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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian J. McCann" wrote in message m... Snip If you're confused about the quality of the show in question, it's easy to find out how well researcherd it is: have they maintained that the F-14 saw no serious service within the IRIAF during the war agianst Iraq? They made no mention of the Iran-Iraq war. What they DID say was that the F-14s were sabotaged, possibly by Grumman technicians, at some point during the revolution. They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons platforms without the destroyed/missing components. Brian, the Iranian F-14s were _not_ sabotaged by anybody. This is an urban legend, and it never happened. Not that they did not think about this: they just couldn't get close to these after several CIA agents tried to sabotage a couple of C-130s (and failed). From that moment on, all the US personnel was put under a house-arrest in their compounds, while all the IIAF air bases and installations were blocked from the outside world. Nobody there could walk around 77 aircraft and sabotage them one after the other. Tom Cooper Co-Author: Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988: http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php and, Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat: http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons
platforms without the destroyed/missing components. I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation, but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios... -- A host is a host from coast to & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"David Lesher" wrote in message ... They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons platforms without the destroyed/missing components. I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation, but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios... Which, to be blunt, sounds like bull****. It wouldn't take much to replace the "stock" radio equipment with commercial products of some sort. Hell, buy some 50 buck CB walkie talkies and you'd have at least short range comm gear. tim gueguen 101867 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The lowered top speed wasn't primarily due to the blowout but due to
operational longevity. Most of today's US aircraft detuned engine wise to save the taxpayer's money. When I last spoke to a RIO and on one occasion he told me that he told his pilot to back off the throttle as they we already over Mach 2.x. I guess they both weren't paying attention to speed. This was sometime last year. The operational top speed can be surpassed. I flew the jet for a number of years. The airspeed limit (780 NATOPS, 850 manufacturer) was to preserve the airframe against possible flutter damage. The mach limit was not. Until you exceed engine compressor temp limits (sometimes an issue at 2+ mach) or heating limits on the airframe/canopy (well above 2.0), IMN is generally not an issue ... sometimes it does concern stability (ie: X-2 departure/crash following speed record run). So unless your RIO friend was involved in the program with Grumman or had a seat at Pax River, I wouldn't put much faith in his statement. Most RIO's I knew, even the good ones, knew vary little about the aerodynamic capabilities of the jets they rode in. BTW, the F15's has got a cap as well. IIRC, it's M1.81. Of course, the aircraft can fly past this. I wouldn't doubt it. Wonder what Streak Eagle did prior to its highest TTC record. In fact, in a past Red Flag a F15 has a hard time intercepting a RAAF F111 in which the F15 ran out of gas. Low altitude. The Vark is very very fast down low. The overall acceleration numbers between the F15 and the F14B/D are identical that's if the F14's wings are positioned at Auto. The F14A was only a second behind. If the wings were set the manual and fully aft, the F14B/D would be a great deal faster. The wing program was based on best cruise. I don't think the auto program would have a material overall impact on 1-G acceleration, but initially full sweep was somewhat disadvantageous. Unloaded, it was beneficial to sweep the wings manually. Due the aerodynamics of the F14, it's overall drag profile (CDp) (LE 45 deg for the F15 and 68 deg for the F14) is lower than the F15's thus a lower thrust requirement to reach top speed. Which btw, during F14 testing, once the aircraft hit the top speed requirement, they backed off the throttles. Top speeds are only great for any aircraft when the aircraft is clean with no pylons. Very true. Ordnance invariably adds drag and the manuals indicate same. I do recall a post from an USAF crew chief at Nellis that the F15 did hit M2.5. Quite possible when new and the engines were low time and had not been downtrimmed for service life considerations. If you were to compare the aircraft at the transonic regime and do a drag race from M0.9 to Mach 1.8 or whatever speed, you'll see that the F14 will get there quicker. I wouldn't be surprised, the B/D acceleration to 1.6 is most impressive. SEP for both the F14B/D and F15 are identical in the transonic regime. Nevertheless, another RIO, Chunx, posted at a forum and said in the 90's that the F14B/D was known as the "world's fastest aircraft". I guess that was due to the ability to unload and change the aero profile and extend quickly from a fight thus dictating it. He doesn't know if the latest F16 blocks with the newer engines out accelerate the F14B/D when the wings are fully aft. So things may have changed. Hoever, from what I read from F14 drivers, F18 drivers have a hard time intercepting it. Fastest in indicated airspeed, maybe close. The Grumman limit was 850KIAS and I know people who have gotten it there. I've had the aircraft up to 750 with canoes. OTOH, the Thud was scary fast too (easy 800) and the Vark, particularly the F (IIRC ... the high output engines) was supposedly good for over 900. The Mig-29 was the quickest aircraft through transonic ... left everything in the US inventory in the dust during drag races. OBTW, the F-18 in all versions is notoriously slow. The aircraft is alleged to make 1.8IMN, but I know NO ONE who's gotten particularly close (1.6 is about it with a clean jet). In Q, 700KIAS is about it for the Bug ... less for the E/F. There is a difference between top end in Mach (at altitudes above the tropopause) and KIAS. The SR-71 can cruise at 3.2, but at 82,000' that's really not a very high IAS ... many aircraft could outrun it if you limit the altitude to say 10,000' or less. In the most extreme example, the Shuttle is a hypersonic vehicle, but has a relatively low Q-limit (600KIAS or so). R / John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article %QXhb.70853$6C4.13190@pd7tw1no,
"tim gueguen" wrote: "David Lesher" wrote in message ... They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons platforms without the destroyed/missing components. I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation, but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios... Which, to be blunt, sounds like bull****. It wouldn't take much to replace the "stock" radio equipment with commercial products of some sort. Hell, buy some 50 buck CB walkie talkies and you'd have at least short range comm gear. That's one thing we could do over here, but in post-Shah Iran it might be a bit tougher to find off the shelf replacements. "Hey - the radios aren't working!" "Run down to the nearest Radio Shack. I think there's one over by, er, Tokyo..." -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"David Lesher" wrote in message
I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation, but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios... Sounds like maybe the press people didn't comprehend the value of emissions control. Practicing no-radio communications does not necessarily mean the radios did not work, just that they did not use them. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: 1969-70 "The Pictorial History Of The RAF " 3-Volume Hardcover Book Set | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 30th 04 08:12 AM |
FS: 1969-70 "The Pictorial History Of The RAF " 3-Volume Hardcover Book Set | J.R. Sinclair | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | January 22nd 04 05:41 AM |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | Robert Hansen | Military Aviation | 0 | September 23rd 03 11:46 AM |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | Robert Hansen | Military Aviation | 0 | September 6th 03 12:10 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |