F-14 HUD symbology

[Cobra847]

Thanks Cobra!:)

 

Quick question, do you think the F-14A and -B can be released together? Or it's too early to say?

 

I hope to see they being released together, or at least the F-14B first.

 

We hope to release both together. If not-- B first.

[SkateZilla]

Well, my point was that during landings in particular you are going to be focused on that HUD, and if the refresh rate is too slow, it could be fatal.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

The F-14 HUD had a slow refresh rate....

[MoGas]

We hope to release both together. If not-- B first.

 

Anyway, my choice.... :joystick:

 

[turkeydriver]

Anyway, my choice.... :joystick:

 

 

But the TF-30 was a faster motor........F-110 was better for acceleration to Mach 1.6 and energy sustainment and building, but the TF-30 was faster up high.

[SkateZilla]

But the TF-30 was a faster motor........F-110 was better for acceleration to Mach 1.6 and energy sustainment and building, but the TF-30 was faster up high.

 

 

 

TF30 was Faster Up High, by a small margin,

F110 was Faster down Low, more Stable Down Low, More Stable in High AoA, more Stable when Throttles are rapidly Moved, More Stable in Transitional Stall behavior.

 

I can go on, the TF-30s in a Dogfighting Aircraft were a joke,

Whoever was in charge and forced the TF-30s into the Tomcat to save money by transfering the F-111B Systems to the F-14 must have had a stroke.

 

If Maverick had been flying an A+/B with the 110 Engines, Goose would be Alive Today, No forgiveness.

Edited September 19, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Dudikoff]

The F-14B has the same HUD as the F-14A, except by the Sparrow Hawk HUD, which was installed in some F-14Bs by late 1999.

 

That was when the first aircraft flew with it installed, but IIRC there were plenty issues with it which were not resolved till some time in 2001? In any case, the last F-14B upgraded with the new HUD was delivered in 2003.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Dudikoff

[Darkbrotherhood7]

That was when the first aircraft flew with it installed, but IIRC there were plenty issues with it which were not resolved till some time in 2001? In any case, the last F-14B upgraded with the new HUD was delivered in 2003.

 

Issues? Hm, I never heard about that. What kinda issues? Software?

AFAIK the Sparrowhawk implementation was part of the JDAM upgrade to the F-14B and -D.

[SkateZilla]

That was when the first aircraft flew with it installed, but IIRC there were plenty issues with it which were not resolved till some time in 2001? In any case, the last F-14B upgraded with the new HUD was delivered in 2003.

 

What do you mean by "Delivered"?

Cuz 2003 is awful close to the retirement year.

And The Processors and systems of the B were never upgraded to the new processors.

[BlackLion213]

I'm pretty sure the project started in 1999, but it didn't arrive in the fleet until 2001ish (IIRC).

 

The idea of the Sparrowhawk was integrating the F-14D's HUD software onto a "off-the-shelf" HUD projector and combiner.

 

The issue was convincing the ancient analog avionics of the F-14B (never upgraded from the original F-14A in any meaningful way) to talk to the software for the F-14D HUD (F-14D had a totally new and digital avionics suite). I don't know much about the process, but it did take time from what I read.

 

Most F-14B squadrons that received the HUD only used them for 1-2 deployments (though it was still very appreciated by crews).

 

-Nick

 

PS -

 

What do you mean by "Delivered"?

Cuz 2003 is awful close to the retirement year.

And The Processors and systems of the B were never upgraded to the new processors.

 

2003 was still 2 years from the last days of the F-14B (VF-11, VF-103, and VF-143 all transitioned in 2005). But it's true that the Sparrowhawk arrived very late in the game. I don't think VF-102 ever received them, they transitioned too early (2002).

Edited September 20, 2016 by BlackLion213

[Darkbrotherhood7]

 

Most F-14B squadrons that received the HUD only used them for 1-2 deployments (though it was still very appreciated by crews).

IIRC, those same F-14Bs later had the JDAM upgrade by 2001-2002, right?

[BlackLion213]

IIRC, those same F-14Bs later had the JDAM upgrade by 2001-2002, right?

 

Perhaps, I'm not sure if those programs were related. Some F-14Bs (maybe all?) did carry the JDAM starting around 2002 - don't know if the Sparrowhawk was a necessary part of that program.

 

-Nick

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Perhaps, I'm not sure if those programs were related. Some F-14Bs (maybe all?) did carry the JDAM starting around 2002 - don't know if the Sparrowhawk was a necessary part of that program.

 

-Nick

 

Looks like it was part of the upgrade, but maybe not necessary.

Operational Flight Program 321

Before OFP320 testing was completed in 1999, planning was underway for the

next round of improvements to the F-14B(U). These hardware and software upgrades

would be called OFP 321, and included the GPS-guided weapon, JDAM, and a new Head

Up Display (HUD) for the pilot. The modifications were: new software in eight of the 16

processors and new MIL-STD-1760 wiring to four of the F-14ís four weapons stations -

those used to carry and support JDAM.

 

Source:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.631.9544&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

AFAIK. only few F-14Bs were upgraded with JDAMs.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Darkbrotherhood7

[Dudikoff]

What do you mean by "Delivered"?

Cuz 2003 is awful close to the retirement year.

And The Processors and systems of the B were never upgraded to the new processors.

 

As BlackLion confirmed, the B models upgraded with the new HUD apparently didn't start entering the fleet before 2001 (when the integration issues were finally sorted out) and the last upgraded F-14B one was delivered in 2003.

 

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/New-HUD-for-the-Tomcat_1157.html

 

I would agree that it sounds like a waste to only use some of those aircraft for a few more years after that, but the retirement date was set way before and the HUD upgrade program dragged out (e.g. Grumman started the program in 1997).

Edited September 20, 2016 by Dudikoff

[lunaticfringe]

The retirement date was originally 2010. The issue wasn't simply one of delays to Sparrowhawk integration, but of two converging tables- a program that needed more time than expected, on a platform that was removed from service four years earlier than intended.

[Home Fries]

 

I can go on, the TF-30s in a Dogfighting Aircraft were a joke,

Whoever was in charge and forced the TF-30s into the Tomcat to save money by transfering the F-111B Systems to the F-14 must have had a stroke.

From what I understand, the far-left post-Vietnam Congress wouldn't fund the GE-110 per the original design spec, so the Navy compromised with the TF-30 in order to get the F-14 in service. This was a good compromise from the Navy's point of view, as without it the F-14 may have been canceled. However, Congress continued to balk on funding the engine even after the F-14 proved itself. :mad:

If Maverick had been flying an A+/B with the 110 Engines, Goose would be Alive Today, No forgiveness.

So would plenty of people, including Kara Hultgren. :(

[SkateZilla]

From what I understand, the far-left post-Vietnam Congress wouldn't fund the GE-110 per the original design spec, so the Navy compromised with the TF-30 in order to get the F-14 in service. This was a good compromise from the Navy's point of view, as without it the F-14 may have been canceled. However, Congress continued to balk on funding the engine even after the F-14 proved itself. :mad:

 

So would plenty of people, including Kara Hultgren. :(

 

And over half dozen more lost to flat spins that were a result of a compressor stall w/ the temperamental engines.

 

The Flat Spin Recovery Research Program,

Which ate up 78 Million Dollars a bunch of Experimental Tech, and years, only to have that program axed,

 

Finally was solved by a Simple CoG Shift tested by a Tomcat Pilot first in the simulator, then in real life. And when he asked why they never tested it before, the reply was "we ran out of funding".

 

My Father was an AE1 for VF-101 during the Tomcat Reign... Even the ground Crews hated the TF-30s.

[Darkbrotherhood7]

From what I understand, the far-left post-Vietnam Congress wouldn't fund the GE-110 per the original design spec, so the Navy compromised with the TF-30 in order to get the F-14 in service. This was a good compromise from the Navy's point of view, as without it the F-14 may have been canceled. However, Congress continued to balk on funding the engine even after the F-14 proved itself.

 

IIRC, Grumman's plan was to use the TF-30 only for testing, and then after implement the GE F401, but the F401 performance wasn't good enough, so they cancelled it.

[near_blind]

IIRC, Grumman's plan was to use the TF-30 only for testing, and then after implement the GE F401, but the F401 performance wasn't good enough, so they cancelled it.

 

My understanding was less so much testing, and more as a way to expedite the F-14 to the fleet. Get the ball rolling with the A's, then once the F401 matured, switch production to the B and retrofit the F401 into existing As. The C would have then upgraded the electronics/radar.

 

But they could never get the F401 to work as well as promised, and then the TF30s started developing problems (kept exploding), and congress stepped in and cancelled the F401 in addition to a bunch of of things to try and cut cost overruns.

[sideshow]

My understanding was Boeing was so efficient with Super Hornet production the navy pushed up the retirement date for tomcats by a few years. I was in the Navy in Lemoore in the early 2000's. 01-09. It was amazing to see how quick squadrons were being upgraded.

[SkateZilla]

My understanding was less so much testing, and more as a way to expedite the F-14 to the fleet. Get the ball rolling with the A's, then once the F401 matured, switch production to the B and retrofit the F401 into existing As. The C would have then upgraded the electronics/radar.

 

But they could never get the F401 to work as well as promised, and then the TF30s started developing problems (kept exploding), and congress stepped in and cancelled the F401 in addition to a bunch of of things to try and cut cost overruns.

 

The -C was the Aborted Air Force Variant, Still had the same Analog Systems as the A/B but w/ a Multi-mission package,.

 

Grumman wanted to use an engine that would give the F-14 at least a .8 Thrust:Weight ratio,

However in Cost Cutting efforts, they retained the TF30-P-412s for the Initial Production Run w/ Intent to Upgrade them in the Fleet later, to the F401

 

Once Production runs started, TF30s were quickly entering conversations w/ Problems in the Flight Envelope and Maintenance,

The TF-30s had issues with blades departing, stalls, burning fuel, etc etc etc, the Navy Looked at the Peroformance of F100-PW-100 (F401 Design Source) (which Powered Early F-16s and F-15s),

But those Also had issues, instead they Allowed Pratt and Whitney to Replace the TF30s with a Revised Variant to address the Service/Maintenance issues. (Enter TF-30-P-414)

 

Enter F-14A (Blocks 60 Through 140)

 

The Plan was to do Initial Production runs w/ the TF30-P-412 until the F401 was ready, and then Start Production Runs on the F-14B w/ the 401s,

However the Other Variants of the 401s were having problems, as well the Testing Aircraft for Grumman. (Block 30)

They Proposed Multi-Mission Upgrade Package and the Air Force got the Interceptor Variant proposal w/ Multi-Mission Package (Enter F-14B/F-14C)

They Also Proposed a Cheaper Variant w/ Less Capabilities (Enter F-14D)

2 Years After Production of the F-14A Started, the F401 Upgraded F-14B Program was Terminated Due to Performance Issues with the Engine.

Production Continued w/ TF-30-P-414s Replacing the -412s,

The Air Force Rejected the Interceptor Version,

The navy decided against the "Cheap" Versions (Originally F-14D)

 

Delete F-14B

Delete F-14C

Delete F-14D

 

After years of Problems, In 1979 the Navy Selected the General Electric F101-X ( F110-GE-400 ) as the Replacement for the TF-30 (The Air Force also Chose the F110 for the F-16C/D and F-15s),

Gone were the compressor stalls, the blade problems, the under powered problem (T:W Ratio went from .56-.58 at Take off Weight to .73 at MAX Weight and .88 at take off Weight).

 

Production Aircraft for the F-14 Moved to the F110 and Added/Upgraded Several Capabilities and systems while retaining a majority of the avionics.

Removal of un-needed systems procured to assist the TF-30 problems, and the Removal of un-needed systems (ie Glove Vanes.)

 

Enter F-14A+ (Blocks 105-145 were Upgraded to A+, Blocks 145-155 Were Off the Line A+)

Distinguishable Difference is Block 105-145 Had the Glove Vanes Welded Shut and Internal Systems removed, Blocks 145-155 Had No Glove Vanes at All.

 

After Several more upgrades in the late 80s (88/89) Adding additional Avionics and Systems (ie LANTIRN, NVG Friendly Cockpit Lightning, Updated TARPs, Etc)

All F-14A+s were Updated to the Last F-14A+ Block Standard and Re-Designated

 

Enter F-14A+ Redesignation to F-14B

 

 

During this Time Grumman was Working with the Navy on Upgrades to the Systems,

-Grumman Upgraded the Radar w/ a Upgraded Digital System (AN/APG-71), Upgraded the Cockpit dash with a "Glass System" (Multiple MFDs in both Pilot/Rio Pits), Updated ECM System, RWR, Nav Systems, HUD, Weapons Systems, JTIDs, etc etc

 

Enter F-14D and F-14D® (Rebuild)

Blocks 160-175

As well as using F-14As from Blocks 85-130

Edited September 21, 2016 by SkateZilla

[near_blind]

The -C was the Aborted Air Force Variant, Still had the same Analog Systems as the A/B but w/ a Multi-mission package,.

 

 

I swear I've read at least one book that refers to the F-14C as an avionics upgrade scheduled for the late 70s/early 80s, and the CONUS Interceptor variant/abomination being referred to separately, but ultimately it's semantics, neither was ever funded.

 

The rest of that information was extremely interesting. Thanks :thumbup:

[SkateZilla]

The Airforce Variant did contain the upgraded Multi-Mission Package.

[lunaticfringe]

TF30 was Faster Up High, by a small margin,

F110 was Faster down Low

 

Raw performance was more related to configuration than engine. Even on the deck, 50% gas and 2x2 or 2x4, TF30s would walk on F110s.

 

Start hanging Phoenix on the gloves however (note the weights- they're not palletized), and the situation changes.

[BlackLion213]

Great charts LunaticFringe. I love seeing real performance data and it can be difficult to find (for me at least).

 

TF30 was Faster Up High, by a small margin,

F110 was Faster down Low, more Stable Down Low, More Stable in High AoA, more Stable when Throttles are rapidly Moved, More Stable in Transitional Stall behavior.

 

My understanding of the TF30 was that it received a big boost from speed and low altitude (either one really helped, both was better). At sea level and Mach 0.9, thrust levels from the TF30 and F110 really evened out.

 

Stall margin also really improved at lower altitudes and higher throttle settings. The F110 was a much better engine in every respect, but the TF30 had a few redeeming qualities under certain conditions.

 

I bet that few would feel that the F-14A is underpowered after a zone 5 take-off roll and horsing around between 5K-10K feet (especially in zone 5). But take the F-14A up to 25,000 feet with a combat load and try to accelerate without afterburner...pretty underwhelming. The thrust loss at medium altitude was also a pretty big impediment to ACM (which is where nearly all ACM training took place) since the TF30's deficits were most noticeable at those altitudes.

 

Many a TARPS crew were quite surprised by the TF30s performance down low - Tomcat crews normally spent little time down there.

 

IIRC, Grumman's plan was to use the TF-30 only for testing, and then after implement the GE F401, but the F401 performance wasn't good enough, so they cancelled it.

 

I think it was all about the budget and perspective of the politicians controlling the budget. The F-14 project was way over it's budget cap in the early 70s and they had to cut something. The advanced engine program was the biggest piece and the most logical thing to cut from the layman's perspective.

 

Plus, those making these decisions don't really understand the issues with the TF30. Many saw the F-14A's aero performance (capable of mach 2.4 in testing with untrimmed engines) and figured it was plenty fast - why would you need a better engine? Plus, as you mentioned, the F100 core (with the F401) was having lots of major reliability issues as well - it didn't look like a better option at first.

 

These reliability issues and ACM limitations were hard to articulate to the politicians - meaning its hard to gather resources for the program. I think Secretary of the Navy Lehman was the first to lay it out in easy to understand terms: "The TF30 is a terrible engine, this is the worst airframe-engine mis-match in US Navy history!" I guess that finally got someone's attention and the first F-14A+ arrived a couple years later.

 

-Nick

[SkateZilla]

Not to mention the Engine the F401 base design was taken from was problematic for the Airforce on multiple jets and showed the same problems on the Grumman Prototype.

 

The TF30 was an awesome engine, ........ For the F-111

 

They Selected the new engine in 79, they didnt get it till like 84.

 

the GE engines jumped like 28 kN at altittude.

Edited September 22, 2016 by SkateZilla