Jump to content

BlackLion213

Members
  • Content Count

    1586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

1 Follower

About BlackLion213

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS and P3D (Aerosoft F-14A/B)
  • Location
    San Fransciso Bay Area

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The AFCS SAS system that was fitted to all F-14s (A/B/D) from introduction till 1998-2000 when the fleet was upgraded with DFCS starting with the F-14A models. -Nick
  2. Your NATOPS is for a DFCS equipped jet. It was standard procedure to turn off roll SAS for high AOA flight since the SAS does not function properly in the AOA range where roll reversal occurs. This is pretty standard for SAS equipped fighters like the F-4 phantom as well. Since most swept wing jets experience high AOA roll reversal the SAS functions become counterproductive at high AOA. -Nick
  3. Having the external tanks mounted at all times was standard practice while at sea starting around the late 1970s. The external tanks have a dedicated hardpoint and don't add much drag so there was little downside to keeping them mounted at all times. The biggest drawback was that it decreased yaw stability just a little bit at higher AOA, including the approach configuration. But it wasn't a big deal for pilots. But when launching from a ship, aircraft would take as much fuel as practical so mounting the tanks was preferred. Plus, removing them requires storage and such, so best to just lea
  4. Yes, I have heard the same and the G tolerance improvements from inclining the seat proved to be statistically insignificant and added some other ergonomic drawbacks. Hence the later F-22 would have the more standard incline of 14 degrees (I think?). The increased seat recline makes more sense if you treat the vascular system as a vertical fluid column, but physiologically it doesn't quite work that way. Especially since the primary area of interest are the relative position of the common carotid (and brachiocephalic) branches from the aortic arch. With pilots leaning forward to move their
  5. That inference is a pretty weak argument. Is it safe to call the Hornet a bomber because it was an A-7 replacement? That was indeed the role. But the "designed for" argument has little merit once the aircraft is in the fleet. Irrespective of design requirements (which was to be a superior ACM aircraft to the current fighter - the F-4J), the F-14 spent the first 2/3rds of its career as a dedicated air to air killer and the last 10 years as a "strike fighter" sharing both strike and fighter roles. NFWS was vast majority Tomcat crews until the early 90s and remained a major contingent till
  6. Totally the thing to say when you can't back-up a claim, I'll give you that. I think that Hummingbird over-stated his position, but thats another matter. Yes, so you agree that they appear to be equals? When a proper execution leads to success, errors lead to losses, and exchange rates are equal; that means it involves relative equals. Also note the lack of comments like "winning usually meant the F-15 made a mistake" or "it was rare, but sweet", etc. Does this translate into "invariably in a killing position" for the Eagle? Certainly sounds like a contradiction to me. So like I
  7. Sure, here you go: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-topgun-instructor-watched-the-f-14-go-from-tomcat-1725012279 Scroll down to the part on the F-15. No one is saying that the Tomcat nearly always waxed the Eagle in DACT. Where did you get that idea from? What I am responded to is the notion that Eagles won the engagement nearly every time they tangled with F-14s. That clearly is incorrect. You made this claim supported by anecdotal reports of what "the community was saying in the 90s" - not even the outcome of a specific group of engagements. Basically second hand hearsay.
  8. Oh you mean like a bunch of competitive guys getting together and talking about their victories over guys that aren't in the room? Sounds very definable and quantifiable.....oh wait! Its the opposite of that! :smartass: And to answer your question: yes. I have spoke with lots of Tomcat crews that have beaten Eagles multiple times at DACT. One of our best SMEs had a memorable round of three 2v4s (2 F-14As against 4 F-15Cs) and the Eagles lost 2 out of 3.....but I'm sure the Eagles were proud when they won the 3rd round. Surely they declared the Tomcats grapes after that 3rd victorious engag
  9. The crew on the FFP were both B crew members. Its worth mentioning that all F-14B pilots do their initial FAM flights in the F-14A - so even a pilot who spends his entire career on the B will put 60-80 hours on the F-14A. The only Tomcat crews who have no flight time in the F-14A are F-14D crews. So neither of those guys had experienced a real stall, but remembered the standard NATOPS restrictions and procedures - it left quite an impression, but reality was quite different. The TF30 was very stable at zone 5 and mil-power, even to 50+ deg of AOA. The issue is if you weren't at mil-power/zo
  10. It is easy to pick a fight with something that intends to eat you. :D -Nick
  11. No it absolutely did with respect to TWS radar and the AMRAAM. The AIM-54C's guidance logic was plugged directly into the AIM-120A and it was miniaturization technology that allowed other US aircraft to acquire the Tomcat's multi-target engagement capability 20 years (!) after its initial deployment. Experience and algorithms developed from the design and implementation of the AWG-9 found their way into other Hughe's products including the APG-63. The T/W difference was purely driven by the troubled development and cost over-runs of the F100 engines (and therefore the related F401 for
  12. The Phantom was absolutely designed as an interceptor, but let me have the chief designer speak to that: How a service uses an airframe may have little to do with the original design intention. In the case of the Phantom, it was fast and powerful which made it adaptable. It was also big enough to allow for new equipment and large payloads. Hence the whole argument concerning “designed for” carries little merit since it doesn’t necessarily predict the strength or weaknesses of a given aircraft. The Phantom proved adaptable despite a design that was actually quite focused.
  13. Well....the assertion that it was designed "purely as an interceptor" is incorrect, but that ability was part of its design philosophy along with range, loiter time, acceleration, top speed, etc. If it was purely designed for fighter escort and armed "4x4" it probably would have been smaller and looked a bit different. In hind sight, its pretty remarkable that the designers built an airplane that was faster than the Phantom, had a 125 KIAS approach speed at max trap (without DLC), could carry the AWG-9 and 6 AIM-54s with their entirely unique/remarkable capability for the time, loiter on s
  14. Yes, but we haven't sent a test build to Okie for a couple of months. We have other SMEs who test more frequently and continue to evaluate handling related changes. The thrust issues are validated more with bench tests and there will be changes in the near term (more thrust). -Nick
  15. Well it was actually designed to do everything - air superiority, fleet air defense, and close-in engagements as needed. If it were purely an interceptor (like the F-4) it wouldn't have a large bubble canopy and enormous control surfaces to allow for an impressive pitch rate. Plus "designed for" doesn't necessarily translate into capability. Irrespective, the F110 powered Tomcats can match the F-16's sustained turn rate at 10000', so nothing to take lightly. Being a post-Vietnam design, it certainly was created with the understanding that any fighter aircraft needs to be capable at ACM.
×
×
  • Create New...