Top Gun Movie F-14's going to boneyard

[satpak77]

http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/metro/38596.php

 

[sydeseet]

I just gotta......

"I FEEL THE NEED!"

(Back me up here boys)

 

[Airpiraterob]

well time to dust off the credit card and become the first owner of a civillian F-14....yeah right.

it's a shame. you see that wide expansive area between the wings? the top of the engine tunnels? well that my-friends is what makes that plane the best climbing plane over ANY of our current stock of planes. its got less power to weight...but pull it up to over 70 deg. climb.....itll outclimb anything else we got simply cause of the lifting surfaces....theyre more effective. the F-16 can go supersonic vertically......and it still cant out do the F-14....in that area.....so do your high speed pass....go vert. and nothing will catch you.

the superhornet?....anyone know if it can fire that big AIM-54? i guess thats the replacement now...

 

[A Squared]

.....so do your high speed pass....go vert. and nothing will catch you.

well, I can't quote climb rates, but I will say this, once you truly "go vertical" the only thing that matters is thrust to weight ratio. Lift, by definition, is perpendicular to relative wind, which means that in a vertical climb, lift has no vertical component. It doesn't mater at that point what your lifting surfaces are doing, it's all thrust and weight.

 

[mar]

Interesting, but this is of critical importance:

Are the cup holder's gimbaled?

I mean, if you go vertical, your coffee would spill, right?

Therefore, the cup holders must have gimbals.

If not, I'd say Grumman really should've found some better design engineers.

 

[coolyokeluke]

I thought the F-15 was the best climber due to power/weight balance, in that it could accelerate going straight up. I also thought that climb performance had everything to do with a power to weight ratio instead of lifting area, wouldn't power gliders be exceptional climbing aircraft if lifting surface was the prime factor? I'm sure the answer is somewhat more complicated than that but my aerodynamics are a little/lot rusty.

Many of the flying scenes for the movie were piloted my the executive officer of the aircraft carrier I was on, Captain Winnefield. Last I heard he was commanding officer of the Enterprise and on the very fast track to put stars on his shoulders.

The F-14 was sometimes called the "tennis court" on ship because it left such a large footprint. They had all sorts of drip pans under them in the hanger because they were always leaking. It was the best looking fighter in my opinion. The XO also said when they were tankering with KC-135's that they'd have to hit the afterburner for quick hits now and then because the A models were underpowered.

 

[coolyokeluke]

I'm feeling the "need for speed". I'm going to go fly the metro for five hours. Ha!

 

[rumpletumbler]

so do your high speed pass....go vert. and nothing will catch you.

I'll take SAM for 500.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Also...if Tom isn't busy holding the cans and being interrogated why isn't he buying one? Doesn't he have an airplane or two?

 

[bobbysamd]

F-14s to DM

I'm sure our little friend TopGun-MAV will be disappointed.

 

[RideTheWind]

I've also heard that the F-15 will out perform the F-14 in a climb, and that it is the only fighter that can accelerate while in a verticle climb.

 

[EagleRJ]

well, I can't quote climb rates, but I will say this, once you truly "go vertical" the only thing that matters is thrust to weight ratio. Lift, by definition, is perpendicular to relative wind, which means that in a vertical climb, lift has no vertical component. It doesn't mater at that point what your lifting surfaces are doing, it's all thrust and weight.

....which brings up an interesting point. When you "go vertical", do you need to establish a pitch angle of 85 degrees or so, to ensure your flight path is 90 degrees (assuming angle of incidence is not zero)? If you point the aircraft straight up, even a thin supersonic airfoil is going to be producing some lift, making your flight path 5 or 10 degrees off the vertical.
A true vertical climb would be considered ballistic flight- flight unsupported by lift, but to do that you would need to decide how to establish a vertical flight path at zero AOA.

Maybe Topgun-MAV can educate us all on the finer points of "going ballistic".

 

[Swede]

If you want to zoom vertically, you pitch the nose up, then unload the aircraft (forward stick) to the point where the AOA is seriously reduced, if not slightly negative. This counteracts any airfoil or body lift.

At this point all of your weight is on your back. To return to level flight, it is best to roll the AC inverted and pull to the horizon rather than push over... this latter produces unpleasant "neggies".

No fighter can continuously accelerate straight up. The air thins too quickly and the engines lose thrust. It doesn't take long at 600 knots to get into the rarified air.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

I just gotta......

"I FEEL THE NEED!"

(Back me up here boys)

"THE NEED FOR SPEED"

(you guys should be ashamed for letting someone hang like that!)

 

[Boeingman]

A little sidenote about the F-15 and it's climb rate: Some years back when the Eagle was first coming out (I am getting dated here) we were shown a film of a camera placed in he cockpit of an F-4 and one in an F-15. There was a readout of the altitude superimposed on the film and it was presented side by side.

The movie started on the takeoff roll and when the F-4 was just lifting the nose of the runway, the F-15 was already verticle, passing through 10,000 msl. I forgot the speed but it was around 450 kts. We watched that movie several times and walked out shaking our heads in disbelief.

I remember going out to the flight line that day climbing into the trusty F-4 thinking her days were numbered.

 

[atrdriver]

And doesn't the F-15 "streak eagle" hold all the current time to climb records?

atrdriver

 

[Airpiraterob]

yeah it does.....and it was a totalyl stripped out a light as possible version built specifically to break the records....didnt even have paint! i doubt it had any weaponry systems inside....the gun was probably missing too.

 

[rumpletumbler]

As I recall the F-15 when first released climbed to 100,000 ft in like a minute and half. I guess you better have plenty of confidence in your pressurization/mask cause there really isn't room for a mess up there.

 

[sky37d]

However, in the initial Afganistan thing, F-14's were preferred because they had longer range, and could carry more stuff. The 15's and 18's go fast, but when the A/C has to launch off a carrier, it is limited in what goes up. 14's need to gas up after they are up, but once there, they have a significantly longer range than their replacements on the carrier.

 

[Airpiraterob]

true.

everyones talking about runway to top of climb......true combat would entail "running starts" wouldnt they? already at speed and just climbing up near vertical to pursue or evade. wouldnt there be a difference in acceleration and already at speed results? i dont claim to be supremely knowlegable....but i was just going on some VERY good information on this subject.

what about the running start climb then?
f-15 or f-14.....or even...f-104.
what would you take for the running start? form a standing start the f-15 no question.....but what if both were mach 1 to begin with down low, and then went for the climb....who would win?

 

[joelo88]

Streak eagle

The STREAK EAGLE. Very interesting bird. Let's see what I can dig up on that thing.

1975 3 Air Force pilots broke all the existing time to climb records which at the time were held by the F-4 and Mig-25. Streak Eagle was a modified F-15A (72-119 the 19th production aircraft) and was stripped for weight reduction. NO paint, gun, radar, tail hook, flap and speed break actuator, only one generator ect. Weighed about 2800#s less then a regular Eagle.

Flights were made from Grand Forks, North Dakota in the middle of winter. Records were set for 3000, 6000, 9000, 12000, 15000, 20000, 25000 and 30000 (98000 FT!) meter hights. I don't have the times but I believe that the 30000 meter run was complete in less than 3 min 30 sec. S Eagle could out-climb the Apollo moon rocket to 60000 Ft.

The profile for the 30000 meter run was something like this.
Gear up and rotate at first indication of airspeed (about 70 kts). Accel to about 420kts. Rotate verticaly into and Immelamnn and hold about 2.6 Gs. Arrive level and upside down at 32000 FT and Mach 1.1. Roll 180 to right side up and accel to 600 kts. and then up to Mach 2.25. Pull 4 Gs to 55 degrees. Hold 4 degrees AOA untill mission control tells you to recover (after passing 98000 FT). Engines would be expected to quit at about 80000 FT. Passing through 55000 FT on the way down look for 4 green lights to indicate boost pump is on and attempt engine re-start once above 350 kts.

 

[Illini Pilot]

there's gotta be some aviation nerd group out there that will buy it and save it

 

[Spinn555]

When you "go vertical", do you need to establish a pitch angle of 85 degrees or so, to ensure your flight path is 90 degrees (assuming angle of incidence is not zero)?

"He's going vertical, so am I!"




Let the movie quotes begin! I'm willing to wager that one can have a total conversation on quotes alone. Not much different than a "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" game.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

I think there would be a (small) market for used F-14's... if the US goverment will sell them (which is doubtful).

 

[NookyBooky]

I think there would be a (small) market for used F-14's... if the US goverment will sell them (which is doubtful).

I don't think they would sell them (again- sold them to Iran when the shaw was in power) at least I would hope not, they won't even sell A-6's to other countries. Come to think of it, they won't even release A-10's for R&D to determine the value of their use in firefighting. I wouldn't mind going to an airshow fifty years from now and seeing one like we see mustangs and t-bolts today, but I think the fuel con$umption would be enough to make Paul Allen cringe.

 

[s0ldier93]

Captain Winnefield is awsome. While he was on the Enterprise he had the highest number of re-enlistments recorded in a long time. For that they painted the anchors gold. I was almost in that number, but college was calling. He is one of the few people you look at and KNOW will go all the way.

Many of the flying scenes for the movie were piloted my the executive officer of the aircraft carrier I was on, Captain Winnefield. Last I heard he was commanding officer of the Enterprise and on the very fast track to put stars on his shoulders.

 

[mzaharis]

And doesn't the F-15 "streak eagle" hold all the current time to climb records?

atrdriver

Sorry to bring this up so late, but I was doing a little lunchtime searching.

The F-15 "Streak Eagle" set all of the major time-to-climb records up to 30,000 meters, but most of them were broken by the Sukhoi P-42, a prototype for the Su-27, a (then) Soviet (now) Russian Eagle analogue. Additionally, the MiG 25 (E-266M) broke a few of the Streak Eagle's time-to-climb records, still. f-15 still holds the record to 25,000 meters (no, not a typo)

P-42 records
http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=180

F-15 Records
http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=2751

E-266 Records
http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=675

Green X's are current records. Red checks are records that have been broken

 

[knelson]

hey Mav, did you get the number to that truck driving school?

 

[OUjetdrvr]

"Truckmasters, I think it was? I might need that! "

 

[stlpilot]

Gone but not forgotten, there's always a need for new DRONES.