3 ms·

More F-14s were destroyed (which OK: in conjunction with the crappy engine) because of this design than in combat. The AIM-54's never lived up to their name as

More F-14s were destroyed (which OK: in conjunction with the crappy engine) because of this design than in combat. The AIM-54's never lived up to their name as an air to air missle, since it was meant to shoot down bombers, which never flew (and you know: thankfully never flew). Though they tried against fighters - that wasn't very successfully (except for Iran?). One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine failure - of course: if one could go back in time 30+ years to install it. Good point on the variable swept wings not allowing hard points, didn't think about that. The F111 did allow for ordinances on the wings and they did it in the method you've described (tho much larger plane) Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane!

chiph 4y ago
Here's a photo I took of an F-14 that had stopped over at Sheppard AFB in the early 80's. https://imgur.com/Ji55Vgv https://imgur.com/Ji55Vgv And another one next to an A-10. Notice how substantial the landing gear is on the F-14 compared to the A-10, and the A-10 was designed for landings on improvised runways... https://imgur.com/GMupZaq https://imgur.com/GMupZaq
- Kubuxu 4y ago
  It’s due to carrier landing requirements. When landing on carrier, you don’t flare the aircraft, you just dump it on deck with significant vertical speed. At least that is what you do with F-18 (with 200-400feet per minute descend rate), I would assume F-14 is the same for all the same reasons. In short, carrier landings are closer to controlled crashes over the thing that everyone is calling landings.
V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago
> One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine failure It could be possible that with full-authority fly-by-wire flight controls, a flight computer could prevent departures in case of single engine failure. I doubt anyone with enough F-14 flight dynamics knowledge is going to be on HN (you never know though!) to say if there was enough authority in the controls in these parts of the envelope to recover from such scenarios. While not the same failure mode, the SR-71 in the '80s acquired a system called "DAFICS": Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System. During supersonic flight, you could get inlet unstart (ejection of the internal normal shock and a resultant sudden decrease in thrust due to poor inlet performance) - which typically occurred asymmetrically and was not uncommon. DAFICS sensed an impending unstart and actually forced both inlets to simultaneously unstart. A less expensive patch than redesigning a finicky inlet already 20+ years old. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/851977/ https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/85... That aside aside, the real fix the F-14 needed was the GE engines (A+/D model). So you likely ought to blame the losses of these airframes from engine-induced issues on acquisition system decisions, rather than the airframe design itself.
mr_toad 4y ago
> Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane! They did a number on the Iraqi air force, you could argue that they got their money’s worth. They got more actual combat use out of them than the US ever did.

chiph 4y ago

Here's a photo I took of an F-14 that had stopped over at Sheppard AFB in the early 80's. https://imgur.com/Ji55Vgv https://imgur.com/Ji55Vgv And another one next to an A-10. Notice how substantial the landing gear is on the F-14 compared to the A-10, and the A-10 was designed for landings on improvised runways... https://imgur.com/GMupZaq https://imgur.com/GMupZaq

Kubuxu 4y ago
It’s due to carrier landing requirements. When landing on carrier, you don’t flare the aircraft, you just dump it on deck with significant vertical speed. At least that is what you do with F-18 (with 200-400feet per minute descend rate), I would assume F-14 is the same for all the same reasons. In short, carrier landings are closer to controlled crashes over the thing that everyone is calling landings.

V_Terranova_Jr 4y ago

> One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine failure It could be possible that with full-authority fly-by-wire flight controls, a flight computer could prevent departures in case of single engine failure. I doubt anyone with enough F-14 flight dynamics knowledge is going to be on HN (you never know though!) to say if there was enough authority in the controls in these parts of the envelope to recover from such scenarios. While not the same failure mode, the SR-71 in the '80s acquired a system called "DAFICS": Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System. During supersonic flight, you could get inlet unstart (ejection of the internal normal shock and a resultant sudden decrease in thrust due to poor inlet performance) - which typically occurred asymmetrically and was not uncommon. DAFICS sensed an impending unstart and actually forced both inlets to simultaneously unstart. A less expensive patch than redesigning a finicky inlet already 20+ years old. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/851977/ https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/85... That aside aside, the real fix the F-14 needed was the GE engines (A+/D model). So you likely ought to blame the losses of these airframes from engine-induced issues on acquisition system decisions, rather than the airframe design itself.

mr_toad 4y ago

> Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane! They did a number on the Iraqi air force, you could argue that they got their money’s worth. They got more actual combat use out of them than the US ever did.