Tomcat Tales

[Victory205]

If you like Tomcat stories, here are some good ones-

 

 

[Slant]

Can confirm, that was the best show Mover did on the channel so far. Shoe's an amazing story teller and... you couldn't make it up!

[RaisedByWolves]

Eagle one this is alert 1. Splash the zeroes

[Wavehopper]

That carrier landing simulator story is pure gold.

[Squid_DK]

That was quite the raw delightful gem of an interview.

Absolutely the best so far.

[Nealius]

Now this is an interview!

 

I've seen a lot of air crew interviews, and one consistent aspect that amazes me is how they all have this incredible capacity for confidence, self-esteem, discipline, competitiveness, and compartmentalization skills from the age of 10. I'm in my 30s and still struggle with those things. I don't know if it's genetics, parenting, or a mix of both, but whatever it is, it is awe-inspiring.  

[Nexus-6]

I particularly liked the story of that knucklehead who wanted to touch the refueling probe with his foot and got zapped hard enough to glow in the dark.

[Golo]

What a gem of an interview. Shoes had me glued to the screen for 2h like a leech, amazing pilot/instructor/storyteller. Right after I felt so motivated to fly, I had to try that inverted pitch hangup in F-5E, and I did.

I could not get its nose to stop falling tho, but when I was slow over the top and I kicked the rudder to induce spin i got it in the stable inverted spin and the F-5 was as happy at about -0,5 to -1g as Shoes described. Idle, flaps up, full aft stick... nothing from about 18k ft to about 13k ft, then I kicked opposite rudder and it stopped the spin at once, dropped its nose, I regained control and bottomed out just above 6k ft. So close to what he described, just wow at F-5 flight modeling.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by Golo

[Victory205]

10 hours ago, Nexus-6 said:

I particularly liked the story of that knucklehead who wanted to touch the refueling probe with his foot and got zapped hard enough to glow in the dark.

 

Quite a few embellishments, as too many fighter pilots are wont to do, but funny nonetheless. Getting zapped wouldn’t be an issue unless the photographer was barefoot. I was picked up out of the water by an H46 (in training), and was sure to let the cable touch the water before grabbing it for hook up. I’ve heard the other side of that story several times, and nothing was mentioned in terms of static discharge. 

The part about VF84’s CO being embroiled in a controversy over extra flying in exchange for “favors” was true. We still had agents coming by from time to time to look at flight time records. Emory Brown’s career was kaput after that. He ended up at FedEx. 

 

 

[Uxi]

Best interview evar.  I usually never watch the whole thing but yeah I'll watch anything Shoes does. I would like more "pimp" and "scary" stories from him.  The Vulcan intercept was great, too. 

[Katj]

 
Quite a few embellishments, as too many fighter pilots are wont to do, but funny nonetheless. Getting zapped wouldn’t be an issue unless the photographer was barefoot. I was picked up out of the water by an H46 (in training), and was sure to let the cable touch the water before grabbing it for hook up. I’ve heard the other side of that story several times, and nothing was mentioned in terms of static discharge. 

The part about VF84’s CO being embroiled in a controversy over extra flying in exchange for “favors” was true. We still had agents coming by from time to time to look at flight time records. Emory Brown’s career was kaput after that. He ended up at FedEx. 
 
 

One thing that caught my ear was that he claimed to have reached Mach 2.35, which is way faster than what I've heard from other pilots. The F-14D guy ("Oral" was it?) Mover interviewed before said something like Mach 1.6 if I don't misremember.

While I imagine that an A directly from the production line is the faster bird, the difference seems rather big. It's almost as if most pilots didn't actually go for a clean max speed run. (Not that surprising)

So, do you think 2.35 was actually feasible with an operational aircraft? What's your personal best in terms of Mach?

[Uxi]

Sounds like the speed limits came later when the many of the A's were accumulating many hours with no hope of replacement, and his would have been fresh (at least as he mentioned when they got the block 90s to replace the older 60s he mentioned he was so bummed out by). 

[captain_dalan]

On 12/23/2020 at 10:44 AM, Katj said:

 

 

One thing that caught my ear was that he claimed to have reached Mach 2.35, which is way faster than what I've heard from other pilots. The F-14D guy ("Oral" was it?) Mover interviewed before said something like Mach 1.6 if I don't misremember.

While I imagine that an A directly from the production line is the faster bird, the difference seems rather big. It's almost as if most pilots didn't actually go for a clean max speed run. (Not that surprising)

So, do you think 2.35 was actually feasible with an operational aircraft? What's your personal best in terms of Mach?
 

 

Eh, the 1g (level flight) No-excess power curve goes up to mach 2.2 with 4 Sparrows and 4 Winders, i don't see why a clean(er) bird wouldn't go pass that. The main reason (early on) why you wouldn't go past mach 2 would probably be safety, not plane performance. Later on though.....

[Quid]

 

On 12/23/2020 at 3:44 AM, Katj said:

One thing that caught my ear was that he claimed to have reached Mach 2.35, which is way faster than what I've heard from other pilots. The F-14D guy ("Oral" was it?) Mover interviewed before said something like Mach 1.6 if I don't misremember.

While I imagine that an A directly from the production line is the faster bird, the difference seems rather big. It's almost as if most pilots didn't actually go for a clean max speed run. (Not that surprising)

So, do you think 2.35 was actually feasible with an operational aircraft? What's your personal best in terms of Mach?

 

Odds are "Shoes" was in a clean jet with plenty of space; considering Grumman tested it to 2.41 (and accelerating) when clean (and another pilot, all too often brought up here, claims a 2.5M top speed), I think there's little reason to doubt 2.35.

 

10 hours ago, Uxi said:

Sounds like the speed limits came later when the many of the A's were accumulating many hours with no hope of replacement, and his would have been fresh (at least as he mentioned when they got the block 90s to replace the older 60s he mentioned he was so bummed out by). 

The Jolly Rogers started with Block 95s when they transitioned out of F-4s, which were being picked up by the squadron in 1977 (deliveries between April and October of that year), so he was actually picking up the squadron's inaugural batch.  He was in Block 60s in VF-101.   As to the speed limits, they've been there from the start, and they change with aircraft configuration as one would expect.  However, some were actually even more stringent for early aircraft and stores, especially if the early tanks or early Sidewinder pylons were involved.  Even clean, the 1975 NATOPS assumes a 1.88IMN Maximum Allowable airspeed, in spite of the fact that the plane could go faster by far (could be the safe operating limit of the Sidewinder "stub" pylons?)  So, the plane actually saw expansions, not contractions to its operational envelope as it matured.

 

EDIT:  And yes, there are disparities between the NATOPS performance charts and the NATOPS operating limits.  As captain_dalan points out, the 1g envelope for a 4x4 loadout is about 2.15M, which is above the maximum allowable airspeed listed in the basic manual.  The performance manual calls out 2.4M as the design speed limit with no stores.

Edited December 24, 2020 by Quid
Added clarifications

[Victory205]

There are "discrepancies" between the published charts, which are based on extrapolations from tested datapoints, and actual performance as well.

 

Shoes achieving 2.35 Mach is highly unlikely. The only opportunity was usually presented on a PMCF flight, where careful planning was required to save enough fuel and create enough room while completing all of the required tests to do the Mach run to check the Mach levers and their efficacy in preventing engine stall. You needed to get to at least Mach 1.6 or so to get a valid test before decelerating below Mach 1.5. The Max Mach tests that are cited likely required tanking on both ends, a completely clean aircraft, plenty of airspace, total temperature monitoring and were done for the contractor to validate performance. There is no reason to go that fast in practice. Anytime you needed max velocity for intercept, you were going to be carrying an "end of the world as we know it load out", which would limit Mmax to far less than the placarded 2.34 Mach. Sort of Catch 22.

 

The 1.88 limit was due to burner spray bar structural issues. People exceeded it so they could say that they did Mach 2.0, but if anything was damaged, then you were accountable. The times I did PMCF runs, Fort Worth Center and Giant Killer would usually give me my ground speed readout over the UHF without asking. While deployed, you had at least five radars on you from the battle group. You were also trying to do that supersonic run with tanks and rails, meaning 1.6-1.7 in the thirties if you were luck. With everyone watching their scopes, you weren't going to weasel your way out of gun decking your actual speed if something went divergent. Better have lots of money to bribe the RIO too.

 

If you needed to burn the wing fuel down for FCLP or a recovery, it was more common to practice burner turns in a climbing spiral, or pick up .9 Mach on the deck, and do a vertical zoom for fun, all predicated on what your airspace constraints might be.

 

The vast majority of my supersonic time was on bug out profiles somewhere between 5K and the deck. Otherwise, it was on a PMCF for the Mach Lever test.

 

The the aircraft capable of higher than Mach 2.0? Absolutely. Was it a common practice? Nope.

 

One additional tidbit. Supersonic on the deck over a little boat after takeoff doesn't make much sense. We weren't allowed to exceed Mach closer than 30 NM from shore, with the exceptions of certain restricted airspace (Nellis, Yuma) spectrums. The shockwave from a Tomcat in close proximity sounds and feels like standing next to a 105mm Howitzer shot. It isn't a thump like you hear from a high altitude aircraft, it's a canon shot. Last time we did an airshow at sea with a Mach flyby, the Tomcat knocked a side window out of an SH-60 sitting in the corral. While I did thump my flight lead during a FAM hop at Red Flag (he thought his engines blew up until I popped up in front of him), I certainly wouldn't thump a little fishing boat for obvious reasons.

 

It's a mistake to take a sea story or line from a book or article that someone his trying to sell, and extrapolate into making the anecdote into the Gospel of Grumman Aeronautical Lore. Just enjoy the yarns, knowing that they are largely useful for entertainment purposes.

 

[Uxi]

Bio said in Tomcat RIO the fastest he ever went was 1.76 Mach at 34000 on a PMCF. 

 

What's your top speed, Victory?

[Jackjack171]

2 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

There are "discrepancies" between the published charts, which are based on extrapolations from tested datapoints, and actual performance as well.

 

Shoes achieving 2.35 Mach is highly unlikely. The only opportunity was usually presented on a PMCF flight, where careful planning was required to save enough fuel and create enough room while completing all of the required tests to do the Mach run to check the Mach levers and their efficacy in preventing engine stall. You needed to get to at least Mach 1.6 or so to get a valid test before decelerating below Mach 1.5. The Max Mach tests that are cited likely required tanking on both ends, a completely clean aircraft, plenty of airspace, total temperature monitoring and were done for the contractor to validate performance. There is no reason to go that fast in practice. Anytime you needed max velocity for intercept, you were going to be carrying an "end of the world as we know it load out", which would limit Mmax to far less than the placarded 2.34 Mach. Sort of Catch 22.

 

The 1.88 limit was due to burner spray bar structural issues. People exceeded it so they could say that they did Mach 2.0, but if anything was damaged, then you were accountable. The times I did PMCF runs, Fort Worth Center and Giant Killer would usually give me my ground speed readout over the UHF without asking. While deployed, you had at least five radars on you from the battle group. You were also trying to do that supersonic run with tanks and rails, meaning 1.6-1.7 in the thirties if you were luck. With everyone watching their scopes, you weren't going to weasel your way out of gun decking your actual speed if something went divergent. Better have lots of money to bribe the RIO too.

 

If you needed to burn the wing fuel down for FCLP or a recovery, it was more common to practice burner turns in a climbing spiral, or pick up .9 Mach on the deck, and do a vertical zoom for fun, all predicated on what your airspace constraints might be.

 

The vast majority of my supersonic time was on bug out profiles somewhere between 5K and the deck. Otherwise, it was on a PMCF for the Mach Lever test.

 

The the aircraft capable of higher than Mach 2.0? Absolutely. Was it a common practice? Nope.

 

One additional tidbit. Supersonic on the deck over a little boat after takeoff doesn't make much sense. We weren't allowed to exceed Mach closer than 30 NM from shore, with the exceptions of certain restricted airspace (Nellis, Yuma) spectrums. The shockwave from a Tomcat in close proximity sounds and feels like standing next to a 105mm Howitzer shot. It isn't a thump like you hear from a high altitude aircraft, it's a canon shot. Last time we did an airshow at sea with a Mach flyby, the Tomcat knocked a side window out of an SH-60 sitting in the corral. While I did thump my flight lead during a FAM hop at Red Flag (he thought his engines blew up until I popped up in front of him), I certainly wouldn't thump a little fishing boat for obvious reasons.

 

It's a mistake to take a sea story or line from a book or article that someone his trying to sell, and extrapolate into making the anecdote into the Gospel of Grumman Aeronautical Lore. Just enjoy the yarns, knowing that they are largely useful for entertainment purposes.

 

You had me at gun decking. Haven't heard that in a while!

[Uxi]

9 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

One additional tidbit. Supersonic on the deck over a little boat after takeoff doesn't make much sense. We weren't allowed to exceed Mach closer than 30 NM from shore, with the exceptions of certain restricted airspace (Nellis, Yuma) spectrums. The shockwave from a Tomcat in close proximity sounds and feels like standing next to a 105mm Howitzer shot. It isn't a thump like you hear from a high altitude aircraft, it's a canon shot. Last time we did an airshow at sea with a Mach flyby, the Tomcat knocked a side window out of an SH-60 sitting in the corral. While I did thump my flight lead during a FAM hop at Red Flag (he thought his engines blew up until I popped up in front of him), I certainly wouldn't thump a little fishing boat for obvious reasons.

 

 

To be fair, he presented that as seeing the boat too late, since he said he was looking at instruments until the RIO mentioned the trawler off to the side.  

 

The flying supersonic at 50 feet part is what sounded either like an exaggeration or... unsafe to me.  

 

From the comfort of my home office with no gear on,  I have a hard time staying at 100 ft  supersonic with no fear of losing my life or the 40 million dollar plane in Real life.  She wants to climb or sink and that doesn't leave a lot of room for the latter.

[Quid]

5 hours ago, Victory205 said:

There are "discrepancies" between the published charts, which are based on extrapolations from tested datapoints, and actual performance as well.

 

Shoes achieving 2.35 Mach is highly unlikely. The only opportunity was usually presented on a PMCF flight, where careful planning was required to save enough fuel and create enough room while completing all of the required tests to do the Mach run to check the Mach levers and their efficacy in preventing engine stall. You needed to get to at least Mach 1.6 or so to get a valid test before decelerating below Mach 1.5. The Max Mach tests that are cited likely required tanking on both ends, a completely clean aircraft, plenty of airspace, total temperature monitoring and were done for the contractor to validate performance. There is no reason to go that fast in practice. Anytime you needed max velocity for intercept, you were going to be carrying an "end of the world as we know it load out", which would limit Mmax to far less than the placarded 2.34 Mach. Sort of Catch 22.

 

The 1.88 limit was due to burner spray bar structural issues. People exceeded it so they could say that they did Mach 2.0, but if anything was damaged, then you were accountable. The times I did PMCF runs, Fort Worth Center and Giant Killer would usually give me my ground speed readout over the UHF without asking. While deployed, you had at least five radars on you from the battle group. You were also trying to do that supersonic run with tanks and rails, meaning 1.6-1.7 in the thirties if you were luck. With everyone watching their scopes, you weren't going to weasel your way out of gun decking your actual speed if something went divergent. Better have lots of money to bribe the RIO too.

 

If you needed to burn the wing fuel down for FCLP or a recovery, it was more common to practice burner turns in a climbing spiral, or pick up .9 Mach on the deck, and do a vertical zoom for fun, all predicated on what your airspace constraints might be.

 

The vast majority of my supersonic time was on bug out profiles somewhere between 5K and the deck. Otherwise, it was on a PMCF for the Mach Lever test.

 

The the aircraft capable of higher than Mach 2.0? Absolutely. Was it a common practice? Nope.

 

One additional tidbit. Supersonic on the deck over a little boat after takeoff doesn't make much sense. We weren't allowed to exceed Mach closer than 30 NM from shore, with the exceptions of certain restricted airspace (Nellis, Yuma) spectrums. The shockwave from a Tomcat in close proximity sounds and feels like standing next to a 105mm Howitzer shot. It isn't a thump like you hear from a high altitude aircraft, it's a canon shot. Last time we did an airshow at sea with a Mach flyby, the Tomcat knocked a side window out of an SH-60 sitting in the corral. While I did thump my flight lead during a FAM hop at Red Flag (he thought his engines blew up until I popped up in front of him), I certainly wouldn't thump a little fishing boat for obvious reasons.

 

It's a mistake to take a sea story or line from a book or article that someone his trying to sell, and extrapolate into making the anecdote into the Gospel of Grumman Aeronautical Lore. Just enjoy the yarns, knowing that they are largely useful for entertainment purposes.

 

Very much appreciate your commentary.  One thing I do have a question on based on the interview: your handle is Victory205; did Shoes damage the gear on "your" jet? (i.e., the jet with your name on the side)  He states the side number was 205 on the plane he damaged in the interview.  Just curious.

[Uxi]

Maybe Victory is Shoes? probably unrelated, but what was Sluggers callsign before they took Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disbanded anyway?  Everywhere I look seems it's just Jolly Rogers info "Victory, etc"

Edited December 25, 2020 by Uxi

[Jackjack171]

55 minutes ago, Uxi said:

Maybe Victory is Shoes? probably unrelated, but what was Sluggers callsign before they took Jolly Rogers when VF-84 was disbanded anyway?  Everywhere I look seems it's just Jolly Rogers info "Victory, etc"

 

It was Clubleaf! 

[Victory205]

I'm not "Shoe".

 

LOL, "Mover" is certainly milking "Shoe's" sea stories. He's posting snippets to get more clicks by the day. 

 

I have a better gear overspeed story than that one, but not sure if I should share it since it involved a friend who was prohibited from flying afterwards. He kept his wings, but was kicked out of the squadron.

 

I never managed to overspeed the gear or flaps during my career. 

 

One little occurrence that always astonished me was that in 1977 while I was in college, I attended an airshow where a VF84 F14 arrived briefly. I had never seen a Tomcat before, this was a couple years before the goofy "final countdown" release. I hadn't taken a flying GA yet, wasn't in the AVROC program yet, had no idea that the USN had a way for college grads to become officers and pilots,  and knew nothing of the squadron. I recall peering at the aircraft and marveling at the workmanship. It looked knew, and even the hydraulic line routings, the counting accelerometers in the wheel wells and all of the details of the airframe were state of the art and impressive. They towed the aircraft later so it could start up away from the crowd for departure, and I recall staring at the process, with the guys flying it looking young, confident and competent. It was a completely different world from the future I was heading for...

 

They took off in burner, came back for a pass, pulled into the vertical, and disappeared into what had become a 1200 overcast. Wow.

 

Seven years later, after a ton of work, I was in that squadron flying that aircraft.

 

That's why 36 years later, I wake up every day astonished, fascinated and grateful.

 

If you have a passion, if you have a goal, if you desperately want to do something, then go do it. If you look closely, the people in the interviews are just regular, normal people who were willing to pay the price. 

 

Ordinary people do extraordinary things every single day. If you are willing to work, you can too. Start now.

[Uxi]

Yeah Mover is definitely milking it.  In a way, though the edits make it easier to find some of the stories since they did so many. 

 

Shoes needs to write a few books and do a movie for at least one of them. 

[LanceCriminal86]

On 12/31/2020 at 2:02 PM, Victory205 said:

I'm not "Shoe".

 

LOL, "Mover" is certainly milking "Shoe's" sea stories. He's posting snippets to get more clicks by the day. 

 

I have a better gear overspeed story than that one, but not sure if I should share it since it involved a friend who was prohibited from flying afterwards. He kept his wings, but was kicked out of the squadron.

 

I never managed to overspeed the gear or flaps during my career. 

 

One little occurrence that always astonished me was that in 1977 while I was in college, I attended an airshow where a VF84 F14 arrived briefly. I had never seen a Tomcat before, this was a couple years before the goofy "final countdown" release. I hadn't taken a flying GA yet, wasn't in the AVROC program yet, had no idea that the USN had a way for college grads to become officers and pilots,  and knew nothing of the squadron. I recall peering at the aircraft and marveling at the workmanship. It looked knew, and even the hydraulic line routings, the counting accelerometers in the wheel wells and all of the details of the airframe were state of the art and impressive. They towed the aircraft later so it could start up away from the crowd for departure, and I recall staring at the process, with the guys flying it looking young, confident and competent. It was a completely different world from the future I was heading for...

 

They took off in burner, came back for a pass, pulled into the vertical, and disappeared into what had become a 1200 overcast. Wow.

 

Seven years later, after a ton of work, I was in that squadron flying that aircraft.

 

That's why 36 years later, I wake up every day astonished, fascinated and grateful.

 

If you have a passion, if you have a goal, if you desperately want to do something, then go do it. If you look closely, the people in the interviews are just regular, normal people who were willing to pay the price. 

 

Ordinary people do extraordinary things every single day. If you are willing to work, you can too. Start now.

 

@Victory205 does it perhaps involve an airshow?