F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
Not sure what Astro used, but these days planes have access to GPS.
While they are close numbers at sea level, knots indicated airspeed is a lot lower number at high altitude than true airspeed. The first reflects amount of air flowing over the airframe (or into the pilot tube), the latter actual speed. Thinner air at altitude means you have to go faster in true numbers for the same lift, control surface effect, and drag.
For maneuvering, stall speed, aircraft performance, etc. Indicated (or closely related calibrated) airspeed is the important number. True airspeed and related groundspeed are generally used for navigation.
And yes, Astro had indicated/calibrated, true airspeed, ground speed and mach # available.
For maneuvering, stall speed, aircraft performance, etc. Indicated (or closely related calibrated) airspeed is the important number. True airspeed and related groundspeed are generally used for navigation.
And yes, Astro had indicated/calibrated, true airspeed, ground speed and mach # available.
^^^ Yep, speed derived from the pitot tube is dependent on the air density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot_tube
JHZR2
Staff member
What was the rationale behind low vs high visibility paint schemes? I think I can appreciate that for ground-based aircraft, some camouflage might be helpful to hide them from flyover (?). But I doubt paint colors make much of a difference when it’s an F-14 parked on nonskid.
Not sure if matters in air to air combat these days.
But it does look cool when someone takes a photo of a fighter escorting a Bear.
True airspeed measures how fast the molecules are are going by the jet. Mach number varies with temperature, mostly, but it stays close to the same speed, about 650 knots, true.
Indicated airspeed is a measure of dynamic pressure felt by the jet - the free stream energy of the air. It’s measured by pitot probes.
It’s the airspeed that matters when talking about lift. Lift is generated by the airflow over the wings. The total number of air molecules matter, as does their speed. Mass and velocity together create that pressure on the pitot probe and create the indicated airspeed.
Higher altitude = less density so less mass and therefor less indicated speed for the same true airspeed. The air is thin. Fewer molecules hitting the probe (or the wings) make less pressure even though they’re hitting at the same speed they were at a lower altitude.
For a pilot, 900 knots indicated is an incredible airspeed. Cessnas redline at about 150 knots, indicated. Airliners redline at roughly 330-360 knots indicated. They can’t take more than that without risking structural damage. Since the pressure goes up with the square of velocity, so, 900 KIAS is several times the pressure (and drag) on the airframe than even a jet airliner can take. Far more than it can achieve based on thrust and drag.
GPS gives groundspeed, an irrelevant measure in this context. Useful if you want to know how the wind is affecting the speed over the ground but it matters little in discussing top speed, or fighter performance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed
Indicated airspeed is a measure of dynamic pressure felt by the jet - the free stream energy of the air. It’s measured by pitot probes.
It’s the airspeed that matters when talking about lift. Lift is generated by the airflow over the wings. The total number of air molecules matter, as does their speed. Mass and velocity together create that pressure on the pitot probe and create the indicated airspeed.
Higher altitude = less density so less mass and therefor less indicated speed for the same true airspeed. The air is thin. Fewer molecules hitting the probe (or the wings) make less pressure even though they’re hitting at the same speed they were at a lower altitude.
For a pilot, 900 knots indicated is an incredible airspeed. Cessnas redline at about 150 knots, indicated. Airliners redline at roughly 330-360 knots indicated. They can’t take more than that without risking structural damage. Since the pressure goes up with the square of velocity, so, 900 KIAS is several times the pressure (and drag) on the airframe than even a jet airliner can take. Far more than it can achieve based on thrust and drag.
GPS gives groundspeed, an irrelevant measure in this context. Useful if you want to know how the wind is affecting the speed over the ground but it matters little in discussing top speed, or fighter performance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed
The thinking was that the low visibility makes the airplane less visible, reducing the tactical disadvantage of being seen, or gains tactical advantage by not being seen.
From a practical perspective, the low visibility paint didn’t make a lot of difference. In some atmospheric conditions, high gloss paint was more easily seen, but for the most part, the airframe itself was visible, regardless of contrast or color.
The low visibility paint became the US standard. All new jets are delivered in that set of flat greys.
They look “tacti-cool”.
But I miss the high gloss, old school, color that only Navy Fighters had in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
This is still my favorite paint scheme on an airplane. And I was lucky enough to fly it.
JHZR2
Staff member
To pull the string a bit more - does it matter since radar is used? This isn’t WWII with gunsights and close in battles (though I get your picture of the gun sight on the F-15, and the need for them).
I had read sometime back that American Airlines went “paint less” (probably still some clear coat?) to save cost AND weight. Not sure if such things are considerations here too...
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
It does. Most wars that are fought are not between two militaries with highly sophisticated weapons, but usually military with sophistication advantage against enemy with rudimentary weapons. In that case, all comes down to ground support and that enemy is going to use anti aircraft guns, portable IR missiles. Think about it: what is higher chance? Going against Russians/Chinese or having to fight guy with GS23 in back of Toyota pick up truck?
Color matters. We had hard time spotting Serbs in light ground attack planes J21 bcs. color was dark green which melted in Bosnian background which is A LOT of thick forest. Once they are at low flying level it is hard, and if you miss it one second, that might be difference between life and death for a pilot. On other hand, Serbs did not have a hard time spotting NATO planes in this scheme that ASTRO14 is taking about against green background. They once shot down Harrier and one Mirage just bcs. of sheer stupidity of pilots who wanted to play cat and mouse with their air defense (though nothing comes close to stupidity that Scott O'Grady made in F16 there).
MIG21 that Serbs sometimes used just bcs., had this low visibility paint for air to air combat. Bcs. of their maneuvering capabilities or better say incapabilities at low level flying, they had to stay up and they had to be fast, which made them really hard to spot against clouds or sky, and by the time you spot them, just bcs. they were super fast, it was too late.
So, it matters, a lot.
Last edited:
When on the ground looking up, the gloss paint is actually harder to see than the flat grey or dark grey, of modern fighters.
Visual acquisition of an airplane depends on background, atmospherics, contrast, reflected light, size, aspect, range and speed.
Changing paint schemes is one tiny factor in mitigating acquisition.
Flying below an overcast (cloud layer overhead) is a great way to be seen from the ground. Very high contrast. Paint matters little in that case.
Visual acquisition of an airplane depends on background, atmospherics, contrast, reflected light, size, aspect, range and speed.
Changing paint schemes is one tiny factor in mitigating acquisition.
Flying below an overcast (cloud layer overhead) is a great way to be seen from the ground. Very high contrast. Paint matters little in that case.
Last edited:
I believe the first generation was made within 10 miles of my hometown at the Grumman plant Bethpage, Long Island, New York
They were a huge employer on Long Island, everyone had a friend whose father worked there.
I’m not sure if I am remembering correctly but I think at one point they were loading the wings onto freight trains. But then again maybe that was just moving them around the plant.
I believe the Luna capsule was made there as well so I might be confusing things.
They were a huge employer on Long Island, everyone had a friend whose father worked there.
I’m not sure if I am remembering correctly but I think at one point they were loading the wings onto freight trains. But then again maybe that was just moving them around the plant.
I believe the Luna capsule was made there as well so I might be confusing things.
All of the F-14s were made in Bethpage. The Cradle of Aviation Museum is there now, with an F-14 or two on display.
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Sure, there are a lot of factors. But, IMO it matters depending environment.
Thought of the groundspeed, airspeed and Mach discussion as I flew from IAD to SFO last night. Steam gauge airplane (767-300) at FL 380. Real world example.
Here’s the numbers:
Altitude: FL380 (about 38,000 feet)
Mach: .802 (80.2% speed of sound)
Indicated airspeed: 255 knots
True airspeed: 459 knots
Wind: 267 degrees at 81 knots (mostly headwind, some crosswind)
Groundspeed: 387 knots
By the way, look how close we are to max airspeed (barber pole on the round dial, red dots on the digital). It’s 0.85 Mach but indicated is only 18 knots below the limit. This is something passengers don’t get when we talk about making up time: we are already going, in normal cruise, at 92-95% of max speed. We can go a bit faster, but not much. Wind is a huge factor In when we’re getting there, and we can make up time with aggressive management of climb and descent. But cruise speed is what it is.
Here’s the numbers:
Altitude: FL380 (about 38,000 feet)
Mach: .802 (80.2% speed of sound)
Indicated airspeed: 255 knots
True airspeed: 459 knots
Wind: 267 degrees at 81 knots (mostly headwind, some crosswind)
Groundspeed: 387 knots
By the way, look how close we are to max airspeed (barber pole on the round dial, red dots on the digital). It’s 0.85 Mach but indicated is only 18 knots below the limit. This is something passengers don’t get when we talk about making up time: we are already going, in normal cruise, at 92-95% of max speed. We can go a bit faster, but not much. Wind is a huge factor In when we’re getting there, and we can make up time with aggressive management of climb and descent. But cruise speed is what it is.
Last edited:
edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
No, was in anti aircraft defense.
Electromagnetic propulsion isn’t that new, although on a carrier it’s pretty new. The first roller coaster to use LIM propulsion was California Screamin’ at Disneyland. It had this whoosh sound although I heard that it might have been piped in. After each launch the launch magnets were sprayed down with a mist of water to cool them. They also placed additional linear induction motors on the hill so it could gain energy going up a hill.
The traditional way to accelerate a roller coaster quickly from a dead stop was to use a shuttle and a weight drop.
https://coasterpedia.net/wiki/Weight_drop_launch
EMALS is a completely different level of power and control than a roller coaster though.
Last edited:
