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
  #61  
Old November 6th 03, 08:03 PM
John S. Shinal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"José Herculano" wrote:

Guess I was not literate enough on my point... what I meant is that I do not
believe on the advantages of the F/A-18F vs the F/A-18E. If such advanced
weapons systems as the two Air Force birds allow for a revolucionary fighter
to be flown by one, and a huge bomber just by two, there is no call for a
twin-seat Super-Bug.


For Strike you are probably right. I think the F (and G) are
probably going to end up being SEAD/ESM tasked a lot though, much like
the TARPS trained crews are specialists now in the Tomcat squadrons.
They probably don't need the second seat to use the new PGW with the
systems as good as they are now.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Ads
  #62  
Old November 6th 03, 08:53 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article [email protected], "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.


Thanks for taking me to task.
Having been in this industry a very long time, and provided some of the
equipment
you've been lucky enough to operate and fly, I often see simple economic
decisions turned into some kind of nefarious plot by people who don't
know any better (Not you). If you've been on RAM and RAMN for some time
things like the decision to mothball the SR-71 come to mind.
Frankly Jake, I have not seen you post here until recently and of course have
no way of knowing your experience level. We get all levels here.
I am aware of some of Grumman's interesting and potent ideas, since I was
involved in some of them, but the economics as seen by others spoke
differently.
When dealing with contractual issues, I can easily see that the tooling could
be ordered destroyed. That doesn't make me wrong as to why, though.

BTW, I didn't call YOU a conspiracy theorist. I though my phrasing was clear.
Perhaps not.


regards

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #63  
Old November 6th 03, 09:41 PM
John Penta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:48:50 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

John,

There isn't one, mainly because most of the folks contributing to this NG
"lived the life". I realize that this can be confusing to someone
unfamiliar with aviation and military acronyms, but that's how we learned to
communicate among one another. (No different than the "tongues" spoken
among technology professionals in Silicon Valley.)

For a very general dictionary of Naval aviation terms, go to
http://www.tailhook.org/AVSLANG.htm.

The above link won't answer your weapon-specific question, though.


Perfectly understandable.:-) I just feel really, really out of my
depth on RAM, RAMN, SMM, and SMN.:-) I swear, it's sometimes as if I'm
the only civilian on any of the newsgroups. Makes me feel extra stupid
when I have to stop and ask the...er....stupid questions. :-)

Thanks for the link, BTW.

John
  #64  
Old November 6th 03, 10:37 PM
Ogden Johnson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Penta wrote:

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote:


I'd agree with you all the way up to the air-to-air mission. Most of the
Tomcat converts I know claim that the RIO sucked SA away from the pilot...
BUT when AESA comes on line, and the folks at Boeing split up the cockpit,
the WSO in will have plenty to do that the pilot would never be able to
handle by himself.


AESA?

Someone needs to write a FAQ for this group, if there isn't one
already...:-(


It is humanly impossible for *anyone*, individually or severally, to
keep current with DoD, much less an entire government bureaucracy's,
acronyms and nLAs*. Add in those of foreign governments and agencies
and even Hercules would be loath to undertake the task.

[*nLAs = Two, Three, Four, Five, however-many, Letter Abbreviations]
[It is a base canard that a Presidential Medal of Freedom and a $100K
bonus await the first swivel servant to create a Twenty Letter
Abbreviation]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]
  #65  
Old November 6th 03, 11:26 PM
Elmshoot
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


Yep,
I knew Dave when we were in Vt-4 as retreads. That was the NFO to Pilot
Transition program. On paper the program looked good but the execution was a
little weak... Just about all of us went through Pensacola VT-4. We refered to
it as a Program unblemished by success. Vt-4 was about the most messed up
squadron I was ever in. At that time they had both Basic jet (T-2) and Advance
Jet (TA-4). There was a lot of anamosity between the A-4/T-2 Instructors kind
of like the Junior Varsity vs the Varsity. Then the retreads early on had some
high rollers like O-5's and one would attend the department head meetings! So
that strained the relationships between Inst and stud's. The students RR had
more DFC's, Air Medals, Ejections and combat time than the instructors so there
was that as well.
It was a tough time and some of us actally made it through, there were quite a
few not so lucky some eliminated more for the wim of the instructor than for
substandard. performance. While I was there not one of the 3 S-3 NFO's that I
knew made it through. You would have thought they had the more NFO stick time
than any one else but that might have been there undoing as well.
I understand they have started the Retread program again. I hope someone looked
at previous lessons learned.

OBTW Dave was a class act, no question about it. Me? I stayed in the cockpit
until I retired after 18 years and now fly in the airlines.

Sparky
  #66  
Old November 7th 03, 06:38 AM
Jake Donovan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry,

Not a problem. I post here from time to time but my jobs kind of keep me
from posting too much. Active frowns on speaking too much unless it is
generic. There are a lot who post here know me professionally.

I have been called much worse and it rolled off my back.

No harm done.

Just caught me on a bad day. I was heading to the Blue Angel's Home Coming
show and the aircraft broke. Bad mood. I will arrive in P'cola early in
the Am before the show starts but with out a ride.

Pleasure to meet you.

Jake.

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article [email protected], "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.


Thanks for taking me to task.
Having been in this industry a very long time, and provided some of the
equipment
you've been lucky enough to operate and fly, I often see simple economic
decisions turned into some kind of nefarious plot by people who don't
know any better (Not you). If you've been on RAM and RAMN for some time
things like the decision to mothball the SR-71 come to mind.
Frankly Jake, I have not seen you post here until recently and of course

have
no way of knowing your experience level. We get all levels here.
I am aware of some of Grumman's interesting and potent ideas, since I was
involved in some of them, but the economics as seen by others spoke
differently.
When dealing with contractual issues, I can easily see that the tooling

could
be ordered destroyed. That doesn't make me wrong as to why, though.

BTW, I didn't call YOU a conspiracy theorist. I though my phrasing was

clear.
Perhaps not.


regards

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur



  #67  
Old November 7th 03, 07:18 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


HARV wasn't a McAir program, it was a NASA program. McAir provided
the usual airframe support that they provide for all our research and
support F-18s, but that was all.

known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint test
program on the YF22 and the X35.


No, you didn't. That's not a flight article. It's a mockup. Hanging
from the Smithsonian ceiling is probably higher off the ground than it
every got before.

Been there, Seen it, Done that.


Sure.

I'll check tomorrow and see when you flew HARV and X-29, if the Ops
scheduler has time to look through the flight logs. Or maybe I'll
call the project test pilots.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

  #68  
Old November 7th 03, 01:11 PM
Jake Donovan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mary

I know the HARV was a NASA program and the 29 at the Smithsonian is a mock
up. Read my post a litle more careful.

I do have time in the 29, my reference to one hanging in the Air and Space
Museum was just that - looking up at it brought back memories. (Poorly
worded)

As for the HARV, DARPA most definitely had input. I had quite a bit of
flight data from the HARV come across my desk. No where did I say I flew
the test program.

email me privately, (take out the nospam) and I will give you some contact
information if you like)

Jake


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 23:04:58 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

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


HARV wasn't a McAir program, it was a NASA program. McAir provided
the usual airframe support that they provide for all our research and
support F-18s, but that was all.

known as the B) flew the X-29 that is hanging in the Smithsonian. Joint

test
program on the YF22 and the X35.


No, you didn't. That's not a flight article. It's a mockup. Hanging
from the Smithsonian ceiling is probably higher off the ground than it
every got before.

Been there, Seen it, Done that.


Sure.

I'll check tomorrow and see when you flew HARV and X-29, if the Ops
scheduler has time to look through the flight logs. Or maybe I'll
call the project test pilots.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer



  #69  
Old November 7th 03, 03:58 PM
Harry Andreas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article [email protected], "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

Harry,

Not a problem. I post here from time to time but my jobs kind of keep me
from posting too much. Active frowns on speaking too much unless it is
generic. There are a lot who post here know me professionally.


I hear that. So many conversations here that I can't contribute to because
of security. Newsgroups are world-wide.
As you say, generic.

Pleasure to meet you too.

BTW, I was in Pax off and on in the late 70's early 80's supporting the
F/A-18 flight test program. Were you there then?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur
  #70  
Old November 8th 03, 12:19 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:11:27 -0600, "Jake Donovan"
wrote:

I do have time in the 29, my reference to one hanging in the Air and Space
Museum was just that - looking up at it brought back memories. (Poorly
worded)


Not knowing that the model even existed, I was astounded to walk into
that gallery and see the model when I was at NASM back when I knew,
without a doubt, that both aircraft were at Dryden. Realistic, isn't
it? I think it was an antenna model, but that doesn't seem likely.
That's more something you do for production aircraft than for research
aircraft. But if not, what was it for?

For some authentic nostalgia, you should come to Dryden. We've got
one of the X-29s on a pad out in front of Dryden now; we've stopped
giving every plane we ever flew to someone else's museum. Of course,
it's kind of a motley collection, comprising two lifting bodies, one
LLRV, an X-29, an F-104G, an SR-71A, the X-1E, and two F-8s (one the
Digital Fly-By-Wire and the other the SuperCritical Wing). We've also
got the X-15 mock-up, which looks pretty good for being a complete
fake.

As for the HARV, DARPA most definitely had input. I had quite a bit of
flight data from the HARV come across my desk. No where did I say I flew
the test program.


You're right--DARPA was definitely in the loop on HARV and I misread
what you wrote. Sorry. I knew we'd had a bunch of guest pilots at one
time and assumed you were one of them. It's too bad you didn't get to
fly it, as it was, I'm told, a lot of fun to fly. We sure did get a
lot out of that program, too, as you know from the masses of data you
saw. Ken did the S&C estimates on it, now that I think about it. I
spent some time advocating an HMD (not an HMS, because we weren't
supposed to do weapons system stuff, of course) but never got
anywhere. The airframe went back to the Navy about a year ago and I
don't know what they've done with it.

Weren't you involved with X-31? Fast Eddie thought you were, but
we're not sure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

 




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 11:33 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.