mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) (06/26/89)
From: Michael J. Tighe <mjt@super.org> > Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters > around, the F-4 Phantom. The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for miles. Early versions didn't even have a cannon. It wasn't very maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around it. And it had two seats. (see below). > ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They > were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) ------------- Michael Tighe internet: mjt@super.org uunet: ...!uunet!super!mjt
fjs@floyd.ATT.COM (06/28/89)
From: fjs@floyd.ATT.COM In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > > From: Fred J. Shubert <fjs@floyd.att.com> > > Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters > > around, the F-4 Phantom. > > The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This kinda flame-free posting is only found in this newsgroup, thats for sure!!! [my note] > interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it > wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for > miles. Early versions didn't even have a cannon. It wasn't very Tomcats smoke a lot too, with the TF30. > maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around it. And it had two > seats. (see below). > > > ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They > > were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... > > By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- > ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) Sorry. (I probably offended Mary Shafer, too! Her E-mail's on the way. :-) ) My mistake. I'm not really up on the F-4's, except I've always perceived them as a fighter. BUT the NAVY really did want to replace them with a high-tech fighter, the F-14 Tomcat eventually fit the bill when the F-111B didn't. > From: Fred J. Shubert <fjs@floyd.att.com> > >When the ATE engines became available in 1977-78 (I forgot), GE was the > >clear winner. But NNNNNNNOOOOOOOO, the fool NAVY wanted to second source > >the GE engine and asked GE to give P&W the design so the NAVY could buy > >the engine from both. Wisely (?), GE told the NAVY they didn't give a > >flying wallenda what they wanted, they wouldn't give anyone the design. I need to somewhat correct a previous posting about the Tomcat engines..... This newsgroup is VERY sharp. It belongs on Wall Street. The idea of the ATE (Advanced Tactical Engine) originally came from a 1968 AIR FORCE Technology Demonstration Program. This program pitted P&W against GE, both who supposedly had fairly equal engine building talents at that time. P&W came up with the winning engine and was awarded the ATE contract on Feb. 27, 1970 for the F401-PW-400. This engine developed 28,000 lbs. of augmented thrust. Its sister engine, the F401-PW-100 was the later chosen by the AIR FORCE for the F-15 and F-16. But cost overruns, budget, and time-to-production ended the ATE engine in the early 70's. So, here we are, stuck with the TF30 because of the never-ending bitching about costs. In 1972 the NAVY projected that for every 1000 flight hours, the engines in the Tomcat would see 597 afterburner lights and 1165 engine cycles (1 cycle being running engine through all power settings). Between January 1975 and November 1978, we lost 31 Tomcats, with 35% (11) being lost due to the TF30 (~$400 M worth of planes). In 1979, a Naval Air Test Center study found that the Tomcat engines ACTUALLY see 2250 afterburner lights and 10,549 cycles per 1000 flight hours. (AMAZING, huh? What did they expect.......put a kid in the seat of the newest, hottest fighter, and expect him to treat it like glass?! Something like when I rent a Mustang GT when traveling, huh? :-) ) In all honesty, P&W got the raw end of the deal here because the TF30 was ONLY supposed to be a temporary engine for the Tomcat until the ATE was ready. The NAVY GROSSLY underestimated the usage of the engine in the Tomcat and could never get their money in order or in their pockets when they asked for engines. P&W did the come up with improved engines, but there was never enough money and the TF30 was too expensive just to throw out and replace after 4 years. Until I did some more in-depth research, I had a negatively biased opinion of P&W and their engines. I was wrong. Anyhow, in late 1976, there existed three new engine possibilities for the Tomcat (through what means or developement contract I don't know): The P&W F401-PW-26C, the GE F101-X (soon to be F101DFE), and the Allison TF41-912-B31. Come 1977 there was only $15M in NAVY funding for engine development and NO money for 1978. So much for these engines. On November 5, 1978, the AIR FORCE, in an effort to bring GE up to the same supposed level as P&W in engine technology (interesting, huh?) awarded GE a 30 month developement contract that eventually became an improved version of the F101-X, the F101DFE (Derivative Fighter Engine). This engine was said to be somewhat better than what P&W had to offer, which the NAVY admitted was quite an impressive engine greatly improving the TF30, but it was also 18 months ahead of P&W in production readiness. There still was money trouble, though. So much for these engines. Finally, on February 3, 1984, the AIR FORCE awarded GE the engine contract for the F-16 (F110-GE-100). This forced the NAVYs' hand because the NRE (for those who don't know, Non Recurring Engineering) and all the R&D burden was bore by the AIR FORCE, thus making it somewhat cheaper, plus the pressures of commonality. Hence the F110-GE-400 was born for the F-14D Tomcat (SuperTomcat). Just to be killed again by the NAVY for money troubles!! So much for this plane. I don't retract my original posting of the NAVY's request to GE for second sourcing the engine in 1979 (not 1977-1978) to P&W. I just can't find the book where I read it and it was funny as hell when I read it. But otherwise, many apologies for the few discrepancies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred J. Shubert | "You haven't lived until you've seen a 'cat fly!!!" AT&T Bell Labs |----------------------------------------------------- Whippany, N.J. | DISCLAIMER: All views are that of my own. PERIOD. Ma-Bell 201-386-3094 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ _ / \ /^ ^\ / F-14D ____________\_( . )_/____________ SUPERTOMCATS --*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- RULE * O O * (I Love 'Em) Write your congressperson and bring the F-14D SuperTomcat back to the skys.
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/29/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > From: Michael J. Tighe <mjt@super.org> > The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense > interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it > wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for > miles. Engines developed during the period that the GE J-79s came on line *all* tended to smoke. As cleaner engines happened, it became much more of a problem, of course. The Israeli's latest upgraded F4s tend to be much better in that respect. (The smoke isn't a problem if you come after your opponent from their 6 o'clock or from sunward...but if you miss the first time, things can get ugly.) > Early versions didn't even have a cannon. Of course not. This was the Age of the Missile. One shot, one kill and all that. (Didn't work out that way off paper.) The pilots got a cannon added externally and a later version (F4E?) got an intenal vulcan. > It wasn't very maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around > it. And it had two seats. Here we go again (them, not you). Different mission requirements dictate differeent approaches. Russian fighters, until fairly recently, tended to be point-defense types: Light, maneuverable, no legs, little on-board fire control or target acquisition. They were to be directed from the ground and very tightly controlled at that. US doctrine dictated fighting as far from home as possible, assuming that forward bases would be denied our use. So the aircraft had to have long legs, and they had to carry their fire control and target acquisition gear. You end up with a bigger, heavier aircraft, and a guy in back to deal with the extra workload of the radar and ECM. Of course, everyone wanted a single aircraft to do every job for everyone... With proper tactics you can minimize you weaknesses (don't dogfight) and work to your strengths (one pass and gas it...). The problem being that it took a while to re-learn the lessons of WW2 in the Pacific, and we lost too many aircraft and crews in the interim. >> ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They >> were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... I thought the F-111 (nee' TFX) flew after the F4 (nee' F-110) first flew in 1956... In any case, the F-111's don't seat the crew in tandem, they're side by side.
shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) (06/29/89)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> Fred Shubert (fjs@floyd.ATT.COM) wrote: >In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >> >> From: Fred J. Shubert <fjs@floyd.att.com> >>> Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters >>> around, the F-4 Phantom. >> >> The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense ^^^ fleet? >> interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it >> wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for >> miles. Early versions didn't even have a cannon. It wasn't very >> maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around it. And it had two >> seats. (see below). >> >>> ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They >>> were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... >> >> By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- >> ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) >Sorry. >(I probably offended Mary Shafer, too! Her E-mail's on the way. :-) ) >My mistake. I'm not really up on the F-4's, except I've always perceived >them as a fighter. BUT the NAVY really did want to replace them with a >high-tech fighter, the F-14 Tomcat eventually fit the bill when the F-111B >didn't. Before I rise to the defense of the grossly maligned Phantom, I'd like to point out an interesting difference between Navy two-seaters and Air Force two-seaters. Navy two-seaters have only _one_ set of controls (stick, rudder, throttle, gear, flaps, radio) while Air Force two-seaters have two sets (although the back-seater may not have quite as many as the pilot--I'm pretty sure that some models of USAF F-4s don't have gear handles in the back seat). RIOs are passengers (with ejection seats, though) where WSOs can fly the plane. This doesn't apply to trainers, of course, and I don't know how much, if any, training WSOs get. Not putting flight controls in both seats reduces weight, complexity, and cost. However, an incapacitated pilot leads to loss of the aircraft. It's a tradeoff (like everything else in aircraft design). Now, about the Phantom. Going right to a contemporary source, here's what the 1959-60 Jane's All the World's Aircraft has to say. [corporate history] As a successor to the F3H Demon fighter, which is operational with the U S Navy, McDonnell has developed the F4H [the astute reader will notice that this is the old designation system, where the H means McAir, not model], a long-range two-seat interceptor which flew for the first time on May 27, 1958. After evaluation in competition with the Chance Vought F8U-3 Crusader III, the F4H was ordered into production for the US Navy towards the end of 1958. On the next page (340) there's two photos, one plan-form (aerial) and one profile (ground), both captioned "The McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II Navel Fighter ...." In the a/c description it says: The F4H Phantom II is a twin-engined, two-seat, long-range, all-weather interceptor and attack bomber which has been designed as a successor to the F3H Demon. .... Normal armament of the F4H consists of four Sparrow III missiles on semisubmerged mountings under the fuselage. Alternatively, it can carry nuclear or conventional bombs and missiles. [end of quotes] But...at this time everybody was building interceptors. The theory (style, doctrine--you pick) was that you'd run out at Mach 2, pop off a missile, and go home, while the other guy took the hit, blew up, and fell out of the sky. Dogfighting was extinct. A slightly more extreme example of this doctrine is the F-104. It couldn't even be an attack bomber, it could only carry Sidewinder missiles (air-to-air). Eventually a 20 mm cannon in the nose and podded M-61 cannons for ground attack or tactical support were added. (Same Jane's) The Navy's power projection requirements made it imperative that the F4H be a bomber as well as an interceptor. It's quite obvious that the F4H and the F-4 are not the same aircraft. I contest the claim that MiGs were much better--the results of training the pilots to keep the battle in their area of superiority showed that the tactics were at fault, not the aircraft. The missiles weren't that good either. Look at the difference that the gun made, as well. The F-4 did become a fighter, and a damn good one, even though it started life as an interceptor/bomber. Phantoms are smokers (hey, I never said they're perfect :-)) but I'm not sure how much difference this makes in the radar-assisted arena. A point about the Phantom that is rarely mentioned is its resistance to battle damage. There are photos of some awesomely damaged Phantoms that not only made it back to base, but were repaired and flew again, in Boyne's book, Phantoms in Combat. This is a factor that can't be overlooked. The airplane was seriously overbuilt, which made pilots feel really good. Fleet pilots are known for their ability to test aircraft to destruction. That's why F-8 Crusaders have bobweights in the feel system. BTW did you know that you can successfully launch an F-8 _with_ the wings folded? I don't know if you can do this with the F-4, but maybe nobody ever tried. -- M F Shafer |Ignore the reply-to address NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way.
ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rick O'Brien) (06/30/89)
From: ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rick O'Brien) [Lots of interesting stuff deleted] > In 1972 the NAVY projected that for every 1000 flight hours, >the engines in the Tomcat would see 597 afterburner lights and 1165 engine >cycles (1 cycle being running engine through all power settings). Between >January 1975 and November 1978, we lost 31 Tomcats, with 35% (11) being >lost due to the TF30 (~$400 M worth of planes). > [More editing] Does anyone have any info on what were the specific engine problems that caused the loss of the aircraft? I have heard rumors (from our marketing types talking to people who don't actually work with the engines) that on occasion when going to augmentor that one or the other burner may not light and the LOD's (Light Off Detectors) doesn't pick up the lack of ignition in time to let the engine controller know to shut down the increased fuel flow. I understand that this situation is very uncomfortable for the pilot & NFO. I am working on a new design for LOD's (current technology uses a Gieger-Mueller tube to count UV photons) and would appreciate any solid information on this topic. It seems that getting something other than rumors on in service engine sensors it extremely difficult (many times the people using the sensors don't understand the technology of the sensor; all they know is that it works or it doesn't.) Thanks in advance. Rick O'Brien >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Fred J. Shubert | "You haven't lived until you've seen a 'cat fly!!!" >AT&T Bell Labs |----------------------------------------------------- >Whippany, N.J. | DISCLAIMER: All views are that of my own. PERIOD. >Ma-Bell 201-386-3094 |
kevin@jtsv16.jts.com (kevin brighton) (06/30/89)
From: kevin@jtsv16.jts.com (kevin brighton) Mary Shafer <shafer@drynix> wrote: > RIOs are passengers (with > ejection seats, though) where WSOs can fly the plane. This doesn't > apply to trainers, of course, and I don't know how much, if any, > training WSOs get. Recently I had an opportunity to chat with an F-4 driver from a Tennessee ANG unit. The back seaters are not trained to fly the aircraft, and any flying experience they have is scrounged from friendly front seaters. It's doubtful that a WSO could actually land the aircraft, unless he was very lucky. I believe that either aircrew can initiate the ejection for both of them. The best thing to do would be to fly the aircraft to a safe area/airspeed/altitude and punch both bodies out. This unit (can't remember the number) is scheduled to convert to the F16 in the fall. Most of the back seaters will be given desks to fly (too bad), although a limited number are going to re-train as pilots. Kevin Brighton kevin@jtsv16.jts.com JTS Computer Systems Ltd. { suncan | geac | uunet }!jtsv16!kevin Toronto, Ontario, CANADA +1 416 665 8910
bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (07/01/89)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) In article <7854@cbnews.ATT.COM>, shafer@drynix (Mary Shafer) writes: > > > The Navy's power projection requirements made it imperative that the > F4H be a bomber as well as an interceptor. Doesn't anyone remember the original version of the Phantom II? The original aircraft was the AH-1 an all weather attack aircraft! But the navy cancelled (or changed priorities) and wanted an supersonic aircraft to carry the large sparrow 1 missile and it's radar, which had a very large dish. The AH-1 was big enough and fast enough and already had two seats ( the early radars kept one guy head down in the cockpit constantly) > -- > M F Shafer |Ignore the reply-to address A very good defense of the Phantom. Although I never worked on them ( I started on the early Eagles) all the senior people I worked with did. The only plane that evoked stronger feelings were F-105s. Pilots on "4's" cussed the heavy workload but you could tell they trusted it implicitly. The big test the F-15 had was to prove it could replace the Phantom as the pilots 1st choice. ( for us maintenance folks it was no contest every "oldtimer" had his own ( and different) story about the nightmare of working on F-4s. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)
ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) (07/05/89)
From: hplabs!ron@hpfcmgw.hp.com (Ron Miller) > [corporate history] > > As a successor to the F3H Demon fighter, which is operational with > the U S Navy, McDonnell has developed the F4H [the astute reader will > notice that this is the old designation system, where the H means My father flew the last F3H to the mothball facility at Litchfield Park. He and his buddies have some awesome stories about the load of junk that the Demon was. It had a complex engine utilizing vacuum tubes for control functions. Some of the tubes had 1.5 hr service lives. Failure of the engine controls could result in wierd states such as idling in afterburner. Power wouldn't always come off when descending from high to low altitude. You had to play with the throttle sometimes. As an all weather interceptor it had an unfortunate characteristic. It would flame out in a moderate rain. My dad still has pieces and parts in his junk boxes scrounged from crash sites he investigated around San Diego I had some really awesome magnets from onboard radar sets to play with as a kid. The ejection seat was insufficient to function below pattern altitude. He watched his first operational squadron CO deadstick a Demon into the mesa near Miramar when it flamed out in the clear. (survived, no injuries) They say that you can always tell who transitioned into F-4s from Demons because the Demondriver *had* to be an expert at setting up the intercept. The plane wouldn't support a second chance. It's interesting to listen to the old graybeards talk about "how safe carrier aviation is today." For them, that's true! > > BTW did you know that you can successfully launch an F-8 _with_ the > wings folded? I don't know if you can do this with the F-4, but maybe > nobody ever tried. Define "successfully." Launches occurred. Complete, non-destructive flights didn't (that I've ever heard). F-4s can be thrown from decks unprepared too. Same results. In fact, sometimes the tow tractors and start carts go for short flights too :-) > > -- > M F Shafer |Ignore the reply-to address > NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov > I've really enjoyed listening to my dad's stories. But I also recognize that the law of probability predicted I was raised as a fatherless child. I wasn't. And I chose to drive submarines when I served my time. Ron Miller
gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) (07/07/89)
From: gahooten@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Greg A. Hooten) In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM> mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- >ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) >------------- >Michael Tighe I know this was done in fun, but the F-16, our most advanced fighter has a serious air-to-ground attack abilility. Although it was not builty originally for this mission, it has since been updated to carry ground strike weapons. In fact, a new incarnation I have read about will be the A-16, with full ground attack capabilities. The ground attack radar and target designator will almost double the cost of the plane. US News said that the cost of a 688 attack sub is about 533 million dollars, but the next generation (Seawolf?) will cost about 2 Billion. It will speed along at 35 Knots (vs. 31 Knots) and dive a little deeper (1000 ft), but with that cost, it would be nice to have it do a lot more. Does anyone know what this new generation sub will do that the 688 will not? Maybe it is quiter, but how much? GAH!