External Tanks, Where they always equipped?

[MeRLiNttu]

Almost every photo I see of F-14s have external fuel.

 

If anybody knows, was it standard to always brings bags when on the boat? Was this always the case? Even in the A?

 

Did they train with bags on traps / BFM?

[turkeydriver]

in the 70s and 80s- not always- but always when combat was imminent and always from the 90s on.

[turkeydriver]

EAK-3s and S-3s and KA-6Ds could hand off more fuel for the fighter guys and every jet on the carrier at that point had long legs. The F-18 at that time was thought to be anemic, although we have adapted to it. Believe it or not in the 1970s and early 80s the F-14 was the shortest legged jet on the carrier! The F-18 showed up and aerial refueling was prioritized around the new strikers as it was much more necessary- the F-14 adapted by always carrying tanks.

[Eldur]

The F-18 at that time was thought to be anemic

 

 

The same though made the round here. And the reality is that I can fly the Hornet without bags in full AB for half an hour or even more at altitude while the Tomcat with bags, literally twice the fuel, is dry in like 5 minutes...

 

 

Well, if you stay subsonic, the things turn around though as both airframes stay up long well with pretty similar FFs

[BlackLion213]

Having the external tanks mounted at all times was standard practice while at sea starting around the late 1970s. The external tanks have a dedicated hardpoint and don't add much drag so there was little downside to keeping them mounted at all times. The biggest drawback was that it decreased yaw stability just a little bit at higher AOA, including the approach configuration. But it wasn't a big deal for pilots.

 

But when launching from a ship, aircraft would take as much fuel as practical so mounting the tanks was preferred. Plus, removing them requires storage and such, so best to just leave them on the aircraft. It is different for other aircraft where the tanks are sharing hardpoints that may be needed for ordnance.

 

While ashore, it was common to remove them, though things like airwing strike rehearsals at Fallon would generally include them since its the configuration flown from the boat. But for things like ACM dets and FFARP they would remove them and allow pilots to enjoy the clean airframe.

 

-Nick

[Hummingbird]

external tanks also seem to have been common at the topgun school.

[SVgamer72]

The same though made the round here. And the reality is that I can fly the Hornet without bags in full AB for half an hour or even more at altitude while the Tomcat with bags, literally twice the fuel, is dry in like 5 minutes...

 

 

Well, if you stay subsonic, the things turn around though as both airframes stay up long well with pretty similar FFs

 

In "Tanker Pilot: Lessons from the Cockpit - Mark Hasara" the author specifically mentions the challenges of keeping enough tankers in the air to service "C" Hornets due to their high fuel burn rates compared to other planes in inventory at the time.

[Hummingbird]

It's funny because the F/A-18 lasts a lot longer in full AB than the F-14B currently does ingame.

[VampireNZ]

It's funny because the F/A-18 lasts a lot longer in full AB than the F-14B currently does ingame.

 

Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.

[RaisedByWolves]

Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.

 

 

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain

[Eldur]

It's funny because the F/A-18 lasts a lot longer in full AB than the F-14B currently does ingame.

 

 

The FF with the cans lit is almost twice of what it should be actually (compared to FF calculated by specific FF and thrust). Did some testing weeks ago and posted the results somewhere on here. Up to MIL is fine though.

[eatthis]

It's funny because the F/A-18 lasts a lot longer in full AB than the F-14B currently does ingame.

 

ive noticed that too which surprised me, fm issue or is this accurate? (i also dont get away from hornets on the deck which really surprised me)

[Hummingbird]

The FF with the cans lit is almost twice of what it should be actually (compared to FF calculated by specific FF and thrust). Did some testing weeks ago and posted the results somewhere on here. Up to MIL is fine though.

 

Interesting, haven't tested it or searched the manual for the specific FF myself, I've just noted that the Hornet lasts a lot longer on internal fuel in AB than the Cat, like a lot.

[Hummingbird]

ive noticed that too which surprised me, fm issue or is this accurate? (i also dont get away from hornets on the deck which really surprised me)

 

Can't say, haven't compared the ingame FF with that listed in manual yet.

[FZG_Immel]

The FF with the cans lit is almost twice of what it should be actually (compared to FF calculated by specific FF and thrust). Did some testing weeks ago and posted the results somewhere on here. Up to MIL is fine though.

 

 

I agree. The f-14 in burner is awfully short

[stuart666]

Early on there are some photos with early A models with smaller tanks with fins on them. They look like they may have come off an A4 or a Skyray or something.

[MurderOne]

During DACT off the east coast, it was a regular thing that the Cats would call "Knock it off, I'm out of gas" when "fighting" VFC-12. I know this isn't very scientific, but the Cats were regularly out of gas before the Bugs.

[ENO]

Probably the A versions in burner the whole time...

[turkeydriver]

The weight of the F-14 and F-15 really comes into play in DACT and though they do cool stuff they really eat up fuel quickly here. F-16s and F-18s frequently were healthier with fuel at the end of the fight.