A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old November 6th 03, 07:17 AM
user
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jake,
Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China
Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way!
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"

No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3 years
at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.

Plane (no spelling error) and simple.

As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing the
Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat was
not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on the
drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in the
political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
wrong.

Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told the
Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's in
the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even more
of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.

My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that should
have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
nightmare, get approved.

Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint test
program on the YF22 and the X35.

Been there, Seen it, Done that.

Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
conspiracy theorists in my career.

Jake

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article %[email protected], "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time, maintenance

is a
big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the

F-14's
tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious lack

of
spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program

like
the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range, Load
out......


Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....

I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with the
continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to

fund
it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.

That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur



Ads
  #52  
Old November 6th 03, 07:32 AM
Jake Donovan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That would be one and the same. DJ. Was a RIO with VF41 and was riding
backseat to the skipper for the Fitter shoot down. Left the boat the next
day for Whiting Field and Pilot Training. Went back to the boat as a Pukin
Dog and then to TPS.

Not only a fine officer, but a great person.

Jake

"user" wrote in message
...
Jake,
Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China
Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way!
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"

No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3

years
at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.

Plane (no spelling error) and simple.

As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing

the
Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat

was
not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on

the
drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in

the
political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
wrong.

Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told

the
Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's

in
the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even

more
of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.

My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that

should
have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
nightmare, get approved.

Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint

test
program on the YF22 and the X35.

Been there, Seen it, Done that.

Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
conspiracy theorists in my career.

Jake

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article %[email protected], "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time,

maintenance
is a
big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the

F-14's
tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious

lack
of
spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program

like
the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range,

Load
out......

Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....

I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with

the
continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to

fund
it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.

That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur





  #53  
Old November 6th 03, 07:35 AM
Jake Donovan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PS -

Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS


"user" wrote in message
...
Jake,
Is that the same RADM(LH) Venlet as the NAWCWD C.O. here at China
Lake? Check out this link, (hope it works) He's come a long way!
http://www.nawcwd.navy.mil/%7Epao/pg/Bios/CoWD.htm

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

"Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists"

No Conspiracy here. Having flown 2 Grumman product Test Programs, 3

years
at DARPA and more time at DoD then I want to admit, worked under Barton
Strong at Air Warfare, Grumman was not asked, but was told, under
contractual agreement with the DoD to destroy the F-14 tooling.

Plane (no spelling error) and simple.

As an engineering raconteur, please give me a cost analysis on storing

the
Tomcat tooling. Given the prevailing atmosphere at the time, the Tomcat

was
not a dead issue. Grumman had some interesting and very potent ideas on

the
drawing board. DoD made their choice and as it happens way too much in

the
political arena, (Ask Northrop) decision makers do not like to be proven
wrong.

Wonder why the T45 took so long to get to the fleet? As an engineering
raconteur surely you know. The decision was made to go with an aircraft
that was never intended to land on carriers. It almost drove D J Venlet,
the Navy's T45 Program Lead Test Pilot to the nut house. The DoD told

the
Navy to make it work, blamed the Navy for every failure, but hey, it's

in
the fleet. Underpowered, squirrelly on carrier approach, can be even

more
of a handful on a cat shot, but it's a done deal.

My resume? Undergrad degree in System Engineering and a Masters in
Mechanical Engineering, F4's, 2 years at MD in St Louis in 78 &79 as an
engineering officer on the original Hornet, (Ken Grubbs and Dick Richards
flew the program) F14's, TPS, exchange tour at Boscombe Down, DARPA, DoD
Test and Development, A stint at Crystal City watching programs that

should
have progressed get cut and programs, as a test pilot knowing they were a
nightmare, get approved.

Played with some interesting test beds and test programs like the F15
ADVANCE and F18 HARV out of MD, new engine program for the F14 A+, (now
known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint

test
program on the YF22 and the X35.

Been there, Seen it, Done that.

Still active AND flying after 30 years and have never been called a
conspiracy theorists in my career.

Jake

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article %[email protected], "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

For all you Hornet fans, and I have plenty of Hornet time,

maintenance
is a
big plus but you have to temper that with the fact that ALL of the

F-14's
tooling was ordered destroyed by the DoD years ago. Thus, serious

lack
of
spare parts and a nightmare upkeep. Makes you wonder what a program

like
the Superbug would have looked like if it had been the F14. Range,

Load
out......

Just to avoid all the conspiracy theorists....

I think it is more accurate to say that the DoD, when presented with

the
continuing bill by Grumman for preserving the F-14 tooling, declined to

fund
it, and as a result, Grumman scrapped the tooling.

That's a little different from saying it was ordered destroyed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur





  #54  
Old November 6th 03, 01:51 PM
José Herculano
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS

Is that THE Music from the Fitter shoot-down?
_____________
José Herculano


  #55  
Old November 6th 03, 02:37 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jake- Tell him Music and Amos send KUDOS BRBR

What ever happened to Joe "I don't have any tone" Connelly,
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #56  
Old November 6th 03, 02:39 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

calpin- I think the real crux of the question (and here's the real troll) is
how
many merges will we really see in the future? The old "end of
dogfighting?" issue, revisited yet again. BRBR

In the fog of war, with lots of jets around and suspect ID of which is which, a
VID will become more common, not less and there will be merges, like it or
don't.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #57  
Old November 6th 03, 02:43 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

doug- Never having flown a two-seat FIGHTER (I'm VA to VFA) I'm speaking out
of
turn here, but stories relayed from my VF to VFA buddies indicate that it's
much easier (given the automation) to perform the fighter mission (and with
greater success) in the Hornet. BRBR

My experience is somewhat 'jaded' as well but coming from all two seat VF to
Adversary, I found that single seat, even in the lowly Dog, paticularly in the
F-16N, was not hard. Situational awareness was not hard, knowing where most of
the 'bad guys' were was not hard,...in many v many scenarios. I think with the
advance of avionics and RHAW, with a very manuverable A/C, single seat will not
degrade the Pilots survival...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #58  
Old November 6th 03, 02:44 PM
Pechs1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose- Although I wouldn't mind seeing a navalized F/A-22, but I believe that
will
happen, as it is said here, in the afternoon of St Never's day. BRBR

Ya kinda are going to-with the JSF...kinda.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer
  #59  
Old November 6th 03, 06:18 PM
Ralph Savelsberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Mu wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:41:54 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg
wrote:

And more in general stands for Active Electronically Scanned Array,
which is the name for the type of antenna/emitter group. Instead of a
mechanically swivelling antenna (with complicated waveguides and a heavy
hydraulic system to move it around) this has a flat, fixed array
consisting of multiple emitter/receiver modules. The beam is controlled
electronically and at least in theory such a radar can use multiple
modes simultaneously. In the F/A-18F (with the ACS) this could mean that
for instance the pilot would have an air-to-air mode selected, while the
NFO in the back could be using a ground-mapping mode at the same time.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg



Ave Ralph

Is this the phased array radar?
And if not,wthat's the difference?

Greetz Mu



Technically the AESA is an active phased array radar whilst older phased
array radars (like the `Flash Dance' in the MiG-31 or the APQ-164 fitted
to the B-1B) are so-called passive phased array radars.

The latter (passive) has a single transmitter/receiver and somehow
applies a phase shift to the signals sent to various parts of the
antenna, depending on the location on the antenna, whilst the former
actually uses a large number of transmitter/receiver units that each
operate at a different phase and possibly in a different mode.
In both cases the `beam' is sent in a certain direction through
adjusting the phase across the antenna, enabling a far higher scan rate,
but the actively scanned array can actually generate multiple beams as
well.

I don't know the intricacies. Harry Andreas will probably be able to
give a much more detailed answer than I can.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg



  #60  
Old November 6th 03, 07:49 PM
Gordon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What ever happened to Joe "I don't have any tone"

remove/replace "any" with appropriate Navy word



v/r
Gordon
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New aviation history interview: Fokker/Curtiss/Messerschmitt ace Mauno Fräntilä Jukka O. Kauppinen Military Aviation 0 September 22nd 04 11:18 PM
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS Robert Hansen Military Aviation 0 February 19th 04 02:10 AM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements me Military Aviation 146 January 15th 04 10:13 PM
F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels" Brian J. McCann Military Aviation 15 October 12th 03 02:12 PM
FS: Aviation History Books Neil Cournoyer Military Aviation 0 August 26th 03 08:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.