F-14B lack of thrust after update

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Frosty2124 said:

Typhoon is good, but the numbers quoted aren't feasible.

Sincerely,

a Typhoon SME

Not without a rocket engine, at least.  

That said, I somehow doubt his Typhoon was modified in a similar way (and even the NF-104 didn't actually accelerate that well).

[Frosty2124]

Thats a cool as hell photo 

[JCTherik]

On 10/15/2023 at 7:11 PM, maxsin72 said:

I really don't know, Enzo seems so sure in the podcast: he has no exitation, the interviewer ask him "5 second?!?!" and he confirms. I really don't understand why he is not telling the truth. It's really difficult to think that people who is doing a very important duty is lieing. Enzo had also the opportunity to tell "i can't answer", so why to tell a lie?

 

That's 4.72G of acceleration.

The airplane has TWR of 1.15, or 1.66 when empty, which means it's impossible to make it accelerate at higher than 1.66G even if you could magically turn off drag. Theoretically you could do 2.66 going straight down, but that's really an accelerated fall rather than flight, and you'd still be far from 4.72G.

You have the numbers everywhere, you can look at them yourselves. Who do you trust more, one guy doing an interview about how cool his job is or thousands of documents from testers, specifications and maintenance crew about the approximate performance of the engines?

Funny thing is, if you go to a modern f22 or f35 pilot and ask them how far does some modern missile go (don't do it, it's very impolite) some of them may tell you that modern amraams can reach the moon, but others may tell you that they'll hit a target on a radar 500 miles away or fly at mach 10 or some other bonkers far fetched but not quite completely unbelievable number which will satisfy the person asking, make the pilot seem really badass and yet reveal absolutely no classified information what so ever. It's a way to shut down people who ask inappropriate questions and stroke your ego in one swoop. I guess some pilots may get a little stuck in that mindset even for info that's not actually a secret.

[Despayre]

On 10/15/2023 at 11:02 AM, maxsin72 said:

Ok, try to explain to Enzo and Tom that what they have done is not real.

Don't be ridiculous. Everything they did was real. Everything they said was not, and no one has to explain it to them, because I suspect both of them are much better at math than you appear to be, despite the fact that several people have explained it to you, and have even told you how to check the math yourself.

[Victory205]

Vince’s “guess” was “30 seconds”, not five as Maxin misquoted. 

I ran into Aiello in a pilot lounge a long time ago, not too long after he was hired. He had already done a podcast on the F14. I asked him about why he didn’t push back on some of the BS that was already piling up from his interviews. He basically shrugged his shoulders, and the gist was that the show was about entertainment, not a documentary, and he didn’t have the technical expertise to argue against whomever was on the show. I got the drift that the purpose was about clicks and cash, not so much accuracy. 

He was a NFWS instructor at Fallon by the way, a very different course and mindset than Miramar in the 1970’s and 80’s. 

The interview does highlight one aspect that is ignored by Tomcat lovers. The F14 was unreliable in comparison to the newer fighters coming online, which was the main driver of its retirement. Everyone points to Dick Cheney as some sort of Darth Vader character, but had the Tomcat had 85% FMC numbers and maintenance man hours in the teens, we’d still by flying the F14E/F strike fighters today. My view is that to achieve Gen 5 reliability, the entire F14 airframe would have had to have been gutted with redesigned systems (not all) and updated avionics. Possible, but costly given the changes in threat and focus when the decision was made.

One of the RIO’s in our squadron ended up making RADM, and was a CAG, XO of USS Constellation, held posts in OPNAV in Air Warfare, and Commanded THIRD FLEET. He mentioned that Tomcat maintenance became a morale issue. The Hornet wrenches were sitting around their shops playing cribbage and acey-duecy, while F14 troops worked all night to get enough jets up to make the flight schedule for the next evolution. It was Naval Aviators, based on operational and cost considerations, working in the groups described above, who ultimately made the recommendation to kill the Tomcat. 

[maxsin72]

29 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

Vince’s “guess” was “30 seconds”, not five as Maxin misquoted. 

 

Never told 5 seconds for the Tomcat.

Lieutenant Colonel Lorenz “Enzo” Schaffelhofer, during a podcast, claimed 5 seconds for his Eurofighter.

[maxsin72]

23 hours ago, JCTherik said:

That's 4.72G of acceleration.

The airplane has TWR of 1.15, or 1.66 when empty, which means it's impossible to make it accelerate at higher than 1.66G even if you could magically turn off drag. Theoretically you could do 2.66 going straight down, but that's really an accelerated fall rather than flight, and you'd still be far from 4.72G.

You have the numbers everywhere, you can look at them yourselves. Who do you trust more, one guy doing an interview about how cool his job is or thousands of documents from testers, specifications and maintenance crew about the approximate performance of the engines?

Funny thing is, if you go to a modern f22 or f35 pilot and ask them how far does some modern missile go (don't do it, it's very impolite) some of them may tell you that modern amraams can reach the moon, but others may tell you that they'll hit a target on a radar 500 miles away or fly at mach 10 or some other bonkers far fetched but not quite completely unbelievable number which will satisfy the person asking, make the pilot seem really badass and yet reveal absolutely no classified information what so ever. It's a way to shut down people who ask inappropriate questions and stroke your ego in one swoop. I guess some pilots may get a little stuck in that mindset even for info that's not actually a secret.

Maybe, but keep in mind Lieutenant Colonel Lorenz “Enzo” Schaffelhofer was over Baltics sea in a very cold day: this means mach 1 is at lower TAS, engines give more thrust thanks to the fact air is more dense at low temperature. Look at the difference between +20° C and -20°C on the graph below. That said, i understand 5 seconds are still unrealistic but i'm going on to ask to my self why to say such a lie. F16 at -20°C and low fuel need about 15 seconds to go from 200 knots to mach 1 at -20°C, Eurofighter maybe can do it in 13 seconds, still far from 5 seconds but impressive:

6 hours ago, Despayre said:

Don't be ridiculous.

Be polite please, i didn't offend you nor anybody.

Edited October 17, 2023 by maxsin72

[Victory205]

1 hour ago, maxsin72 said:

Never told 5 seconds for the Tomcat.

Lieutenant Colonel Lorenz “Enzo” Schaffelhofer, during a podcast, claimed 5 seconds for his Eurofighter.

I didn’t correlate which callsign went with which liar. My apologies.

[RustBelt]

On 10/15/2023 at 2:02 PM, maxsin72 said:

Ok, try to explain to Enzo and Tom that what they have done is not real.

“I once caught a fish this fast.” It’s all fishing stories. Their plane is best plane, and facts just get in the way of that narrative. You don’t have to tell the truth in a podcast.

edit: also it’s been seen before that a lot of the best “fighter pilots” have some level of ADHD, so assume un-reliable narrators when dealing with how great their plane is by qualitative impressions.  ADHD is a hell of a drug. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by RustBelt

[Despayre]

2 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Be polite please, i didn't offend you nor anybody.

Then stop being ridiculous?

"I really doubt Enzo was misremembering."

Why? Do you know him?

You've listed the speeds yourself above, he either misremembered, or lied, take your pick, but to argue that he must be right because you "don't understand why he is not telling the truth" while ignoring, math, physics, SME's, and documented specs followed by 2 pages of ppl here patiently explaining why your view does not line up with reality, and you keep coming back with variations of 'But a human wouldn't lie about something that happened years ago, so they must be right'... ya actually... tiny bit offensive.

[Callsign JoNay]

On 10/15/2023 at 10:54 AM, maxsin72 said:

Here is the podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fX6u558JbI&t=2780s

 

 

The exact quote is "We would go down to probably like 200 knots.....it took you only maybe like five seconds from those 200 knots to where you would like go super sonic".

That's a lot of "probably like" and "maybe like". My read on Enzo is that he never actually timed it. It probably just felt like around 5 seconds to him. I believe he was just trying to make the point that the Typhoon could accelerate really fast and pulled a number out of a hat that somewhat matched his memory/perception.

[maxsin72]

52 minutes ago, Despayre said:

Then stop being ridiculous?

"I really doubt Enzo was misremembering."

Why? Do you know him?

You've listed the speeds yourself above, he either misremembered, or lied, take your pick, but to argue that he must be right because you "don't understand why he is not telling the truth" while ignoring, math, physics, SME's, and documented specs followed by 2 pages of ppl here patiently explaining why your view does not line up with reality, and you keep coming back with variations of 'But a human wouldn't lie about something that happened years ago, so they must be right'... ya actually... tiny bit offensive.

... Again please be polite, thank you!

I think Enzo is lieing or telling the truth, misremembering i think it's not probable. He was an active pilot when he was speaking in the podcast and i think it's impossibile misremembering something he claimed he has done at least several times. You don't know him too. 

13 minutes ago, Callsign JoNay said:

The exact quote is "We would go down to probably like 200 knots.....it took you only maybe like five seconds from those 200 knots to where you would like go super sonic".

That's a lot of "probably like" and "maybe like". My read on Enzo is that he never actually timed it. It probably just felt like around 5 seconds to him. I believe he was just trying to make the point that the Typhoon could accelerate really fast and pulled a number out of a hat that somewhat matched his memory/perception.

This might be a good explanation

[maxsin72]

2 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I didn’t correlate which callsign went with which liar. My apologies.

No problem, you are welcome :) 

[Redliner7]

Vince’s “guess” was “30 seconds”, not five as Maxin misquoted. 
I ran into Aiello in a pilot lounge a long time ago, not too long after he was hired. He had already done a podcast on the F14. I asked him about why he didn’t push back on some of the BS that was already piling up from his interviews. He basically shrugged his shoulders, and the gist was that the show was about entertainment, not a documentary, and he didn’t have the technical expertise to argue against whomever was on the show. I got the drift that the purpose was about clicks and cash, not so much accuracy. 

He was a NFWS instructor at Fallon by the way, a very different course and mindset than Miramar in the 1970’s and 80’s. 

The interview does highlight one aspect that is ignored by Tomcat lovers. The F14 was unreliable in comparison to the newer fighters coming online, which was the main driver of its retirement. Everyone points to Dick Cheney as some sort of Darth Vader character, but had the Tomcat had 85% FMC numbers and maintenance man hours in the teens, we’d still by flying the F14E/F strike fighters today. My view is that to achieve Gen 5 reliability, the entire F14 airframe would have had to have been gutted with redesigned systems (not all) and updated avionics. Possible, but costly given the changes in threat and focus when the decision was made.

One of the RIO’s in our squadron ended up making RADM, and was a CAG, XO of USS Constellation, held posts in OPNAV in Air Warfare, and Commanded THIRD FLEET. He mentioned that Tomcat maintenance became a morale issue. The Hornet wrenches were sitting around their shops playing cribbage and acey-duecy, while F14 troops worked all night to get enough jets up to make the flight schedule for the next evolution. It was Naval Aviators, based on operational and cost considerations, working in the groups described above, who ultimately made the recommendation to kill the Tomcat. 

Do you think some of that discrepancy is just comparing newer Hornets at the time to worn out Tomcats in up time?

https://news.usni.org/2023/02/10/cbo-report-on-super-hornet-availability

In this article, newer Super Hornets are suffering greater downtime in lesser time it took than the Legacy Hornet even. Which both are way worse than any AF planes.

Also, even current F35 Readiness is at 55% according to: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105341.

You're more in-tune than me so i always value feedback from someone that was there but my take away is that any new technology will perhaps suffer from reliability and maintenance issues. And in the case of the Tomcat, combine that with the first of its kind wrapped in analog 60s tech and a big heavy plane that's living in salty conditions, i think it was always going to be an uphill battle after year 10.



Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[FR4GGL3]

On 10/17/2023 at 10:33 PM, Victory205 said:

[...] I got the drift that the purpose was about clicks and cash, not so much accuracy. 
 

[...]

The interview does highlight one aspect that is ignored by Tomcat lovers. The F14 was unreliable in comparison to the newer fighters coming online, which was the main driver of its retirement. Everyone points to Dick Cheney as some sort of Darth Vader character, but had the Tomcat had 85% FMC numbers and maintenance man hours in the teens, we’d still by flying the F14E/F strike fighters today. My view is that to achieve Gen 5 reliability, the entire F14 airframe would have had to have been gutted with redesigned systems (not all) and updated avionics. Possible, but costly given the changes in threat and focus when the decision was made.

[...] The Hornet wrenches were sitting around their shops playing cribbage and acey-duecy, while F14 troops worked all night to get enough jets up to make the flight schedule for the next evolution. It was Naval Aviators, based on operational and cost considerations, working in the groups described above, who ultimately made the recommendation to kill the Tomcat. 

1.) Okay, that would explain a lot of things I've always wondered. It makes my sad though.

2.)+3.) It is often said (also Youtube Interviews, I don't have anything else) that the Tomcat didn't get enough Money / Budget among its whole lifespan. If that is true it is clear why there have never been necessary improvements. And that has to lead to the described problems (increasing number of Maintenance Hours and descriptions like "If it wasn't leaking, it was empty"). So yes, the Tomcat came to a point where it had to go. But I still wonder if this would be the case if there would have been enough Budget (and improvements) from the start. I mean, it worked for the F-15, so I don't get why it didn't work for the F-14. But it doesn't matter anymore. It's gone.

 

I am not even a Pilot. I didn't encounter all the quirks and the not so romantic real life issues. I look at this plane somewhat nostalgic. It was and is the "wow-Jet" of my Childhood. You could say first love VS Marriage. You have been in the Marriage (I only talk about the F-14), so your view is a lot clearer. Thank you for your insights.

Edited October 19, 2023 by FR4GGL3

[Spurts]

Part of the Tomcats MMHPFH issue was financial to be sure.  If Congress doesn't buy spares then you can repair jets and they have terrible reliability.  Congress tried to kill the Tomcat before it ever entered service.  Other part of the issue is being a 60s design.  As I heard on one podcast a Mx panel on a Tomcat might have 40-100 screws which the Hornet has three push-to-release latches.  

[RustBelt]

The Tomcat also lacked a data bus (until the D) so miles of wire to wrangle for every single thing to other thing connection. That just eats man-hours. 

[Spurts]

that too