F-14 Tomcat RIO Stories | Mike "Scar" Vizcarra (Part 1)

[@celebratingaviationwithmik9782]

Awesome interview! 'Had the honor of having 'Scar' as my Instructor to qualify for an F-14B flight when assigned on an art project for VF-11 Red Rippers at Oceana in 1997. A multi-talented aviator (as well as artist and musician) who generously shared his knowledge and deep passion for the Tomcat. Truly the best of the best!

[@Aircrewinterview]

Thanks for sharing!

[@Helibeaver]

Both brothers are great story tellers. Enjoyed all the interviews.

[@thecatdaddy1974]

Very Informative

[@ftc9258]

Thank Scar for being so honest and destroying the myth and the hype of Tommy being a great dogfighter. THANK GOD, it's about time.

[@ejnavarro]

Some fanboys are in full Baghdad Bob mode.

[@2ZZGE100]

I guess regarding pulling Gs, how many Tomcat pilots over the years of dozens I have read/heard from have "obeyed" the 6.5 - 7.5G imposed limit? Answer is, very few. Tomcat pilots like 'Snort' or 'Okie' have spoken about how they used to pull 9 - 10G in DACT or airshows as the 6.5 - 7.5G was NATOPs limited and exceeding that would result in write-up and inspection of the airframe, but the plane had no real G limit as it was mechanically controlled like the early versions of the Eagle. The A/B had a dial gauge that could be reset. The D had a digital G meter that used to record it and tell on the pilot. 'Tomcat Tales' has HUD video of an airshow Tomcat pilot sustaining 9.4G near supersonic in F-14D until he pulls it out of burner. 'Snort' was famous for being called 'Master of spank' as he used to get sent to Nellis and he used to do exactly that in 1v1 BFM. In his Finny F-14B flight, 'Snort' had a 1v1 against his buddy/best Eagle driver on the east coast and both ended up in a draw. Also, I heard maintainers saying Tomcat did not even pop a rivet at 9 - 10G when they pulled panels off because Grumman over-built the airframe.

[@SpawnofChaos2010]

Oki said he pulled 12g once. He toned it down later on, I suspect he was feeling a measure of guilt for his earlier admission!

[@DarkOmenX]

Snort didn't obay, he pulled g's like crazy to get a kill specially if it was an AF adversary 😁 test pilots and some pilots puled more then 10G on the cat however maintainers had some busy day afterwards . Also test pilots flew the cat more then 2.4M they didnt say what was the speed they flew but the Tom could handle it well even with TF30 engines however Navy put a limit to 2.4. And restricted the A to 6.5 g later the D became 7g

[@2ZZGE100]

@@DarkOmenX Yes true. In most cases, 7.5g at 350 - 450 knots was sufficient as the Tomcat could turn inside the circle of most planes due the excellent pitch rate, but against planes that had very good energy maneuverability, 9 - 10G was very common in the Tomcat in the hands of 'Snort' and a few others.

[@2ZZGE100]

@@SpawnofChaos2010 Yeah, the 12.5g was when the stick forces had been readjusted and he was not made aware of it. I remember that.

[@ejnavarro]

your last two lines contradict themselves, Snort said his aircraft after that Finny flight death battle had broken spoilers and slats, that doesn't sound like it didn't pop a rivet.

[@jordanelder2627]

f-14 shaped guitar. awesome!

[@geraldillo]

great interview, this guy has an amazing talent for telling stories!

[@SpawnofChaos2010]

What a family! Imagine the evenings playing Monopoly or discussing US strategy in that household!

[@matthayward7889]

Fantastic in-depth interview!

[@Rocks_Dad]

I just watched Vizcarra's f14 documentary. I really enjoyed that. I never realized the intensity of those guys until I saw the group interviewed in the film. If I understood correctly, 69 pilots died in flight operations in the f14. Is that a very high rate?

[@pavelkatz5374]

In 30 years .. 2 a year not pleasant

[@Rocks_Dad]

@@pavelkatz5374 I knew it had problems with stalls. I am surprised they stayed with the airframe then. It was an incredible machine after they worked the bugs but it was also very expensive to maintain and operate.

[@mastathrash5609]

Loving that Tomcat Bass in the back Mike! 🤘 Also great interviews, keep it up!

[@Aircrewinterview]

Cheers!

[@KLRGT500KR]

Based on all of the opinions of people who designed and flew it, F-111 failed because it could not dogfight at all. It was fine as a long range interceptor. Senator Connelly said "there is not enough thrust in the world to make this [F-111B] turn" and USN from Vietnam lessons learned and the lack of F-4's ability to dogfight well against the MIG-17 and MiG-21, they needed a fighter/interceptor combination, which is what Tomcat was. The gun, instantaneous turn rate up to 33 degree/second (snap 180 degree in less than 5 seconds at around 500 knots pulling 9+ G instantaneous with lots of vapes), bubble canopy, maneuvering flaps/leading edge slats, pitch rate, high lift airframe/low wing loading design to allow really good sustained turning performance in a 2-circle rate fight etc. Like the USAF requirement for F-15 and F-16, it needed to be able to outperform all of the Soviet inventory in the 70s and also be a lot better than the F-4 Phantom in BFM, which it could go defensive to offensive in less than 15 seconds. From what I have heard, because of how much control the pilot had on the Tomcat due to the mechanical controls, it really came down to how much the pilot was skilled and willing to risk to win the fight. I believe 'Snort' said that in the 'Tomcat Tales' movie after he tells the story of gunning a Hornet down in 42 seconds in F-14A. To quote 'There were things you could do to it (that you could not in others), which could make it a BFM monster".

[@marcusrios4678]

Tomcats for ever

[@ksamos]

I was an AO in VF-102 in the early '90's One of our birds came back from a sortie while we were at NAS Oceana and all shops had to go out to perform an overstress inspection on our respective areas of the aircraft. The pilot pulled darn near 10 1/2 G's during his flight. The aircraft had no problem handling G's, Big Navy just wanted to baby them, therefore they put G and speed restrictions on the planes during peacetime operation to prolong the life of the plane. Not sure what came about of that pilot, but this aircraft handled it just fine on that flight. Another great memory, again at Oceana, was watching an F-14 (don't know what squadron) taking off with the fuel dump on (obviously a malfunction or an accident). As he left the ground, he hit the burners and low and behold, what an awesome site to see.....a Tomcat with about a 500 foot plus flame coming out the back end, reaching back down to the runway. Talk about one of those times you wish you had a camera on you.... LOL. You can get a rough idea of what that looked like by searching for Australian Air Force F-111 fuel dump videos as they did them at airshows. Well, that Tomcat put on a much better show since the fuel vapor was still above the runway when he lit the AB's as he left the ground. It all ignited and certainly caught everyone's attention.

[@OldSchoolNI]

Brilliant stuff, if you disconnected I'd say he would just keep talking anyway :) great guest and brilliant stories.

[@Activated_Complex]

The details about finding the boat again really drive home that this was an aircraft that saw service at the tail end of the Vietnam War, protecting the pullout from Saigon. Still an awesome machine, all the more impressive for the level of technology that existed when the first squadrons transitioned to it (presumably from the Phantom/Rhino). Thanks for the interview. I learn something new every time I watch your videos.

[@Andy_Novosad]

Spasibo comrade! Now we know your tactics against our Bears)

[@dandychiggins8329]

The Tomcat as per its designers was designed to pull its “max G” at its “ Max Speed”. I’ve read and seen plenty of pilots say they pulled 10-12 G’s in the plane before only to listen to the wrath of the Maintenance chief. But if it’s life or death who gives a shit what the maintenance chief says.

[@DarkOmenX]

I thought the D was equipped with AN/APG-71 Radar ? or is 65 the base model and 71 then sort of version developed for the Tomcat ?

[@2ZZGE100]

Yeah, it was APG-71

[@michaelvizcarra]

You are correct sir! I saw the replay of the interview and said to myself, it was the 71 not 65!!! Oh well, my old brain couldn't keep the numbers accurate from 20 years ago! I didn't do much prep, just going from memories from decades ago! Cheers!

[@ejnavarro]

This interview broke a lot Tomcat fanboy hearts. He goes as far as saying even pre merge it was better to be an Eagle with the Turkey being the best to bugout of a fight.

[@boxtankgamer6014]

Bro doesnt even know the correct radar the f14d had. Many Tcat pilots would disagree with his assessment. F-14 was a great BFM plane especially when you start pulling breakers.

[@slowhornet4802]

I understood from other interviews that F-14 early in its career won a lot because the pilots knew the Tomcat better than e.g. new F-15A pilots. When the F-15 pilots became more experienced the F-14A was inferior. This changed again when the F-14B/D showed up. The much higher thrust surprised a couple of the opposing aircraft pilots. In the end the F-15s or F-16s had a better TWR. The F-14s carried a lot of extra weight due to the wing sweep mechanism and also because they had to have stronger gears etc for carrier landings. And being carrier capable is a big advantage in certain scenarios. In the end US can be glad to have both in the AF and the Navy some excellent aircraft types.

[@NilleFix]

Great intreview!! Awesome stories!!

[@dougstitt1652]

Blue Max is a great movie.

[@josephkugel5099]

I disagree completely with these guys about the Tomcat having to retire, the only reason the Tomcat had to spend much more time in the hangar was because it wasn't properly upgraded so it retained many legacy parts from the 70s, the Hornet which was 8 years younger had at least 3 massive and major upgrades done to it starting off with the YF-17 Cobra being built into the F-18 Hornet and then the almost totally new F-18 Super Hornet comes along, while all this is happening they were just giving the Tomcat the engines it was supposed to come with back in the 70s so anyone who uses maintenance hours as a reason for the retirement of the Tomcat is purposely being hypocritical, had they gone forward with the ST-21 Tomcat program the maint issues would have been tremendously mitigated and then the difference between the Tomcat and the Hornet would be a few less hours in the hangar for the Bug and a much faster, longer legged and superior fleet defender in the Cat and in my opinion its no contest. TOMCATS FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@73split]

You obviously are not an aircraft mechanic.

[@josephkugel5099]

@@73split You obviously don't understand the importance of regular upgrades to weapons systems.

[@73split]

@@josephkugel5099 the inherent Mtc issues with the F-14 are imbedded in its design. Upgrades to the weapons system was not going to solve that issue. A total and complete redesign would be required and therefore why not just design a new aircraft altogether. Having started on the F-4 phantom and transitioning to the F-18 I can wholeheartedly say the F-18 was designed from the get go for ease of Mtc and reliability. It was light years ahead of the older aircraft in its ability to be properly maintained. We could do an engine change in 20 minutes on the F-18. How did we do that? It was designed from the ground up for us to be able to do exactly that. Every system on the aircraft took ease of Mtc into account in its design. The F-14 on the other hand did not. So in other words, you are talking out your ass!

[@josephkugel5099]

@@73split I always find it funny when Hornet fanboys like you just overlook how much money and time was spent on that damn plane just to make it somewhat comparable to the Tomcat, did you forget that the legacy Hornet was nearly completely rebuilt into an entirely new aircraft when it morphed into the Super Hornet, you think that was cheap? The benefit of staring with a massive aircraft like the Tomcat is that you can replace old gen components with newer ones that are more plug and play by just basically rewiring the aircraft you don't have to enlarge the damn thing by 25% like with the Super, you also seem to have forgotten that part of the reason they had to do the rebuild on the Hornets was because their air frames were coming to the end of their life cycle much sooner than was anticipated and this would have led to massive readiness issues far greater than with the Tomcats. The bottom line is this, had they gone with the ST-21 proposal from Grumman the maint hours of the Tomcat would have gone down significantly and while i agree that it still would not match the Super Hornet in maintainability the difference would have easily been offset by the greater capability of the Tomcat.

[@73split]

@@josephkugel5099 I’m not a Hornet fan boy. I am an aircraft mechanic by trade who received my basic training in the skill on the F-4 Phantom and F/A-18 Hornet. I’m telling you straight up that a total and complete redesign would be required to make the F-14 more reliable and maintainable. You are obviously not an aircraft mechanic by trade nor do you possess enough common sense to listen to individuals who are when it comes to discussing maintenance on aircraft. The F-14 had its day and was very good at what it did in it’s time, but time marches on and technology changes. No amount of bandaid engineering would be able to mitigate the inherent maintenance issues the F-14 possesses. It’s performance came at a cost, a cost that ended up being a major reason why the aircraft was retired. The F/A- 18 was in fact purposely designed for ease of maintenance because of the problems the F-14 was giving the Navy. The engineers who designed the F-18 literally used maintainability as a goal in its design from the ground up, it is not easy to maintain by accident. The new superhornet was designed to address performance deficiencies in the original design while keeping ease of Mtc as a primary goal, they succeeded in doing exactly that. The Airforce is having the same type of Mtc issues with its B-1 force. The B-1 is an inherently hard to maintain aircraft which in turn makes it more expensive to operate. No amount of weapon systems upgrades are going to make the B-1 easier to maintain, it’s inherent in its design from the get go. The F-35 cost more to operate per hour then other aircraft, it’s higher cost does not have a damn thing to do with its weapons systems needing an upgrade. Performance is only one metric used to decide what aircraft our military uses. Compromises get made to satisfy all required metrics. The F/A-18 super is a perfect example of those compromises in action. Contrary to popular belief, our military does not possess an unlimited budget to buy and operate whatever they damn well please. Operational cost and maintainability are a huge factor in deciding what the military buys and uses. Hence the recent purchase of brand new F15EX aircraft the Airforce just made.

[@molnibalage83]

Will be Q&A with him?

[@vomoreno]

At the time of the F14, were there any cases of pilots who had contact with UFOs? Or ufos tic tacs??. Because, as we all already know, pilots have recently had contact with the Super Hornets. I have a brief impression that yes huh!!! Hugs from Brazil!!! There are many F14 Tomcat fans here.

[@1jbunceiii]

Oh it's practical...Look at the Iranian F14s..they crushed the Iraq Air Force

[@hcsd48]

I see you're still nodding that head and drinking out of your cup.

[@Aircrewinterview]

Yep

[@okisoba]

Awesome interview. But can definitely say it was designed to be able to dogfight. Not the best at it ever like an F-16/18, but... a gun, bubble canopy, a better dogfighter than what came before it (F-4/F-8), all the marketing from the early 70s calling it the best all-around fighter ever, etc. But agreed, it doesn't really happen all that much anymore. Kind of like the likelihood of infantrymen bayonetting each other.

[@johnmilner5485]

As a former Infantryman , the bayonet is still quite relevant despite what some officer in the pentagon , or some cck sucker "yes man" at Tradoc has to say on the matter.

[@okisoba]

@@johnmilner5485 Likelihood is still low though so we shouldn't put all our stock into a capability that occurs rarely. Knowing how to effectively employ anti-armor weapons, C4 systems and drones for situational awareness, being good at fire and maneuver, and everything grunts need to know to engage the enemy before the enemy can engage them or make it hard for the enemy to engage them is going to give them a much bigger edge than putting too much time and effort on their ability to shove a bayonet into someone's chest. That's all I'm saying.

[@johnmilner5485]

@@okisoba What I am telling you is you do not know the first thing about how to shoot , move , communicate aka basic infantry skills. Bayonet training is a fundamental building block for the aggressive / offensive infantry soldier to learn and can and will be used in various forms on the " modern battlefield " . You have no idea how relevant it is . Many times in Iraq my soldiers used bayonet training in real world applications , mainly in crowd control situations without the use of the actual bayonet deployed and affixed to the rifle itself . Using a " stab series " to the chest or throat ( ie muzzle checking ) and " slash series" to the shoulder / collar bone , also using different butt stroke series " to head / chest / stomach on unruly local nationals during either impromptu protests , organized recruiting events , distribution of local aide etc . Without the ability to use the above in a non lethal employment of basic infantry fighting tactics soldiers would have had to use lethal means , creating an international incident , potential war crimes. But some Jack Wagon on the interwebs heard Jocko say " fire and maneuver " and thinks he's an expert on infantry tactics , skills , and the fundamental building blocks of making a highly capable infantry soldier . Stick to something you know Son , because you know f'k all about being an Infantryman . Just like the fools in the Pentagon , and the rank chasers in Tradoc .

[@okisoba]

@@johnmilner5485 That’s fair. I agree with its usefulness in building aggressiveness and in crowd control scenarios. And yeah, I’m definitely not a grunt. My existence was to support you. I’m a POG Air Support Marine who learned rudimentary infantry skills and my only operational experience directly under the purview of an infantry unit was three weeks I spent on the Syrian border with 3/3 in Iraq. The patrols I was lucky enough to do with them made me feel Ike a badass and I like to brag about that with my non-infantry peers all the time. The establishment still thinks bayonets are important enough that the new M27 has a stud for one and we still train to use them. My POG brain still stands by what it said, though. Like fighter pilots not needing to focus as much on getting guns kills these days, grunts don’t need to put as much focus on stabbing their foes in the chest, particularly against near peer adversaries like China/Russia. I dunno, I suppose bayonets might be more important than ever before with Force Design 2030 envisioning Marines and Chinese fighting over tiny tropical islands.

[@johnmilner5485]

@@okisoba Pull your head outta your arse MARINE . You think there's no need for bayonet training when going against a numerically superior enemy ? An enemy historically known for human wave attacks ? An enemy who places very , very little importance of it's troops lives and welfare. Seriously ? You can count on running out of small arms ammunition very quickly in any sustained engagement with the PLA / PLAN forces. This is just reality . Not only that but you can bet your piece of USMC birthday cake that the PLA assault troops will be using bayonet / rifle fighting techniques , but we aren't even going to teach our guys how to parry left / right ? Setting ourselves up for a colossal failure here. Appreciate your service , even if I can't trust you unattended around my crayons.