F-14 Tomcat

[KJ_Lesnick]

F-4B:
Weights: 28,000 pounds empty, 44,600 pounds gross, 38,500 pounds combat weight, 54,600 pounds maximum takeoff weight.
F-4E:
Weights: 29,535 pounds empty, 40,562 pounds gross, 38,019 pounds combat weight, 61,651 pounds maximum takeoff weight.
F-4J:
Weights: 30,770 pounds empty, 46,833 pounds gross, 41,399 pounds combat weight, pounds maximum takeoff weight.

What does gross-weight in this circumstance mean (I know on a commercial plane it means fully loaded)?  The plane and fuel only? 


Kendra Lesnick

[KJ_Lesnick]

RAF found F-14 avionics dated ,according to Mike Spick .

How so?

and the funny thing is F-14's combat record is nothing to talk of.

How so, just to be sure?

[Maverick]

Gulf of Sirte, 1981, USN F-14 2, Libyan Su-22 0.  Not too shabby in my opinion.  But then, as usual, these things have more to do with training rather than aircraft performance or avionics.

Regards,

Mav

[Shasper]

Dont forget the '89 Sidra shootdown of a pair of MiG-23s. . .

The AWG-9 (and the APG-71 that followed) could track up to 24+ targets at over 100NM away and then engage 6 of those simultaneously with the Phoenix missile. My know-how on the Foxhunter setup of the F.2/F.3 isnt exact, but before the AMRAAM came into play over the last few yrs the Fins were limited to 1 engagement at half the range of the Phoenix (around 50NM or so) due to the SAHR of the Skyflash missiles.


Shas

[Maverick]

r16,

I find it hard to believe that either side didn't make an issue of it from a purely propaganda point of view, whoever the targetted aircraft was flown by.  The Iranians? could well have talked at length about the all-powerful USN's failure, whilst the US could have quite easily gone on about the aggressive behaviour from them.

Makes one wonder why the story didn't get much of an airing, either within the aviation community or world at large.

Regards,

Mav

[KJ_Lesnick]

I just remember reading this somewhere, and I'm looking through all the books I have, but I can't find it -- Is it true that the F-14's pancake (the glove) allows alphas up to 50-degrees?  (Is that greater than the F-15?)

Kendra Lesnick

[Shasper]

Ok, I've never heard the "pancake" referred to as the "glove", so thats a new one on me. The ventral area in between the engines aft of the intakes has been known as the "pancake" or the "tunnel", and is a good source of lift for the F-14. From what I know, the "glove" would refer to the wing gloves (the fixed wing area where the main l/g & missile pylons are located). Now I'm no alpha expert, but I will say that the Tomcat has similar, if not better, handling than the F-15 in slower flight.

Shas

[BillSlim]

I think IIRC the early TF-30 powered A model often had trouble with the Eagle. However the later B and D models were supposed to have given the F-15 drivers quite a shock.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I think IIRC the early TF-30 powered A model often had trouble with the Eagle. However the later B and D models were supposed to have given the F-15 drivers quite a shock.

What's the max alpha the F-15 can do?

[B777LR]

I think IIRC the early TF-30 powered A model often had trouble with the Eagle. However the later B and D models were supposed to have given the F-15 drivers quite a shock.

What's the max alpha the F-15 can do?

What is alpha?

[Ed S]

I think IIRC the early TF-30 powered A model often had trouble with the Eagle. However the later B and D models were supposed to have given the F-15 drivers quite a shock.

What's the max alpha the F-15 can do?

What is alpha?

The first letter of the Greek alphabet.   

It's a term used to indicate angle of attack.  Or the relative angle of the airflow to the wing.  Higher "alpha" being indictive of slower speed or higher "G" turns.  Above a certain point, the airflow separates from the wing and you stall the a/c. 

Ed

[SebastianP]

With all the interest in the Tomcat, I find it pretty strange that no one outside of Grumman has built a model of the Tomcat-21 yet... Economy permitting, I think I'll do one, one of these days...

The base kit would be the Revell 1/72 F-14D. Fill all the panel lines, add wing glove extensions made from layered card and putty, and cut the heads off a pair of Lantirn pods and fair them into the forward Phoenix pallets. Then all that's needed is sourcing a new windscreen...

SP

[Shasper]

What you're talking about is the interim F-14 solution ie no major design changes  etc, somewhere I've got a scan of a radically redesigned (and very stealthy) Tomcat 21 proposal that looks more like a dorito when the wings are swept back.

Shas

[Shasper]

Demand, and I throw it in your face This came out of an old issue of Flight Journal from back in the day:



This is the basic outline



And this is the revisions made to the wing glove area

Unfortunatly I dont have a side view of this beasty, but whats seen here does fire the imagination. . .


Shas b)

[KJ_Lesnick]

r16,

"In the lower speed range , the F-14 proved remarkably agile ; as F-15 pilot Dito Ladd commented to the writer (Mike Spick) ;"We don't get slow against the gents in the F-14s! "

How much more maneuverable was the F-14 (F-14A, and F-14B) at low speeds compared to the F-15?  At what speed about does the F-15 become superior to the F-14?   

regarding high AOA capabilities of the Tomcat , my hazy memory is that they tested one aircraft in the early 70's with board like retractable extensions on the nose  in front of the inlets . It would look like as if the maintaince covers had been opened .Anyhow if it was not a misprint and ı remember it right ( of which I give no guarantee ) AOAs of +/- 90 degrees were recorded .

Did the F-14 routinely use such extensions where they achieved 90-degree alphas?  Or was that just on a prototype?

Was the aircraft stable I have no idea but F-101s are known to tumble in a similar fashion during their early test flights .

Was that due to instability?  Or was the F-101 also good at high-alphas?

The certain thing is  Tomcats were doing Pugachev Cobras or something similar long before the Su-27 was flying.

Routinely, or with those extensions on the nose? 

But in a world where F-16 is  limited to 26 degrees , you would definitely need TVC to go to 50 and I don't think Iranians do have them.

Is that actually true?  I don't get what the point of limiting the F-16 to 26-degrees as those chines can produce lift well beyond those alphas and the whole idea of instability and high-alpha capacity is incredibly good maneuverability and high-alpha capability at low-speeds.  The F-16 has done maneuvers like the Cobra to the best of my knowledge.


Shasper,

Demand, and I throw it in your face This came out of an old issue of Flight Journal from back in the day:



This is the basic outline



And this is the revisions made to the wing glove area

Unfortunatly I dont have a side view of this beasty, but whats seen here does fire the imagination. . .


Shas b)

There's a UHF radar in the glove?  Why would such a radar be needed in that location?  Why not just stuff it in the nose?


Kendra