F-14 on the History Channel's "Modern Marvels"

[Brian J. McCann]

A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
fastest fighter. I dunno, every aviation book in my house puts it
clearly behind the F-15 and the MiG 25.

Also, the program stated that the Shah of Iran ordered a fly-off
between the F-14 and the F-15 in order to decide which one he was
gonna buy. But when the narrator was talking about the Eagle, they
showed footage of what was clearly an F-5.

So, what's going on here? Am I wrong, is the Tomcat actually faster
than the Eagle. And what's up with the F-5 footage? Did the US offer
the Shah F-5s or F-15s? Did the documentary show the wrong footage,
or did the narrator misread the copy, or was he given the wrong copy?
When I get confusing information from a documentary it makes me doubt
the validity of the entire work.

Did anyone else see the program, or can anyone give me some clear and
unimpeachable facts?

Thanks in advance,
Brian J. McCann

[Chad Irby]

(Brian J. McCann) wrote:

> A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
> F-14. During the promo it was stated that the Tomcat is the world's
> fastest fighter.

Maybe they said "was designed to be the world's fastest fighter" when it
was built in the 1970s?"

Or maybe someone just blew it when they made the promo. They *do* make
mistakes on those shows from time to time.

I'd suggest watching the show again and paying closer attention to what
was actually said.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tom Cooper]

They definitely blew that one: using footage that isn't suiting to the text
and the story.

The Shah has not "ordered" a fly-off: he requested the opportunity to fly
each plane AFTER the IIAF has already made its mind. The fly-off was offered
to him after all the briefings in Tehran, and because the Pentagon would not
let him fly the F-14 or F-15.

Iran, nevertheless, ordered F-5E/Fs already before it ordered the F-14s:
these were intended as interim solution unitl the decision about the YF-16
or YF-17 would be made.

Re. speed: the F-15 should have the official top speed some 200km/h higher
than the F-14.

If you're confused about the quality of the show in question, it's easy to
find out how well researcherd it is: have they maintained that the F-14 saw
no serious service within the IRIAF during the war agianst Iraq?

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[John Mullen]

"Tom Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> They definitely blew that one: using footage that isn't suiting to the
text
> and the story.
>
> The Shah has not "ordered" a fly-off: he requested the opportunity to fly
> each plane AFTER the IIAF has already made its mind. The fly-off was
offered
> to him after all the briefings in Tehran, and because the Pentagon would
not
> let him fly the F-14 or F-15.
>
> Iran, nevertheless, ordered F-5E/Fs already before it ordered the F-14s:
> these were intended as interim solution unitl the decision about the YF-16
> or YF-17 would be made.
>
> Re. speed: the F-15 should have the official top speed some 200km/h higher
> than the F-14.
>
> If you're confused about the quality of the show in question, it's easy to
> find out how well researcherd it is: have they maintained that the F-14
saw
> no serious service within the IRIAF during the war agianst Iraq?

I've seen the show in question and it's full of basic errors. They did make
the claim that it's the fastest fighter in the world which I don't think
even in its day it was. Can't remember if they even mentioned the Iranian
angle.

John

[John]

"Brian J. McCann" wrote:

> A couple of night ago the History Channel aired a program about the
> F-14. Also, the program stated that the Shah of Iran ordered a fly-off
> between the F-14 and the F-15 in order to decide which one he was
> gonna buy. But when the narrator was talking about the Eagle, they
> showed footage of what was clearly an F-5.
> And what's up with the F-5 footage? Did the US offer
> the Shah F-5s or F-15s?

While on the whole History channel is worth it, they do make some real
screwups, the film editors appear to grab ANY footage that looks good and

put it in , hoping that no-one notices. and with that, its ruins their
creditablity.
On another thought..
When they came to KY to film the Glacier Girl first flight. they messed
with the
film. they had LOTS of good footage, and cut it to pieces. There was a
camera
crew on the ground and another in the air in a camera plane. very little
of it
made the airing. They did the Hollywood edit routine.. shame too...

[Brian J. McCann]

Snip

> If you're confused about the quality of the show in question, it's easy to
> find out how well researcherd it is: have they maintained that the F-14 saw
> no serious service within the IRIAF during the war agianst Iraq?
>
They made no mention of the Iran-Iraq war. What they DID say was that
the F-14s were sabotaged, possibly by Grumman technicians, at some
point during the revolution. They made it clear that the Tomcats
would be useless as weapons platforms without the destroyed/missing
components.

[John Carrier]

Certainly not faster than the MIG 25. As for the Eagle, the F-15 clearly
has superior thrust/weight (maybe not much versus the F-14B/D), but that
doesn't necessarily translate to top speed. Inlet performance, trim drag,
etc come into play as one exceeds transonic speeds (1.2+). Most books have
the F-14A listed at 2.34IMN ... it actually went 2.41 or 2.42 once in the
test program. The B's and D's actually have a little lower top end. The
airplane is NATOPS limited to 1.88 (I think due to instability with a burner
blowout above that speed ... the TF-30's weren't great fighter motors), but
its acceleration was still impressive at that speed so I'm confident 2.0+
was easily achievable.

The F-15 has usually been noted to have a top end of 2.5+ or 1650mph, but
I've never seen an actual achieved top end nor am I familiar with a
particular dash-1 limit. I suspect it's actually quite a bit less.
Discounting Streak Eagle, I'd be curious to know what the Eagle can do. I'd
be curious to know what speeds typical pilots have seen in the jet.

R / John

[Mark Schaeffer]

Around 20 years ago, I heard a rumor that all copies of the software
were destroyed.

Mark

Brian J. McCann wrote:
> Snip
>

> They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons
> platforms without the destroyed/missing components.

[JD]

"John Carrier" > wrote in message >...
> Certainly not faster than the MIG 25. As for the Eagle, the F-15 clearly
> has superior thrust/weight (maybe not much versus the F-14B/D), but that
> doesn't necessarily translate to top speed. Inlet performance, trim drag,
> etc come into play as one exceeds transonic speeds (1.2+). Most books have
> the F-14A listed at 2.34IMN ... it actually went 2.41 or 2.42 once in the
> test program. The B's and D's actually have a little lower top end. The
> airplane is NATOPS limited to 1.88 (I think due to instability with a burner
> blowout above that speed ... the TF-30's weren't great fighter motors), but
> its acceleration was still impressive at that speed so I'm confident 2.0+
> was easily achievable.
>
> The F-15 has usually been noted to have a top end of 2.5+ or 1650mph, but
> I've never seen an actual achieved top end nor am I familiar with a
> particular dash-1 limit. I suspect it's actually quite a bit less.
> Discounting Streak Eagle, I'd be curious to know what the Eagle can do. I'd
> be curious to know what speeds typical pilots have seen in the jet.
>
> R / John

The lowered top speed wasn't primarily due to the blowout but due to
operational longevity. Most of today's US aircraft detuned engine wise
to save the taxpayer's money. When I last spoke to a RIO and on one
occassion he told me that he told his pilot to back off the throttle
as they we already over Mach 2.x. I guess they both weren't paying
attention to speed. This was sometime last year. The operational top
speed can be surpassed.

BTW, the F15's has got a cap as well. IIRC, it's M1.81. Of course, the
aircraft can fly past this.

In fact, in a past Red Flag a F15 has a hard time intercepting a RAAF
F111 in which the F15 ran out of gas.

The overall acceleration numbers between the F15 and the F14B/D are
identical that's if the F14's wings are positioned at Auto. The F14A
was only a second behind. If the wings were set the manual and fully
aft, the F14B/D would be a great deal faster. Due the aerodynamics of
the F14, it's overall drag profile (CDp) (LE 45 deg for the F15 and 68
deg for the F14) is lower than the F15's thus a lower thrust
requirement to reach top speed. Which btw, during F14 testing, once
the aircraft hit the top speed requirement, they backed off the
throttles. Top speeds are only great for any aircraft when the
aircraft is clean with no pylons.

I do recall a post from an USAF crew chief at Nellis that the F15 did
hit M2.5.


If you were to compare the aircraft at the transonic regime and do a
drag race from M0.9 to Mach 1.8 or whatever speed, you'll see that the
F14 will get there quicker.

SEP for both the F14B/D and F15 are identical in the transonic regime.

Nevertheless, another RIO, Chunx, posted at a forum and said in the
90's that the F14B/D was known as the "world's fastest aircraft". I
guess that was due to the ability to unload and change the aero
profile and extend quickly from a fight thus dictating it. He doesn't
know if the latest F16 blocks with the newer engines out accelerate
the F14B/D when the wings are fully aft. So things may have changed.
Hoever, from what I read from F14 drivers, F18 drivers have a hard
time intercepting it.

JD

[Ron]

>In fact, in a past Red Flag a F15 has a hard time intercepting a RAAF
>F111 in which the F15 ran out of gas.

>In fact, in a past Red Flag a F15 has a hard time intercepting a RAAF
>F111 in which the F15 ran out of gas.

I can imagine anything would about run out of gas trying to intercept a Vark,
especially from 6 O' clock.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Tom Cooper]

"Brian J. McCann" > wrote in message
m...
> Snip
>
> > If you're confused about the quality of the show in question, it's easy
to
> > find out how well researcherd it is: have they maintained that the F-14
saw
> > no serious service within the IRIAF during the war agianst Iraq?
> >
> They made no mention of the Iran-Iraq war. What they DID say was that
> the F-14s were sabotaged, possibly by Grumman technicians, at some
> point during the revolution. They made it clear that the Tomcats
> would be useless as weapons platforms without the destroyed/missing
> components.

Brian, the Iranian F-14s were _not_ sabotaged by anybody.

This is an urban legend, and it never happened.

Not that they did not think about this: they just couldn't get close to
these after several CIA agents tried to sabotage a couple of C-130s (and
failed). From that moment on, all the US personnel was put under a
house-arrest in their compounds, while all the IIAF air bases and
installations were blocked from the outside world. Nobody there could walk
around 77 aircraft and sabotage them one after the other.

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/title_detail.php/title=S6585

[David Lesher]

> They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons
> platforms without the destroyed/missing components.

I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation,
but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[tim gueguen]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> > They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons
> > platforms without the destroyed/missing components.
>
> I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation,
> but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios...
>
Which, to be blunt, sounds like bull****. It wouldn't take much to replace
the "stock" radio equipment with commercial products of some sort. Hell,
buy some 50 buck CB walkie talkies and you'd have at least short range comm
gear.

tim gueguen 101867

[John Carrier]

> The lowered top speed wasn't primarily due to the blowout but due to
> operational longevity. Most of today's US aircraft detuned engine wise
> to save the taxpayer's money. When I last spoke to a RIO and on one
> occasion he told me that he told his pilot to back off the throttle
> as they we already over Mach 2.x. I guess they both weren't paying
> attention to speed. This was sometime last year. The operational top
> speed can be surpassed.

I flew the jet for a number of years. The airspeed limit (780 NATOPS, 850
manufacturer) was to preserve the airframe against possible flutter damage.
The mach limit was not. Until you exceed engine compressor temp limits
(sometimes an issue at 2+ mach) or heating limits on the airframe/canopy
(well above 2.0), IMN is generally not an issue ... sometimes it does
concern stability (ie: X-2 departure/crash following speed record run). So
unless your RIO friend was involved in the program with Grumman or had a
seat at Pax River, I wouldn't put much faith in his
statement. Most RIO's I knew, even the good ones, knew vary little about
the
aerodynamic capabilities of the jets they rode in.

> BTW, the F15's has got a cap as well. IIRC, it's M1.81. Of course, the
> aircraft can fly past this.

I wouldn't doubt it. Wonder what Streak Eagle did prior to its highest TTC
record.

> In fact, in a past Red Flag a F15 has a hard time intercepting a RAAF
> F111 in which the F15 ran out of gas.

Low altitude. The Vark is very very fast down low.

> The overall acceleration numbers between the F15 and the F14B/D are
> identical that's if the F14's wings are positioned at Auto. The F14A
> was only a second behind. If the wings were set the manual and fully
> aft, the F14B/D would be a great deal faster.

The wing program was based on best cruise. I don't think the auto program
would have a material overall impact on 1-G acceleration, but initially full
sweep was somewhat disadvantageous. Unloaded, it was beneficial to sweep
the wings manually.

Due the aerodynamics of
> the F14, it's overall drag profile (CDp) (LE 45 deg for the F15 and 68
> deg for the F14) is lower than the F15's thus a lower thrust
> requirement to reach top speed. Which btw, during F14 testing, once
> the aircraft hit the top speed requirement, they backed off the
> throttles. Top speeds are only great for any aircraft when the
> aircraft is clean with no pylons.

Very true. Ordnance invariably adds drag and the manuals indicate same.

> I do recall a post from an USAF crew chief at Nellis that the F15 did
> hit M2.5.

Quite possible when new and the engines were low time and had not been
downtrimmed for service life considerations.

> If you were to compare the aircraft at the transonic regime and do a
> drag race from M0.9 to Mach 1.8 or whatever speed, you'll see that the
> F14 will get there quicker.

I wouldn't be surprised, the B/D acceleration to 1.6 is most impressive.

> SEP for both the F14B/D and F15 are identical in the transonic regime.
>
> Nevertheless, another RIO, Chunx, posted at a forum and said in the
> 90's that the F14B/D was known as the "world's fastest aircraft". I
> guess that was due to the ability to unload and change the aero
> profile and extend quickly from a fight thus dictating it. He doesn't
> know if the latest F16 blocks with the newer engines out accelerate
> the F14B/D when the wings are fully aft. So things may have changed.
> Hoever, from what I read from F14 drivers, F18 drivers have a hard
> time intercepting it.

Fastest in indicated airspeed, maybe close. The Grumman limit was 850KIAS
and I know people who have gotten it there. I've had the aircraft up to 750
with canoes. OTOH, the Thud was scary fast too (easy 800) and the Vark,
particularly the F (IIRC ... the high output engines) was supposedly good
for over 900. The Mig-29 was the quickest aircraft through transonic ...
left everything in the US inventory in the dust during drag races. OBTW,
the F-18 in all versions is notoriously slow. The aircraft is alleged to
make 1.8IMN, but I know NO ONE who's gotten particularly close (1.6 is about
it with a clean jet). In Q, 700KIAS is about it for the Bug ... less for
the E/F.

There is a difference between top end in Mach (at altitudes above the
tropopause) and KIAS. The SR-71 can cruise at 3.2, but at 82,000' that's
really not a very high IAS ... many aircraft could outrun it if you limit
the altitude to say 10,000' or less. In the most extreme example, the
Shuttle is a hypersonic vehicle, but has a relatively low Q-limit (600KIAS
or so).

R / John

[Chad Irby]

In article <%QXhb.70853$6C4.13190@pd7tw1no>,
"tim gueguen" > wrote:

> "David Lesher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > They made it clear that the Tomcats would be useless as weapons
> > > platforms without the destroyed/missing components.
> >
> > I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation,
> > but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios...
> >
> Which, to be blunt, sounds like bull****. It wouldn't take much to replace
> the "stock" radio equipment with commercial products of some sort. Hell,
> buy some 50 buck CB walkie talkies and you'd have at least short range comm
> gear.

That's one thing we could do over here, but in post-Shah Iran it might
be a bit tougher to find off the shelf replacements.

"Hey - the radios aren't working!"

"Run down to the nearest Radio Shack. I think there's one over by, er,
Tokyo..."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Thomas Schoene]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message


> I recall reading press reports of multiple F14's in formation,
> but the Iranians using hand signals as had no working radios...

Sounds like maybe the press people didn't comprehend the value of emissions
control. Practicing no-radio communications does not necessarily mean the
radios did not work, just that they did not use them.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)