Yes - that was the NASA test to which I was referring. That airplane was instrumented, with a back-up power source (hydrazine module) for the flight controls, and a spin chute. Once a fully developed flat spin happens, it’s a rough ride.
F-14 Questions Answered - Ask Away
- Thread starter Astro14
- Start date
Yes - we had full motion flight simulators, a full 360 degree visual air combat simulator and various physiology trainers that were common to all aircraft types, including an ejection seat shot, pressure chamber, parachute escape, parachute drag, swim test in full flight gear, and the infamous “helo dunker” in which you were blindfolded, then strapped into a seat in the fuselage of a helicopter, lowered under water, turned upside down, and then had to exit swimming out from your seat in this upside down helicopter while still blindfolded.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2024
- Messages
- 8
Hello, I have recently discovered this forum and as a huge fan of the Tomcat, I have to say it’s one of the best sources for first hand knowledge of the F-14 I’ve found on the internet. I’d like to thank Astro for spending so much time the past decade answering all the questions thrown his way. I have two questions sir that I hope you won’t mind answering.
1) Have you ever heard of an F110 powered Tomcat being lost to a flat spin? I never have. Reason for asking is I’ve always believed that had the F-14 received better engines earlier, it would never have gotten the reputation as a dangerous aircraft.
2) I’m fascinated by the differences between the F-14A and the B/D in the BFM/ACM arena. Let’s say you’re going 1V1 left to left with a Viper. In an A model my understanding is your only options are to trick him with wing sweep, or wait/hope for the Viper driver to make a mistake and get him up against his AOA limiter. So you’re in a B, you have more thrust I understand that, but what additional maneuvering options do you have?
Thanks so much.
Good morning, @Tomcatguy111 - Sorry to have missed your earlier posts.
So, the crew that ejected in 1991, Devon “Boots” Jones and Larry “Rat” Slade were flying a -B (then called an A+, but with GE-F110 engines) when they were shot down. Rat was captured and taken captive. Boots evaded and was rescued by the USAF. A great job with the rescue, which was deep in Iraq.
In particular, the A-10 guys who flew the “Sandy” missions covering him, did an incredible job, and were awarded the Air Force Cross. No A-10 pilot will ever need his wallet at the bar if Boots is nearby.
I don’t know of a B/D lost to a flat spin - to be sure, the thrust asymmetry from an engine stall (one running, one not, 9 feet apart) is enough to cause the airplane to depart below about 140 knots and if the asymmetry is not corrected, quickly, along with a reduction in AOA, then that stall could lead to a spin.
The F-110 was a lot more stall-resistant than the TF-30, which I talked about early on in this thread.
But we did lose B/D models to other causes.
In fact, there is a school of thought that believes Boots departed the airplane when the SAM was fired near him. Without getting too technical on corroborating data, as some of that is still classified, the -B/D was just as susceptible to a coupled departure - in which high rate motion in multiple axes causes enough inertia to cause a loss of control. This effect is worse at high Mach, and high altitude, which is where they were in the flight envelope during the egress from a mission when the ejection happened.
They’ve closed the boarding door on my flight. More later.
So, the crew that ejected in 1991, Devon “Boots” Jones and Larry “Rat” Slade were flying a -B (then called an A+, but with GE-F110 engines) when they were shot down. Rat was captured and taken captive. Boots evaded and was rescued by the USAF. A great job with the rescue, which was deep in Iraq.
In particular, the A-10 guys who flew the “Sandy” missions covering him, did an incredible job, and were awarded the Air Force Cross. No A-10 pilot will ever need his wallet at the bar if Boots is nearby.
I don’t know of a B/D lost to a flat spin - to be sure, the thrust asymmetry from an engine stall (one running, one not, 9 feet apart) is enough to cause the airplane to depart below about 140 knots and if the asymmetry is not corrected, quickly, along with a reduction in AOA, then that stall could lead to a spin.
The F-110 was a lot more stall-resistant than the TF-30, which I talked about early on in this thread.
But we did lose B/D models to other causes.
In fact, there is a school of thought that believes Boots departed the airplane when the SAM was fired near him. Without getting too technical on corroborating data, as some of that is still classified, the -B/D was just as susceptible to a coupled departure - in which high rate motion in multiple axes causes enough inertia to cause a loss of control. This effect is worse at high Mach, and high altitude, which is where they were in the flight envelope during the egress from a mission when the ejection happened.
They’ve closed the boarding door on my flight. More later.
As far as how to fight the Viper - you’ve oversimplified it. Like saying, “When playing chess against Magnus Carlson, what choice do you have besides P-Q3?”.
There are a variety of openings, some strategies in the mid game, and some end games that will result. I am not relying on tricks, or hope. The “wingsweep trick” is a stunt - and the wings take 6 seconds to translate forward, that’s six seconds of energy bleed and atrocious turn performance. You give up too much, unless you’re fighting a noob who bites on your bait, and you’re counting on that bite. Not a sure thing. Not my style.
First, when fighting an airplane with better rate and radius (like the F-16), you want to keep them close - a one circle fight, because they will be too close at the next merge for a forward quarter shot, and then you are able to asses how aggressive/capable that driver is.
In that first turn of a one circle fight, you have a choice - level, nose high, nose low, pure vertical, or any slight variation of those. I planned to take it vertical, one circle - even if they reversed to make it two circle, unless they came up with me (by definition, one circle) I would get nose on first, forcing them to bleed to defend against the shot, and potentially allowing me to get to their control zone.
At some point, defeating the Viper requires selling energy (bleeding) to get nose on for a shot. You simply won’t ever beat that airplane down to low energy, like you could an A-4, or even a loaded F/A-18 (great high AOA handling, good rate, good radius, but only when clean). So, if he sells it first, and you counter effectively, then you’re in a slow flight, and you have an AOA advantage. If you don’t counter effectively, you’re dead anyway.
If the Viper comes up with you into the vertical - then you’re working towards your advantage - slow flight - through subsequent moves that bleed both airplanes, but he has a radius and energy advantage, so you have to spend yours wisely.
The -B/D aren’t “magic”. They perform better than the -A but it’s the same airframe - so, it’s a question of how quickly you bleed, when you decide to bleed. Otherwise, corner speed is the same. Radius is the same, but rate is a bit better because energy addition is better.
For a while, just after the loss of several F-14s to GE F-110 liner burn through, we could not use AB in that airplane, so we fought in mil power. Guess what - it was the same airplane, same corner speed, slower rate - and you would beat an A-4 the same way you would with AB. Amusingly - during that time, instructors would be begging maintenance to give them an -A, so they would have AB, and better performance than a mil power-only -B. Honestly, I thought the mil-power -B and full AB -A were about the same. Once you hit the AOA at which mid-compression bypass opened up (costing 3,000# in thrust loss, but improving engine stall` margin) in the TF-30, the resultant power in a TF-30 was about the same as a -B put out at mil.
Everybody loved the F-110, until it started killing people. The loss of Bill Daisely and Fred Dillingham, a aquadron-mate with whom I flew in combat, was one of several fatal mishaps due to the F-110. I think I discuss that in some earlier posts.
There are a variety of openings, some strategies in the mid game, and some end games that will result. I am not relying on tricks, or hope. The “wingsweep trick” is a stunt - and the wings take 6 seconds to translate forward, that’s six seconds of energy bleed and atrocious turn performance. You give up too much, unless you’re fighting a noob who bites on your bait, and you’re counting on that bite. Not a sure thing. Not my style.
First, when fighting an airplane with better rate and radius (like the F-16), you want to keep them close - a one circle fight, because they will be too close at the next merge for a forward quarter shot, and then you are able to asses how aggressive/capable that driver is.
In that first turn of a one circle fight, you have a choice - level, nose high, nose low, pure vertical, or any slight variation of those. I planned to take it vertical, one circle - even if they reversed to make it two circle, unless they came up with me (by definition, one circle) I would get nose on first, forcing them to bleed to defend against the shot, and potentially allowing me to get to their control zone.
At some point, defeating the Viper requires selling energy (bleeding) to get nose on for a shot. You simply won’t ever beat that airplane down to low energy, like you could an A-4, or even a loaded F/A-18 (great high AOA handling, good rate, good radius, but only when clean). So, if he sells it first, and you counter effectively, then you’re in a slow flight, and you have an AOA advantage. If you don’t counter effectively, you’re dead anyway.
If the Viper comes up with you into the vertical - then you’re working towards your advantage - slow flight - through subsequent moves that bleed both airplanes, but he has a radius and energy advantage, so you have to spend yours wisely.
The -B/D aren’t “magic”. They perform better than the -A but it’s the same airframe - so, it’s a question of how quickly you bleed, when you decide to bleed. Otherwise, corner speed is the same. Radius is the same, but rate is a bit better because energy addition is better.
For a while, just after the loss of several F-14s to GE F-110 liner burn through, we could not use AB in that airplane, so we fought in mil power. Guess what - it was the same airplane, same corner speed, slower rate - and you would beat an A-4 the same way you would with AB. Amusingly - during that time, instructors would be begging maintenance to give them an -A, so they would have AB, and better performance than a mil power-only -B. Honestly, I thought the mil-power -B and full AB -A were about the same. Once you hit the AOA at which mid-compression bypass opened up (costing 3,000# in thrust loss, but improving engine stall` margin) in the TF-30, the resultant power in a TF-30 was about the same as a -B put out at mil.
Everybody loved the F-110, until it started killing people. The loss of Bill Daisely and Fred Dillingham, a aquadron-mate with whom I flew in combat, was one of several fatal mishaps due to the F-110. I think I discuss that in some earlier posts.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2024
- Messages
- 8
Thanks
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2024
- Messages
- 8
Thanks so much for the detailed reply. There’s so much to digest here, but one thing I’m a bit confused on is at the merge going vertical. I’ve read that going vertical was always one of the Tomcats best moves, but I was under the impression it was only going to work against a jet that couldn’t climb up there with you such as the A-4 or F-5. With its high T/W could the Viper not easily match your climb?
Also, I had read your posts regarding the F110 liner burn throughs and that is the best and most thorough explanation of that issue I have ever read on that issue. I’m something of an amateur Tomcat historian and that part of the story I feel has really been kind of glossed over and forgotten about. Not much info available. I’m only aware of three jets lost to GE liner burn throughs, 163411 with Daisley and Dillingham in 93, 161158 with Clark and Lamoreaux in 96 and I believe the jet shown in the Discovery channel Carrier Fortress at Sea doc, although those guys were fortunate and got out. Hopefully there were no more.
Those were the three of which I’m aware with big consequences.
But there were literally dozens of examples AB liner burn through that simply got discovered by maintenance, and were repaired.
I don’t remember the precise number, but it was astonishing, like 50, perhaps.
when you take the airplane vertical in a fight, you’re not just unloading and letting the airplane zoom climb, or you’re right, the one to fall off first would be the F14. It would simply run out of energy before the F-16.
When you take it vertical, it’s an optimum rate turn to about 90°, and that’s the point of which you’re going to assess his move and make yours.
Either you’re gonna roll to put loft vector on in the case of a horizontal turn, or if he came up with you, you’re gonna continue to pull your nose over to his position for the shot.
He can’t just continue to zoom climb, or you are behind him and have a clear sidewinder shot.
He has to turn into you to deny you the shot. Now, it is an energy management game.
If you bleed too much in the vertical, you’re gonna fall off, and be descending again while he’s still above you, and that gives him an easy kill.
But if you manage your energy right, you can stay with him in the vertical, until you’re both slow.
But you have to keep the pressure on by continuing to turn towards him and into him, forcing him to counter. If you take the pressure off him and he gets a chance to unload (0 G, where the airplane accelerates best) whether the airplane be climbing descending or whatever, he has his speed back so quick that you’ve lost whatever advantage you gained.
It’s not an easy fight, and generally, equal drivers will lose to the guy in the better airplane.
Keep in mind too, that everything I’m describing was in the days before high off-bore-sight weapons.
With the ability to cue a weapon using your helmet, you don’t need to get nose on before you can take a shot.
The entire ACM/BFM game has genuinely changed.
I never fought with that capability, so I don’t know how you win in a 1V1 scenario with the new kind of weapons.
But when all you’ve got is a gun, where the bullets go forward, or a sidewinder, that you need to lock by getting nose on, what I’m describing is how you win.
There was a book in the 1980s called “Fighter Combat” by Robert Shaw. A quick check on Amazon shows that it’s still available. If you’re interested in how we used to fight in back in my day, that book is a great primer.
Finally, and this is really important important, we never wanted to end up at a merge with anybody. The way to win a fight is to kill the guy as far away as possible.
Depending on a variety of kinematic parameters, particularly altitude, the AIM-54 could be launched at a range where the early F-16 radar wouldn’t even see you yet.
Having a weapon in the air before the other guy can see you is a great way to begin a fight.
That kind fight is usually over before he even gets off a shot.
It’s why rules of engagement matter so very, very much.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2024
- Messages
- 8
I’ve watch and read many different interviews with Tomcat pilots and of course everyone is different. I won’t name drop, but I recently listened to an excellent interview with a well known pilot and I thought he summed it up perfectly when he said the Tomcat is a very easy airplane to fly, but a very hard airplane to fly well. His thoughts on fighting seemed to echo yours. When it comes to BFM/ACM, relying on tricks or a single move will only get you so far. You need to learn the basics like energy management and where the F-14 has the advantage and where it’s at a disadvantage and you need to stay away from. Good pilots also need to be thinking three and four moves ahead during a fight. This takes a lot of hours of flight time.
May I ask did you use some of the documented “cheats” of fighting in the A-model? Such as turning off the ECS air, pulling breakers LE1 and LE2 and keeping the wing sweep switch in manual vs auto?
Since you mention the Phoenix, can I ask what was your opinion of the missile? I understand the exact numbers are classified, but another F-14 pilot interviewed claimed that when shot against fighters at long range the -54 was fairly easy for the bandits to shake. So the tactics were you had to shoot before the bad guys know they’re being targeted, or hold the shots for much closer in. I was sad to hear this because I was under the impression the C and C+ had vastly improved performance against fighters. If you can’t elaborate on this because of opsec, I understand.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I will check it out. Yes modern HOBS weapons have drastically changed the game. It almost sounds too easy. Hope you’re having a great Labor Day weekend and thanks once again for taking the time to answer my long winded questions?
So, first, let us talk about the “cheats”.
Turning the air source off, closed the bleed valves on the engines, And with the slightly higher pressure ratio that results, you should get a tiny increase in thrust. The guys who advocated this called it “zone six”. The problem, of course is that you also lose things like cabin pressurization and air conditioning, and weapon system cooling. So, while you might get a little bit more out of the motors, you’re hurting just about everything else on the airplane that you need, including crew.
Pulling breakers, LE1 and LE two locks out the aux flaps, and allows you to extend landing, flaps, while keeping the auxiliary flaps retracted.
Use of the landing flaps was a somewhat controversial topic in the F14 community.
The NATOPS extension speed limit on the landing flaps was 225 knots. Most squadrons had an SOP of 200 knots, to save wear and tear of flap/slat mechanisms, particularly the torque tubes that transmitted force from hydraulic motor to actuators. The torque tubes were a very high wear item, and were easily broken. In fact, it is reported, that the torque tubes were one of the first components that Iran had to reverse engineer.
So, why have a squadron SOP to save where and tear on flap parts, especially when you’re flying off the boat and normal flap extension and operation is critical for landing speed, only to tear them up by exceeding that speed limit while maneuvering the aircraft?
I’ve tried landing flaps - and in certain circumstances (flat scissor), they work. But in nearly every other maneuvering regime, you are asking to damage the airplane. For example, at the bottom of a rolling scissor, you’re gonna be about 300 kn. If you extended the landing flaps at the top of that scissor, you are more than doubling the design load on a component that was already known to be weak. I always knew when people came back from an ACM engagement with a flap slat lockout on landing, that they had been “cheating“. And not cheating particularly well, because they exceeded the speed limit of the airplane.
Breaking parts as a result.
Not a great plan.
So, no, I was not a fan of using landing flaps, even with LE1 and LE2 pulled. The only advantage to using full flaps with the aux flaps retracted, was that you get better airflow over the horizontal stabilizers, and perhaps a bit more pitch authority. But the disadvantage of LE1 and LE@ pulled, is that you can now sweep the wings with landing flaps extended, potentially crunching the main flaps into the side of the aircraft. Again, I just don’t think any of these “cheats” were a particularly smart idea.
There is no tactical advantage to the wing sweep switch in manual versus automatic. If the wing sweep switch is manual, and the wings are slightly aft of program, as soon as the air data computer starts to sweep the wings according to schedule, they go from manual to automatic and begin to program aft. You cannot move the wings farther forward than program, using the manual switch, you can only move them farther aft. So, what gain would you have?
Perhaps you referring to the use of the emergency wings, sweep handle, that allows you to position the wings wherever you want without regard to structural limits. Again, like the landing, flaps, exceeding the limits on the airplane is just not a great idea. In a high altitude fight, you could potentially push the wings forward, all the way to 20° where the program might have them say, 35°. So yes, you gained some performance, but you are exceeding a structural limit in the airplane. At some point exceeding structural limits is going to result in a damaged airplane.
Damaged airplanes don’t win fights.
Worse, I think that damaged airplanes are part of the reason that the F-14 was taken out of service. The maintenance man hour for every flight hour on the aircraft was considerably higher than that of the FA-18. Part of this was the normal process of airplanes getting older (the F/A-18C/D had really high maintenance man hours per flight hours in their later years of service) part of this was the overall complexity of the frame itself, but part of this was deliberately abusing the airplane.
For me, abusing the aircraft was the same thing as abusing the sailors who had to take care of it. If you “borrow the car“ and then tear it up and bring it back, they’re the poor souls who have to put it back together again. I fought the airplane to its limit, but I never exceeded the limit (OK, a little gentle exploration of speed and altitude may have happened, but not G, not flaps, and not air load limits) because I didn’t wanna break the thing and have our guys spend hundreds of hours putting it right.
More on the AIM-54 later. I’m not sure how much I can tell you that isn’t still classified.
I think that’s fair.
I also think it’s important for pilots to understand that we don’t always know why the limits were imposed.
Is it structural? Is it durability? Is it for something we had not considered? Something we didn’t know when the airplane was designed, but found out later through premature parts failure?
For example, the 50,000 foot limit on the aircraft ceiling. It was imposed because the Navy has an overarching physiological limit. Flight above 50,000 feet is not allowed without a pressure suit. It wasn’t because the airplane could not do it, it was an over arching physiological restriction that was imposed for safety.
The problem comes when pilots start violating limits. You don’t know if that limit was there, because there is a single weak part in the system, that the engineers knew about, or they were just being conservative, or what the consequences of breaking stuff would be.
At one point, a bunch of analysis was done on fatigue life and engineering, and they were going to raise the G limit from 6.5 to 7.5. Ultimately, it turned out that other components in the airplane didn’t handle that kind of G-load very well. I don’t wanna go into too many details, because some of those were weapon system components, but the 6.5 was not a structural limit for things like the titanium wing box, but rather it was other components on the airplane.
One other thing we found out later in the aircraft life was that there was severe structural strain from rolling the airplane at low altitude and high speed when the wings were swept fully aft.
The airplane was designed to be rolled, rapidly, in maneuvering flight with a combination of spoilers on the wing, and differential horizontal stabilizer. When the wings were after 55° of sweep, the spoilers are disabled. So full stick deflection rolls with the wings positioned all the way aft, put a large torsional load on the aft section of the fuselage, particularly the structure underneath the rudders, that connected the rudders and the horizontal tail. We started cracking these parts, it was called a “shear web” I think, and the engineers didn’t expect it, but the fatigue analysis showed that that was a weak point, and our airframe folks at NADEP had to replace a lot of shear webs.
So, the guys who said “you can use the landing flaps, up to 300 kn, it won’t hurt them”, were basically spouting a bunch of complete and utter garbage that they had made up to rationalize and justify their own actions.
If I had a very good reason to break a limit, I would do it.
However, breaking a limit to “cheat” just to try and win an ACM engagement is not a very good reason.
Last edited:
If you have watched the scene near the end of the movie: "Top Gun Maverick", where Maverick flies an F-14 Tomcat and shoots down two 5th Gen fighters, would that scene be a possible outcome in real life,
where a highly talented pilot in an F-14 Tomcat could shoot down two 5th Gen fighters in a dog fight?
I'm hoping the answer is yes, as I like the F-14's high max speed and adjustable wing span.
The F-14 is also the best looking plane (in my opinion) of all the F- series US planes. Seeing one looks like a work of art.
where a highly talented pilot in an F-14 Tomcat could shoot down two 5th Gen fighters in a dog fight?
I'm hoping the answer is yes, as I like the F-14's high max speed and adjustable wing span.
The F-14 is also the best looking plane (in my opinion) of all the F- series US planes. Seeing one looks like a work of art.
Last edited:
I would guess the ejection would be quite severe but then everything about the plane is quite severe.
What ,,what, what,, you say !! The movies aren't the truth and fact ?
Hoping the F-14 Tomcat is as good in real life as it was in the 2 Top Gun movies. If it isn't, it would be a real shame.
It’s better in some ways.
Particularly in the 1st one, the movies dumb down the airplane’s performance to make for good footage.
It’s true for most aspects of aircraft performance, it’s hard to put it on the big screen and make it relatable to people who have no context in which to interpret what they’re seeing.
As far as whether or not a fourth GEN fighter could beat a fifth GEN fighter, absolutely, the fifth GEN fighter just has to be close enough and/or, make a mistake.
An experienced driver, flying an A4, which really isn’t Gen anything, or an F5, which is really a 2nd Gen, could beat an F14 if the F-14 wasn’t employed properly.
It used to happen all the time*. In fact, the entire reason that Top Gun was created was because the Navy’s newest fighter, the F-4, was losing to inferior airplanes over the skies of Vietnam.
*(edit) In training. We had dedicated “adversary” squadrons that flew, variously, A-4s, F-5s, F-16s, and F/A-18s. Experienced pilots, with at least one operational fighter tour, were assigned there, and all they did was fight. Those of us in the fleet had to worry about things like carrier landing proficiency and delivering air-ground ordnance, but these guys just flew ACM. Nothing else. They were very, very good, and if you, in an F-14 weren’t on your game, they would beat you.
Badly.
Experience and skill matters. So do tactics.
Last edited:
This video just showed up in my YouTube feed. It’s circa 1985. The intro to the video is true, after spin training was introduced, using T-2 aircraft to do the out of control flight, the F-14 mishap rate due to out of control flight dropped dramatically.
The video ends abruptly, and I don’t think the complete segment was captured by YouTube. Still, you’ll see some of the things that we’ve talked about in this thread. The T-2 trainer, the ejection seat simulator, the helo dunker, and the adversary squadron.
The video ends abruptly, and I don’t think the complete segment was captured by YouTube. Still, you’ll see some of the things that we’ve talked about in this thread. The T-2 trainer, the ejection seat simulator, the helo dunker, and the adversary squadron.
Found this thread 2 days ago, read every post by @Astro14, mostly mouth agape. Literally in awe as I type. My eyes hurt and my heart is pumping.
This has been a mesmerizing thread to read, very instructional and detailed in ways I didn't even know I wanted to know about flying F-14s and aviation in general.
Can't say enough "Thank you for your service!" to folks like this.
This has been a mesmerizing thread to read, very instructional and detailed in ways I didn't even know I wanted to know about flying F-14s and aviation in general.
Can't say enough "Thank you for your service!" to folks like this.
Thank you, Sir. You’re very kind. I’m glad you enjoyed it.
