Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

[Mega]

Just wondering..................a flying Sam-site that Radar + Aim5.............i hear Iran took down 3 Migs with one Aim 5. I also saw the female pilot get killed in one.........i think what shocks me the most is the Navy going F35........a shitty plane with a single engine.

Your thoughts?
Mike

[Woodsman]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

Just wondering..................a flying Sam-site that Radar + Aim5.............i hear Iran took down 3 Migs with one Aim 5. I also saw the female pilot get killed in one.........i think what shocks me the most is the Navy going F35........a shitty plane with a single engine.

Your thoughts?
Mike

You'll dig these, Mike:

From the old "Wings/Great Planes" series (not the awful, dumb new one)

As for F-35, the Tomcat was built when the MIC at least cared about quality work and the Flags cared about getting the best bang for the buck. Now the MIC could give a crap and the Flags are looking for post-retirement work. Someday the slimy CEO of LM will be behind bars.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

The Shah's Air Force was the only export customer of the grumman F14 Tomcat.

I believe the Shah may have provided loans to Grumman to keep them afloat in the dark days of the 1970's.

Post revolution Iran-Iraq War Iranian F14s slaughtered the Iraqi Air Force in the air while trying to keep the F14s serviced on the ground due to embargo and declining spare parts and consumables.

The Iranians did an admirable job of depot level maintenance as well as smuggling F14 and compatible parts out of the US.

So much so that when the F14 was retired from US service it conducted the unprecedented action(outside of strategic nuclear delivery platforms) of total destruction of the retired air fleet and manufacturing tooling.

-----

The female pilot who died landing one was the result of pressure to see the "first female fighter pilot" in US service for political reasons.

That's not to say there are not highly capable female combat pilots today, decades later, but at the time political interference led to the operational qualification of a pilot who was not meeting the standard, and died as a result of it.

-----

As far as Woodsman's comments about the F35, it's probably best to reserve judgement until such time as the F35 is used in combat.

Which will probably be in a few years when the first operations squadrons come on line.

In the 1970's, similar comments were made about the F14, F15, and F16 platforms when they were first under development and procurement began. "Too expensive", "too unreliable", "too big", "too small", "too complicated", "too simple".

It's always "too something".

[jk]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

my father was an engineer at grumman and worked on both the lunar excursion module and the f-14. i recall he told me a story about a couple of f-14s who discovered there were some air force fighters on their tails. the f-14s extended their wings to slow down while performing loops, and came down just behind air force planes.

the navy also thought 2 engines were good ideas for airplanes flying over water. it still sounds right to me, but procurement efficiency apparently is more important than operational values. kind of like the osprey, but in that the "efficiency"wasn't in the procurement process but the politics.

[Woodsman]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

It's always "too something"...

Fair enough. Given LM's consistent failure to meet specs, deadlines, budgets - not to mention LM's slimy palm greasing and strong arm tactics - I'm thinking there's little reason for optimism. And every reason to expect this bird is going to account for a bunch orphans and widows before spending the rest of the time on the ground.

But what do I know? The only flying I do nowadays is coach and my PC, desk jockey that I am.

Back to mom's basement.

[GRG55]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

my father was an engineer at grumman and worked on both the lunar excursion module and the f-14. i recall he told me a story about a couple of f-14s who discovered there were some air force fighters on their tails. the f-14s extended their wings to slow down while performing loops, and came down just behind air force planes.

the navy also thought 2 engines were good ideas for airplanes flying over water. it still sounds right to me, but procurement efficiency apparently is more important than operational values. kind of like the osprey, but in that the "efficiency"wasn't in the procurement process but the politics.

There is much, much more to the 2-engine vs 1-engine selection than operational efficiency or cost.

Performance, in every respect, is also a big engineering and design issue. Two engines offer redundancy for Arctic or overwater work (the Navy F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets are 2-engine as is the Air Force F-22 Raptor). But two engines add weight, require more fuel for a given range, which adds more weight, which requires a heavier airframe to deal with a given maximum +/- g-load, which adds weight, which needs more fuel, which adds weight...you can see where this leads. The single engine General Dynamics F-16 has been a superb operational airplane. So have the twin engine Hornets. They just aren't meant for the same mission profile.

The "be-everything-to-everyone" F-35 is unfortunately running into the inevitable engineering and design compromises that entails. There's no way I will ever be convinced that a high altitude interceptor (like the F-15) and low level air superiority/air cover aircraft can be developed using the same airframe, as the Pentagon appears to be trying to do now.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

my father was an engineer at grumman and worked on both the lunar excursion module and the f-14. i recall he told me a story about a couple of f-14s who discovered there were some air force fighters on their tails. the f-14s extended their wings to slow down while performing loops, and came down just behind air force planes.

the navy also thought 2 engines were good ideas for airplanes flying over water. it still sounds right to me, but procurement efficiency apparently is more important than operational values. kind of like the osprey, but in that the "efficiency"wasn't in the procurement process but the politics.

There's a story in aviation circles about how incredibly competitive the battle between F15 and F14 was for the Iranian export order.

Pretty much nothing was off the table with Iran(including civilian nuclear power systems with full nuclear material cycle and all its implications under Nixon).

The F14 is not as good a dog fighter as the F15 Eagle.

In in an aerial demonstration fly off the Grumman team loaded the F14 with as little fuel as possible for the demo.

Keeping it light. Dangerously light. And putting on an incredible(and short) air show, landing on fumes.

It helped. Or at least didn't hurt.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

There is much, much more to the 2-engine vs 1-engine selection than operational efficiency or cost.

Performance, in every respect, is also a big engineering and design issue. Two engines offer redundancy for Arctic or overwater work (the Navy F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets are 2-engine as is the Air Force F-22 Raptor). But two engines add weight, require more fuel for a given range, which adds more weight, which requires a heavier airframe to deal with a given maximum +/- g-load, which adds weight, which needs more fuel, which adds weight...you can see where this leads. The single engine General Dynamics F-16 has been a superb operational airplane. So have the twin engine Hornets. They just aren't meant for the same mission profile.

The "be-everything-to-everyone" F-35 is unfortunately running into the inevitable engineering and design compromises that entails. There's no way I will ever be convinced that a high altitude interceptor (like the F-15) and low level air superiority/air cover aircraft can be developed using the same airframe, as the Pentagon appears to be trying to do now.

"Good idea fairy" as gremlin.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

Fair enough. Given LM's consistent failure to meet specs, deadlines, budgets - not to mention LM's slimy palm greasing and strong arm tactics - I'm thinking there's little reason for optimism. And every reason to expect this bird is going to account for a bunch orphans and widows before spending the rest of the time on the ground.

But what do I know? The only flying I do nowadays is coach and my PC, desk jockey that I am.

Lockheed has a long and storied history of successful bleeding edge aircraft.

U2
SR71
F117
F22
C130

F16(bought from GD)

Sadly, the only one I've flown in quite a bit is the C130. World's greatest flying truck.

The funny thing is, GRG55 is right about the F16. It was and remains superb.

And even that plane had development issues and public perception issues(First in fly by wire, before everything went FBW):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburn_(film)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WWysY0cBg1w

Don't believe everything you read.

Maybe the F35 will be a disaster, maybe not.

If past performance is the best indicator of future performance, then the odds are that it will be a game changer in capability, particularly in terms of access to non permissive space, electronic attack, synthetic vision, and growth for aerial laser armament.

[santafe2]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

Performance, in every respect, is also a big engineering and design issue. Two engines offer redundancy for Arctic or overwater work (the Navy F-18 Hornets and Super Hornets are 2-engine as is the Air Force F-22 Raptor). But two engines add weight, require more fuel for a given range, which adds more weight, which requires a heavier airframe to deal with a given maximum +/- g-load, which adds weight, which needs more fuel, which adds weight...you can see where this leads. The single engine General Dynamics F-16 has been a superb operational airplane. So have the twin engine Hornets. They just aren't meant for the same mission profile.

On average I've flown for business twice a month for the last 20 years. That's about 100 takeoffs and touchdowns per year and only once have I required 2 engines. We lost the port engine to a massive malfunction on a 7X7 while landing at IAH. Excellent design + an excellent pilot got us back around and landed safely. Watching the ground come up fast inside a 1000 tons of steel and cargo is unsettling. So yes, redundancy, it's not just a nice idea when you're flying without an ejection seat and a parachute.

[GRG55]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

Lockheed has a long and storied history of successful bleeding edge aircraft.

U2
SR71
F117
F22
C130

F16(bought from GD)

Sadly, the only one I've flown in quite a bit is the C130. World's greatest flying truck.

The funny thing is, GRG55 is right about the F16. It was and remains superb.

And even that plane had development issues and public perception issues(First in fly by wire, before everything went FBW):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterburn_(film)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WWysY0cBg1w

Don't believe everything you read.

Maybe the F35 will be a disaster, maybe not.

If past performance is the best indicator of future performance, then the odds are that it will be a game changer in capability, particularly in terms of access to non permissive space, electronic attack, synthetic vision, and growth for aerial laser armament.

My all time favourite Kelly Johnson Lockheed Skunkworks aircraft - first Mach 2 operational fighter (and that was using a single General Electric engine!), winner of the 1958 Collier Trophy. Some years ago, I was prowling the warbird flightline at Oshkosh at daybreak, and had to do a double take as there was Starfighter in a polished aluminum & red trim civilian paint scheme. Only in America. (but I of course had to show a pic in Canadian livery - this is over Cold Lake, Alberta)








More Starfighter-porn:

[santafe2]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

Sadly, the only one I've flown in quite a bit is the C130. World's greatest flying truck.

When I was in the US military in Frankfurt, our warrant officers would have to get some hours in over the weekend and I'd go with a couple of friends to Rhein Main Fridays about 3:00PM to check weekend flight plans and see if we could get away to Greece or Italy for the weekend. Always on a 130 and in the summer, cargo ramp open to keep it cool inside. I've several fond memories of that nearly perfect "truck" of an airplane.

[santafe2]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

Always on a 130 and in the summer, cargo ramp open to keep it cool inside.

And the seating was always first class.

[GRG55]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

And the seating was always first class.

Okay, now I know where United got their inspiration...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Was the F14 a "Great" plane?

And the seating was always first class.

Bad flashbacks!

Sitting in the back of a Herc, starboard side, inside row, facing out, in uniform, with smock/warm gears in daybag while baking on the blacktop in 100+ heat and humidity in the tropics.

Delayed takeoff sweating to death.

Upon takeoff and reaching cruising altitude, I climbed up into the little known tail section to stretch out and sleep where it was naturally air conditioned/cold. Biggest temp change I've ever experienced in the shortest time/distance.

We've got the oldest flying Hercs in service. Due for replacement.