots who can space themselves out in that optimum 45-06 second interval. The pattern itself begins with the jets approaching from the stern at relatively high speed, making a 180 degree “break” turn, flying opposite direction and making a 180 degree turn to final to arrive at about 0.6 to 0.5 miles astern at 350-380 feet on centerline (just past the wake). AG and Glideslope indicator setting are double-checked, the landing area is checked clear, the pilot “calls the ball” (stating that they can see the meatball), that is acknowledged by the LSO (who can tell if the airplane is off by a knot or two, and knows if the airplane is high/low) and the airplane is flown to touchdown.

At night, or in bad weather, an instrument approach is flown to a visual hand-off at ¾ of a mile…and again, the pilot “calls the ball”…and the LSO answers “Roger Ball”, confirming that the airplane is in parameters to make the approach.

Wikipedia does a good job with this description:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astro14,

Being a current 757/767 driver, I was wondering if you could share high altitude characteristics of the F-14, specifically, when at supersonic speeds how does the airplane react to turbulence different than at subsonic speeds?

As you know, the 757 can bounce around a bit in moderate, but clean, thin wings on the F-14 don't have the loading (or the long moment of the longitudinal axis) to create the bumps we feel at FL410 and below.

Secondly, at higher altitudes and making abrupt pitch changes, do you use AOA as a primary reference, or do you have enough thrust to power your way out? Does the F-14 have any issues with an inverted stall like the F-16 does?

Final question: A lot of 757 guys I fly with are uncomfortable with any turbulence at FL410 and almost always want to descend to a lower level for buffet protection. It never really bothered me, I always assumed we had 1.3G protection based upon the flight plan (and FMC Altitude recommendations). Do you have any opinions (based upon your education and experience in aerodynamics)on turbulence effects at higher flight levels?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

757Guy

(DC-9, A320, 757/767, 747-200, 747-400)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
757Guy - I am not an aero guy per se…I majored in Astrophysics…but I’ve paid close attention to aero throughout the years…more of a hobby/interest for me than formal training…now that I’ve been flying for 26 years, I suppose it’s professional in nature…

I never was very aware of turbulence in the jet...we would get bounced around a bit in or near thunderstorms...but the airplane has a higher wing loading than an airliner like the 757 (in which I have a type rating, by the way)...so the effect is lessened…

The variable geometry was interesting in that regard...if we were running low level (a few hundred feet) at high speed, particularly on a hot day (during which turbulence was created by heat rising), I would sweep the wings back a bit (using the lowest thumbswitch on the right throttle) and increase the wing loading...it smoothed out the ride...if I needed to maneuver, thumbswitch back to auto to get them back out. At low altitude, they would be close to 20 degrees sweep until about 450 KIAS.

As far as stall goes, in the Tomcat, we were never as close…we never got up as high (relative to the max altitude) as an airliner goes. If you’re flying above optimum based on FMC and weight, you’re going to go below the 1.3 stall margin…and you get to 1.2 at max (I think…been a while)….and on a jet like the A-320, or the 747-400, where you can see the redline and the stall speed, it’s a narrow strip of airspeed in between when you’re at 1.2…personally, I don’t like it in an airliner…but that seat of the pants…it’s funny that the Tomcat had a max range speed of about 0.75 IMN (less, depending on drag configuration/stores)…it was sooo slow…most of us never flew that slow unless we were really hurting on gas. We just set 3,000# fuel flow per engine, the plane cruised at about 0.85 and even I could do the fuel consumption calculation at 100# per minute…

The only gripe about flying it like that was trim. 0.85 IMN was right in the middle of where the wings were programming. So, gain a knot of airspeed, wings come back a degree, nose pitches down slightly, gain another knot…it was impossible to trim hands off…it was not stable…so, the intrepid pilot would (again) manually sweep the wings about 5 degrees aft of program so that the wings wouldn’t be moving, and then you could trim it up hands-off. It was common to have an autopilot that didn’t work, so trim became a big deal…my hours flying were just that…FLYING the jet across the country…

I did stall the airplane inverted once doing something that I shouldn’t have…we were flying over the Grand Canyon at FL350 and perhaps 0.75 IMN…I rolled the plane inverted to get a better view…and it stalled…we lost a few thousand feet in rolling upright and recovering…no harm, no foul, no TCAS in those days. But the airplane would fly upside down easily if you were over 250 KIAS…unfortunately, at that altitude and IMN, we didn’t have the IAS to fly upside down…as I quickly discovered when the buffeting began….

The Tomcat was pretty happy at high altitude and high speed. It liked more IAS, and the faster it went, the better then engines performed. As I said earlier, I’ve seen 1.8 IMN in level flight at roughly 37,000 feet…and I’ve taken the jet up to 50,000 feet many times (flight manual limit)…1.4 IMN was best climb speed in AB above 35,000 feet, so any time I was up above 40,000, I was good and supersonic, in order to have the energy addition capability…Even with the old TF-30s, the F-14A would climb easily to 55,000 with tanks and external stores, if you stayed on the max Ps airspeed…at that altitude, in AB…the jet was still climbing…in fact, in a slick (no stores) F-14B, we went up to 60,000 (I know what the FM said…but that was for pressurization, not airframe performance) staying on the 1.4 IMN climb number…I let the speed run up to about 1.5 IMN because the IAS was so low, about 300, and coupled with the supersonic flow and the wings fully back at 68, there was a ton of aft stick (nose up tailplanes) required, which added to our drag…so, to minimize drag, we accelerated a bit…and at that altitude, I could see really dark sky above me, I could see Richmond, VA up the James River, even though I was 40 miles out to sea off the coast of Virginia Beach, and I could see all the way up the Chesapeake towards DC…and the jet was still climbing at over 1,000 feet per minute…

There is no tactical advantage to being up there at 50,000 feet though – 35,000 gets you best IMN, great missile range, but if you want to turn hard, and sustain it, you need to be much lower. AOA was the best parameter to control for maneuver sustainment…go too high on AOA and you’re bleeding energy…but at 35K, the wings are coming back at a low IAS, and the airplane, while fast, bleeds energy all too easily, even in full AB…further, with the wings back, departure resistance is reduced, and the majority of flat spins resulted from high IMN, high altitude departures…
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for taking the time to answer all these questions, Astro - it has to be very time consuming, but sure makes for fascinating reading.
 
I've got a few more thoughts on flight characteristics, in response to one question...but I am on the iPad right now...and I just can't type quickly...I am glad that you find value in the thread...that was my hope...

Cheers,
Astro
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: clarkg1124
What is the plane's stall speed at full wing sweep?
Clark

Interesting question...if by full you mean at 68 (all the way back), then it was controllable down to 200 KIAS or so.

But the airplane didn't really have a defined stall...no buffet and sudden loss of lift. Turns out that the airflow through the tunnel, and that wide, flat fuselage, would generate lift (and induced drag as a result) at some very high angles of attack. The greater the AOA, the higher the induced drag, but it was still making lift.

It had great pitch authority with those big horizontal tails and they would allow you to increase AOA to ludicrous levels, but the plane didn't really buffet or break like a transport or private airplane.

Once you got above about 25 AOA, which was well below 200 KIAS with the wings back, then the plane would start descending/decelerating, no matter how much power you added. In fact, you could just hold the stick full aft, watch the AOA peg, the Airspeed indicator go to 0 and even in full AB, you would be descending at several thousand FPM...

With the wings forward, and maneuver flaps (8 degrees slat, 10 degrees trailing edge)you had pitch authority down to 80 KIAS, but again, once above about 25 AOA, the plane, while controllable, wasn't adding much energy, it was slow and getting slower/descending. At 20 AOA, you could maneuver it just fine, but more like 12 AOA allowed you to control it and add energy...in fact, you could milk it through some very slow vertical maneuvers if you were judicious with AOA/pitch control.

Plant the stick in your lap, and it was all over, plane would stop responding and go to pegged AOA and 0 KIAS. In fact, above 25 AOA, and definitely at 30 AOA, roll control was poor...and you entered a region in the flight envelope where stick input (which was really differential tail and spoilers) would cause adverse yaw to the opposite side...and the adverse yaw caused proverse roll to the opposite side...so the stick was really acting in reverse at very, very high AOA. Good drivers were rudder for roll, with stick for fine pitch control, at that point in the plane's envelope...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: tom slick
Once you started flying the F-14 in school how long does it take to become proficient (ready for a float?) and how long until you really master the plane?

Typical training track for a replacement pilot (Category 1, never flown the jet before) was 9 months. Starting with ground school (systems, including fuel, engine, hydraulic, electrical, flight controls, pneumatic, canopy, landing gear, and weapons system, including radar, gun, ECM, etc.), working through simulators (basic flying, basic weapon system employment) and then flying, starting with familiarization (takeoff, landing, handling characteristics, maneuvering, aerobatics), basic weapon employment, basic radar work, strike weapon employment, air to air gunnery, advanced tactics and finally the phase that usually ended a young pilot's career: carrier landings (day and night).

At the end of all that, you had a fleet "nugget"...qualified, but new, and not really proficient yet...we used to fly about 250 - 300 hours/year...and at the 500 - 700 hour range (2 years of fleet experience) a youngster was well-qualified in the jet. Good at employing it, reasonably good at landing it. In other words, one full work-up deployment cycle got you a pretty good pilot/RIO.

Let me be clear - a "good" USN pilot is far better than a "good" pilot in almost any military, anywhere in the world. Your basic young LT in a Tomcat could out-fly almost every Russian pilot, and the LT had a better airplane. While we didn't really get a chance to prove the Tomcat's claws...combat experience has shown that the US trains its pilots to a far higher standard than almost any other nation. As proof of our reputation, I can offer only this: every MiG I ever had on radar in Combat turned tail and ran in full AB as soon as they knew they were facing a Tomcat...

Cruise/Deployment was a roughly 18 month cycle, unit level training (basic 1v1 air, strike weapons delivery, reconnaissance, building up to 2v2, 4v4 and 4vX air to air tactics), then Air Wing training (in Fallon, NV) which integrated the squadrons and capabilities against some very realistic targets, adversaries and ground emitters, then out to the ship for Carrier Quals, then work-ups in which the ship began integrating with larger force structure (aggregate a strike group in the various warfare areas) and finally: deployment, usually 6 months, overseas with lots of real world flying. My first deployment was Operation Desert Shield, which turned into Desert Storm when we arrived in the Gulf...

Master it? Few ever really mastered it...those who did had made multiple deployments and had 1,500+ hours in it...but even with that level of experience, some guys were really good (I mentioned Shaggy) and some guys were just good...

My 1st Commanding Officer was a master. I watched him out-maneuver F-16s (despite their performance advantage) and land it as smoothly as anyone ever could. He was one of the first cadre of Tomcat drivers in VF-1 in 1973...did multiple tours in the jet, instructed at TOPGUN, and was assigned to the USAF 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron (worth reading about, now that it's declassified:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4477th_Test_and_Evaluation_Squadron

...he had the combination of superlative skill and extensive experience...but there were few that ever got close to his level of mastery of the F-14...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom - I applied to Test Pilot School, twice, but they only took 1 F-14 guy each time. I had the academic cred, and the recommendations...Had I applied a third time, I would have been a likely candidate (I was later told) as they took a few Tomcat drivers for that class...so, yeah, considered it, just didn't have the luck/timing on my side...

Been to both Lemoore and Pt. Mugu, but was based at Oceana for most of my career. Oceana was a good place to be stationed. Virginia Beach is reasonably priced, lots of things to do, and a military-friendly town.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a 2006 VF-31 last tomcat cruise dvd. I have to get it out at least one a year. Really cool footage by the squadron. Makes me jealous i was never in the navy or a pilot, Although being in a plane like that for 5-8 hours or more had to be tough. I can't imagine the pressure of having to refuel in air in bad weather.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom