Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Larry on January 04, 2006, 01:17:03 AM
-
I want some wingtip vapors :( :cry
(http://www.freewebs.com/linkafi/pic2352.jpg)
-
What type of aircraft is that?
-
looks like a panavia tornado
-
The sexiest fighter on the planet. Ever.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/misc_upload/files/1/1000001493.jpg)
-
Thanks to Barnes Wallis for his pioneering work on swing wing aircraft.
But the good old Brit Goverment killed off both the 'Wild Goose' and the 'Swallow'.
-
Death to the Super Hornet.
Long live the Tomcat!
-
yup I can't believe the tomcat is on it's way out. it still looks futuristic to me. I remember when they went into fleet service. the first ones I saw were in VF84 livery, it was amazing how antiquated they made the F4 Phantoms look.
-
Apparently the F-14 is a beeyatch to service, one of the key reasons why they are taking it out of service.
-
Bah it's like the world's largest, heaviest, most lumbering fighter ever. The Tomcat has ONE purpose -- mach speed 150+ miles interception, using its powerful afterburning engines and its long range phoenix missiles.
The cold war is long over. We tried to update the Tomcat, it didn't help. The -14D had improved G-limits, but an F15 could still easily best it in 1 v 1 combat (one f15 driver mentioned "I could instantly tell the improved Ds from the 'plus' tomcats because they could turn a bit better and pull more Gs than the older version, but they were still nowhere close to what I could do").
We then tried using them as bombers (HAH!!! Whatta waste of resources) with the "Bombcat". Frankly, the times change. We no longer need F102s patrolling the northern ice cap for incoming russian Bear bombers, and neither do we need the F14 tomcat.
The design is old, and uneccessary. You can probably fit 3 super hornets in the space that 2 tomcats take up on a carrier hangar deck. Not to mention they have more efficient engines, can carry more, can do more (tankers, bombers, fighters, ELINT, recon, etc, etc). It's a practical decision made by the US Navy.
I agree from certain angles the Tomcat looks wonderful. And from certain angles the Hornet looks butt ugly. The reverse is true as well, from different angles :P
-
God shut up krusty. Im well aware of the tomcat and what it is good at. I said its a great looking fighter, not to mention a legacy. I think the super hornet is ugly as hell from all angles. And its a shame such an ugly "Tanker" is being used to phase out a legacy.
Tomcat alley is no more. Enough said.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Tomcat alley is no more. Enough said.
Now THAT I will miss. Seen some photos of it. Won't be the same with hornets on the tarmac.
-
Gentlemen -
It is well known that ONLY Lockheed Martin makes good fighter aircraft, as evidenced by the following:
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/images/feature/873.jpg)
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/6263.jpg)
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/5892.jpg)
:)
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
God shut up krusty. Im well aware of the tomcat and what it is good at. I said its a great looking fighter, not to mention a legacy. I think the super hornet is ugly as hell from all angles. And its a shame such an ugly "Tanker" is being used to phase out a legacy.
Tomcat alley is no more. Enough said.
nicely said...
:aok
but thanks for the details krusty..
-
Now thats what Im talking about Casper F22 and F35 are some good looking AC.
-
Didn't the JSF used to have a wierd nose scoop instead of cheek scoops?? I remember seeing pics of the plane with a different configuration, but it was some time ago.
-
and neither do we need the F14 tomcat.
Only time will tell through trial by fire, if this "Super Tanker" is a well suited replacement for our Carriers first line of deffence.
Even the Jolly Rodger paint looks out of place on the Super Tanker. :(
-
I'm not impressed with ANY of the paint schemes on the new super hornets... They look butt ugly comapred to some of the legacy hornets' paint schemes. Maybe they just need time to find some that don't make my eyes bleed.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Didn't the JSF used to have a wierd nose scoop instead of cheek scoops?? I remember seeing pics of the plane with a different configuration, but it was some time ago.
You are probably thinking of Boeings X32. And yes.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Didn't the JSF used to have a wierd nose scoop instead of cheek scoops?? I remember seeing pics of the plane with a different configuration, but it was some time ago.
that was the Boeing effort at the JSF competition. One smurfy, smurfy aeroplane.
(http://www.edwards.af.mil/archive/2001/images/X32B_250.jpg)
-
You might have seen the BOEING X32 prototype, which was god-awful...
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/USAircraft/JSF.html
And was awful to reconfigure for VTOL. Needless to say, they Lost that contract.
No self respecting zoomie would ever pick somethign that ugly
-
was always partial to the F16 ....
as a kid :rofl
shows how old all these planes are.
i will say the F16 SOUNDS sweet in person.
-
The -16 is deafening... Saw one at an airshow ages back as a kid and the shriek was astoundingly loud (just on spool-up, too).
Ah, yes, that WAS the Boeing plane I was thinking of. Doesn't the F35 have VTOL (or STOL) capabilities, as well?
-
I doubt it was as loud as this. :)
Low pass (http://www.furballunderground.com/films/15.wmv)
-
One version does...There are versions for each service that needs em....
Air Force (F-35A (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15144&rsbci=11173&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400))
Marine Corps STOVL (F-35B (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15145&rsbci=11173&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400))
Navy (F-35C (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15146&rsbci=11173&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400))
There are also international configurations for the RAF and others
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I doubt it was as loud as this. :)
Low pass (http://www.furballunderground.com/films/15.wmv)
OMG that gives me a hard on....I need to get to an airshow...
I love the sucking/squealing right before it goes over head, followed by the roar
-
I didn't think the euros would touch the F35 with a 3.3 meter pole. I thought they wanted to use their beloved Eurofighter and their tornados/jaguars/etc. ?
-
The Europeans are actively involved int he procurement/production of the JSF.
Probably not as much as they want to be, but they want it for sure...
Britain's Blair writes Bush on F-35 engine deal: British Prime Minister Tony Blair has written to U.S. President George W. Bush to try to save a multibillion-dollar contract to develop an engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's costliest warplane program, people familiar with the matter said on Tuesday. "A letter went from the prime minister to the president shortly before Christmas," said a person who asked not to be identified because of the matter's sensitivity. At issue is a Pentagon plan, reported last week but in the works for more than a month, to kill a $2.4 billion General Electric Co. -Rolls-Royce Plc contract to develop an alternate turbofan engine for the fighter. Pratt & Whitney is building the engine that will go in the first F-35s, a family of single-engine, radar-evading aircraft being built by Lockheed Martin Corp. Proponents of an alternate engine have cited potential savings through competition. They also describe it as a hedge against having to ground the fleet in case of engine trouble. But developing a second engine has boosted development costs, something the Pentagon is under pressure to pare. If upheld by the White House and Congress in budget wrangling, canceling the project could mean tens of billions of dollars in extra sales over decades for Pratt & Whitney. Saving the alternate engine program "was the purpose of (Blair's) letter," another person familiar the matter said. The White House did not return a phone call seeking comment. (Reuters)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I didn't think the euros would touch the F35 with a 3.3 meter pole. I thought they wanted to use their beloved Eurofighter and their tornados/jaguars/etc. ?
The British are helping develop it. BAe Systems (British Aerospace) and Rolls Royce are partners in the project.
UK Involvement
The programmme to fulfill the Harrier aircraft replacement is known in the UK as the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) programme, lead by the UK Ministry of Defence Procurement Agency JCA IPT. In September 2002, the UK Government announced that the STOVL version of the JSF had been selected to meet the requirement to succeed the RAF and RN Harriers. The UK has been a full collaborative partner with the US since the Concept Demonstration Phase of the JSF programme began in 1996. United Kingdom technology figured heavily in the JSF design, and UK test pilots and flight engineers were instrumental in demonstrating that technology. In the UK alone, the Lockheed Martin JSF team will create approximately 3,400 jobs during System Development and Demonstration (SDD); and during the 30 year production and support phase 8,400 direct, and many thousands indirect, long term, highly skilled, highly paid jobs will be created. The production of the planned 2,593 UK and US aircraft will generate more than £20 billion for UK companies during System Development and Demonstration, and Production and Support. Current international export projections for an additional 2,000 to 3,000 aircraft could mean an extra £24 billion for UK companies over the life of the programme. Additional long-term UK business opportunities exist through major roles in spares production, design evolutions and upgrade programmes.
http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/products/jsf.html
(http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/images/jsf_logocollage.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
I doubt it was as loud as this. :)
Low pass (http://www.furballunderground.com/films/15.wmv)
yeah seen a fly over like that at the Minot AFB's Northern Neighbors Day (http://www.minot.af.mil/NND%2005/nnddefault.htm) .. anyways it scared the crap out of my 4 year old son.
-
Originally posted by Casper1
........I love the sucking/squealing right before it goes over head.........
I need a cigarette. :aok
-
The Boeing was a good design and lest we forget it had a great not fire but still kill ability lacking in all other fighter types. if you flew the thing within visual range of your opponent and he saw the silly chiteating grin he would surely die laughing while augering. a substantial savings to our tax payers would then be realized.
-
could you imagine at the drawing concept stage, one of the designers.... "HEY GUYS! COME HERE! COME CHECK OUT WHAT I DID!! AINT SHE PRETTY!"
-
Naw furball someone brought some special brownies to work that day.
-
The Boeing prototype lost on pure uglyness alone lol...IMO the X-35 aint much of a looker either...
I will have to agree with the sound of the F-16...AWESOME...I think an IDLE F-16 is louder than most aircraft.. That said, NOTHING will ever compare to the nose of a tomcat...Everytime ive seen a cat fly i dont think there has been a single face without an enormous smile on it after a high speed pass!
Does anyone have a link to the "what if" website where theres photoshoped pics of tomcats in blue angles paint ?
-
(http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/1361/tomcat5fs.png) (http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5125/tomcat28rj.png) (http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/5395/tomcat38cr.png) (http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/567/tomcat41wz.png)
WHAT IF BABY!
-
(http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/sr71/sr71aerodyn.jpg)
Masher
-
Originally posted by cav58d
(http://img287.imageshack.us/img287/1361/tomcat5fs.png) (http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5125/tomcat28rj.png) (http://img432.imageshack.us/img432/5395/tomcat38cr.png) (http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/567/tomcat41wz.png)
WHAT IF BABY!
killer post!
where do we get the shirt?
-
(http://www.inp.nsk.su/~porosev/su-27.gif)
(http://www.geocities.com/~propilot/pictures/SU27CO1.JPG)
-
Originally posted by Larry
(http://www.freewebs.com/linkafi/pic2352.jpg)
Looks like it flew NOE through a cotton field :huh
Bozon
-
Navajo...I am on my way out the door for a weekend on vacation so I dont have time to send you the direct link...but if you do a search on the forums on airshows.org for "what if baby" or f-14 blue angels you will find the site...
later all
cav
-
I personally think that the Super Hornet program is a POS. The aircraft still is showing issues with tail fatigue, still has a short range, and it's bombing prowess is definitely not the best.
To say the F-14 is uneccessary is a completely ignorant statement. The F-14 is still dropping bombs, strafing, and launching guided munitions with phenomenal accuracy and efficiency. Top it off with it's loiter time and the F-14 still is able to kick arse and take names along with the best of them. The ONLY reason the F-14 is being retired is because of the tooling being destroyed to manufacture spares for the program. Why else are the final squadrons scouring over Davis Mathan and museum aircraft stealing everything they can to keep the existing planes still flying.
Oh, and Krusty,
As for "3 Super Hornets fitting in the space of 1 Tomcat". Have you ever seen a Super Hornet? Have you ever seen a Tomcat? The Super Hornet is 2 feet shorter than a Tomcat, and with wings folded is 8 feet less wide. BUT owing to the geometry of the F-14 and F-18 wing angles, two F-14's side by side tail to nose and 2 F-18's doing the same, the F-14's take up the same space as do the Super Hornets.
To the F-14, a HELL of an airplane.
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14-deck6.jpg)
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14-cvn70-2.jpg)
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14-9b.jpg)
-
US Navy will not be the same without a Grumman Cat defending the fleet.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Bah it's like the world's largest, heaviest, most lumbering fighter ever. The Tomcat has ONE purpose -- mach speed 150+ miles interception, using its powerful afterburning engines and its long range phoenix missiles.
The cold war is long over. We tried to update the Tomcat, it didn't help. The -14D had improved G-limits, but an F15 could still easily best it in 1 v 1 combat (one f15 driver mentioned "I could instantly tell the improved Ds from the 'plus' tomcats because they could turn a bit better and pull more Gs than the older version, but they were still nowhere close to what I could do").
We then tried using them as bombers (HAH!!! Whatta waste of resources) with the "Bombcat". Frankly, the times change. We no longer need F102s patrolling the northern ice cap for incoming russian Bear bombers, and neither do we need the F14 tomcat.
The design is old, and uneccessary. You can probably fit 3 super hornets in the space that 2 tomcats take up on a carrier hangar deck. Not to mention they have more efficient engines, can carry more, can do more (tankers, bombers, fighters, ELINT, recon, etc, etc). It's a practical decision made by the US Navy.
I agree from certain angles the Tomcat looks wonderful. And from certain angles the Hornet looks butt ugly. The reverse is true as well, from different angles :P
Man Krusty, you opened a big can of worms and are wrong on every single count so sit back and take your medicine. Here's the real story:
The F-14 was designed from the beginning as an air superiority fighter with built-in a/g capability (for dumb bombs only). The bombs ended up being left off because the Navy fighter community believed the same as the USAF...that a true fighter didn't carry bombs (that's what the A-6 and A-7 were for) and NAVAIR did not fund the costs for fixing some relatively minor development problems found during flight test. First, arming clips for the forward bomb racks were ahead of the intakes and could potentially FOD the engines. Second, there were some bomb separation issues under certain flight regimes due to the fuselage tunnel. These issues were addressed by VX-4 in 1987/8. The plane always had maneuvering performance as a key design requirement. While the F15A could out turn it at altitude, this was the reverse at lower altitudes. One thing everyone forgets also is that there is a hell of a lot more to a fighter than turn performance. The F15 has better flying qualities and the Tomcat was saddled with the TF-30 Pratt and Worthless engines. A favorite saying was: "if it says P&W on the engine, it had better say Martin Baker on the seat."
When the D came out there were two areas of improvement, the engines and the avionics (principally the radar). With the GE F110's (first introduced in the F14A+) the D could out accelerate the F15 and had better sustained turn capability at mid/lower altitudes than the F15C. The F14 lost out at high altitude because the wings programmed as a function of Mach which meant that at high alt/high Mach the wings programmed aft which limited sustained turn even though Q was low (VX-4 tried unsuccessfully to get NAVAIR to fund a new flight control computer for the wings to fix this). The F15 was designed as a high-alt fighter so it was better there. The F15 also had better flying qualities and was easier to fly primarily because it has digital flight control computers and ailerons while the F14 had an analog stability augmentation system and spoilers plus the P&W TF30s which lacked power and were subject to engine stalls. A lot of this changed with the F110 which gave it better than a 1 to 1 thrust to weight ratio and eliminated the piss poor reliability of the TF30. Later on, I understand NAVAIR finally funded a digital replacement for the SAS but I don't know how much this improved the flying qualities as it was primarily meant to prevent loss of the aircraft due to high AOA departures and spins. Grumman did a study that showed with a full digital FCS they could move the CG aft giving relaxed static stability which would improve the maneuvering performance even more.
BTW, your quote from the F15 driver that he could tell the difference between the A+ and D is absolutely wrong since they both had the same F110 engines (that's what made the F14A into the A+). Even RL has dweebs and this Beagle driver R1. The A+ was actually slightly better than the D in turn performance because it had the new engines but was lighter. None of this is meant to say the F14 is better than the F15, I'm simply saying that oversimplistic comparisons are specious. Each plane has its own strengths and weaknesses. Bottom line though is that 1v1 between them is far more pilot than airframe dependant and air superiority isn't based on turn performance but the whole package. For instance, a Zeke can out turn an F14...which is better? Sorta matters what you want to do with them doesn't it? Also, you don't do 1v1 in a war (at least a modern war with A/A missiles). If the MA were a real war don't you think we'd probably all be in Doras doing B&Z rather than dropping anchor in the middle of a furball where you're probability of survival is nil? The real answer to the question of "which is the better plane" is that it depends (BTW, this is also TOPGUN's answer to that question). It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're on a fighter sweep, the "best" plane is probably not the one carrying bombs but if there is no A/A threat what's the point of a fighter sweep?
Regarding your less than enlightened comments about the "Bombcat". The F14 with FLIR carried a huge amount of ordinance a long way into Afghanistan and dropped larger loads with greater effectiveness than the Hornet using far fewer tankers. Carries more, goes farther, goes faster, stays longer, is more effective and has greater bring-back (ordinance you can land with). Oh, it also has two aircrew. Even the lords of the single-pilot-is-king-group...the USAF, as much as admitted that when they decided on a crew of two for the F-15E (probabaly the closest you can get to a perfect airplane for its mission). Two work better than one during high workload missions which is part of the reason the F14 has higher overall effectiveness in "strike-fighter" missions. In the end, all of this is pretty damn good for an almost 40 year old design.
Regarding your comments about the Navy's "practical decision" you're right that it was "practical" but not because the Hornet is superior. As I mentioned before, the F14 carries more, goes farther and faster than the Super Hornet. Here's the real kicker. VX-4 participated in comparison modeling and simulations at China Lake pitting the F14D, F18 C/D with the proposed Tomcat 21 and Super Hornet. The Hornet lost every single analysis except one.
So why did the Navy make a "practical decision" to go to the Super Hornet? What was the one catagory the Super Hornet won? Total weapon system life cycle cost. And what was the principal difference in the life cycle cost? One vs two aircrew. The cost of training two guys, their paychecks, their medical, and their retirement is what it was about. Nothing to do with which plane was better. Most of the development cost of the new Hornet was related to the all new airframe (larger for range and payload), all new avionics/radar (trying to get as good as the F14D's) and all new engines (to push this all around the sky). BTW, even with all of these changes to the Hornet an F14 (with combat load) would still out turn it (with the same combat load). Stripped down the F18 is a better turner but what's the use of a stripped down fighter in war? The F14 already had the airframe and brand new engines as well as room for more new equipment than the Super Hornet could dream for. Grumman already knew what needed to be changed and what the plane could do, as a matter of fact the F14 w/F110 engines was the first fighter to demonstrate super cruise (supersonic flight w/o afterburner), something the Super Hornet can't do. 1/2 of the development cost of the Super Hornet would have paid for the F14's legacy maintenance issues (things like replacing hydraulic swivel joints with flex hoses and switching over to digital buses vice analog wiring) AND all of the avionics and weapons planned for the F18E/F AND it would have been in the fleet sooner.
Ultimately, the long range money issue of aircrew ended up driving the stake through the Tomcat's heart, not which airplane was better or older or prettier. The F14 community was so incensed and vocal about the bad choice that eventually the CNO (a boat driver) told everyone to shut up and color. The F14's performance since then, even given the minimal upgrades given it, shows that the F14 community was right and the Navy wrong.
Oh, and by the way. The loudest sound you'll ever hear is standing on deck 15 feet from a Tomcat in full afterburner right before the Cat officer hits the launch button.
Mace
-
Have any of you seen any of the "Fighter Fling" movies from the Tomcat squads? They are without a doubt, the absolute best fighter films that were ever put together. Starting in 1989 and ending in 04, each year they got better and better. Films 02-04' are my favorite but they're all spectacular.
Its not only just sad our wonderful navy is killing the tomcat and all of its heritage along with it. Its a crime.
-
Morpheus, do you have any digital copies? Especially from VF111, VF213 or VX4? VF111 was decommissioned in the mid 90s while VX4 and VX5 were combined into VX9. The one I most want to find was done at VX4 in 1990 during F14D OPEVAL that had lots of missile launches and a bitc'n shot of a QF-4 target drone that took both AIM-9 and AIM-54 hits within 1/2 a second. There were also several VX-4 videos that had Vandy 1 which was an F14A in an all black paint job with the Playboy bunny on the tail. I still have a couple of old tapes but they're in pretty bad shape. I suppose I ought to get off my bellybutton and get a video capture card to transfer them to digital. If you have any digital versions I'd really like to get copies.
Mace
-
I have all of them 89-04 on my PC. They are massive, HUGE files, and worth every dam meg. The smallest one is something like 106 megs. I will find the site for you to download them from.
I also have the engagement between Tomcats and two Libyan Mig 23s on film. If I cant find the site for that I will upload it to my server for you if you want.
-
Mace:
You sound like you have experience on the flight deck, as do I, (Naval Aviator, 2 deployments to the Persian Gulf, lots of time at sea). However, as sexy as the F-14 is (yes it looks good) the principle reason for such a large aircraft was the Pheonix missile and the AWG-9 Fire Control. No other aircraft could carry the Phenoix, or simutaneosly track up to 10 bogeys at ranges up to 100 miles.
Yes the F-14 was a supurb dogfighter....butt.......
As a good friend of mine told me who flew F-14s in the fleet and was selected to instruct at Miramar (prior to the Marines taking it over)...."The finest fighter that I have ever flown (and he flew the aggressor F-5, A-4, and F-16N) was by far the F-16...". "...All things being equal as far as pilot ability, the F-16 will fly circles around the F-14..".
Now I certainly don't have any love for the "AirFarce" (Don't no one get offended, just a little interservice bantering) but they certainly hit the jackpot with the F-16.
Oh, and they have really pretty bases with 18,000 Ft runways and great O-clubs and Golf courses. :):)
The Navy is restructuring the entire Air Wing. Fewer disimilar airframes means less logistical cost across the board. That is why the MH-60S and MH-60R helicopters are replacing the CH-46, SH-60F, HH-60H, SH-60B, and the SH-3s. On the fixed wing side, the A-6 is gone, S-3, and F-14. these will be replaced by the F-18 and the JSF. Fewer disimilar airframes means increased savings in the budget.
Do I think this is right? Well lets just say that my position here in the Pentagon keeps me from expressing ALL of my true feelings about this.:/
Anyway, a lot of babble, didn't mean to run on.....The F-14 is sexy, big, loud and looks great in an Airwing fly-over. But like anything else, it is time to retire them to allow for expanding technology and capability (god now I sound like my bosses here....eeek...:()
Not a sermon....Just a thought....
NAVCAD
---------------------------
John Wayne says it best in "The Sands of Iwo Jima"..."Life is tough, but it's tougher when your stupid"
-
Loud...try an F-111 low pass, or better yet be out on the trim pad doin a maintenance run on your F-5E with an 11 on 1 side and a brit F-4 on the other(red flag late 80's when I was a crew chief on the good ol' F5).
My fingers were touching each other I had them so far into my ears.
jolly
-
Thanks for the extremely informative post Mace! That echoes much of what I read over at airwarriors.com. No it's not a BBS for AW the game, but a forum dedicated to providing info about Naval/Marine aviation to prospective and current students in the program. I just lurk and learn of course. The bottom line for the Super Hornet seems to be money. Fewer airframes carried, more efficient use of money. Looks like lots of comprosmises to me. As a young kid in high school some 15+ years ago my favorite plane was the Hornet. My friend preferred the Tomcat. Years later I've changed my mind, and will probably never get the chance to see or hear a Tomcat fly in person.
I remember posting a link to a site that had most of the Fighter Fling videos downloadable. It's in the O Club somewhere, is that the one Morpheus? I grabbed a few, and yes they were hilarious. Seems like Tomcat crews view Hornets the same way AH people look at L-g..., err La-7s :).
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Man Krusty, you opened a big can of worms and are wrong on every single count so sit back and take your medicine.
Mace
:rofl
-
Here's the link. I knew I had it.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=search&p=1&aircraft=35&type=aircraft&id=35&pp=10&s=id&o=desc
That should take you right to the Tomcats. If not the do a search and get ready to do A LOT of downloading. Im talking Gig's worth... You cant just download 1, they're all sick as hell.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Here's the link. I knew I had it.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=search&p=1&aircraft=35&type=aircraft&id=35&pp=10&s=id&o=desc
That should take you right to the Tomcats. If not the do a search and get ready to do A LOT of downloading. Im talking Gig's worth... You cant just download 1, they're all sick as hell.
They have an amazing downloads section in general. Some of the EF2000 videos are really good. Watched one of them with a retired F-14A backseater. He was impressed with the manuvers.... but was still sure they could kill it if they wanted to, lol
btw, the site is supposed to only let you download 2 videos at a time. not a big deal when they average > 100mb @ 70k/sec, but still kind of annoying.
-
There are very few servers that let you download more than 2 at a time. Rather, the remarkable thing of this site is you have no download limit... Ie you could download every single vid they have on the site if you wanted to.
-
I guess since the Tomcat will be on it's way out this year, I'll grab the rest of the Fighter Flings. I only downloaded the latest one with the tributes. Other vids that I got that were kinda cool were a F-4 Phantom one done to the tune of Filter's "Hey Man Nice Shot," and some ANG F-16's taxiing and then lifting off (I just love that turbine-whine and the roar).
-
Grab the 2002 one... Its right after 9/11, it will give you chills, make your hair stand on end, and your blood will boil all at the same time. Kick arseeeeeeeee.
-
Anyone tried a wget on patricks site? Number 1 I'm curious if it will work at all. Number 2 I wonder how many gigs of videos there are on that site?
g00b
-
I am sure after the first 4 gigs they would notice something's up and cut you off. I got almost 3 gigs off that site in 1 night. All of the Tomcat film they had, the huge 30 minute long French A/F film which was almost 700 gigs. I thought my modem was going to catch fire.
-
Thanks for the head's up, will go for the 2002 first!
-
Stop downloading everyone, you're hogging all the bandwidth :)
-
I've dropped all the way down to 23.5k/sec with a single download runnin, blah. Trying to get the 2003 film (already have '01 & '02). Morph is right though, imho, the '02 vid is the best one.
-
Navcad,
You make an excellent point regarding the Tomcat's size which was originally dictated by the Phoenix but there were many other factors including speed, range, loiter, AWG-9 and two crew.
I also agree that the F-16 is a superior dogfighter, I wasn't claiming the Tomcat was the best knife fighter (and the F16 is also superior to the Eagle in pure knife fighting). Wouldn't you know the USAF would take such a great little fighter, paint it green and sling bombs under it?...oh and before everyone points out they're grey, the originals were green.
The point I was trying to make is that all aircraft are a series of compromises and the F14 is no different. The big question is how well does it do it's intended mission? Another question almost as big as the first is what is the plane's growth potential? I know the Navy is restructuring the airwing and trying to reduce airframes. This really started in the late 80s when they cancelled the A-6F all the while knowing this meant the end of the A6 altogether in the 90s. A large (some would say the largest) part of this restructuring also included the cost savings by reducing the number of aircrew (i.e., two seaters).
Our position from a purely operational standpoint was that if you wanted a single airframe to do multiple missions, the F14 was a much better starting place than the Hornet. All of the missions they're now expecting the Hornet to do are easier with a larger airframe that's why the Super Hornet is completely different (except in appearance) from the original. The F15E is probably the best example of using a proven airframe (and two crew) for multiple missions. It's almost as big as the Tomcat, it's two seat, and it's also the best TACAIR fighter-attack plane the US has. (Also, another little known factoid is that Grumman's Tomcat 21 concept included a mix of one and two seat Tomcats because they saw what the Navy was really doing.)
The money spent on developing the Super Hornet could, and in my less than humble opinion, should, have been spent on new, advanced F14s (let's call them F14E/F). This also would have been a better investment to cover the gap between 1970/80 generation aircraft and a new stealth Navy fighter-attack plane. A lot is made of the fact that the airframe was designed in the late 60's but the YF-18 was designed in the 70s along with the F16. What's obten forgotten is that the airframe's job is to get the weapons where they need to be (well ok...ya gotta look good doing it also!). A new design airframe with a new design weapon system is the best of both worlds IF you can afford it which the Navy couldn't. But if you need a gap filler between older aircraft and a new 21st century one then new technology in the weapon system is far more important, especially when you have a highly capable airframe already, that airframe is more capable than the competition's AND it has more growth potential.
As far as the retirement of the F14, you're absolutely right that they needed to go, but only because the Navy made the wrong decision in the 90s. Oh, and Grumman would still be making Navy fighters and wouldn't be a wholy-owned subsidiary of Northrup.
Mace
BTW, you've got good ears NAVCAD. F14D Operational Test Director at VX-4 from 88-90. Yeah..ok..so I'm a little biased but I ain't wrong!:aok
-
The site upload is reasonably fast. I was able to download 2 at a time @ 450+ KB/sec., so there must be a problem in your routing or ISP.
@ Mace: hmmmm. I was at Pax River in 1991-92 also. The days of RADMs Becker and Snider, (Paula...), CAPT Webb, et al.
Gotta miss those non-linear throttles... ;)
-
Rolex,
I was at the schoolhouse in Pax in 87 then to VX4. Loved Pax but it's hard to beat SOCAL and the flying there. I'm gonna take a wild bellybutton guess that you're talking about Jack Snider and Paula Coughlin. Yeah, what...a lovely pair! Belly shots and leg shaving for the house...Jack's buying! He was PMA-241 and head of the F14 program while I was doing OT-IIA, B and C (OPEVAL) at VX4. What were you doing at Pax?
Mace
-
I'll send a Private Message with a Paula story. :-) Cheers
-
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhahahahaha
Do not eat before watching this.
I thought she was "okay" looking before they took off. That quickly changed. And NOT for the better.
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=view&id=327&go=download
-
Man, I'd love to furball in this thing...
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos.php?action=view&id=231
-
Mace,
As a fellow Navy man HOW DARE you mention her name.:( I know Paula (I use her name only because I can't really use the name for her without getting booted off):)
I was at North Island from '89-'93. I take it you were there for the infamous Tail Hook follies that happened the day before Congresswoman Pat Schroeder toured Miramar (During the Tail Hook Witch Hunt). I love the banner sttretched across the O-club that read...."Hickory Dickory Doc....Pat Schroeder can suck my (You fill in the rest) :)
I sure do love you "go-fast" guys. :)
Also, as soon as I can figure out how to post a picture here, I'll post the patch that the SH-60 comunity made showing a helo picking up an rather wet kitty with the caption " Anytime baby"...:):)
All Kidding aside, as I said before the F-14 was and is a sexy plane.
NAVCAD
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid"
-
Hey NAVCAD, ah yes...memories. While I wasn't at Tailhook 91 (I had a damn good excuse since I was sitting alert 5 on the deck of the Lincoln at the time) I was back in time for the Tomcat Follies. Believe it was VF51's skit that had the Hickory Dickery Dock in it. Funny thing was the Follies were a "closed set" so that we wouldn't have any problems with non-member participation and the community could speak it's mind the way we always did during Foc'sle Follies when we could make fun of very senior people that weren't humor challenged. What happened though is VF-51's "skit" (actually a large wooden contraption that spelled out the poem)was still up when the O'Club opened the curtains for the dining room that overlooked the patio and some, drunk as a skunk, ugly-ass, feminist be'atch, female O-6 saw it. She's the one that blew the whistle. Don't know if you knew Mandy, the O'club receptionist but she and I were....ah...good friends. She's one of the people that had to help this drunk captain out of the club.... and that, as they say, was that. Funny but the F-14D was cancelled less than a month after the incident. Coincidence? I've always wondered.
Mace
-
Yes Mace I knew Mandy.
A lot of us Helo guys got a chuckle out of the Focsl-Follies incident. Paula of course decided to quit the Navy and SUE for what I herd was $1Mil. She came into the HSL community as a CAT III with this holier-than-thow attitude and had her T*TS hammered.
Gee I wonder why?
I was also there at Miramar when a freak cold front came through during an Airshow and the F-14D "accidently" popped MACH. Windows all through the area, including University Towne Center, shattered. Lots of FUN. :)
Oh Well! The Grunts have it now.
NAVCAD
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid"
-
Here is one place this often used wallpaper of mine will be understood and appreciated.
(http://www.sky-flash.com/sr71/03.jpg)
It was pulling a little to much G's (SR 71's aren't fighters and it has a limit of 3 G.) at moment the oxygen by the inlets is cut off. At that moment the engine is without oxygen but not without fuel, this is given an enormous quantity of fuel inside the engine without ignition. The pilot released the pressure on the joystick a little and one split second later fresh oxygen flowed into the engine again, so the engines could run again. But the quantity of fuel for the engine is at that moment to much and it's exploding with some enormous shooting flames. After the explosions the engines were running perfect again.
Karaya