Author Topic: F-14 Tomcat is going back to war (Read 1326 times)

rpm · « **Reply #15 on:** July 19, 2006, 07:02:52 PM »

I want to watch that cat and trap!

LLv34 Jarsci · « **Reply #16 on:** July 20, 2006, 07:38:09 AM »

Think how much "excitement" would SR-71 carrier ops add to normal naval aviation ...for example think about leaking fuel tanks which seal themselves only at altitude...

100lbs of jet fuel on the deck + afterburner.... barbeque time!

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 20, 2006, 08:57:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I can't really imagine a SR71 landing on an aircraft carrier, even if American ones are H U G E

Model it for AH, you'll see em landed on carriers just fine.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #18 on:** July 20, 2006, 09:24:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
Think how much "excitement" would SR-71 carrier ops add to normal naval aviation ...for example think about leaking fuel tanks which seal themselves only at altitude...

100lbs of jet fuel on the deck + afterburner.... barbeque time!

Actually, it was heat that sealed the fuel tanks. Friction from drag would heat the skin panels, which caused them to expand and seal.

On the ground the SR71 did leak, but not that much. When they landed, the fuel level was below the major areas where leaks might occur. Some leakage would occur, but it would be at its worse just before takeoff, when the tank was full.

mars01 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 20, 2006, 09:48:22 AM »

I'll post this one for you Morph!

Hell Yeah!

Unfortunately like the A10 due to lack of production and parts the 14 is still doomed. Sad.

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** July 20, 2006, 10:39:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Actually, it was heat that sealed the fuel tanks. Friction from drag would heat the skin panels, which caused them to expand and seal.

On the ground the SR71 did leak, but not that much. When they landed, the fuel level was below the major areas where leaks might occur. Some leakage would occur, but it would be at its worse just before takeoff, when the tank was full.

Which is a stark contrast to the F-14 which only stopped leaking when it was empty.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #21 on:** July 20, 2006, 10:53:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Which is a stark contrast to the F-14 which only stopped leaking when it was empty.

That was a feature not a bug! no need for the fueling crews to look at pesky guages.

1Duke1 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2006, 11:14:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Which is a stark contrast to the F-14 which only stopped leaking when it was empty.

LOL.....if it wasn't leaking, we knew had problems

Fuel leaks weren't too bad, hardly at all, but hyd's was a totally different matter....Air force ground crews hated to see us pull up to the ramp to refuel during x-country's, they'd make us keep turning until the could runout with pads to soak up our leakage.

They didn't want to get their pristine concrete dirty:rolleyes:

Dichotomy · « **Reply #23 on:** July 20, 2006, 12:00:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Whats an A-12?

The A-12 was a *hugely* expensive program in the early 90s to develop a stealth flying wing bomber for the Navy. Billions of dollars of cost overruns and the collapse of the Soviet Union stopped that project.

By one estimate the A-12 had become so expensive that it would have consumed up 70 percent of the Navy's aircraft budget within three years.

Not to mention they were just ... ugly. I was a recipient of ye olde pink slip due to the cancellation of that program.