Right, TopGun is on the telly, educate me about F14 Tomcats
Discussion
hidetheelephants said:
I remember seeing a picture(I think it was attributed to an RAAF airframe but not sure) of an F111 appearing between steep jungle-clad slopes, pulling a sharp bank(not unlike the F14 earlier in the thread) at zero feet over a lake. Not sure if it was 'shopped, but it looked damn good; unfortunately I can't remember where the image is and google drew a blank.
ETA this seems a lot like it, but cropped to remove the interesting bits. Ho hum.
Aussie Pigs need to be dumpin n burnin...... ETA this seems a lot like it, but cropped to remove the interesting bits. Ho hum.
DieselGriff said:
eharding said:
Just like to say thank you, and can I also @ the bit around 11:14 in say :wibble:Thanks
eharding said:
DieselGriff said:
eharding said:
Just like to say thank you, and can I also @ the bit around 11:14 in say :wibble:Thanks
Thanks for hosting it.
speedtwelve said:
eharding said:
DieselGriff said:
eharding said:
Just like to say thank you, and can I also @ the bit around 11:14 in say :wibble:Thanks
Thanks for hosting it.
Edited: Obviously, most of the footage from that video came from the crews, which made me remember a DVD given to me by an RAF mate ( Hercs->Tucano Instructor->Hawk Instructor->Headley Court with a knackered back->Rotary, name like a well known fizzy tablet) of the 2005 solo Hawk display - how the hell they managed to get "Joey" painted in the middle of Flt Lt. Diacon's name on the Hawk without the PC brigade blowing a gasket - with some excellent footage. It's been a while since I saw the RAF mate who produced it, but next time I see him I'll see if we can't get it circulated more widely - absolutely cracking bit of video.
Edited by eharding on Monday 22 February 23:46
My Uncle was a wing commander flying B52's in Nam and later F111's as a Instructor. His brother ( my other uncle) never made it into the Airforce and ended up in tanks in Nam. He is very deaf from the shelling now, although he did manage to go on to be a envoy for the President !.
Edited by Rum Runner on Monday 22 February 23:31
Eric Mc said:
The Iranians are no dopes. They are very good at working out how to keep things going and substituting alternative components if they can't lay their hands on original items.
Quick, someone tell the "Vulcan To The Sky" trust!Then again, that might not be such a good idea...
One of my mates, who was a PHer - died last year unfortuantly. Served on the USS Enterprise (no, not the Star Trek one!) during the Vietnam War, but when they had Phamtoms (Tomcat's arrived in 1974), working on the avionics on the F4's, and on the catapults after he got busted down after he decked an officer!
He said that he loved his time on the carrier, and the jets were fecking awesome and kick ass (said in a stong Texan accent!). He was jsut starting to tell me the stories, before he passed away. One he recalled was they had to sail up to North Korea at full speed (left the rest of it's fleet behind, apart from the nuclear sub) during tensions in 1969, and the did a show of force display, "dropping every type of ordnance we had on the god darn boat" just off North Korea, while the crew watched and cheered from the carrier.
He said that he loved his time on the carrier, and the jets were fecking awesome and kick ass (said in a stong Texan accent!). He was jsut starting to tell me the stories, before he passed away. One he recalled was they had to sail up to North Korea at full speed (left the rest of it's fleet behind, apart from the nuclear sub) during tensions in 1969, and the did a show of force display, "dropping every type of ordnance we had on the god darn boat" just off North Korea, while the crew watched and cheered from the carrier.
A believe the "A" version of the F-14 had a number of engine issues which in an operational sense meant that there were conservative maximum rates of change for throttle opening & closing and limitations on the rate of change of pitch to avoid compressor stalls.
I recall seeing a film where the Captain of one of the Nimitz class carriers authorised an F-14 crew for a low-level supersonic fly-by the ship as a morale boosting gesture for the crew. You see the shockwave enevloping the aircraft just aft of the cockpit & then there was an almighty fireball from the nozzle as one engine lunched itself. The crew ejected, were picked up by a helicopter & were welcomed back by the Captain, albeit looking somewhat cold, wet & bedraggled.
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I recall seeing a film where the Captain of one of the Nimitz class carriers authorised an F-14 crew for a low-level supersonic fly-by the ship as a morale boosting gesture for the crew. You see the shockwave enevloping the aircraft just aft of the cockpit & then there was an almighty fireball from the nozzle as one engine lunched itself. The crew ejected, were picked up by a helicopter & were welcomed back by the Captain, albeit looking somewhat cold, wet & bedraggled.
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
Interesting point. I can see the benefit for carrier operation where take-off and landing are a bit more tricky, but for land-based fighters I can see it being a bit of a dead end.Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I think that question is best answered by looking at how many known "conventional" variable geometry aircraft are currently under development, or when the last one entered service (Tu160? mid-eighties?).dr_gn said:
Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I think that question is best answered by looking at how many known "conventional" variable geometry aircraft are currently under development, or when the last one entered service (Tu160? mid-eighties?).rhinochopig said:
dr_gn said:
Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I think that question is best answered by looking at how many known "conventional" variable geometry aircraft are currently under development, or when the last one entered service (Tu160? mid-eighties?).rhinochopig said:
dr_gn said:
Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I think that question is best answered by looking at how many known "conventional" variable geometry aircraft are currently under development, or when the last one entered service (Tu160? mid-eighties?).dr_gn said:
rhinochopig said:
dr_gn said:
Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I think that question is best answered by looking at how many known "conventional" variable geometry aircraft are currently under development, or when the last one entered service (Tu160? mid-eighties?).speedtwelve said:
Good, but even better if you can spare 1:48 is this - Top Gun remade in Lego!Just brilliant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETSQepNh_Ek
rhinochopig said:
dr_gn said:
rhinochopig said:
dr_gn said:
Penguinracer said:
If you look at the Tornado & the F-14 it does raise the question of whether Variable Geometry's (VG) minuses (weight, impact on wingloading, complexity, maintence overhead) begin to outweigh its pluses (improved performance & behaviour at both ends of the flight envelope)when scaled down to fighter size. Perhaps VG's benefits really become most apparent when it's scaled up to heavy bomber (B-1) or airliner dimensions.
I think that question is best answered by looking at how many known "conventional" variable geometry aircraft are currently under development, or when the last one entered service (Tu160? mid-eighties?).Correct me if I am wrong, but aircraft such as the Eurofighter are now developed to be unstable in flight. This 'instability' makes the aircraft more agile and able to change direction quicker etc.
Is it just down to complexities that new aircraft don't have VG? it seemed like such a good idea
Dr Imran T said:
Is it just down to complexities that new aircraft don't have VG? it seemed like such a good idea
I heard that it's partly because modern wing design techniques mean you can achieve a similar range of capabiities with fixed wing. Also (I don't know how seriously to take this one) that fighter pilots don't like the way a swing wing signals to a dogfight opponent whether they are planning to manoevre or run home bravely.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff