Was there really much of a difference between an A+ (the retrofits) and a B (from the factory)?
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
Was there really much of a difference between an A+ (the retrofits) and a B (from the factory)?
They were identical in every respect. It’s merely a change in nomenclature.
When it was first introduced, circa 1986, the Navy called the airplane with GE F-110 the A+.
The Joint Staff, for planning in large conflicts, like Desert Storm, needed a way to distinguish between the models that was compatible with USAF planning systems, like CTAPS, and later, TBMCS.
So, the same exact airplane (most were new builds, some retrofit) was thereafter called the B.
Probably was first in line for 1,000 PPT presentations patch.
Astro- please don't roll your eyes, but I saw Maverick and had a few questions.
I will leave out any spoiler alerts. The movie is well done and really ties into the Top Gun movie and extends the characters. Some things to get you going, still an unidentified adversary, obligatory fun in the sand scene, and a F-14 thrown in for good measure.
Q1: what's up with all the breakers in the RIO area? I've seen a few F-14's up close but never inside the RIO seat. And, did the RIO actually act as a quasi-flight engineer?
Q2: with everything else you guys had to think about, how often did you manually set the wings? And if you swept them forward manually, did you have to put them back to normal or did the flight management system do it automatically?
Q3: when (or if) you see Maverick, was the F-14 start up sequence actually legit?
Q4: can you over fly the airframe (like excessive G's) and bend it so as to render the airframe completely unserviceable?
As always, thank you for the time it takes to answer these questions, and thank you for your service to our great nation.
I will leave out any spoiler alerts. The movie is well done and really ties into the Top Gun movie and extends the characters. Some things to get you going, still an unidentified adversary, obligatory fun in the sand scene, and a F-14 thrown in for good measure.
Q1: what's up with all the breakers in the RIO area? I've seen a few F-14's up close but never inside the RIO seat. And, did the RIO actually act as a quasi-flight engineer?
Q2: with everything else you guys had to think about, how often did you manually set the wings? And if you swept them forward manually, did you have to put them back to normal or did the flight management system do it automatically?
Q3: when (or if) you see Maverick, was the F-14 start up sequence actually legit?
Q4: can you over fly the airframe (like excessive G's) and bend it so as to render the airframe completely unserviceable?
As always, thank you for the time it takes to answer these questions, and thank you for your service to our great nation.
Haven’t seen the movie, but I do plan to, and soon. I saw the F-14 in a preview, can’t wait to see how that woven into the plot.
I sure do miss the airplane.
So, Q1 - yes. Lots of breakers for the RIO. It wasn’t uncommon to use the breakers to reset systems, like the CSDC (Computer Signal Data Converter) which was a computer interface that allowed weapon systems data to be fed to multiple displays, including attitude information to the pilot displays.
About two dozen critical ones were up front by the pilot‘s ankles, including things like fuel jettison control.
The design thinking was lots of breakers, isolating each small component electrically, so that an overload in one small system would not take out a larger set of systems linked to one circuit. The airplane was built for battle damage. This was one element.
Q2 - in a normal flight, we left the wings in automatic for maneuvering. They usually worked well. No need to try and monkey with them. If you swept them using the manual electric mode (see my discussion on page one of this thread - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/) the wings would stay where you put them, unless the computer wanted them farther aft, then the computer would pick up control. If you swept them aft electrically, and then flew slow (where the computer would want them forward) they would stay in the pilot selected position.
Kinda’ makes sense. If the pilot chose the position, the system would leave them there. If they needed to go aft for structural reasons, the computer would pick up control again.
Q3 - I’ll let you know on the start up sequence. In general, it took about 7-8 minutes for a full start up with checks. Checks included hydraulic systems, electric system back up, flight controls, wing sweep, inlet operation and alignment of the inertial NAV system. But, for an alert launch (hostile inbound aircraft) we could start up in under two minutes. Enough time to spin the engines, run the inlet check, and align the inertial NAV which was already partially aligned, then taxi to the catapult, spread the wings and launch. High risk, so some checks were omitted.
Q4 - The airplane has been flown at over 10 G without permanent damage. That shortens the life, of course, and individual components were never meant for such a load. Often the engines had to be re-installed as they shifted in their mounts, for example, or the radar antenna hydraulics would be damaged.
If you push a structure, like an airplane, over its design limit, to where the materials are elastic, it’s like overtorquing a bolt.
Might be OK. Might stretch. Might break.
No way to feel or know that in flight. No way to know which part was going to fail first when you are up at 150% or more of design limit. Might lose control from one aileron, or horizontal stabilizer, breaking before the other one did, for example
So, if you flew it to where it was elastic/stretched, you might easily go past that and break it, or part of it, in which case, you’re likely toast. An F-15 failed structurally in flight (metal fatigue of the fuselage longerons, and it came apart at 400+ KTS) many years ago. The pilot survived but was severely injured.
No way I would try bending an airplane to make it subsequently unusable, way too high a probability that it would just break, in a way that couldn’t be predicted.
Cheers,
Astro
I sure do miss the airplane.
So, Q1 - yes. Lots of breakers for the RIO. It wasn’t uncommon to use the breakers to reset systems, like the CSDC (Computer Signal Data Converter) which was a computer interface that allowed weapon systems data to be fed to multiple displays, including attitude information to the pilot displays.
About two dozen critical ones were up front by the pilot‘s ankles, including things like fuel jettison control.
The design thinking was lots of breakers, isolating each small component electrically, so that an overload in one small system would not take out a larger set of systems linked to one circuit. The airplane was built for battle damage. This was one element.
Q2 - in a normal flight, we left the wings in automatic for maneuvering. They usually worked well. No need to try and monkey with them. If you swept them using the manual electric mode (see my discussion on page one of this thread - https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/) the wings would stay where you put them, unless the computer wanted them farther aft, then the computer would pick up control. If you swept them aft electrically, and then flew slow (where the computer would want them forward) they would stay in the pilot selected position.
Kinda’ makes sense. If the pilot chose the position, the system would leave them there. If they needed to go aft for structural reasons, the computer would pick up control again.
Q3 - I’ll let you know on the start up sequence. In general, it took about 7-8 minutes for a full start up with checks. Checks included hydraulic systems, electric system back up, flight controls, wing sweep, inlet operation and alignment of the inertial NAV system. But, for an alert launch (hostile inbound aircraft) we could start up in under two minutes. Enough time to spin the engines, run the inlet check, and align the inertial NAV which was already partially aligned, then taxi to the catapult, spread the wings and launch. High risk, so some checks were omitted.
Q4 - The airplane has been flown at over 10 G without permanent damage. That shortens the life, of course, and individual components were never meant for such a load. Often the engines had to be re-installed as they shifted in their mounts, for example, or the radar antenna hydraulics would be damaged.
If you push a structure, like an airplane, over its design limit, to where the materials are elastic, it’s like overtorquing a bolt.
Might be OK. Might stretch. Might break.
No way to feel or know that in flight. No way to know which part was going to fail first when you are up at 150% or more of design limit. Might lose control from one aileron, or horizontal stabilizer, breaking before the other one did, for example
So, if you flew it to where it was elastic/stretched, you might easily go past that and break it, or part of it, in which case, you’re likely toast. An F-15 failed structurally in flight (metal fatigue of the fuselage longerons, and it came apart at 400+ KTS) many years ago. The pilot survived but was severely injured.
No way I would try bending an airplane to make it subsequently unusable, way too high a probability that it would just break, in a way that couldn’t be predicted.
Cheers,
Astro
I think I answered this early on, but to save us both searching…
Call sign: Astro
Navy* aircraft: T-34C, T-2C, TA-4J, F-14A/B, E-2C, F/A-18C/D, SH-60, EA-6B, S-3B, F-16N, F-5E, TH-57.
Commercial: B-747-400, A-320/319, B-757/767
A few others - like the PA-44, Stearman, Cirrus SR-22, C-172, C-182 and some I’m probably forgetting.
*I was fully trained and qualified in the first six. The others were backseat/fun rides I managed to work my way into.
Astro you are gonna like Maverick, two of your rides in one flick. The over-stressing the airframe bit was focused more on the F-18 in the movie. Your explanation of over-torquing a bolt gave me an excellent reference!
May be time for a F-18 thread. (if allowed since it is still active)
May be time for a F-18 thread. (if allowed since it is still active)
I think I’m going to love it.
Friends of friends (my peers are either retired or 3 star admirals now) did the flying and I’m told it is really good.
I can talk about the F/A-18 if folks like, but I only have fifty hours in it. Flew it in a variety of missions. Great airplane, but lack the experience of a fleet fighter pilot in that airplane.
I keep discussion unclassified, don’t worry…
I like!
From my very limited military understanding, the F14 was designed to intercept Soviet fighters and do it well.
For 50 years we just assumed that the Soviets were on par , even, or even better in some regards.
The war in Ukraine is an eye opener to military planners the world over. Russia should be owning the sky, controlling the air space, with air supremacy and the use of precision guided munitions and effective ground forces to quickly gain objectives.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on what you are seeing with Russia’s terrible performance. They probably will win many of their objectives in the end but at great cost.
For 50 years we just assumed that the Soviets were on par , even, or even better in some regards.
The war in Ukraine is an eye opener to military planners the world over. Russia should be owning the sky, controlling the air space, with air supremacy and the use of precision guided munitions and effective ground forces to quickly gain objectives.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on what you are seeing with Russia’s terrible performance. They probably will win many of their objectives in the end but at great cost.
Please read the rest of the thread, but the F-14 (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) was designed to intercept and engage multiple targets at long range to protect the carrier battle group.
As for the rest, please start a new thread with your questions - do NOT want to get this thread shut down for any reason. Thanks.
Not really. It was designed as an air superiority fighter, but the Phoenix platform was designed around protecting the fleet and intercepting Soviet bombers. But it had to do a lot of things including escort missions, which Astro will describe in as much detail as he can without delving into classified information. He's previously mentioned escorting A-6s, which can't defend themselves since they're basically bomb trucks.
On the subject of bomb trucks, I'm going a bit off topic here. The A-6 comment sent me here.......I read some speculation that the B-21 Raider might carry long range AAM's (probably the latest AMRAAM until a longer range missile is developed.) If ACM is less likely these days and the networking is up, this makes perfect sense for self defense. It would explain at least one reason the B-1 Romeo never got legs. (That was a B-1 with F-22 radar and engines that would supercruise and carry around 100 AMRAAMs to decimate enemy aircraft formations from afar. It would then sprint outta there at speeds they could not come close to sustaining.)
There have been several proposals for AA missile trucks over the years. The Douglas Missileer, for example, to carry 6 AIM-10 (an AIM-54 precursor) in a long loiter, subsonic airplane.
Douglas F6D Missileer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There was Aerie - which was based on a 747, carrying some enormous number of missiles.
But the big problem with any of these proposals - they presume that the missile truck can’t be surprised by enemy fighters or tactics.
Even with a 100 mile air to air missile, which would require supersonic launch, to give it enough kinetic energy for that range, it is possible to deceive the missile truck, and sneak in a fighter that it can’t see, to kill it. Even with supercruise, the missile truck is vulnerable because it can’t turn.
Further, the missile truck is a one mission airplane. A hugely expensive project that results in a one mission airplane is an easy target for the biggest threat to airplanes - budget cutting politicians.
Astro,
I was watching "Top Gun" again the other day, (for about the 200th time), and in the intro they show the F-14 with the flaps down. I noticed 2 things. They seem very small in surface area for a plane that size and weight. And they seem to run the entire length of the trailing edge of the wing, except for the very tip.
You can see it for just a second if you freeze it at 2:48 in the video. The best shot is at 3:35 when they show the plane leaving the deck.
Do they also function as ailerons in the down position? In that configuration with full left stick, would the left aileron be "less down" than the right? Or do they have spoilerons that raise up on the top of the wing to compensate? I think the C-17 has that type of flight control set up. Thanks in advance.
I was watching "Top Gun" again the other day, (for about the 200th time), and in the intro they show the F-14 with the flaps down. I noticed 2 things. They seem very small in surface area for a plane that size and weight. And they seem to run the entire length of the trailing edge of the wing, except for the very tip.
You can see it for just a second if you freeze it at 2:48 in the video. The best shot is at 3:35 when they show the plane leaving the deck.
Do they also function as ailerons in the down position? In that configuration with full left stick, would the left aileron be "less down" than the right? Or do they have spoilerons that raise up on the top of the wing to compensate? I think the C-17 has that type of flight control set up. Thanks in advance.
Isn't there a lot more lift at low speeds when fully swept forward? Don't know if you watched Top Gun: Maverick.
We launched from, and landed on, the boat with full flaps extended.
In the case of the F-14, they're actually pretty big, but while the Hornet has even bigger flaps (relative to its size), the F-14 has slotted flaps. The F-14 also had true slats, instead of movable leading edge devices.
That wing type is much more efficient at creating lift. So, even though it weighed about 20,000# more than the F/A-18, the F-14 landed at a slower airspeed than the Hornet, the result of a far more efficient wing that had both leading edge slats and slotted flaps.
The outboard flaps on the F/A-18 were, in fact, the ailerons, which "drooped" when landing flap was selected. A roll input raised the aileron, which was also the flap, and caused a big loss of lift. F-14 roll control was from both differential stabilizer (horizontal tail) and spoilers on top of the wing. Roll input in the F-14 would also cause a loss of lift, but it was not as dramatic as retracting part of the flap.
I really recommend listening to this guy talk about the airplane his team designed.
In the case of the F-14, they're actually pretty big, but while the Hornet has even bigger flaps (relative to its size), the F-14 has slotted flaps. The F-14 also had true slats, instead of movable leading edge devices.
That wing type is much more efficient at creating lift. So, even though it weighed about 20,000# more than the F/A-18, the F-14 landed at a slower airspeed than the Hornet, the result of a far more efficient wing that had both leading edge slats and slotted flaps.
The outboard flaps on the F/A-18 were, in fact, the ailerons, which "drooped" when landing flap was selected. A roll input raised the aileron, which was also the flap, and caused a big loss of lift. F-14 roll control was from both differential stabilizer (horizontal tail) and spoilers on top of the wing. Roll input in the F-14 would also cause a loss of lift, but it was not as dramatic as retracting part of the flap.
I really recommend listening to this guy talk about the airplane his team designed.
Astro, doesn't the fusilage of the F-14 provide fairly significant lift, too? It's shape and the space between the engines looks to me like it would create quite a bit of lift in and of itself or at least some.
The fuselage does provide some amount of lift. I’ve no idea what percentage, and I suspect that the percentage changes with AOA.
At high AOA, that lift comes at the expense of a lot of drag.
With stores (weapons and or reconnaissance equipment) in the belly between the engines, that lift is reduced somewhat.
The drag, of course, is increased at all AOA by stores, and the directional stability is reduced by stores as well.
