gbnavy61

Nice.

Additional info on the Hultgreen (I believe I misspelled it before) mishap: Apparently she was correcting for an overshooting start by sidesliping - IIRC that was definitely not recommended due to the tendency of the TF-30's to stall. The port engine stalled as a result of the sideslip. She then tried to waveoff from the landing and went to high power on the starboard engine while pulling up too much on the nose - probably distracted by being at low altitude and trying to respond to the compressor stall. By pulling up too much, she stalled and the yaw produced by the starboard engine aggravated the stall causing the departure at low altitude. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWb68Wk3bY -A better clip w/ LSO audio. He waved her off pretty early. I'm not sure of the specific procedures, I've never gotten hold of an F-14A NATOPS, but that doesn't sound unreasonable. Compressor stalls are aerodynamic stalls just like a wing stall. The blades are at a fixed angle relative to the shafts in the engine, so the only thing that can change is the airflow into the face of the blades. Disruptions in the airflow caused by maneuvering may lead to a compressor stall usually coupled with high power settings (high RPM) or just a rapid application of power (from low to high RPM). A major compressor stall is usually signified by a loud bang, or bangs as the pressure tries to equalize. The stall basically lowers pressure in the front of the engine so that the pressure farther aft in the engine is higher. As we all know from wings flying - high pressure wants to go to low pressure - so, the flow through the engine actually reverses and tries to come out the front. Not what the engine was designed to do. Not to mention, the engine can overspeed (RPMs) and overtemp itself during this violent episode leading to damage and fatigue of components.

Yeah, that was LT Kara Hultgren - first female F-14 pilot. If I remember the information correctly, there was a mechanical failure in one engine that lead to a flame-out. Then, the high power on the other engine produced a yaw that was recoverable, but she didn't react correctly to the situation and the Tomcat departed controlled flight. The RIO tried to punch them both out, but the plane had rolled too far when the pilot's seat fired. The meat and potatoes of the accident report is floating around the internet somewhere. Basically, it was mechanical failure coupled with pilot error. Then, all that raised a whole flap about whether or not the Navy had caved to political pressures regarding gender integration - whether or not LT Hultgren was really qualified to fly Tomcats, or if she had been pushed through the program anyway. ---- Anyway, yes the TF-30 engines in the F-14A's were very underpowered for the aircraft and were only intended as a temporary fit to the Tomcat. It was intended to receive a version of the F100 (I think) engine that was being developed for the F-15A. Delays and costs prevented that from coming about and the Tomcat soldiered on with inadequate engines. Compressor stalls were very common and it was said that pilots had to fly the engine rather than the plane to avoid engine stalls. Biggest difference between the A and A+/B is the GE engines. The glove vanes ("winglets") were operable on the A and A+/B only. They were for stability at higher Mach numbers into supersonic flight, but their benefits were marginal and their removal saved weight. So, when they failed, they were disabled permanently. The new-build D's never had them (the rest of the D's were rebuild A's). The D was a bit of a different jet. More of the internal systems were digital, rather than analogue. The D had the GE engines, a contemporary HUD, the twin chin pod for the TCS and IRST, and more internal upgrades that I can't remember at the moment. I believe, because of the extra drag from the twin chin pod, the D was actually a little slower than the other models, which would probably make the A+/B the fastest 'Cat.

Lately, I've been in 'Saders or nothing. Still hop in the F-14A now and again, but I'm holding out for the B.

Yeah, I'd agree on both. I think it might just be a neat way to round out the collection. Either way, let's have more 'Saders.

Great work, all. Love the models and the skins bring more personality to the jet, especially the high-viz. Be cool if MF was also cooking up a 'Twosader' just to add to the whole collection. When you're out of F-8's...

So true.

Speaking of more Tomcats, anyone heard any word on the MF F-14B?

Amen, brother.

I think they had those for the MF F-14A - they used to be available at the column5 website. Unfortunately, the site has recently closed. To my knowledge, C5 is trying to get the files from that site and make them accessible again. He'd have the most details on that.

Well, I for one don't know enough about their jobs and the way the nuclear sites are run to say if these guys screwed up that badly. Obviously, it's not good to fall asleep at work, but it sounds like they were off duty anyway and always in the secure facility. Good on them for reporting themselves. Maybe the USAF should look at the way they run the sites and maybe adjust the scheduling if they are overworking their crews. Crew rest is a pretty big deal to the pilots, so why not others?

Every aircraft has a max trap weight. Usually you make this by dumping fuel, but you still need a minimum amount of fuel around the boat. At some point, if you are heavily loaded, you might need to punch off the tanks or bombs. Most of the time, you try not to launch with more than what you can trap with (excluding fuel). For example, an F-14 could launch off a carrier w/ 6 AIM-54's, but only trap with a max of 4 AIM-54's. At $1 million a pop, dunking a Phoenix to make landing weight was not practical. In the A/G role, the F-14 could only trap aboard with a limited bomb payload. So, basically, you try to avoid wasting ordnance and money by not taking more than you can bring back (unless you know all of your bombs/missiles are going on a target). But, in an emergency, or a combat situation, like mentioned above, you do what you have to do to get the crew and the jet down safely.

Sweet. I was wondering when someone would do a Super Bug. Looking good.

All I can say is this sounds like a horrible idea. Hollywood has been out of original ideas for some time now, but they still insist in destroying good movies by making s**tty sequels. Ugh. As was said, Top Gun's star is no more - and no, that wasn't a reference to Tom Cruise now being a total whack-job. No Tomcat = lame movie. Super Bug just doesn't have the soul. It's a cool jet, but c'mon - there's no comparison in sheer bad-assery. Mav, this is not a good idea.

Ah, I see. Yes, I would think that one would have to pour a lot of lead into a WWI aircraft to bring it down, unless you hit the pilot or possibly a fuel tank. It's all canvas and wood, so there's lots of places for bullets to go right through and not damage anything really.

Cool. Thanks. I look forward to it.

Only the A's used them. They were deactivated on the A+/B's and rebuild D's. I don't think they were even included on the new build D's.

Yes, I did find that out, after I attempted the suggested fix. At least, it's slightly better.

Thanks, gents.

He's probably had a few since he came in, forgot where he was. Cut him some slack.

I'll repost this in its own thread. I don't think its getting the visibility here.

I was just going to suggest, stop getting shot. But, I suppose that's not as helpful as you wanted.

Hey I noticed a potential bug in a few of the F-8's (B, D, E) - at least what I think is a bug. The starboard side "Y" rails for Sidewinders appear to be the same as the port side rails, but on upside-down. I'm not sure if this is deliberate because of historical accuracy, or if this is a model glitch. I'm using WOI, with the latest patch, TMF Weaps pack May '08, in Vista. I have not yet been able to locate another thread that touches this topic, or a good picture to show if my suspicions are correct. Though, it would seem that symmetry would be correct and the the launch rails on both sides of the fuselage should mirror each other across the width of the aircraft. Anyone know if this is deliberate? If not, can you point me to a fix, or suggest a course of action? Thanks. Otherwise, I love driving the Gator. Completely kick-ass jet. Excellent job overall.

That sucks - making it all the way back to base only to succumb to your wounds later.

So many choices, yet so few at the same time... Modern: 1. Tomcat - A, B, or D - it's all good, baby! 2. Fighting Falcon - Just a sharp little fighter. Cold War: 1. Navy Phantoms - Double Ugly never looked so good. 2. Crusaders - When you're out of F-8's... Korea: 1. Sabre/Fury - A sleek jet, heart of a dogfighter. 2. Skyraider - The prop equivalent of the A-10. Carries a butt-load of ordnance and can loiter all day. WWII: 1. Spitfire - Any Mark, really - they're all gorgeous. 2. Wildcat - Held the line in the Pacific and turned the tide, in spite of a superior foe. WWI: 1. Se-5 - Always thought they were a cool looking bird. Watched "The Blue Max" a lot growing up. 2. Dr 1 Triplane - Red Baron, 'nuff said.