Grumman F-14 Tomcat

[overscan (PaulMM)]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/F-14D Tomcat (NAVAIR 01-F14AAD-1).pdf

 

[KJ_Lesnick]

F-14 Wing and Pancake Thickness/Chord Ratios

What is the T/C ratio of the F-14's pancake and the T/C ratio of the aircraft's wings?

KJ Lesnick

 

[AeroFranz]

F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

I found mention of some curious hydraulically-actuated canard surfaces used during the early phases of testing of the Tomcat. I am NOT talking about the glove vanes. These were mounted closer to the nose below the canopy rails level.

NASA 991 had numerous special additions for high-angle-of-attack and spin-recovery research. These included a battery-powered auxiliary power unit, a flight test nose boom, and a special spin recovery system, consisting of forward mounted, hydraulically actuated canards and an emergency spin chute.

It may be the black surfaces (shown retracted) seen on this picture, courtesy of NASA
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~8~8~59984~163831:

Can anyone share more info about these tests and the canards themselves?

 

[F-14D]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

I found mention of some curious hydraulically-actuated canard surfaces used during the early phases of testing of the Tomcat. I am NOT talking about the glove vanes. These were mounted closer to the nose below the canopy rails level.

NASA 991 had numerous special additions for high-angle-of-attack and spin-recovery research. These included a battery-powered auxiliary power unit, a flight test nose boom, and a special spin recovery system, consisting of forward mounted, hydraulically actuated canards and an emergency spin chute.

It may be the black surfaces (shown retracted) seen on this picture, courtesy of NASA


Can anyone share more info about these tests and the canards themselves?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3170.msg77980.html#msg77980

 

[AeroFranz]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

Mea culpa for not searching first! :-[
Thanks, the pics posted show the canards nicely.

 

[F-14D]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

Mea culpa for not searching first! :-[
Thanks, the pics posted show the canards nicely.

To be honest, the main reason I knew where it was was because I put it there.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

I read a story about USN/Israeli AF exercises where the USN was essentially shot out of the sky.

So what about this:http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/persiancats.html
It's from Tom Cooper so I guess that alone will spark something.

Here is the money quote:
“We trained with many U.S. Navy pilots [who have, over the years] ‘shot down’ U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s almost at will in all [training] exercises,” recalls Colonel (then-Captain) Javad. “They trained us well.”

Granted this was before DASH and late model Pythons.

So, what gives?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

So much detail gets left out of all of these VS. Stories, even if they aren't outright lies. (and a lot are)

The Rules favor one side, or one side doesn't try in order not to tips its hand, or one side makes adjustments to sup up their aircraft before the fight.

The best version of how these stories need to be taken with a grain of salt came from a Canadian pilot who ran into a middle eastern guy who claimed to have bested two USMC hornets in a dogfight training mission. The Canadian pilot, also a Hornet guy was curious how this pilot did it, so he began asking questions. With enough questions the Canadian was able to figure out that the F-18s were "shot down" while turning on final to land, and were wholly unaware they were in a "dogfight" with this man!!

LOL

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The best version of how these stories need to be taken with a grain of salt came from a Canadian pilot who ran into a middle eastern guy who claimed to have bested two USMC hornets in a dogfight training mission. The Canadian pilot, also a Hornet guy was curious how this pilot did it, so he began asking questions. With enough questions the Canadian was able to figure out that the F-18s were "shot down" while turning on final to land, and were wholly unaware they were in a "dogfight" with this man!!

Marines don't use initial and pitch landing?

As to claims by the Iranians, well...

PS: For starters what they are claiming is almost chronologically impossible. Any USN training of the Iranian air force stopped in 1979 and the F-16 wasn’t even delivered to the IAF until 1980 and the first Israeli F-15s in 1977. So these USN F-14 pilots would have had a tiny envelope of opportunity to train against Israeli F-15s in the fleet before being cycled back to the US for a training job. Sounds like many of the claims by a repressive and isolated regime hell bent on inflicting violence on the world as total BS.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Marines don't use initial and pitch landing?

I'll be the first to admit I am passing on a story, I really don't know the details and I was paraphrasing. All I know is the Hornets were in the process of landing while "being shot down in a dogfight"

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

PS: For starters what they are claiming is almost chronologically impossible. Any USN training of the Iranian air force stopped in 1979 and the F-16 wasn’t even delivered to the IAF until 1980 and the first Israeli F-15s in 1977. So these USN F-14 pilots would have had a tiny envelope of opportunity to train against Israeli F-15s in the fleet before being cycled back to the US for a training job. Sounds like many of the claims by a repressive and isolated regime hell bent on inflicting violence on the world as total BS.

There is nowhere implied here that the pilots they trained with shot down "U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s" BEFORE training them.

WHat he is saying is two things:

"We trained with many U.S. Navy pilots"
"U.S. Navy pilots (possibly including the ones who trained them, but not necessarily) have, over the years, ‘shot down’ U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s almost at will in all training exercises"

He is saying only that they were trained by the best trained pilots in the world. No doubt Navy aviators would agree

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There is nowhere implied here that the pilots they trained with shot down "U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s" BEFORE training them.

Ahh I see. So not only is the skill and ability of the USN able to be transferred to the Iranians across space by their co-location but also backwards through time via previous association. It’s not as if fighter pilot chest thumping was a precarious enough argument to be involved in already but now we have “by association, backwards in time” to someone else… It’s one of the many, many ‘philosophical’ arguments made in the Middle East demonstrating how much better ‘they’ are to the Israelis that surprisingly has never actually been proven in any physical test.

But to the issue in hand the Iranians were training to be ‘competent’ in the F-14 weapon system and used it competently against enemy weapon systems that were far less effective. None of this however implies that they are an ‘expert’ operator of their weapon systems which enables weapon systems to be used to their full ability. As is seen in their results which included plenty combat successes though not without significant battlefield failures like no effective operations over water to defeat the extensive Iraqi aerial interdiction of Iranian oil export shipping. One can’t imagine how if the USN were flying those Tomcats based in Iran that the Iraqis would have launched a single successful strike against Iranian shipping.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

There is nowhere implied here that the pilots they trained with shot down "U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s" BEFORE training them.

WHat he is saying is two things:

"We trained with many U.S. Navy pilots"
"U.S. Navy pilots (possibly including the ones who trained them, but not necessarily) have, over the years, ‘shot down’ U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s almost at will in all training exercises"

He is saying only that they were trained by the best trained pilots in the world. No doubt Navy aviators would agree

Thank you PaulMM. That is what I am trying to establish in this topic. I'm not trying to promote the current Iranian regime at all.
I just have a hard time buying how Pilots who have to land on a moving runway, flying the world's best long range killer, and unlike the USAF had never given up on ACM can't at the very least break even with the IAF or anyone else.

 

[DD]

"He is saying only that they were trained by the best trained pilots in the world. No doubt Navy aviators would agree."

Yep. Can only but agree, Paul.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thank you PaulMM. That is what I am trying to establish in this topic. I'm not trying to promote the current Iranian regime at all.
I just have a hard time buying how Pilots who have to land on a moving runway, flying the world's best long range killer, and unlike the USAF had never given up on ACM can't at the very least break even with the IAF or anyone else.

If you are trying to find out who performs better in air to air between the IDF/AF and USN then I suggest reports from Iran is not where you should be looking...

Back in 1999 the Jersusalem Post ran this story:

Report: IAF whips US pilots in exercise
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

TEL AVIV (September 24) - A recent joint exercise between the IAF and US Navy Sixth Fleet pilots apparently resulted in a thorough routing of the US pilots, according to the latest edition of Air Force Monthly.

The American-based magazine said the exercise in question took place in the Negev skies and involved engagements between IAF F-16s and US Navy F-14s and F/A-18s.

Quoting Israeli military sources, the magazine said one of the exercises ended with the score of 40:1 in favor of the IAF. The magazine said Israel "downed" 220 aircraft for the loss of just 20 of its own.

It said that the results have not been officially published "to save the reputations of the US Navy pilots."

The magazine did not say when the exercise took place. But security sources said that the dogfights took place about three months ago. They said the exercise was the first time that Israeli pilots actually took part in the maneuvers and didn't just give logistical support. Israeli pilots have also flown with various flight academies as guests or students.

The IAF said it does not give detailed results of training exercises. But air force commanders were said to be incensed by the report. While refusing to confirm or deny the report, military sources said neither Israel or the US had officially released the "scores."

"We showed an arrogance we didn't mean to display," one senior IAF officer said.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

If you are trying to find out who performs better in air to air between the IDF/AF and USN then I suggest reports from Iran is not where you should be looking...

I'm all ears. ;D

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Back in 1999 the Jersusalem Post ran this story:

Report: IAF whips US pilots in exercise
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN

TEL AVIV (September 24) - A recent joint exercise between the IAF and US Navy Sixth Fleet pilots apparently resulted in a thorough routing of the US pilots, according to the latest edition of Air Force Monthly.

The American-based magazine said the exercise in question took place in the Negev skies and involved engagements between IAF F-16s and US Navy F-14s and F/A-18s.

Quoting Israeli military sources, the magazine said one of the exercises ended with the score of 40:1 in favor of the IAF. The magazine said Israel "downed" 220 aircraft for the loss of just 20 of its own.

It said that the results have not been officially published "to save the reputations of the US Navy pilots."

The magazine did not say when the exercise took place. But security sources said that the dogfights took place about three months ago. They said the exercise was the first time that Israeli pilots actually took part in the maneuvers and didn't just give logistical support. Israeli pilots have also flown with various flight academies as guests or students.

The IAF said it does not give detailed results of training exercises. But air force commanders were said to be incensed by the report. While refusing to confirm or deny the report, military sources said neither Israel or the US had officially released the "scores."

"We showed an arrogance we didn't mean to display," one senior IAF officer said.

That is the story I was referring to in contrast to the Persian Cats story. So in this story ( They said the exercise was the first time that Israeli pilots actually took part in the maneuvers) the IAF essentially whips their ass while still in their pajamas. Impressive to say the least.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

There is nowhere implied here that the pilots they trained with shot down "U.S. Air Force and Israeli F-15s and F-16s" BEFORE training them.

Ahh I see. So not only is the skill and ability of the USN able to be transferred to the Iranians across space by their co-location but also backwards through time via previous association. It’s not as if fighter pilot chest thumping was a precarious enough argument to be involved in already but now we have “by association, backwards in time” to someone else… It’s one of the many, many ‘philosophical’ arguments made in the Middle East demonstrating how much better ‘they’ are to the Israelis that surprisingly has never actually been proven in any physical test.

But to the issue in hand the Iranians were training to be ‘competent’ in the F-14 weapon system and used it competently against enemy weapon systems that were far less effective. None of this however implies that they are an ‘expert’ operator of their weapon systems which enables weapon systems to be used to their full ability. As is seen in their results which included plenty combat successes though not without significant battlefield failures like no effective operations over water to defeat the extensive Iraqi aerial interdiction of Iranian oil export shipping. One can’t imagine how if the USN were flying those Tomcats based in Iran that the Iraqis would have launched a single successful strike against Iranian shipping.

Exactly, I am a product of my grandpa, thus I won World War II! I had teachers who fought in Vietnam and they were the best, and they taught me how to shoot a BB gun on a range, So I am a combat veteran.

Also Marine Aviators land on carriers too, but we don't talk about them. and the Iranians never had to land on carriers at all so??? Since when has being a good airplane lander meant you were a good combat pilot? Air Force Pilots have done exchanges and landed on carriers too. Many Iranian F-14 pilots flew F-4s and F-5s before the F-14 and weren't trained on anything by the USN until the Tomcat which further muddies the issue, of magical Navy skill transfer

I know USAF Pilots that feel they get more combat training time because they don't have to leave early to preserve fuel in case they need to make 4 landing attempts.

Its all on how you look at it.

Edit: Abraham, how could the Israeli's win and dominate, if they don't land on aircraft carriers? This is insane.

"He is saying only that they were trained by the best trained pilots in the world. No doubt Navy aviators would agree."

So in this story ( They said the exercise was the first time that Israeli pilots actually took part in the maneuvers) the IAF essentially whips their ass while still in their pajamas. Impressive to say the least.

Something doesn't add up.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

Also Marine Aviators land on carriers too, but we don't talk about them. and the Iranians never had to land on carriers at all so??? Since when has being a good airplane lander meant you were a good combat pilot?

Edit: Abraham, how could the Israeli's win and dominate, if they don't land on aircraft carriers? This is insane.

No it is not insane. If the implication is that USNavy Fleet ADF fighters, their best, can not even hold their own against another peer (without doubt a great air force) how would they have fared against the Soviets with maybe less individual skill compared to the IAF but infinitely more resources? If that is the case... I WANT MY FUC&*(N TAX MONEY BACK!!

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

You can have really amazing and accomplished teachers and still be a screw up, I mean look how I turned out... :-\

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There isn't just a simple, singular gauge of fighter pilot ability. You may have a highly competent fighter pilot with all the natural ability and aggression who knows his aircraft completely and can make it do anything within reason. However if this guy has poor tactical training or is fighting with bad tactics or inferior equipment they will get thumped by a less able pilot with better tactics.

In the case of the IDF/AF vs USN in 1999 there might be a few things in the favour of the Israelis that would enable them to dominate. For example they might have had helmet mounted sights and the tactics to use them while the USN will still flying with boresight missiles. The USN air wing may have only had F-14A and F/A-18A so not sailing with AMRAAM for BVR. There are two possible significant technical advantages for the Israelis.

But the big take away from all this is how professional high end air forces operate. They constantly benchmark themselves against their friendly peers and learn lessons from each other. These are introduced as new tactics and new operational requirements. After being thumped by the IDF the USN would have gone overtime trying to work out why and rectify their mistakes. Those forces without such friends like Iran, China, Russia etc don’t have access to this learning environment so are going to be behind the times and not as tested in a crucible of worth.

 

[Bruno Anthony]

From Janes, May 2001:
According to one source, US Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets from the Balkans theater recently engaged in mock combat with Israeli Air Force fighters. The Hornets were armed with AIM-9s, and the Israeli fighters carried Python 3 and Python 4 missiles and Elbit DASH helmet sights. IDR's source describes the results as "more than ugly", the Israelis prevailing in 220 out of 240 engagements.

The tech aspects may have contributed to these 1999 reports as DASH and late model Pythons would not have been around in the 1970s, the time of the Persian Cats. A definite WVR advantage. As for the USN with bad tactical training, then I still want my money back as Top Gun and others should have kept them abreast of tactics.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Topgun was merged with Naval Strike in 1996 and ceased to exist thereafter.

Its pretty much exactly what Abraham says as well.

I personally don't subscribe to the theory that being a fighter pilot that lands on an aircraft carrier makes you a better fighter pilot either. But thats just me. And even if it did, how well that translates in your ability to train others to a higher degree is a completely different subject as it is. Natural athletes tend to make poor coaches because the never had to go through the trial and error learning process that less talented, less gifted athletes did. I've seen mediocre athletes become world renowned coaches. Marines land on Aircraft Carriers all the time, but Air to Air isn't considered a Marine Priority, the USMC has had only 1 kill post vietnam and it was made by a Marine Flying an F-15 on exchange. So Marines land on Aircraft Carriers, but I wouldn't say it helps in Air to Air Combat. debunking harshly the "Naval Avaitors are the finest pilots in the world" myth. The USAF has been dominating the USN in Kills post Vietnam as well :-\

If its any consolation, large portions of your tax dollars also fund the Israeli Military.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

From Janes, May 2001:
According to one source, US Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornets from the Balkans theater recently engaged in mock combat with Israeli Air Force fighters. The Hornets were armed with AIM-9s, and the Israeli fighters carried Python 3 and Python 4 missiles and Elbit DASH helmet sights. IDR's source describes the results as "more than ugly", the Israelis prevailing in 220 out of 240 engagements.

The tech aspects may have contributed to these 1999 reports as DASH and late model Pythons would not have been around in the 1970s, the time of the Persian Cats. A definite WVR advantage. As for the USN with bad tactical training, then I still want my money back as Top Gun and others should have kept them abreast of tactics.

So, essentially this is WVR only, with the IAF having a large advantage in WVR armament. Seems reasonable enough, and probavly wouldn't be repeated if the FA-18s were armed with AIM-9X.

 

[BAROBA]

Same old story...
The US got its ass kicked by a backward-ally and now it needs the next-gen fighter to come in and even the score.
Preferably winning by a ratio of 100:1.

The same story has had the US Airforce with F-15's lose to the airforce of India so they needed the F-22.

Just my 2 cents

Rob

 

[Sundog]

Same old story...
The US got its ass kicked by a backward-ally and now it needs the next-gen fighter to come in and even the score.
Preferably winning by a ratio of 100:1.

The same story has had the US Airforce with F-15's lose to the airforce of India so they needed the F-22.

Just my 2 cents

Rob

In that fight, between the USAF F-15's and Indian Su's, the F-15's were asked not to use their long range RADAR guided BVR missiles in the engagement. Of course they were going to lose against the Su's IR capability.

What was really funny, is later, when the Indians brought their Su's to Red Flag, there was a video of a mission debrief on YouTube of USAF F-16 pilots talking about how they owned the Indians in the sortie because the Indians didn't really know how to fight their Su's. The video was soon removed from the internet.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Same old story...
The US got its ass kicked by a backward-ally and now it needs the next-gen fighter to come in and even the score.
Preferably winning by a ratio of 100:1.

The same story has had the US Airforce with F-15's lose to the airforce of India so they needed the F-22.

Just my 2 cents

Rob

In that fight, between the USAF F-15's and Indian Su's, the F-15's were asked not to use their long range RADAR guided BVR missiles in the engagement. Of course they were going to lose against the Su's IR capability.

What was really funny, is later, when the Indians brought their Su's to Red Flag, there was a video of a mission debrief on YouTube of USAF F-16 pilots talking about how they owned the Indians in the sortie because the Indians didn't really know how to fight their Su's. The video was soon removed from the internet.

I was going to mention that too. I thought one of the funnier parts was when he said the french showed up too, but didn't really play so much as watch and try to gather electronic data on what everyone was using. So the F-15s are fighting, the indians are struggling, the French are watching and the F-22s are pwning.

 

[Radical]

F-14 intake ramps

Does anyone have pictures of the marks indicating the ramp position of the F-14's intake ramps? What's the highest mach setting of the intake? If I recall correctly, the F-14's ramps has indicator marks going to Mach 2.8.

 

[F-14D]

Re: F-14 intake ramps

Does anyone have pictures of the marks indicating the ramp position of the F-14's intake ramps? What's the highest mach setting of the intake? If I recall correctly, the F-14's ramps has indicator marks going to Mach 2.8.

Last time I had my head stuck in the intake of a Tomcat (that's not me in the picture), I don't remember seeing really dramatic markings, but then it wasn't an a/c fresh from the factory or NARF/NAD. Here're some shots

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

The non-standard canards for spin test and the description of their use didn't make any sense to me at first. Pictures show both of them deployed at the same time. They reportedly extended when the spin chute was released for spin recovery. However, to "break" the spin and begin recovery, you want to stop the rotation and make the nose go down (reduce the angle of attack); the "canards" would seem to act to keep the nose up. However, I finally found a NASA movie of spin-tunnel tests of the F-14 spin test that provided the explanation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mb2vFrfy_I
The spin chute combined with flight control application proved inadequate for spin recovery. As a result, these non-standard canards were added to the nose. However, only the one on the "inside" of the spin was deployed when the spin chute was released. Although still a bit counterintuitive, at least to me, it must have imparted a rolling and yawing moment that helped "break" the spin.

 

[AeroFranz]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

These canards are also reminiscing of strakes. I wonder if part of their effect is not local, but rather downstream, i.e., at high alpha the surface sheds a vortex that modifies the airflow over the tail. However i suspect you'd deploy the surfaces symmetrically if that were the case...

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

These canards are also reminiscing of strakes. I wonder if part of their effect is not local, but rather downstream, i.e., at high alpha the surface sheds a vortex that modifies the airflow over the tail. However i suspect you'd deploy the surfaces symmetrically if that were the case...

Could be - I was hoping for a NASA report on the testing, either wind tunnel or actual aircraft, but had no luck finding one.

 

[Sundog]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

It seems to me they behave more like a fence. Instead of allowing the flow to "flow" around the nose in a spin, I figured it stopped the circulation around the nose to create more yaw damping from the nose. That's just my guess at this point, though.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

From Aero Series 25 - Grumman F-14 Tomcat by James P. Stevenson.

 

[Tailspin Turtle]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

It seems to me they behave more like a fence. Instead of allowing the flow to "flow" around the nose in a spin, I figured it stopped the circulation around the nose to create more yaw damping from the nose. That's just my guess at this point, though.

Possibly, but a fence probably wouldn't need to be that wide. See the strake on a helicopter tail boom which generates a side force in a hover from the rotor downwash.

 

[DSE]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

Could be - I was hoping for a NASA report on the testing, either wind tunnel or actual aircraft, but had no luck finding one.

I found mention and a photo of this on NTRS-Registered, at least one flight test report as well.

Utilization of simulation to support F-14A low altitude high angle of attack flight testing
NTRS Full-Text:
[PDF Size: 1.1 MB]
Author and Affiliation:
Conigliaro, P. (Grumman Aerospace Corp., Bethpage, NY, United States);
Goodman, R. (Grumman Aerospace Corp., Bethpage, NY, United States)

Abstract:
Ground-based flight simulation has been used successfully to support low altitude, asymmetric thrust, high angle of attack flight testing of the Grumman/Navy F-14A. The high risk nature of this flight testing, while representing a prime example of the application of simulation in the flight test environment, nonetheless generated particular problems regarding simulation fidelity and utilization requirements. As a result, new simulation capabilities were developed specifically for flight test support applications and were fully integrated into existing flight test computing/data analysis facilities. Results from the F-14 high angle of attack flight testing are used to illustrate how simulation can significantly enhance overall flight test safety and productivity. Using simulation support, an efficient test program was completed on time and allowed the F-14's departure characteristics to be safely demonstrated at angles of attack greater than 60 degrees with full engine thrust asymmetry at altitudes below 10,000 ft (3030 m).

Publication Date: Sep 01, 1986
Document ID: 19870014216 (Acquired Nov 04, 1995)
Accession Number: 87N23649
Subject Category: RESEARCH AND SUPPORT FACILITIES (AIR)
Document Type: Conference Paper
Publication Information: AGARD Flight Simulation; 15 p
Publisher Information: International Organization
Financial Sponsor: International Organization
Organization Source: Grumman Aerospace Corp.; Flight Test Dept.; Bethpage, NY, United States
Description: 18p; In English
Distribution Limits: Unclassified; Publicly available; Unlimited
Rights: Copyright; Distribution within the U.S. granted by agreement
NASA Terms:
AIRCRAFT MANEUVERS; AIRCRAFT SAFETY; AIRCRAFT SPIN; ANGLE OF ATTACK; COMPUTER PROGRAMS; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; CONTROLLABILITY; EXTERNAL STORES; F-14 AIRCRAFT; FLIGHT SIMULATORS; FLIGHT TESTS; LOW ALTITUDE; TELEMETRY
Imprint And Other Notes: In AGARD Flight Simulation 15 p (SEE N87-23633 17-09)

 

[sferrin]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

Go to 43:00 (though there is a LOT of good stuff on this video).

 

[Bill Walker]

Re: F-14 spin tests involving non-standard canard

Just my two cents worth: The fence on a helicopter tail boom creates a relatively small and local change in airflow, think of it as a Gurney flap rather than a flight surface.

Most spinning occurs at very high angles of attack, and spin recovery problems sometimes result from airflow being blocked at other surfaces (like tail fins and stabs). I'm leaning towards Tailspin's theory that these F-14 canards were meant to change airflow much further back on the airframe. Maybe the asymmetric deployment has something to do with the fact that there are two vertical fins back there?

 

[RAP]

Large Grumman F-14 Model

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Large-Grumman-F-14-Prototype-Desk-Top-Model-1971-/391517194094?hash=item5b283e476e:g:qQ4AAOSwhOVXexIW

 

[Michel Van]

i found information (only in few sentence)
That Germany look into option to buy F-14 Tomcats

Even West Germany was in the early '70 a possible customer for the F-14.
The German Luftwaffe Lt.General Steinhof even visited the Grumman production line. For this occasion, a Luftwaffe Tomcat patch was designed (left).
Note that the German word "Kater" means nothing else than "Tomcat".

Got some one more Information about that ?

source: http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a-export.htm