Astro we’re you any good when you tried helos? I’m sure it took some getting used to.
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
There is a great book on it that I need to read again, by Jay Stout. I knew Jay's Dad really well and have all of his books, but that's the book that launched him as an aviation History author. And it is a very good one. I can't remember if that's where I read about it, but I'll check it out and see what I find.
Jay, btw was an F-18 pilot in the first Gulf War. He also wrote a great book about that.
I first flew a helicopter, a TH-57 (Bell Jet Ranger) when I was in primary flight training. I had a total of about 20 hours of flight time at that point, so, not much experience at all. I could hover, but it was really hard. Regular flight in a helicopter is easy.
I flew the SH-60 much later in my career. With a lot more experience, about 2,000 hours. It was great. Piece of cake!
Hover was easy, partly because that aircraft had SAS. So, pull collective, and no need for rudder to counter the torque. Also, I had thousands of hours at that point, so, I had a lot more experience, feel, and finesse. Managing the crosswind and aircraft position was much simpler with more experience.
Helicopters were a lot of fun. Doubt I will ever fly one again, but running around below 100 feet out near Fallon, NV in a SH-60 is one of my fondest memories.
Even better? The F/A-18 pilot who was with us couldn’t fly the helicopter or manage hovering as well as I did. Perhaps because his flight time was in a fly by wire airplane that did everything for him while mine was in a manually controlled airplane. Perhaps he wasn’t as good as he thought. To this day, he thinks he is God’s gift to aviation, and reminds me of it every time we talk, in fact, he later went on to be a Blue Angel - but on that day, he was humbled by the helicopter.
Last edited:
Did it really have a mission? As much as there’s criticism over the F-35, that may be more capable than a refreshed version of the Tomcat.
I’ve seen a Tomcat at an aviation museum. But from the road.
There is a big need, in certain scenarios, for a long range, high speed fighter that can carry a large weapon payload from a carrier.
An F-14.
We don't have a fighter that meets that description in the inventory, and we don't yet know enough about the Navy's NGAD. The assumption that the USAF will be able to provide air to air refueling, or that we can press the carrier into a shoreline doesn't work in many circumstances. Missions flown from a carrier that is far from the shore, deep into enemy territory, without support are crucial to success in some scenarios.
The USN needs range, speed and payload as a result. The F-35 is a step in the right direction, with decent range (and a big improvement over the Super Hornet) but it still lacks speed.
It's everyone's hope that NGAD will deliver a fighter that can meet the long range, high speed, large payload requirement.
How much faster is a loaded F-14 than a loaded F-35? It's my understanding that, because the F-35 carries most of its weapons internally, it can get much closer to its max speed with a combat load than an F-15 could, meaning the speed difference between the two jets in a combat situation isn't nearly so big as when comparing clean jets (which is where the quoted top speeds come from). I'd imagine similar would be true of a comparison against the F-14, no?
Not saying the F-14 isn't faster, much less that an updated one couldn't be. Genuinely curious what you think the difference would be in a realistic situation vs. comparing on-paper top speeds.
Last edited:
You have to go apples to apples with the comparison.
External carriage slows the F-35 considerably. Internal carriage reduces the payload dramatically.
Not fair to compare an airplane with external stores to one with internal stores. A “loaded” F-35 is slow, because it has external stores. A “combat load” of internal stores is four weapons. That’s a very light air to air load. Or it’s two air ground weapons with two air to air self protect missiles. Which is really skinny on weapons.
We had a concept called “tactical bingo”. Bingo fuel meant low enough on gas that it was time to leave. Tactical bingo was low enough on weapons that it was time to leave. When carrying air to ground stores internally, the F-35 is already at tactical bingo. Starting a fight at tactical bingo isn’t a great way to win.
The F-35 has much better range than a super Hornet. That’s key.
It is stealth. That is critical. The only way to survive in certain scenarios.
It also a huge sensor platform. That is a key enabler for other aspects of warfighting.
Back to the F-14 - I’ve cruised up the coast of Kuwait on a Reconnaissance run, with full tanks, and every other station filled with weapons, jamming pod or a huge camera pod, and still ran at 750 knots indicated (1.2 Mach) in min burner at 10,000 feet. 10 stations of external stores, still a very supersonic, high indicated airspeed airplane even loaded to the max.
Astro,
Can you verify if there is any truth to this story? It does come off sounding a bit cowboyish, and farfetched. The whole "stay and fight" scenario seems "iffy".
After he dropped all of his ordnance what more could he have done? Waste precious fuel using a $50 million dollar jet to strafe with his guns? It makes "Maverick" buzzing the tower seem lame.
Can you verify if there is any truth to this story? It does come off sounding a bit cowboyish, and farfetched. The whole "stay and fight" scenario seems "iffy".
After he dropped all of his ordnance what more could he have done? Waste precious fuel using a $50 million dollar jet to strafe with his guns? It makes "Maverick" buzzing the tower seem lame.
Last edited:
Don’t know the story. The “direct orders from a general and a rear admiral” is complete hyperbole. They don’t talk on the radios to individual airplanes and the carrier strike group commander is far beyond the radio line of sight to Afghanistan, but orders are relayed through command and control aircraft.
I think the point of the story is this: In Afghanistan, we knew the guys on the ground were counting on us. We would risk a lot to help them out. Support to them was our mission.
So, true or not, the spirit of the story reflects that.
By the way, the Super Hornet and F-35 replacement is in work. Speed, range and payload matter, and it will be in a stealth platform.
Billions have been spent on R&D.
Billions have been spent on R&D.
Astro,
I posted this video just for the cover photo. I'm assuming this is an authentic photo of a F-14 on a carrier. It shows it tied down with at least 10 cables, all pulling in opposite directions against each other.
All of them are shown to be very taught. We're they really tied down that heavily? How do they get the cables that tight? Do they use a come along of sorts? You would think that would put a lot of stress on the aircraft.
I posted this video just for the cover photo. I'm assuming this is an authentic photo of a F-14 on a carrier. It shows it tied down with at least 10 cables, all pulling in opposite directions against each other.
All of them are shown to be very taught. We're they really tied down that heavily? How do they get the cables that tight? Do they use a come along of sorts? You would think that would put a lot of stress on the aircraft.
I'm not Astro, but here is my take:
Aircraft are always chocked and chained unless actually in motion. The deck moves, sometimes a lot, and unpredictably. You do not want to allow the aircraft to move at all. My experience is A-4/A-7, both of which required nine chains (three on each gear). I see twelve on the F-14 that you posted. Heavier airplane requires more chains. The stresses imposed by the tie downs are far less than the aircraft is designed for.
The tie down chains are adjustable by means of a screw adjuster on one end. They are installed with minimal slack, and then tensioned to hold the aircraft firmly in place.
Aircraft are always chocked and chained unless actually in motion. The deck moves, sometimes a lot, and unpredictably. You do not want to allow the aircraft to move at all. My experience is A-4/A-7, both of which required nine chains (three on each gear). I see twelve on the F-14 that you posted. Heavier airplane requires more chains. The stresses imposed by the tie downs are far less than the aircraft is designed for.
The tie down chains are adjustable by means of a screw adjuster on one end. They are installed with minimal slack, and then tensioned to hold the aircraft firmly in place.
Exactly. Well said. Thank you for the picture, too, it helps to understand when you’ve never seen a tie down chain.
Aren’t these also carrier landing gear? They’re designed for extremely violent takeoffs and landings. Chaining them down would seem pretty mild compared to a carrier landing.
Yes, exactly!
I met a guy at the KOA campground in Green River, UT a couple summers ago. He was a F-14 driver and was one of the pilots that flew the first F-14s from the factory on Long Island. He told me that he was the first F-14 driver to have a double engine flame out. He made it back to San Diego after he got one of the engines restarted. The running engine was way over temp and he had serious doubts about making a safe landing, but they did. He said he spent a week in conference rooms with Grumman and PW going over every detail of what happened before the flame outs. If I remember this correctly, the flame-outs happened just after he went to full afterburner and moved the throttles. The problem was moving the throttles. The flame-out wasn't supposed to happen, but it did. They figured the cause out and fixed the issue.
He went on to spend a career at United and retired as 757/767 captain.
F-14s used only the PW TF30 engine for like the first 15 years, and that was notorious for compressor stalls. I heard it wasn't really designed for that mission but it was a stopgap that took a long time for a replacement. The GE F110 wasn't even considered until the mid-80s.
Yeah - what your friend at the campground said was a gross oversimplification of the TF-30. I’ve talked about both at length in this thread. I have had dozens of compressor stalls with the TF-30.
Never had a stall just going into/out of AB, but when you coupled that throttle transient with high AOA, you were asking for a problem. He may have been flying the P412 engine, which made more power than the P414A version of the TF-30. The PW fix was to de-tune the engine, take out about 3,000# of thrust at full AB, which helped the reliability.
Yes, the TF-30 was a stopgap - it was built for the F-111, again, talked about that, but Congress killed the engine that was under development to save money. So, the Navy had to buy over 500 airplanes with the stopgap engine. John Lehman changed that as SECNAV.
The GE motors were not known for compressor stalls, but they did blow up and take out the airplane, and sometimes the crew.
Never had a stall just going into/out of AB, but when you coupled that throttle transient with high AOA, you were asking for a problem. He may have been flying the P412 engine, which made more power than the P414A version of the TF-30. The PW fix was to de-tune the engine, take out about 3,000# of thrust at full AB, which helped the reliability.
Yes, the TF-30 was a stopgap - it was built for the F-111, again, talked about that, but Congress killed the engine that was under development to save money. So, the Navy had to buy over 500 airplanes with the stopgap engine. John Lehman changed that as SECNAV.
The GE motors were not known for compressor stalls, but they did blow up and take out the airplane, and sometimes the crew.
