Understaning A and B Model?

Can someone in a nutshell sum up why I might want the A if I own the B?

because its free.

Because thats what the only country in the world still flying the F14 has is A models.

Because why not, they offered, its a different variant. The question is why would you not want it - eventually like some of us youll know every single nook of the B model and even minor changes will be noticed

what is ab burn through and why is it dangerous?

what is ab burn through and why is it dangerous?

The lengthened afterburner section of the -400 version of the F110 caused certain "hot spots" in the engine liner which in several instances led to catastrophic failure of the engine, an explosion or fire, and loss of the flight crews in two instances (one F-14B and one F-14D(R )). There was an engineering solution which modified the afterburner section, and afterburner limitations in place in the mid-1990s. By 1997, there is no time limit to afterburner operations in the NATOPS for F110 powered F-14s.

Some hearings on the scourge of mishaps during the mid-1990s can be found on Google Books:

"Accident Investigations of Recent F-14 and AV-8B Mishaps: Hearing Before the Military Procurement Subcommittee of the Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held April 16, 1996, Volume 4"

The lengthened afterburner section of the -400 version of the F110 caused certain "hot spots" in the engine liner which in several instances led to catastrophic failure of the engine, an explosion or fire, and loss of the flight crews in two instances (one F-14B and one F-14D(R )). There was an engineering solution which modified the afterburner section, and afterburner limitations in place in the mid-1990s. By 1997, there is no time limit to afterburner operations in the NATOPS for F110 powered F-14s.

 

Some hearings on the scourge of mishaps during the mid-1990s can be found on Google Books:

 

"Accident Investigations of Recent F-14 and AV-8B Mishaps: Hearing Before the Military Procurement Subcommittee of the Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held April 16, 1996, Volume 4"

grim!

 

You were just a pilot. You were not the fleet...

 

And the fleet tends to disseminate important information to the warfighters. Also, he was a pilot, in the fleet. Maybe it didn't happen to him, but how big is the F-14 community? If someone had a wildly different experience than him, he would have heard about it at least 3rd hand. He was in the community. The community's information passed through him. If he says the reputation is overblown, then it's overblown. That doesn't mean the engine upgrade was unnecessary. It just means someone who made a career of flying that aircraft with that engine, and didn't do it in a vacuum, says it's overblown.

You can say that, but it is not the overall truth.

Oh I'm sorry, were you part of the Tomcat community? Surely you can tell us about your experiences then and how these engines performed on several deployments throughout the 70's and 80's. How someone can write up such bullshit and argue with an SME with thiusands of hours on the thing is just mind-boggling. Go outside and get a grip on reality.

. He was in the community. The community's information passed through him. If he says the reputation is overblown, then it's overblown. That doesn't mean the engine upgrade was unnecessary. It just means someone who made a career of flying that aircraft with that engine, and didn't do it in a vacuum, says it's overblown.

He can't talk behalf of the community or all pilots as you say.

When even the designer says TF-30 engines were not able handle what pilots wanted and needed (rapid throttle movements because situation requirements), it doesn't mean that engines were not problematic even if anyone would have not lost their life or aircrafts or get in bad situations ever.

If you mishandle something, and it kicks back, it can be your problem. If you need something, and it disallows you to use it as required, is it your fault? No.

Oh I'm sorry, were you part of the Tomcat community? Surely you can tell us about your experiences then and how these engines performed on several deployments throughout the 70's and 80's. How someone can write up such bullshit and argue with an SME with thiusands of hours on the thing is just mind-boggling. Go outside and get a grip on reality.

So insults against logic. As you now talk behalf of every pilot, test pilot, engineer and all.....

Really, gasp the facts, if you have 4000 hours on something, it doesn't mean you have experience of 100 pilots. You are only a one pilot.

In a group peoples memories gets twisted more and more, false memories can be implanted easily, important details can be completely forgotten, overseen and purely invented on the spot.

You can not trust other people memories, even if you would have a rare skill to remember everything that you ever do.

And regardless of all those facts about memory, no one can talk behalf of everyone and make a broad claims about something happening or never happening to different people.

I think Victory 205's point is that the F110 was not a flawless engine. For all the improvements in performance and safety (and they were significant when you look at the total number of jets and aircrews lost to engine problems comparatively), there were still fatalities that were directly caused by faults with the F110 engine, and it did need to be fixed - at least two material solutions were required, both with respect to the afterburner section. For that matter, the TF-30 didn't just stall if you looked at it wrong. What he says about the TF-30 reflects what I've heard from plenty of other Tomcat drivers - plug it in afterburner and it's generally fine. One of them called it the Ronco Engine: "Set It, And Forget It!" It's when you start trying to move the throttles while actively maneuvering that it gets temperamental.

I could fill volumes with what some “experts” don’t understand about the real world...

Every engine stall required a detailed write up both in the aircraft logbook and in separate stall report, you know, because PW was under extreme scrutiny to ensure that their engines and modifications were performing properly. Said write ups were widely disseminated, to the aforementioned PW, Grumman, NATC, NAVAIR, Fighterwings on both coasts, AIMD on both coasts and on every ship, every CAG, every squadron, etc.

Every day, every officer in every squadron had to read an initial a daily message board that contained exactly this sort of data. There were times that we received procedures to handle issues that had just been identified and checklists quickly enacted to resolve a new problem. As an Operations Officer, I once had to read a procedure to rectify a stuck throttle to a crew that we got in the night before it happened to one of our crews at Red Flag.

Each squadron’s NATOPS Officer would brief every deficiency that came through the message system. Every squadron and wing Safety Officer would coordinate briefings on whatever issues were manifesting across the spectrum, including stalls and the exact reported conditions of the stall.

Additionally, I served as an Aircraft Division Officer, one of my duties was responsibility for the Powerplants shop and the men who maintained our engines. We actually changed and trimmed engines on the ship’s engine run facilities. AIMD and each squadron maintenance department got additional maintenance reports on every system. If a freaking engine stalled anywhere on the planet, I knew about it and how it occurred. In my next squadron, I ended up in QA, where all of the above was amplified. If an engine burped, then aircraft would be taken out of service until we figured out why, followed by fuel control checks and a trim run. Four years in that squadron and we never had a stall.

Hopefully you'll understand that there is far more to the Navy fighter business than just flying aircraft and talking smack. We maintained our own aircraft, and were engaged in constant competition to solve problems and make the aircraft better and safer.

Professionals live or die by data, not anecdotes.

It was discussed in a different location, but it will basically be the same USN F-14 in IRIAF liveries and apparently loadout limitations.

Not quite, it won't have LANTIRN or the TCS.

Not quite, it won't have LANTIRN or the TCS.

I wasn't going to list everything HB already said. It is going to be mostly the same.

So insults against logic. As you now talk behalf of every pilot, test pilot, engineer and all.....

 

 

 

Really, gasp the facts, if you have 4000 hours on something, it doesn't mean you have experience of 100 pilots. You are only a one pilot.

 

In a group peoples memories gets twisted more and more, false memories can be implanted easily, important details can be completely forgotten, overseen and purely invented on the spot.

 

 

 

You can not trust other people memories, even if you would have a rare skill to remember everything that you ever do.

 

And regardless of all those facts about memory, no one can talk behalf of everyone and make a broad claims about something happening or never happening to different people.

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue at all. Are you just arguing for the sake of argument based on internet searches against an actual Tomcat pilot'd experience...that included a deaths of someone he actually knows?

Let's just grasp reality for a second and remember the fact that like most in here, you have zero real hours in a Tomcat and he has 4000, which makes him infinitely more qualified than your Google searches. Not to mention it it wasn't for SME experiences like him being passed along to Heatblur, we wouldn't be living out our Top Gun fantasies.

Sometimes, it's better to listen then to wait your turn to speak again.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

And the fleet tends to disseminate important information to the warfighters. Also, he was a pilot, in the fleet. Maybe it didn't happen to him, but how big is the F-14 community? If someone had a wildly different experience than him, he would have heard about it at least 3rd hand. He was in the community. The community's information passed through him. If he says the reputation is overblown, then it's overblown. That doesn't mean the engine upgrade was unnecessary. It just means someone who made a career of flying that aircraft with that engine, and didn't do it in a vacuum, says it's overblown.

Sometimes anyway. When it's not political (lol just about every procurement).

Seems the spin issues were more due to the analog FLCS not solved until the DFCS and incorporated only in the F-14D. IIRC DACA book cited 30% of lost aircraft due to the TF-30.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/quick-look-nasa-f-14-tomcat-testbeds/

I've read the TF-30 were much more maintenance heavy, as well though that might have been due to age. We can all probably agree the fleet would have been far better off if the full 1987 procurement of 100 new build F-14D and 427 rebuild F-14D® had been completed with F110s...

Hey guys, perhaps you can help me out.

I read somewhere on the Internet the ramblings of an ex. Tomcat pilot who wrote about a particular bird, and how that bird seemed to be faster than the others.

I can't remember if it was some forum post, or a blog or something. And my Google-fu comes up short. Does anyone know where to find this text? There were some images as well.

I feel like I might spoil the read for you guys if we mange to find it but the twist was that this particular Turkey had F-111 engines of some variety. I can't remember which, perhaps TF30-P-100?

Edit:

Of course I found it just after I asked for help.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/page-12#post-3882538

(The engines were supposedly rebuilt TF30-P-7s.)

Hey guys, perhaps you can help me out.

 

I read somewhere on the Internet the ramblings of an ex. Tomcat pilot who wrote about a particular bird, and how that bird seemed to be faster than the others.

 

I can't remember if it was some forum post, or a blog or something. And my Google-fu comes up short. Does anyone know where to find this text? There were some images as well.

 

I feel like I might spoil the read for you guys if we mange to find it but the twist was that this particular Turkey had F-111 engines of some variety. I can't remember which, perhaps TF30-P-100?

 

 

Edit:

Of course I found it just after I asked for help.

 

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/f-14-questions-answered-ask-away.191767/page-12#post-3882538

 

(The engines were supposedly rebuilt TF30-P-7s.)

i love info like that. theres a similer story for the english electric lighting an f3 (xr749 iirc) was noticeably faster than the rest of the fleet and nobody knows why

Were IIRAF F-14As Carrier capable?

Were IIRAF F-14As Carrier capable?

Aside the deletion of a few sensitive systems, they were structurally the same F-14s the US Navy got, so they probably could at time of delivery. The 80th F-14 built for Iran never got delivered and was remanded to US Navy service, but I think it was used as a testbed and never served in a fleet squadron.

IIRC DACA book cited 30% of lost aircraft due to the TF-30.

 

Yeah, just because the compressor stall issue was overblown doesn't mean the TF-30 wasn't still a poor match for the F-14. It undoubtedly was. The data proves it. But the data also proves that the reputation for flying apart when you sneezed down the intake is also erroneous.