Gloved forward canards.

Regarding gloved forward canards, when wing are in full sweep. Under what conditions does FCS extends gloved canards?

They don't, they were removed from the real Jet sometime after entering service. They were meant to deploy in the transonic region to improve controlability there. They were found to be unecessary.

Regarding gloved forward canards, when wing are in full sweep. Under what conditions does FCS extends gloved canards?

The glove vanes were eliminated from the F-14B and F-14D, and removed from As which were rebuilt into Bs and Ds, so you won't see them rolling out of the HB F-14B.

They were included in all F-14As and deactivated over time for numerous reasons, not the least of which was maintenance requirements for a system that didn't do much for the aircraft below Mach 2. They weren't deactivated uniformly, pictures exist from even the mid-90s with F-14As with their glove vanes out, but it is much more rare; the systems seems to have been phased out and locked shut across a decade from the late 1980s through the late 1990s.

I read years ago that in a lot of the A’s, the glove vanes were usually just deactivated from the system rather than removed due to cost constraints.

You might expect them when the A model hits DCS. At least visually HB has planned to add them. They'd extend when you go supersonic, being fully out at M 1.3 + IIRC.

You might expect them when the A model hits DCS. At least visually HB has planned to add them. They'd extend when you go supersonic, being fully out at M 1.3 + IIRC.

there are other conditions too. they come out in bomb mode to give extra stability with the wing swept back. not only for supersonic though that was most of the reason

You might expect them when the A model hits DCS. At least visually HB has planned to add them. They'd extend when you go supersonic, being fully out at M 1.3 + IIRC.

I thought HB stated that working glove wings are not part of their A model.

Glove vane normally open above mach 1.4 but can be override open above mach 1.0 iirc.

Also, some paper suggested that glove vane can be use in conjunction with a maneuver flap schedule and wing sweep position. By combining slat, maneuver flap, and glove vane, it could improve the handling and the buffet magnitude.

However, from what i remember, I cant find the detail of glove vane extension schedule with maneuver flap in NATOPS and thus maybe didn't make it to the operation fleet for some reason.

I wonder if the "A" will actually be more agile in capable hands from the "B". AFAIK, it will have a higher max speed, correct?

Glove vane normally open above mach 1.4 but can be override open above mach 1.0 iirc.

Also, some paper suggested that glove vane can be use in conjunction with a maneuver flap schedule and wing sweep position. By combining slat, maneuver flap, and glove vane, it could improve the handling and the buffet magnitude.

However, from what i remember, I cant find the detail of glove vane extension schedule with maneuver flap in NATOPS and thus maybe didn't make it to the operation fleet for some reason.

CADC automatic glove vane extension begins at 1.35M with full extension (15 degrees) achieved by 1.45M. BOMB mode deploys the glove vanes if the airspeed is greater than 0.35M, and retracts the vanes when airspeed drops below 0.35M.

The glove vanes were eliminated from the F-14B and F-14D, and removed from As which were rebuilt into Bs and Ds, so you won't see them rolling out of the HB F-14B.

 

They were included in all F-14As and deactivated over time for numerous reasons, not the least of which was maintenance requirements for a system that didn't do much for the aircraft below Mach 2. They weren't deactivated uniformly, pictures exist from even the mid-90s with F-14As with their glove vanes out, but it is much more rare; the systems seems to have been phased out and locked shut across a decade from the late 1980s through the late 1990s.

Heck, I have a picture from 1985 of two jets from the same squadron; one with the vanes out and the other without.

Glove vanes were only removed from F-14B® and F-14D® and not a part of new build F-14B and F-14D. The actuators were either removed or just disconnected and the vanes remained in place in every F-14A the fleet ever had. They did not all deactivate at the same time- but you wont find any pics of an F-14A using them past 1990 unless its Iranian. Every F-14 A static you crack open will have a glove vane, they're only locked shut.

Glove vanes were only removed from F-14B® and F-14D® and not a part of new build F-14B and F-14D. The actuators were either removed or just disconnected and the vanes remained in place in every F-14A the fleet ever had. They did not all deactivate at the same time- but you wont find any pics of an F-14A using them past 1990 unless its Iranian. Every F-14 A static you crack open will have a glove vane, they're only locked shut.

That's pretty much what I posted earlier, but the thing is, there are definitely pictures of them in USN use post-1990. Hell, in a single book there's a shot of a VF-32 Turkey with vanes rolled out over Iraq in ODS, another from 1993 of a VF-84 Tomcat with an F/A-18C on its wing approaching the TR with the vanes out and another one from around 1995-6 from NAWC with a couple different angles taken with the vanes rolled out. Even the 1998 NATOPS retained its section on them. They weren't phased out all at once at the turn of the decade between 1989 and 1990, they were phased out over time. Even at Tomcat-Sunset when it was still going some of the airframers were commenting how in certain squadrons they'd keep them active until they broke, then disconnected the system, other squadrons actively deactivated them, and still others kept them functional. There isn't a really clean cut. By 2003, they're out of the NATOPS, so you can safely say by that time they were all inactive, but 1990 is way too early.

That's pretty much what I posted earlier, but the thing is, there are definitely pictures of them in USN use post-1990. Hell, in a single book there's a shot of a VF-32 Turkey with vanes rolled out over Iraq in ODS, another from 1993 of a VF-84 Tomcat with an F/A-18C on its wing approaching the TR with the vanes out and another one from around 1995-6 from NAWC with a couple different angles taken with the vanes rolled out. Even the 1998 NATOPS retained its section on them. They weren't phased out all at once at the turn of the decade between 1989 and 1990, they were phased out over time. Even at Tomcat-Sunset when it was still going some of the airframers were commenting how in certain squadrons they'd keep them active until they broke, then disconnected the system, other squadrons actively deactivated them, and still others kept them functional. There isn't a really clean cut. By 2003, they're out of the NATOPS, so you can safely say by that time they were all inactive, but 1990 is way too early.

Thanks for the further clarification- I thought I had seen a few pics but didn’t have a date on them. Good info!

I wonder if the "A" will actually be more agile in capable hands from the "B". AFAIK, it will have a higher max speed, correct?

The A's had less thrust than the B and D models do which in theory would translate to worse performance in BFM since maintaining energy in a steady state corner would have a wider turn radius due to less G and AoA available. In other words, the F110's could overpower more AoA and provide much better energy management while turning. IIRC, the TF30 consumed less fuel in afterburner, but don't quote me on that.

That said... I forget which SME it was, but they said they actually fared better in the A than the B because the A had a "set and forget" throttle setting in BFM where the B required more conscious effort to not add too much energy coming "down the hill" in a vertical fight.

I wonder if the "A" will actually be more agile in capable hands from the "B". AFAIK, it will have a higher max speed, correct?

Higher top speed, but lower acceleration, especially in the subsonic region. And let's not even mention non existent military power at altitude.

As for turning, it's lighter, so we should have slight increase in instantaneous turn rates, but i'd expect no more then 1/2 a degree or something. Sustained turn rates inferior, but not by much. It is climbing and unleaded turns that will be the major difference in performance. If you slow down in an F-14A, you remain slow for the rest of the fight. Similar to a Hornet i guess, only without the benefits of a hand holding flight computer. Ironically, because the bleed rates should be higher, it might actually be easier to turn in it for those people that fly the F-14B in AB at all times right now.