My high school mentor was a floor engineer for Grumman from 1942 to 1982. He worked on everything from the Hellcat, F111, E-2C, and F-14 from prototype to F-14 Super Tomcat. I still have the foot locker stickers he gave me along with the photo packs for the sales contracts
@jacobblair61814 жыл бұрын
Im a simple man i see a tomcat i click.
@philippedemoulin29024 жыл бұрын
Marvelous explanation. I'm flying the F14b in DCS it's a wonderful beast and with flaps can out turn almost anything. Thx for the videos.
@owlbusdumbledork99663 жыл бұрын
Hell yeah, just got the F-14 myself. Its an absolute blast, but difficult to fly. I'm absolutely loving it in dogfights though, like you said. It's great when an F-18 is like, "I'm gonna chase this guy through the turn! He's mine!" 15 seconds later, he's in the HUD trying to jink. Lol.
@florbfnarb70993 жыл бұрын
@@owlbusdumbledork9966 - Yeah, the F-18 can really achieve a high angle of attack, but it really dumps a lot of energy to do it. If it doesn’t achieve a kill shot that high angle of attack turn really screws it.
@edisonone3 жыл бұрын
Yes, the Tomcat was cool to look at. But, why did the US NAVY retired it for the much more inferior F-18 Hornet when even Tom Cruise wouldn't be caught dead in one of them David Fraver machines in his Ace Combat flick.
@florbfnarb70993 жыл бұрын
@@edisonone - The F-18 requires much less maintenance.
@edisonone3 жыл бұрын
@@florbfnarb7099 Requires less maintenance: Not an excuse. If it was indeed a superior specimen, they wouldn't have chucked it for the Hornet. The anomaly with the F-14 and the F-15 thus has to be more than just simple maintenance problems. I suspect what it is is that like the iconic F-4 Phantom which lost favour to McCain's F-8 Crusader that the F-14 and the F-15 too are gas guzzlers and that the extra weight necessitated by the swept wing mechanisms simply rob the planes the performances it boasted. That, IMO, is why the F-16 and the F-18 lived on while the F-14 and the F-15 both died horrible deaths.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
This is the best technical description of the F-14's aerodynamics I've ever seen since the 1970s, when I first started paying attention to it. There are some great interviews with F-14 test pilots from the 1970s and later D model development. The 1970s-era test pilot said the wings are loaded up more when flying straight and level than when the F-14 is turning with higher AOA. The body and fuselage tunnel create a lot of lift at higher AOA, which reduces the wings' contribution to lift. He also talked about the airframe being designed from the outset to carry both A2A and A2G munitions. This was really exceptional M7!
@take5th4 жыл бұрын
I worked on the f14 program at Grumman from 1981-1984. Awesome program and airplane. Anytime,Baby.
@Haya-OhWaves4 жыл бұрын
WOW !!!! 😲... 😍😍😍😍😍😍 !!!!
@tasinal-hassan82684 жыл бұрын
You could get back to that by working for Iran.
@naimishambasana74944 жыл бұрын
Huge respect sir.
@jnmason62833 жыл бұрын
I grew up with an F-14 poster in my room, not a Lamborghini haha! Every comment I read from pilots who flew it, loved it. It's to wonder what the platform would've been able to do if it were taken into the 4+ (or 4.5 whatever) generation with AESA radar, newer computers, terrain following radar, fly-by-wire and relaxed stability, newer engines and dare I say thrust vectoring?
@take5th3 жыл бұрын
I somehow ended up with a navy photograph of several flying over the wake of a carrier, large format, which I still have hanging.
@peterboy2094 жыл бұрын
F-14 was the best Navy fighter indeed. Beautiful Aircraft.
@gordonlawrence14484 жыл бұрын
One of the things that does my head in about it, is that the airframe was designed to be able to take significantly more powerful engines when available. IE 35,000 vs the 30,000 with the TF-100 at mach 0.9. GE came up with an engine 100 pounds lighter, 3000 pounds more thrust, and near 10% better fuel economy. The result? Congress were hell bent on scrapping the F-14 so took no notice.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
@@gordonlawrence1448 TF-100 with 30,000? I think you meant TF30-P412A with 20,900lb in full burner. There was an F100 variant called the F401-PW-400 that had hundreds of millions of 1970s dollars invested in it, but was never adopted for some reason. It would have shared commonality with the F-15 & F-16 Pratt & Whitney engines, and provided a combined 6000lb thrust increase over the TF30s. They did some testing with an early F-14A with GE F101s in 1980-1981 calling it the F-14B Super Tomcat, but it wasn't until 1987 that they upgraded several F-14As with the GE engine (then called the F110). Those were called the F-14A+.
@gordonlawrence14484 жыл бұрын
@@LRRPFco52 The F-14A used the TF-30 (which proved to be unreliable according to some sources) the there were a handful (4 i think) F-14's tested with T-100 engines then the F-14B in production used the GE F110-GE-400 as did the F-14D. The GE was about the same power as the TF-100 but way more reliable, had better compressor stall margins and was marginally lighter if I remember correctly. I think the GE engine you refer to is the one I was thinking of but it's a long time since I worked in the defense industry. Did you know there were even two test-bed tomcats that were fitter with RR Spey at one point? That would have really been the wrong engine in the wrong plane.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
@@gordonlawrence1448 I lived through all of it at the time, although I was closer to USAF programs. The original F-14B was an early A model they used for the red and white Super Tomcat GE F101 demonstrator. It was the same engine from the B-1B. They also did an F-16/101 demonstrator, which the USAF really liked. They started putting GE F110-GE-100 motors in new production Block 30 F-16Cs in 1986. We were doing avjonics work on Block 30G F-16C in 1987, expanding certain A2A capabilites in the F-16C. The Navy did an upgrade program on some A model Tomcats around that time, calling them F-14A+. They later re-designated them F-14Bs. I never heard about the Rolls Royce powered Cats. Some of the F-14A+ served in Desert Storm.
@gordonlawrence14484 жыл бұрын
@@LRRPFco52 As far as I know the RR Spey ones were static tested. I dont think they even got as far as taxi tests. The rest of that batch of Spey engines ended up in some RAF Phantoms years later. Another stupid idea from a politician. Yes the Spey was more powerful than the J79 at 20,500 compared to 17,900 at full afterburner but it completely buggered up the aerodynamics to the point where it was near 200kt slower. Someone in the RAF once called them "swivel eyed lunatics".
@cannonfodder43764 жыл бұрын
Well I was eager to watch this video but even the breath of information so clearly explained surprised me. Learned far more than even I thought I would. Grumman managed to pull it off. Do all three requirements with the technology of the time with the sweep wing and create a superlative aircraft. Very eagerly awaiting the next video, all these advantages surely require additional context to explain its disappearance and I am sure you will do a splendid job explaining that.
@ghostindamachine3 жыл бұрын
Mist beautiful aircraft ever. As a kid I had a large scale model of it. Loved it!
@davidmckasson37704 жыл бұрын
Honored to have had the opportunity to have flown one of these amazing machines. I saw my first tommy at a military-themed airshow in 1986 near Atlanta Georgia when I was 16, there for a future service member youth group through my school. I was sold the moment it lifted off the ground and the impact of that horizontal wing span hit me as I stared into the hot glow of afterburners as it rolled left and up into the air. I was originally set however on being a helicopter pilot however I owe my instructors for setting me on another path. What I'll remember most was my first flight in one which was not as a pilot but my first flight off a carrier deck as I sat in the rear RIO seat - and the vibration and sound as we throttled up into clouds and I glanced at the wings as they began to sweep further and further back. The VG sweeping wings were always my guilty pleasure. Nothing looks as graceful or sleek as a tommy in full sweep at high speed carving the air... Then the impending presence she gave from her sheer size and form with her wings in a forward sweep which if you were friendly was likely an unwelcome sight. I'd be lying if the Star Wars loving kid in me didn't come out a few times as I'd imagine in my head "Lock s-foils in attack position". I did not get to make use of much of the firepower at my finger tips as generally my tour of duty was the gulf war and a few years afterwards. We were primarily reconnaissance and patrols above the water which saw very little activity. The most my brothers and I got to do was unloading our 20mm rounds into suspected IED hotspots and even those were few and far between. Regardless it is not an experience to be forgotten and I'm warmed by the eternal love these birds get from those even half my age. In 2008 I spoke with another former F14 pilot who flew these birds when they were still rolling off the factory floor in 1978 and he told me the technology was the hardest part to walk away from. At the time he discharged in 1985 he told me the tommy felt like it was from the future and there was nothing like it in the civilized world. He alluded in 2008 when I met him that he feels like he finally sees technology around him that reminds him of climbing into the cockpit for the first time in 1978. I began my service at the onset of the Gulf War and left the service in 1997 and I still left with a similar feeling despite the consumer computer age being in much fuller swing. God bless these old birds.
@30AndHatingIt4 жыл бұрын
Amazing comment! I'm in the planning stages of a video that's something along the lines of an "in defense of" for the F-14. I plan on highlighting everything from it's performance against the F-15 in mock dogfights, to it's premature retirement via dirty politics. If you have anything you feel would contribute to the project in any way, shoot me a message over on my channel. I check all comments so I'll definitely see ya if you pop up. Thanks for your service, and take care!
@christianm15334 жыл бұрын
You're absolutely right about the F-14 having an amazing sustained turn rate which made it very capable in turn fights. Obviously with regards to the size and mass of the plane. :) But I think there were a lot of buffeting issues. Esp. early on. The shaking was a pain and did not help in prolonging the airframe service life.
@alexandertheissl55174 жыл бұрын
That is right, the Tomcat has a fuselage they creates very high lift, the Russians copy that by the mig 29 and su 27... For the size of the Plane it has a very good turn rate. Watch Dale Snodgrass on KZbin... Nowone handle a Cat like Dale 🙀😻👍
@thisguy65592 жыл бұрын
Your stuff is straight accurate to the pilot's manuals, my dude. I advise youtube aviation lovers to trust this man.
@thetreblerebel4 жыл бұрын
There's a Peninsula Seniors video with one of the designer of the F14. He explains the development and all the design innovations that opened the door for the 4th gen fighter. The only downfall was it's bomber engine that stalled too much. It should of had the fighter engine alot sooner!
@briansims43652 жыл бұрын
That is a great video, and he talks about f 14 2000 that was canceled
@Alekzbizkit4 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video and fantastic channel. I can’t begin telling you how greatful I am that you’re actually including more technical information and not just dumbed down “top 10 most beast awesome fighters of the future”. Keep it up
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
You mentioned briefly the F-4. I recommend you do a episode alone on the thing, because so many crazy concepts and complexity were employed on the Phantom, that is a miracle it actually flies as reliably as it does.
@DavidLee-df8884 жыл бұрын
Reliable? I'm sure I read an anecdote somewhere that some US navy official, or maybe a pilot, mentioned that for a phantom if a system wasn't leaking it was probably empty👍
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
@@DavidLee-df888 Well, what we can call reliable? The plane entered military service and is still flying 60 years later. Looks reliable in my book. Now, if a pilot had the chance to fly it at the end of the service life of that unit, obviously it wouldn't look like a brand new plane. A naval fighter can be abused enough to be in rough condition with only a couple years of service, like the ones serving on the Vietnam War. If I'm not mistaken, they started to completely refurbish them with less than 10 years of service. Look at the F/A-18A/C models, for example. The Blue Angels units where losing pieces on air shows. A F-16C did lose a piece of its stabilator on a airshow not long ago. Planes get old.
@DavidLee-df8884 жыл бұрын
@@magoid OK, first of all calm down. Second, I did mean it in jest since I did say "anecdote". Third, I agree with most of what you said.
@acoustic57383 жыл бұрын
There are no miracles in science and engineering. Shoo shoo!! that primitive thinking doesnt belong here.
@dannyboyemt4 жыл бұрын
Such an amazing piece of engineering. Designed in the 1960s no less! Just a fantastic design.
@thefrecklepuny4 жыл бұрын
The Tornado F.3 in RAF service was due to receive an automatic wing sweep system similar to that of the F-14's. Although it performed very well in testing, it was rejected on cost grounds.
@Akm724 жыл бұрын
It wasn't just cost grounds, I've seen some discussion on PPRuNe about this and it was pointed out that some pilots thought it was a wast of time because it reacted too slowly. They prefered to be able to select the best wing sweep for the maneuver they were about to perform rather than have the wing only reach the optimal position after they'd already finished the maneuver.
@michupocichu49862 жыл бұрын
F-14 was a great and beautiful plane,it was also too expensive for navy to maintain... Thank You for this very informative video.
@siddallj4 жыл бұрын
Really great information. You explain it very well. Thanks
@alexandertheissl55174 жыл бұрын
The most beautiful fighter jet ever built 🐈❤️... The mighty Cat.
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
FACT: you are right.
@dougelick83974 жыл бұрын
@@magoid I dunno. The F-106 Delta Dart is pure beauty and the F-15 is iconic as well. But the Tomcat is right up there with them at least as equals and Grumman deserves full credit for closing out a long line of amazing cats with the greatest of them all. I always thought the F-8 Crusader was pretty damned cool too. By all accounts, pilots loved it and weren't too happy switching to the F-4
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
@@dougelick8397 Hey, I love it to death, but I don't have a monogamy relationship with it :-) The good thing about aviation is that you can admire curvy bodies out there without any guilt. And your favorite will never know, unless you commit the mistake of keeping the photos of other planes in the same folder your sweetheart is...
@Millennium7HistoryTech4 жыл бұрын
All this pleasure was taken away by stealth...😒
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
@@Millennium7HistoryTech yeah... They are not as curvy as they used to be...
@vickydroid4 жыл бұрын
Damn ....what a cliffhanger, can't wait for your next installment, interesting what you said about the F14 having 25% less thrust than the F15 and achieving the same max speed. Still remember being puzzled at their retirement all those years ago but never really looked into it.
@AT2Productions4 жыл бұрын
Maintenance costs per flight hour got to be untenable
@danielvogel52524 жыл бұрын
@@AT2Productions Haha, no. That was a complete and utter LIE. The only reason why the Tomcat was killed was because of Dick Cheney and his longstanding beef with Grumman.
@AT2Productions4 жыл бұрын
@@danielvogel5252 I'm sorry, were you a part of US Naval Aviation in the 1990's and early 2000's? From all that I've read, and my own firsthand experience in the aviation arm of the US Navy at the time the F-14 was still in service, it came down to cost. The F-14 required up to 60hrs of maintenance for every hour of flight, compare that to the 10-20hrs of a Hornet which was able to adequately perform the same missions, there's a nail in the coffin of the F-14. Now add in the purposed replenishment and refreshment program for the F-14, a projected cost in the billions for a fraction of the amount of aircraft when compared with the F/A-18 family. Not to mention the Navy was already looking to replace the F-14 via the Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter program, basically a Navy spec F-22 Raptor. Again, cost analysis showed it to be prohibitive so that idea was scrapped. Are you starting to notice a trend here? The F-14 platform while adaptable was a fiscal burden for minimal gains. Yes, Cheney had preferential vendors and pushed for NEW equipment, as is expected from a career politician with business ties and kick-backs. So it all still comes down to money, and the F-14 required far too much of it, especially during the restricting of funding felt across the entirety of US Navy aviation elements in the beginning of the 2000's. Or are you unaware of the administrative program called AirSpeed, the implementation of both LEAN and 6Sigma production line analysis to maintenance practices. Then again, what the fuck do I know, I was only there in the Navy watching it happen.
@KernowekTim4 жыл бұрын
Class up-load man. One helluva piece of military hardware for sure. An iconic fighter aircraft.
@paulybassman73114 жыл бұрын
Love the Tomcat . Thanks 7
@CrazyChemistPL2 жыл бұрын
There was another advantage for the variable sweep wing on Tomcat specifically. Storage. Especially on carriers, space is a premium commodity, thus most of the aircraft employed on carriers include some form of folding wing mechanisms. This kind of mechanism irrevocably leads to wing with less structural strength (instead of one piece wing spars, you need to include some form of a hinge into their construction). Meanwhile the Tomcat worked around this issue by including the so called "oversweep" 75 degree wing poisiton for storage which reduces the width of the aircraft when parked, without compromising the strength of the wing. Add no armament hardpoints under the wing and all that results in the Tomcat being able to pull off high G maneuvers at very high speeds. Aerodynamics of the Tomcat are still extremely clever even today.
@Snuckster24 жыл бұрын
they look even better in person best looking jet ever made followed by the Flanker and the Sabre
@NoIdeaBrother4 жыл бұрын
F-14 is one of my favourite
@AndyAttrition4 жыл бұрын
ST21 would have been such an awesome plane. Sad that it never happend.
@kdrapertrucker3 жыл бұрын
It just might make a comeback in an all new airframe.
@KLRGT500KR3 жыл бұрын
You are talking about the thrust to weight of the TF-030 powered F-14A with 42,000 lbsf of thrust with a thrust to weight of 0.85:1 in combat configuration (full internal fuel, 4 sidewinders, 4 sparrows, guns) while comparing to the F-15's better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio. The F-14A pilots used superior lift of the F-14 especially at high altitudes in thin density air to counter the F-15's better TW. However, the F-14 B/D with the GE-F110 engines by all accounts was "overpowered" and pilots needed to be cautious while using afterburners especially at low altitudes, which is why afterburners were not used for carrier launches. It made a peak thrust of 60,000 lbsf of thrust at Mach 0.8 and had a thrust to weight of better than 1:1 in combat configuration (1: 1.16). By all accounts who flew the GE-F110 powered F-14s, the F-14 B/D well flown by an ACE pilot had no issues in ACM against the F-15.
@machinistmikethetinkerer48274 жыл бұрын
"Anytime, baby." Served with her aboard CV-61 84-88.
@fang45acp4 жыл бұрын
Now imagine that bird with F135’s in it instead of TF-30’s? 86,000lbs of thrust, instead of 40,000 lbs, and it would even weigh almost 500lbs less!
@tolson574 жыл бұрын
Throw in some composites, a little thrust vectoring and an AIM-54E and you have the greatest fighter/interceptor of all time.
@fang45acp4 жыл бұрын
Tom Olson I would suspect if you are going THAT far, you might be better going with a new swing wing design, but similar configuration. I think the benefits of leading edge root extensions and highly canted vertical stabs that don’t stall at high AoA would be too important not to include.
@tolson574 жыл бұрын
@@fang45acp I failed to mention a Fly-by-Wire flight control system. Can you expound on what modifications to the wing you are recommending?
@apparition134 жыл бұрын
@@fang45acp www.thedrive.com/content-b/message-editor%2F1567529228315-tomcat_21_6_1080p.jpg?quality=60 Super Tomcat 21 proposal that lost to the F-18E. The LERX held another 2k lbs of fuel as well. It's from this article, www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29653/this-is-what-grummans-proposed-f-14-super-tomcat-21-would-have-actually-looked-like which has a bunch of illustrations of the design.
@andreabindolini74522 жыл бұрын
@@tolson57 Actually, with all those modifications, you have in first instance a completely different aircraft. Not an F-14 anymore. And take an F-15, make the very same modifications and you have a fighter/interceptor even better. But this reasoning don't make any sense.
@darveshzamindar4 жыл бұрын
Wonderful episode after a long time, keep it up.
@dermop66004 жыл бұрын
Man I love your channel. So much insider information. Also your focus on developement and concepts is lovely. If you like the idea, going into the maths and physics in detail from time to time would be exciting for me. Best wishes from Germany
@danieledelfino65274 жыл бұрын
F14 ! Now you have my attention !! You Gained a new subscriber !
@williamreymond26693 жыл бұрын
6:40] I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, swept wings - everything else aside - you take your favorite airfoil section, you favorite lift-drag ratio, laminar flow is long, the drag-bucket is wide, but then you decide to rotate that airfoil 30º and suddenly it is a completely different air-foil section. Ok, the effective section thickness goes from 9% to 5% , but everything else about that airfoil changes completely, gets stretched out - just do the geometry. And, it still works. Sort of. You have to assume with a lot more drag. But maybe they are not that concerned about how much jet-5 they burn.
@leswilliamson35874 жыл бұрын
Awesome the most technical explanation of why the F-14 came into being
@scottmcdonald52373 жыл бұрын
I've been part of transitions to the F-14 Turkey in both VF-51 and VF-302. What a great air-eo-plane! Almost as good as the F-8J Crusader! One guy, a goat around the ship, who was teamed with the senior NFO when we were flying the F-4J because we figured "Cannonball" would know when to eject them during a failed arrested landing, left the squadron and transitioned to the F-14 and became the top flyer bringing the Turkey aboard. At any rate, at CNO established min. AGL and min controllable airspeeds. that maneuver will point the nose to the ground and whomever you are flying with will eject your ass into the SAR helo.
@ghislaindebusbecq88643 жыл бұрын
The picture at 13'06'' of a disymetric flight seems quite unrealistic. This picture appears on many books on the F14. There have been some flight tests of some asymetric configurations. But I very doubt this extreme configuration was flyable. Such a configuration would generate huge roll and yaw moments, which in turn would require at least some differential elevator and tails rudders just to fly straight. However, it is noteworthy that the rudders are flush with the tail fins, and the elevators do not seem to be differentially actuated. The Tornado has a safety feature that blocks the wings in position when a mere1,5 degrees sweep angle difference between the two wings is detected..
@peterrogulla77262 жыл бұрын
In an interview that i saw somewhere on yt with someone involved in the assymetrical sweep flight test he states that it was actually remarkably controllable. The assymetric sweep test scenario was to determine if the pilot could fly back home reasonably safe in case of a major failure in the sweep mechanism, so it was obviously never intended to be flown like that..
@markendicott6874 Жыл бұрын
What a great video to catch up with - thanks for the deep dive
@C12unit4 жыл бұрын
Add swing wing, thrust vectoring, stealth, lazer weapon and you have T65 X wing.
@Haya-OhWaves4 жыл бұрын
The F-14, however, already fights in Star Wars under the appearance of the A-Wing... 😉 Anytime, anywhere, baby !
@danzgoogle8454 жыл бұрын
How many pilots dropped the "lock sfoils" line while the wing was transitioning I wonder? =P
@MotoroidARFC4 жыл бұрын
@@Haya-OhWaves I recognize that glove!
@kevinkilleen63754 жыл бұрын
What an excellent, informed and well presented video. Thank you.
@hangie653 жыл бұрын
Excellent video! You have a way of explaining difficult and arcane subjects in an easy and accessible way. The plots are great tool for that purpose. Keep it up!
@michelemantovani97184 жыл бұрын
Bravissimo !!! Grazie
@patrickradcliffe38374 жыл бұрын
The glove vane system was compensation for lack of thrust from the TF-30 to maintain the same maneuverability as the prototype that had more powerful engines that never went into production. When the Tomcat was finally fitted with more powerful GE 110 engines the glove vane system was removed. I worked on Tomcats at NAWC Pt Mugu from 91-94.
@dstavs4 жыл бұрын
Easily my favourite jet growing up. Still one of the greatest ever built for the US Navy. It’s a shame they shredded all but the museum pieces to keep the spare parts out of Iranian hands. Would have loved to have seen the proposed Advanced Strike Fighter 14.
@apparition134 жыл бұрын
Especially with the GE F120 variable cycle engines that lost to the F119. They would have been a perfect match for a variable sweep aircraft. It may have matched or even exceeded (sources differ) the F-22 in supercruise.
@markmcdowell55094 жыл бұрын
I worked with the F-14Ds ,,THE BIGEST STICK IN THE NAVY!!!!
@shaider19824 жыл бұрын
12:43 mindblown!👍
@kathrynck3 жыл бұрын
Such a gorgeous plane. Some pretty involved pros & cons to it, but the F-14D deserved more success. At the time it was overlooked though, the plan was still to develop a swing wing version of the ATF for the Navy. And the F/A-18E did cover the carrier umbrella air defense role in the interim. The "Super Tomcat 21" was a neat idea too. Having the two engines unusually far apart like it does, gives more leverage to roll with thrust vectoring. Replacing the small forward glove vanes with small movable canards (a la B-1B) could have been interesting as well.
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
Fun fact 1: the naval fixed wing Su-33 weights as much as the swing wing F-14. Fun fact 2: the landing speed of the Tomcat is slower than the Super Hornet, and this is already slower than the legacy Hornet.
@Haya-OhWaves4 жыл бұрын
The Super Hornet... The little fighter that can't 😁
@mrrolandlawrence4 жыл бұрын
@@Haya-OhWaves you have to wonder the logic... if it was remade larger to get more range... then surely an f16XL style wing that offered more lift and more space for fuel would have been the way to go? did no one guess that long range air launched anti ship missiles would be a thing? did navies think that the british navy sinkings by argentine exocet were one offs?
@Haya-OhWaves4 жыл бұрын
@@mrrolandlawrence hello ! I have no problem with that. You're right.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
And the legacy and Super Hornets are far easier to bring back to the boat. Why? Pitch and lateral authority at low speed in the Tomcat were laggy, and it had a tendency to float above the glideslope. With TF30s, the low speed throttle inputs weren't responsive, and that's the main control for maintaining glideslope on final. Only a select few pilots could handle the F-14 in the pattern behind the boat, which was the determining factor in getting qualified in the F-14. Of the at least 173+ F-14s lost (1970-1999), a substantial % of them were ones that departed on final behind the boat.
@danielvogel52524 жыл бұрын
@@LRRPFco52 key words being "with the TF30s". Those problems were eliminated with the use of the F110-GE-100s. The TF-30s never should have been put in a fighter airframe, period.
@tibchy1442 жыл бұрын
Rick "Twig" Labranche is now a professor at College of Maritime Operational Warfare in Newport, Rhode Island
@nattygsbord4 жыл бұрын
Would have been interesting to have see how F14 would rank against other planes if it got better engines and got a stealth upgrade like F15 Silent Eagle. I have heard that F14 is more aerodynamic than the F15 so maybe then it would have been on the top list of 4.5 Generation planes.
@magoid4 жыл бұрын
It did got better engines, the GE F110. While it didn't help that much in turning performance, acceleration, rate of climb and fuel economy improved considerably.
@gordonlawrence14484 жыл бұрын
@@magoid There were some other engines looked at too before it retired. The F119-PW-100 for example.
@ivantraminiev84704 жыл бұрын
In a mock duel a single F14 went against two F15 Strike Eagles and it downed both. They replayed the game and it downed them again. Tomcat 4 Strike Eagle 0. Of course these were not regular Eagles and the Navy pilot was very, very good but there was only one Tomcat and two Strike Eagles
@andreabindolini74522 жыл бұрын
Is not *more* aerodynamic. It has a *different* aerodynamic. The swing wing give some advantage when comes to the extreme top and bottom of the speed ranges. But both extremes are rarely used in real combat conditions. In fact, cons are more than pros.
@nattygsbord2 жыл бұрын
@@andreabindolini7452 Do you disagree with me only because im black?
@LesleyWilson-dy6ob Жыл бұрын
my father, Alan Baker, came from England directly to this project - he designed the swing wing system while working for Grumman. Would anyone be interested in more information from him?
@Millennium7HistoryTech Жыл бұрын
That would be definitely interesting! Please contact me in private if you are available.
@leswilliamson35874 жыл бұрын
Perhaps the best aircraft ever designed. Why did we give it up.
@hardcard2543 жыл бұрын
Because the hornet was cheaper, smaller, could do more stuff and didn't rely on the utterly expensive phoenix... because the military-industrial complex needs new contracts every X decades to keep swimming in greens.
@JonathanGeier4 жыл бұрын
videos just keep getting better and better! keep up the good work.
@oxcart41724 жыл бұрын
Let's hear it for Mike Pelehach- 'Father of the F-14'
@GoSlash272 жыл бұрын
A couple points to add: 1) The F-14 was capable of sustaining much higher g loads than any other fighter in service then or after. 2) The F-14 was unmatched in turn rate because its sustained turn velocity was nearly 100 kts slower than its contemporaries. It was a foolish pilot who decided to engage the Tomcat in a turning fight. So if it was so good (and it was), why don't we use it any more? Well, it was expensive and difficult to maintain. It was incompatible with AMRAAMs and the Phoenixes had been pulled from service. It was never very good at the ground attack role because it lacked a sophisticated RWR and jamming suite. But mostly because the Navy had decided to consolidate and couldn't justify a 'pure' air to air fighter.
@mrrolandlawrence4 жыл бұрын
fun fact - the f14 had the 1st ever CPU! (MP944). Grumman would also be fined for late delivery and too high a landing speed. They would also be paid a bonus if the landing speed was less and before the set date. Ah we miss those days of military contracts! Also last fact about the wing box: the experience of the f111, allowed them to make a much lighter version with titanium. If you want more technical : kzbin.info/www/bejne/iaS4dJyudsqNZqM
@Millennium7HistoryTech4 жыл бұрын
Great comment! The F-14 was innovative in many respects. Here I was focusing only on the wing.
@speedygonzales99934 жыл бұрын
Yes, F-14s & AV-8Bs look freaking mean & awesome.
@Noisy_Cricket3 жыл бұрын
Given that we have the somewhat absurd F35B these days, I wonder whether they could bring back variable swept wings with modern materials. By using modern metalurgy and CAD, we should be able to reduce the maintenance hours on a plane like the F14. They would also want stealth, so this would also be a concern (but honestly a var wing in its swept config would probably help that).
@SeminarChauffeur4 жыл бұрын
The F-14 was retired too soon and it was a big fat MISTAKE!
@Dr.Westside3 жыл бұрын
I think the biggest reason there's no more swing-wing aircraft in the pipeline for the United States is because you can't make it stealth .
@andreabindolini74522 жыл бұрын
Current advances in propulsion, aerodyamic, electronics, relaxed stability and flight controls simply made the swing-wing unnecessary to achieve the required combat performances, even before stealth came into play. For the F-14 the swing-wing was needed at the time for the peculiar combination of requirements that had to face, but commencing with the F-15 that solution was quickly abandoned for good.
@ricmadeira4 жыл бұрын
Always love your videos! Thank you for all the work!
@ronaldtartaglia44594 жыл бұрын
You are funny. I enjoy your delivery.
@williamtell14774 жыл бұрын
Another awesome video! Keep them coming!
@alexandervatter14364 жыл бұрын
Did know watched anyway 😉 Great like always
@d.cypher29203 жыл бұрын
Your videos are very good! Informative, and you explain many unknown things about aircraft. ☀️😎☀️🇺🇸
@markbrisec39722 жыл бұрын
Oh the good ol' F-14 Tomcat.. I still have a huge soft spot for this awesome flying machine... One can only wonder wonder how would this jet develop and grow throughout the 21st century if the Cold War hasn't ended and that the US Navy still had a need for a heavy and fast fleet defense interceptor. Imagine what would Phoenix missile evolved to? Unfortunately the USSR dissolved and there was no more need for a dedicated fleet defense platform, a cheaper multirole aircraft like the F-18 were a more prudent choice. Imagine a Super Tomcat with new engines, fly by wire system, armed with 10 of the Phoenix missile successors - let's say a Mach 6 air to air missile with ranges of up to 250-300 miles? I bet the current Navy wouldn't have anything against this Tomcat.. That being said it's time for the Navy to start diverting more money towards the development of the new fleet defense aircraft for the 21st century.. We do need it, very soon.
@saltyroe31793 жыл бұрын
Defender of the fleet
@buddy.boyo883 жыл бұрын
11:20 the guys have a mini boss ? one boss wan't enough?
@darveshzamindar4 жыл бұрын
The Iranians still love it 😍.
@TonymanCS4 жыл бұрын
Guess it was not until DCS Mig-21bis release that many people realized how crappy delta-wing MiG-21 was in continuous turning fight contrary to "MiG is always more maneuverable than anything else" believe while a giant like Tomcat excels at it thanks to variable swept wing design. Thank you for a very informative video.
@TonymanCS4 жыл бұрын
@JK JK1 Oh boy fanboys are here. Remind me did I say anything about 3rd or 4th gen?
@mcanderson04 жыл бұрын
Love your content! Great channel!
@DS-ll6zyelle3 жыл бұрын
My favourite the TOMCAT 🙃
@brucesheehe63054 жыл бұрын
We need a new modern version of the F-14. USN needs a bigger plane with more RANGE!
@mosca32894 жыл бұрын
Thanks so much.
@edwardpate61284 жыл бұрын
No aircraft in the US Navy inventory has come close to the capabilities of the F-14 since its retirement. Time to bring back a modernized version!
@nattygsbord4 жыл бұрын
The problem is that the air frames are old. And after enough wear and tear will a plane one day break apart and crash. The next problem with this bird is that it is a large plane taking up much place on a carrier deck. Which means that you can have fewer planes on board of an aircraft carrier that you could with another type of plane. The F-14 demands large amounts of maintenance -much because of its swing-wings, and a stealth version of this plane would demand even more maintenance on top of that. An extra type of planes on board a carrier will create more logistical difficulties. I do not like the Hornet because I think it is ugly. But I have to admit that letting it taking over all kinds of roles with the Hornet have made logistics much easier when you now can use the same spare parts for all aircrafts on a carrier deck instead of having spare-parts for both the F18 and the F14, and the A6 and the prowler. And maintenance crews now only have to learn to handle one type of plane. And from what I have heard have most F14 tomcat airframes already been scrapped. There are probably more Tomcats in Iran than there are in USA at this point. The few left are museum pieces. So if you want a new F-14 Tomcat you have to build them up from scratch - which will cost a lot of money. And then it could be smarter to build a completely new plane instead. Perhaps a new plane that borrows very much inspiration from the old F-14 Tomcat, but which of course needs to look after military needs first, before any nostalgic considerations.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
F-35C exceeds the F-14 in most of the relevant metrics, especially combat radius and loiter time, while adding SA to the carrier battle group that was unimaginable in the Tomcat era. It does networked stealth Fleet Air Defense, over the horizon targeting for surface-launched missiles, Anti-Submarine Warfare, and early warning for TBM launches. It also does AWACS with better air and surface target discrimination than the E-2, while performing stealth deep penetration strike and EW. Add networked continuous multi-spectral ISR to that. The F-14D with LANTIRN even is a relic compared to it. Senior Tomcat advanced systems program managers and test pilots have said as much. Also, unlike the F-14, the F-35C is the easiest fast-mover to bring back to the boat, and can return with a lot of weapons during cyclic operations.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
@Joe150 ish The last D model rolled off the Grumman line in February, 1991 (the month after most of the air war MiG-killing in Desert Storm). They were retired in December, 2006. D models were 15 years and older, which is still pretty young for most fighters. Desert Storm was kind of a shock to the Navy senior leadership when none of the F-14s were able to shoot down any other fighters, while F-15Cs and even Hornets got all the kills against Iraqi MiGs. There was an early incident where a Red Sea-based F-14 RIO gave the pilot the wrong intercept vectors because he used the incorrect reference point, which set them up for intercepting one of their own A-6Es that was returning from a successful attack and headed back West, instead of the MiGs they were vectored to initially. A USAF AWACS Controller quickly was able to have them check fire before killing the A-6E with an AIM-7M. The leadership pulled the leash in on them and had them doing Fleet Air Defense flying patterns over the Red Sea, rather than going "feet dry", much to the frustration of Tomcat pilots. Then there was the AIM-54C incident where an F-14 crew tried to engage an Iraqi fighter and it fell to the earth, and the other in 1999 where 2 F-14Ds fired at MiG-25PDs, who turned and evaded with high supersonic speed. Well before that over Iraq (in 1992), a family model F-16D that was meant to give USAF visiting VIPs the chance to fly into the No-Fly Zone and get awards, was the first to kill an enemy fighter with an AIM-120. The Navy looked at the cost of the AIM-54C and F-14A/B/D maintenance, and was tired of all that just to have a fighter that barely works 40-50% of the time, with its primary weapons system going 0 for 3 in actual combat in an area with plenty of targets to shoot. The Phoenix was retired even before the F-14 was, living its last bit of life as the Bombcat until the Fleet could get enough Super Hornets.
@LRRPFco524 жыл бұрын
@Joe150 ish The customers came to the industry asking for capabilities that became JSF. It wasn't the industry going to DoD and UK MoD telling them, "You need this." Welfare is a government hand-out program for people who can't afford to live at an acceptable level in society. It doesn't fit the presstitute narrative especially for the JSF program. There are other programs where it might, but not JSF.
@michaeldenesyk31954 жыл бұрын
Great video as usual!
@marcondespaulo Жыл бұрын
Tranzonic... zweep... cosa succede, amico? We understand friend. Outstanding content, I can deal with imperfect pronunciation. My Italian is slowly improving.
@KangoV2 жыл бұрын
Pity that it was prone to compressor stall due to the compressor fan at the mouth of the engine. the TF30-P-414A jet engines that powered the early model F-14s was considered susceptible to compressor stall, due to some design flaws. The result of these faults is that the F-14A (in real life and in the movie) is easily susceptible to engine failure as a result of disturbed airflow. This is demonstrated by the unfortunate death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen, an F-14 pilot and the first female carrier-qualified pilot. She was on final approach for a carrier landing when she drifted off course. She attempted to correct the problem by yawing the aircraft, but the change in the angle between the aircraft and the air caused her left engine to suffer a compressor stall and flame out. She was unable to recover and her aircraft struck the water.
@fazole2 жыл бұрын
And she was criticized for yawing to line up during her extensive training in the F-14. She had done this in her former plane, the A-6, to correct for line-up problems, but she was told NOT to do it in the F-14. She was being pushed through F-14 transition training for Clinton's political goals and not due to ability. Since then, other female pilots have flown the F-14 without problem, but Hultgreen was the wrong choice.
@fooman21084 жыл бұрын
For nearly four generations every US Navy fighter came from the Bethpage boiler works! If you figured out how to break a Grumman fighter you Had achieved something! If the most ham-handed inexperienced Naval aviator could figure out how to get a Grumman fighter aboard this ship then anything the enemy could do to it was not going to be too big of a problem! The the Tomcat, commonly known as a turkey is known aboard ship because of the sagging speed brakes below and above the tail, who is designed around that big APG radar and carry 6000 lb of Phoenix missiles. Put it with an organic two-man crew, a data link to the F-14 which was really just finding its legs, along with new and improved tactics and that was a lethal combination. PS. I am the son and brother of retired US Naval aviators know neither was a fighter jock.
@nitroxide173 жыл бұрын
The OG beast
@kdrapertrucker3 жыл бұрын
Navy is currently trying to get a modern aircraft that has the capabilities of the old F-14.
@BurtsCram4 жыл бұрын
my fav under all war plains like ever !!!
@dougsteel74142 жыл бұрын
If you did variable geometry now, it'd work with far less compromise. 40 years of engineering advance
@waitingisfun3 жыл бұрын
Have you made a video about forward swept wing planes?
@Millennium7HistoryTech3 жыл бұрын
No, they are not really that interesting, to be honest, even if they look great.
@aaronseet27383 жыл бұрын
3:37 how F-14 greets other aircraft.
@Teddy-vv9iz4 жыл бұрын
For Carrier defense I don't think that the Super Hornet can compete with the capabilities that the F-14 possed. Variable swing wing etc. Phoenix missle.
@danielvogel52524 жыл бұрын
It can't, period. The Phoenix notwithstanding, the Bug doesn't have the fuel nor radar range to be of any effect. A number of even old anti-ship missiles have a range in excess of 100 miles. The Bug can't even see the launch aircraft at that range much less do anything about it.
@phoenixechulan86783 жыл бұрын
Can we meak a stelth aircraft with variable wing angle??
@neti_neti_4 жыл бұрын
बहुत अच्छी प्रस्तुति ।
@animeshjain89324 жыл бұрын
Why most bomber ate narrow body aircraft? Plz. Consider the questions
@rgloria403 жыл бұрын
Now if they add hyper-sonic envelop (third case/class requirement along with trans-sonic and supersonic) as well as stealth capabilities at a given flight speed will variable wing be viable solution?
@rgloria403 жыл бұрын
Can you do a video on countering hyper sonic weapons avoidance....a rail gun can fire more than once and do it cheaply like a laser? I hyper sonic interception viable?
@superskullmaster4 жыл бұрын
Great video.
@stevenhoman22534 жыл бұрын
thank you, a wonderful episode. so grumman got it right.?
@m1rc232 жыл бұрын
Could you please make a video o Tornado panavia family
@sumanneogi26794 жыл бұрын
Can you please make video on su 57
@ezragoldberg31323 жыл бұрын
Can someone explain that clip with the PlayStation 1 controller during refueling? :P
@kdrapertrucker3 жыл бұрын
Rio is just making a joke, pretending to steer the airplane with the Playstation controller.
@manuelmamann50354 жыл бұрын
could you make a video about the f104 starfighter?
@lqr8243 жыл бұрын
5:03 is this fixed sweep curve representative of say the F-15? If not why not? Using this chart can you show the -14 gets vastly superior performance to the -15 for at least a few use cases thanks to this wing?
@fewyearsbehind93334 жыл бұрын
TOMCATS! YES!
@dennissmith67834 жыл бұрын
The only thing wrong with the F14 was the engines.
@capitanvonchickenpants84924 жыл бұрын
I feel the need the need for speed Love from mav
@justacrow98474 жыл бұрын
More like the formidable wing of the Iranian air force. The Ace of the F14 pilots is an Iranian pilot with 11 confirmed kill during Iran Iraq war. When an F14 was in the sky Iraqi planes usually just ran off.