Tomcat in Air and Space Museum

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Gordon wrote:
wrote:
DDAY wrote:
I was out at the Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy annex of the National Air
and Space
Museum today (near Dulles airport) and saw their newest acquisition: an
F-14D Tomcat. This is one of the remanufactured F-14As, and it is
one that
shot down a MiG in 1989.

Oddly, it does not have a MiG silhouette painted on it. Any idea why?

Anybody have a list of the preserved Tomcats? I saw one up in
Kalamazoo a
few weeks ago.



D

Not a fan of the Turkey(I have over 1000 hrs in them), think they are
best when on a 'stick' somewhere....

You prefer Bugs?? First time I have seen someone not like their a/c.

'My' aircraft was the F-4...

Personally, I hate the idea of an all- Effay Teen airwing - I keep
waiting to see one with a rotodome! I understand all the reasons why
it makes sense, but I just can't get over the decision to not re-wing
the Intruders to keep a true bomb-truck in the arsenal.

Were you flying them back when they were powered by the first anemic
firetrap engines? (That would certainly explain it)

I was flying them with the crappy flight controls, crappy engines,
crappy CADC...etc...
I flew the F-14A+ in VX-4..nice engines, crappy avionics. I saw the
F-14D...was in the planning for the cockpit...and it sucked compared to
the analog F-16N I flew...

unless you need to fire a missile...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

???Don't know what you mean? F-16N had all the plumbing for
Aim-9...even tho they were training aides only...just like the first
gen F-16....

In article . com,
wrote:

I was flying them with the crappy flight controls, crappy engines,
crappy CADC...etc...
I flew the F-14A+ in VX-4..nice engines, crappy avionics. I saw the
F-14D...was in the planning for the cockpit...and it sucked compared to
the analog F-16N I flew...

unless you need to fire a missile...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

???Don't know what you mean? F-16N had all the plumbing for
Aim-9...even tho they were training aides only...just like the first
gen F-16....

I worked on the radars for the various versions of the F-14.
I've also observed the F-16's radar (N was a Block 30 IIRC)
with the APG-66 was pretty woeful compared to the AWG-9 or
APG-71.
There's just no comparison.
The radar is part of the Avionics suite BTW...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

I was flying them with the crappy flight controls, crappy engines,
crappy CADC...etc...
I flew the F-14A+ in VX-4..nice engines, crappy avionics. I saw the
F-14D...was in the planning for the cockpit...and it sucked compared to
the analog F-16N I flew...

unless you need to fire a missile...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

???Don't know what you mean? F-16N had all the plumbing for
Aim-9...even tho they were training aides only...just like the first
gen F-16....

I worked on the radars for the various versions of the F-14.
I've also observed the F-16's radar (N was a Block 30 IIRC)
with the APG-66 was pretty woeful compared to the AWG-9 or
APG-71.
There's just no comparison.
The radar is part of the Avionics suite BTW...

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Except when the fookin radar didn't work, it didn't matter how good it
was on paper. In the 12 months I flew the F-16, I launched w/o a radar
exactly ZERO times, in about 450 hrs...I had a radar fail once in that
time. It was standard to launch off the boat(VF-31, USS Forrestal) w/o
a stinkin radar about 30 days into the cruise. I saw better radar
availability with the F-4S(Awg-10) than I EVER did with the
AWG-9...APG-71 had MUCH better availability than the HAWG-9....The
inspired by the A-6, designed in the late 60s, F-14, never to be
modified in the 2 decades it existed, was an embarrassment when
compared to aircraft like the F-16C and F-15C/E....even the 'D'
model...too little too late. If the F-14A became the 'C' model like it
was supposed to, along the lines of USAF and now F-18 A/C, the F-18F
wouldn't exist.

Except when the fookin radar didn't work, it didn't matter how good it
was on paper. In the 12 months I flew the F-16, I launched w/o a radar
exactly ZERO times, in about 450 hrs...I had a radar fail once in that
time. It was standard to launch off the boat(VF-31, USS Forrestal) w/o
a stinkin radar about 30 days into the cruise. I saw better radar
availability with the F-4S(Awg-10) than I EVER did with the
AWG-9...APG-71 had MUCH better availability than the HAWG-9....The
inspired by the A-6, designed in the late 60s, F-14, never to be
modified in the 2 decades it existed, was an embarrassment when
compared to aircraft like the F-16C and F-15C/E....even the 'D'
model...too little too late. If the F-14A became the 'C' model like it
was supposed to, along the lines of USAF and now F-18 A/C, the F-18F
wouldn't exist.

For whatever reason, the F-14 seemed to be the red-haired stepchild when it
came to system upgrades. The engines were late (the F-14B was supposed to
come along with roughly airframe 49). WCS got the minimum incremental
upgrades in software (tape driven for God's sake!). Never got AAMRAM. A
lot of program managers are wearing the legion of merit when they should be
reading letters of reprimand.

The F-15 is a nice example of how to manage an airframe. The Turkey an
example on how to neglect one.

R / John

John Carrier wrote:
Except when the fookin radar didn't work, it didn't matter how good it
was on paper. In the 12 months I flew the F-16, I launched w/o a radar
exactly ZERO times, in about 450 hrs...I had a radar fail once in that
time. It was standard to launch off the boat(VF-31, USS Forrestal) w/o
a stinkin radar about 30 days into the cruise. I saw better radar
availability with the F-4S(Awg-10) than I EVER did with the
AWG-9...APG-71 had MUCH better availability than the HAWG-9....The
inspired by the A-6, designed in the late 60s, F-14, never to be
modified in the 2 decades it existed, was an embarrassment when
compared to aircraft like the F-16C and F-15C/E....even the 'D'
model...too little too late. If the F-14A became the 'C' model like it
was supposed to, along the lines of USAF and now F-18 A/C, the F-18F
wouldn't exist.

For whatever reason, the F-14 seemed to be the red-haired stepchild when it
came to system upgrades. The engines were late (the F-14B was supposed to
come along with roughly airframe 49). WCS got the minimum incremental
upgrades in software (tape driven for God's sake!). Never got AAMRAM. A
lot of program managers are wearing the legion of merit when they should be
reading letters of reprimand.

The F-15 is a nice example of how to manage an airframe. The Turkey an
example on how to neglect one.

R / John

HEAR, HEAR....Geeezzz, we saw the F-4J become the F-4S fercrissake,
with more mods(smokless engines, 1527 cockpit mod, new wings!!! with
slats, AWG-10B), than the F-14 got while the F-14 had been around for
15 years!!