Pelican Parts Forums - F-14s being retired...

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - F-14s being retired... (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/305690-f-14s-being-retired.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by bell
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1159075631.jpg

How do they slow the air coming into the engine to subsonic speed if it's a straight intake shot?

:confused:

Does the adjustible front hood lip (wedge intake - dips down) limit the amount of air coming in that much so that the air slows down when it expands? How about the air density, or is it just air pressure at that point?

Lets see, if you limit the volume of air in, it would slow down, right?

Just the opposite as narrowing a venturi or water hose in that it increases pressure, right?

Quote:

Originally posted by rcecale
As of 2000 it was estimated that only 40 of the 132 F-4Ds, 177 F-4Es and 16 RF-4E. Phantoms delivered before 1979 remained in service. At that time, approximately 45 of the 169 F-5E/Fs delivered are still flying, while perhaps 20 F-14A Tomcats of the 79 initially delivered were airworthy. Another 30 F-4s, 30 F-5s and 35 F-14s have been cannibalized for spare parts. One report suggested that the IRIAF can get no more than seven F-14s airborne at any one time. Iran claims to have fitted F-14s with I-Hawk missiles adapted to the air-to-air role.

GlobalSecurity

Randy

paste?

I know nothing.... however one of my teachers was an F-14 pilot and he told me while he loved the old tomcat they were high maintenance and required a constant flow of new parts to keep them in the air.
FWIW

Quote:

Originally posted by scottmandue
I know nothing.... however one of my teachers was an F-14 pilot and he told me while he loved the old tomcat they were high maintenance and required a constant flow of new parts to keep them in the air.
FWIW

The article I read said 40 hrs of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight.

Mike

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
How do they slow the air coming into the engine to subsonic speed if it's a straight intake shot?

:confused:

Does the adjustible front hood lip (wedge intake - dips down) limit the amount of air coming in that much so that the air slows down when it expands? How about the air density, or is it just air pressure at that point?

Lets see, if you limit the volume of air in, it would slow down, right?

Just the opposite as narrowing a venturi or water hose in that it increases pressure, right?

There are ramps on the top of the inlet - look at the sides of the inlet and you can see where the ramp extends downward. Here's a more detailed explanation:

Quote:

The intakes are of multi-ramp wedge configuration and offer a straight path for the air entering the engines. Each intake has a pair of adjustable ramps attached to the upper part of the inner intake. Hydraulic actuators in the upper part of the intake adjust the positions of the first and second ramps in the upper surface of the inlet and of the diffuser ramp located further aft, reducing the inlet air to subsonic velocity before admitting it to the engine. A gap between the back edge of the second ramp and the leading edge of the diffuser ramp allows bleed air to escape from the inlet, passing overboard via a bleed-air door in the outer surface of the inlet. The inlet ramps are under the automatic control of a computer, which calculates the optimal position for the ramps based on engine speed, air temperature, air pressure, and angle of attack. At supersonic speeds, the hinged panels narrow down the throat area while diverting the excess airflow out of the ducts through aft-facing spill doors at the top of the intakes. At low speeds (especially during takeoff) when more engine air is needed, this airflow is reversed and extra air is sucked in.

Kach,

Don's post and quote are spot on...

The ramps serve to create the standing pressure waves that slow the supersonic airflwo down before it reaches the engine face.

All Western turbofans and jets need stable subsonic airflow to the first compressor stage....perhaps there are some that are not as well known...its known that the MIG 25 engines use a transonic first stage...

The ramps creatre standing pressure wave in the inlet which both slows and compresses the air prior to reaching the entrance.... this provides both the right type of air for the engine...and a handy increase in pressure..and hence engine thrust..

Especially for the poor F-14A.. with its TF30s...much better with the B and D models.. (the D model ended its career with the ramps fixed to reduce maintenance demands...it was limited to M1.88, hardly a real handicap).

Its shame its gone...it truely was the most powerful aircraft on a carrier....

Quote:

Originally posted by IROC
The article I read said 40 hrs of maintenance for every 1 hour of flight.

Mike

That's rather typical of high performance fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters require more, much more.

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i
How do they slow the air coming into the engine to subsonic speed if it's a straight intake shot?
]?

like MFAFF said...Im pretty sure a normal shockwave would be created at the start of the duct.... reducing the speed of the air to below M-1.

if M-1 air hit the fan blades a bunch of normal shockwaves would develop on the blades... creating vibrations and many other problems
(or at leasts thats what my text book says )

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
That's rather typical of high performance fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters require more, much more.

Not true at all. It really depends on the type, age and condition of the jet or helo. Having been both a detachment maintenance officer and a squadron MO (collateral duties in addition to flying) as well as a maintenance test pilot for years, I might have some insight here.

In addition, all new aircraft designs and upgrades to exiting aircraft (including avionics) have been done with maintenance and reliability in mind. We call it, "design to maintainer" and ensure ease of maintenance (including HSI) and repair.
Having been working at building aircraft for the last 15 years, I may have some insight here as well.

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
That's rather typical of high performance fixed wing aircraft. Helicopters require more, much more.

Well, FWIW the article also stated that the F/A-18s that are replacing the F-14s only required half as much...

Mike

so, pastey is wrong 3 times in the same thread. lordy!

BTW, I was always a fan of the Phantom F-4.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric 951
BTW, I was always a fan of the Phantom F-4.

Me too. I love all the F-4s...Phantoms and Corsairs. We should have a whole thread on WW2 warbirds. I love those things...

Mike

Because we have a bunch of experts on this thread, I have a Off-Topic question or request for you all.

Help me find an enclosed ducted fan drive unit which can be powered by an automobile engine (via belt or gear box/driveshaft), 180 hp to 800 hp power range (500 hp avg).

Reference thread:
http://www.hoverclubofamerica.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=913

Quote:

Originally posted by Seahawk
Not true at all. It really depends on the type, age and condition of the jet or helo. Having been both a detachment maintenance officer and a squadron MO (collateral duties in addition to flying) as well as a maintenance test pilot for years, I might have some insight here.

Since I have no experience with the same aircraft you do, I can't reply directly. In my old attack aviation unit I'd guesstimate that about 200 hours of maintenance for every flight hour was the norm for the Apache's. The Blackhawks were significantly less, probably about half that or less. Of course, the OH-58's were relatively minor in comparison, probably around 20-30 hours for every flight hour. That's all levels of maintenance including routine inspections and 25, 50, and 100 hour mandatory maintenance; together with unscheduled maintenance.

Quote:

In addition, all new aircraft designs and upgrades to exiting aircraft (including avionics) have been done with maintenance and reliability in mind. We call it, "design to maintainer" and ensure ease of maintenance (including HSI) and repair.
Having been working at building aircraft for the last 15 years, I may have some insight here as well.

Yes, and I have seen an aircraft with all the weapons systems redlined for maintenance listed as available for combat because it could fly. Not often, but it can and does happen.

I'm happy to hear that the Navy has such a high availability rate, though, that means we can do with fewer aircraft in the future.

Re: Re: Re: F-14s being retired...

Quote:

Originally posted by Noah
Pat, where has Iran gotten parts for its F-14's since 1979? "All" of them are still "fully operational" -- after 27 years of no parts? :D

One of the primary sources for combat aircraft parts for Iran, particularly during the Iran-Iraq War, was Israel. Don't tell me you didn't know that, Noah.

Today, Iran makes most of their own parts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric 951
so, pastey is wrong 3 times in the same thread. lordy!

It was as easy as shootin' fish in a barrel! :D

Quote:

BTW, I was always a fan of the Phantom F-4.

F-4's 4-ever, baby!!! :D:D:D:D:D

Randy

Lovin' F4's and F14's is an acquired taste, kinda the way you love women, big and brassy and lots of red curly hair.

Used to watch the big Phantom's at El Toro as a little kid with my dad. Could sit there for hours. Do you suspect that it shaped my desire for those brassy beauties?

Quote:

Originally posted by Danimal16
Lovin' F4's and F14's is an acquired taste, kinda the way you love women, big and brassy and lots of red curly hair.

Used to watch the big Phantom's at El Toro as a little kid with my dad. Could sit there for hours. Do you suspect that it shaped my desire for those brassy beauties?

Only if your redhead looks like a rhinoceros right below that hair.

And I suppose you think an A6 was ugly as well?

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Only if your redhead looks like a rhinoceros right below that hair.

Quote:

Originally posted by Danimal16
And I suppose you think an A6 was ugly as well?

Very ugly.

Doesn't mean it wasn't effective in its prescribed combat role.

And the ability to not allow the enemy any weather related rest.

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat
Very ugly.

Doesn't mean it wasn't effective in its prescribed combat role.

Ahhhh...the F-4 Phantom........

Nuff said.....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1160579155.jpg

UPDATE 07/02/07

Jets shredded, kept away from 'bad guys'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070702/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/shredding_tomcats;_ylt=AgNoQFvQTf79ts7TZLsz9A3MWM0 F

Quote:

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A mechanical monster grabs the F-14 fighter jet and chews through one wing and then another, ripping off the Tomcat's appendages before moving onto its guts. Finally, all that's left is a pile of shredded rubble — like the scraps from a Thanksgiving turkey.

The Pentagon is paying a contractor at least $900,000 to destroy old F-14s, a jet affectionately nicknamed "the turkey," rather than sell the spares at the risk of their falling into the wrong hands, including Iran's.

Within a workday, a $38 million fighter jet that once soared as a showpiece of U.S. airpower can be destroyed at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., the military's "boneyard" for retired aircraft.

"There were things getting to the bad guys, so to speak," said Tim Shocklee, founder and executive vice president of TRI-Rinse Inc. in St. Louis. "And one of the ways to make sure that no one will ever use an F-14 again is to cut them into little 2-by-2-foot bits."

The Defense Department had intended to destroy spare parts unique to the F-14 but sell thousands of others that could be used on other aircraft. It suspended sales of all Tomcat parts after The Associated Press reported in January that buyers for Iran, China and other countries had exploited gaps in surplus-sale security to acquire sensitive U.S. military gear, including F-14 parts.

Among other tactics, middlemen for the countries misrepresented themselves to gain access to the Defense Department's surplus sales or bought sensitive surplus from U.S. companies that had acquired it from Pentagon auctions and weren't supposed to allow its export.

Investigators also found some sensitive items accidentally slipping into surplus auctions rather than being destroyed as they were supposed to be. In an unusual move when dealing with retired aircraft, the Pentagon is trying to shut off all avenues for Iran's parts purchasers by demolishing the F-14s, then combing through the scraps to make sure nothing useful remains.

Iran is the only country trying to keep Tomcats airworthy. The United States let Iran buy the F-14s in the 1970s when it was an ally, long before President Bush named it part of an "axis of evil."

Shocklee's company won a three-year, $3.7 million contract to render surplus equipment useless for military purposes. The work includes the recent demolition of 23 Tomcats in Arizona, accounting for about $900,000 of TRI-Rinse's contract. The military is considering using the same process on its other F-14s.

The company has developed portable shredding machinery so the Pentagon can have sensitive items destroyed on a base instead of shipping them long distances to be shredded.

The Tomcat was a strike fighter with a striking price tag: roughly $38 million. By the 1980s it was a movie star with a leading role in the Tom Cruise classic "Top Gun." But as the planes are mangled into unrecognizable metal chunks, the jets with a 38-foot wingspan appear small and vulnerable.

The shearing machine, which uses pincers to rip apart the planes, weighs 100,000 pounds. The shredder is 120,000 pounds. An F-14 weighs about 40,000 pounds.

Among the shredded victims in Arizona: a plane flown by the "Tophatters" squadron, which led the first airstrike in Afghanistan when the U.S. invaded in October 2001.

The Pentagon retired its F-14s last fall. At last count, the military's boneyard in Arizona held 165 Tomcats, believed to be the only ones left out of 633 produced for the Navy. The others were scavenged for parts to keep others flying, went to museums or crashed, said a spokeswoman for the air base, Teresa Vanden-Heuvel.

As powerful as the grinding machinery is, not all of the F-14 can be shredded. The landing gear — built to withstand the force of slamming onto an aircraft carrier's deck — must be cut by hand with a demolition torch. It's made from steel with parts of titanium, so the shears can't cut it and the shredder can't chew it.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., considers the F-14 demolitions a good effort, but wants to go further and outlaw the sale of F-14 parts to anyone except museums. Wyden sponsored legislation that also would ban export licenses for F-14 components, which he believes will be more effective than Pentagon policies that he said have changed over time.

"I don't think internal rules — these internal initiatives — based on the track record of the Department of Defense, are sufficient," Wyden said.

The House passed similar legislation in June; a Senate vote is expected later this summer. The White House hasn't said whether Bush supports the idea.

F-14 preservationists said the Pentagon is handling the Tomcats they obtain differently.

As a Navy pilot, retired Capt. Dale Snodgrass delivered an F-14 to Iran — flying nonstop from the United States with roughly No. 68 of about 80 planes that Iran ordered.

Snodgrass said only key computers were taken out and ejection systems disabled on planes delivered to museums in past years. This year, when an F-14 went on display at a Miami museum, virtually everything was removed, leaving only a shell with the canopy painted black, said Snodgrass, who lives in St. Augustine, Fla.

Snodgrass is part of F-14 history. He flew Tomcats for roughly a quarter-century and amassed the most flight time in them of any pilot: more than 4,800 hours. He was named Navy pilot of the year around the time "Top Gun" hit theaters.

Snodgrass said he understands the Pentagon's destruction of F-14s but said it would be nice to see some preserved. Pilots dubbed the Tomcat "the turkey" because of its ungainly, turkey-like look when landing on aircraft carriers.

"When I first started it," Snodgrass said, "it was the biggest, the fastest, the most impressive, the most maneuverable fighter on the planet Earth."

___

On the Net:

Defense Logistics Agency: http://www.dla.mil/

F-14 Tomcat Association: http://www.f-14association.com/

TRI-Rinse: http://www.tri-rinse.com/

Click the link BELOW for some images and video.
Link

Interesting post Kach thank you.

Personally I doubt that Iran can get even one in the air fully capable of flying in combat (although there might be a few capable of actual flight).

To say that their entire fleet is fully operational is preposterous. They can barely field a small airline.

I understand that they are the last airline in the world to use a 707 to fly commercial passengers- Airways did an article on it a few months ago.

I went to Tucson in March and never knew the boneyard was there. I was blown away by all that hardware rotting in the desert as we drove by on the way to and from the airport. I want to go back for a closer look when I have more time.