5 ms·
More troubling still, with the engines mounted a vast nine feet apart to allow for greater lift and more weapons carriage space, a stall in one engine could thr
by justinator 4y ago
More troubling still, with the engines mounted a vast nine feet apart to allow for greater lift and more weapons carriage space, a stall in one engine could throw the aircraft into an often unrecoverable flat spin. These issues led to the loss of a whopping 40 F-14s in all.
That's a huge design flaw.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoThis is how Goose died.
- jeffdn 4y agoAnd how the test pilot who was flying the F-14 to get the shot for the movie died[0], as well. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Scholl https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Scholl
- aceazzameen 4y agoOh wow, I never knew about that.
- histriosum 4y agoUhm.. sort of, I guess? The airplane that Art Scholl died in was a Pitts S-2 BiPlane, not an F-14. So.. pretty different, although yes he died in a spin while filming footage for Top Gun.
- V_Terranova_Jr 4y agoIt's not a design flaw, it's a design choice which was made without the expectation the airframe would be saddled with the awful TF-30s. A very valid design choice at that. If you want to understand more about the genesis of the configuration, look on YouTube for "Peninsula Valley Seniors" or "Western Museum of Flight" for a talk by Mike Ciminera of Grumman.
- arethuza 4y agoI believe that's one reason why the English Electric Lightning had its two engines arranged vertically.
- chiph 4y agoIt's not like they didn't know about it - it was a tradeoff that allowed them to carry more ordnance and drop-tanks on the center-line. They weren't able to put ordnance stations on the wings, so the centerline and the sides of the fuselage were the only areas available to carry the honkin' big Phoenix missile (13 feet long!) As a swing-wing plane, putting weapon stations on the wings meant they'd have to pivot in the opposite direction of the wing motion to keep the bombs/missiles pointing forward (so they didn't become an aerodynamic drag.) Pivoting ordnance stations on the wings would also mean the wing swing servos would need to be larger and more powerful (aka heavier). So no ordnance on the wings. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wsm.htm http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wsm.htm The other heavy consumable part of a fighter is the fuel. Most of the fuel on the F-14 was carried inside the fuselage between the engines. There were small tanks in the wings (which mean there was a flexible hose connecting it - that likely leaked) but most of it was stored along the centerline of the aircraft, helping with the center of gravity and allowing it to turn faster. http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-fueltank.htm http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-fueltank.htm
- HPsquared 4y agoHuh, interesting. The Panavia Tornado was a swing-wing plane from a similar vintage and did have pivoting wing-mounted pylons. Tradeoffs abound in aviation though, of course.
- justinator 4y agoImagine if one of your swing wings is locked in the "out" position and one in the, "in" position. Couldn't imagine all the scenarios like this the pilots had to deal with. I LOVED seeing the F14 fly in the 80s at an air show. Total star of the show - I can't believe how close to the ground they fly that thing!
- aceazzameen 4y agoI thought that was impossible with the way the wings were geared. But apparently I'm wrong. I found this: https://imgur.io/L9OEWQr https://imgur.io/L9OEWQr