Comment by chiph | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chiph | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's not like they didn't know about it - it was a tradeoff that allowed them to carry more ordnance and drop-tanks on the center-line. They weren't able to put ordnance stations on the wings, so the centerline and the sides of the fuselage were the only areas available to carry the honkin' big Phoenix missile (13 feet long!)

As a swing-wing plane, putting weapon stations on the wings meant they'd have to pivot in the opposite direction of the wing motion to keep the bombs/missiles pointing forward (so they didn't become an aerodynamic drag.) Pivoting ordnance stations on the wings would also mean the wing swing servos would need to be larger and more powerful (aka heavier). So no ordnance on the wings.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wsm.htm

The other heavy consumable part of a fighter is the fuel. Most of the fuel on the F-14 was carried inside the fuselage between the engines. There were small tanks in the wings (which mean there was a flexible hose connecting it - that likely leaked) but most of it was stored along the centerline of the aircraft, helping with the center of gravity and allowing it to turn faster.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-fueltank.htm

More F-14s were destroyed (which OK: in conjunction with the crappy engine) because of this design than in combat.

The AIM-54's never lived up to their name as an air to air missle, since it was meant to shoot down bombers, which never flew (and you know: thankfully never flew). Though they tried against fighters - that wasn't very successfully (except for Iran?).

One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine failure - of course: if one could go back in time 30+ years to install it.

Good point on the variable swept wings not allowing hard points, didn't think about that. The F111 did allow for ordinances on the wings and they did it in the method you've described (tho much larger plane)

Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane!

> One wonders if a computer system like what's in the F35 could have worked in the F14 to mitigate the problem with engine failure

It could be possible that with full-authority fly-by-wire flight controls, a flight computer could prevent departures in case of single engine failure. I doubt anyone with enough F-14 flight dynamics knowledge is going to be on HN (you never know though!) to say if there was enough authority in the controls in these parts of the envelope to recover from such scenarios.

While not the same failure mode, the SR-71 in the '80s acquired a system called "DAFICS": Digital Automatic Flight and Inlet Control System. During supersonic flight, you could get inlet unstart (ejection of the internal normal shock and a resultant sudden decrease in thrust due to poor inlet performance) - which typically occurred asymmetrically and was not uncommon. DAFICS sensed an impending unstart and actually forced both inlets to simultaneously unstart. A less expensive patch than redesigning a finicky inlet already 20+ years old.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/85...

That aside aside, the real fix the F-14 needed was the GE engines (A+/D model). So you likely ought to blame the losses of these airframes from engine-induced issues on acquisition system decisions, rather than the airframe design itself.

Here's a photo I took of an F-14 that had stopped over at Sheppard AFB in the early 80's.

https://imgur.com/Ji55Vgv

And another one next to an A-10. Notice how substantial the landing gear is on the F-14 compared to the A-10, and the A-10 was designed for landings on improvised runways...

https://imgur.com/GMupZaq

It’s due to carrier landing requirements. When landing on carrier, you don’t flare the aircraft, you just dump it on deck with significant vertical speed. At least that is what you do with F-18 (with 200-400feet per minute descend rate), I would assume F-14 is the same for all the same reasons.

In short, carrier landings are closer to controlled crashes over the thing that everyone is calling landings.

> Perhaps the greatest achievement for the F14 was selling it to Iran, which had a real hard time keeping them in the air due to flight costs. Kinda sold them a lemon then cut off diplomatic ties. No one else wanted the plane!

They did a number on the Iraqi air force, you could argue that they got their money’s worth. They got more actual combat use out of them than the US ever did.

Huh, interesting. The Panavia Tornado was a swing-wing plane from a similar vintage and did have pivoting wing-mounted pylons. Tradeoffs abound in aviation though, of course.

Imagine if one of your swing wings is locked in the "out" position and one in the, "in" position. Couldn't imagine all the scenarios like this the pilots had to deal with.

I LOVED seeing the F14 fly in the 80s at an air show. Total star of the show - I can't believe how close to the ground they fly that thing!

I thought that was impossible with the way the wings were geared. But apparently I'm wrong. I found this: https://imgur.io/L9OEWQr

Right? Seemed like this would have been a big whoopsie with several giant gears mashed up to dust to be able to make this happen.

Looks like each wing has a hydraulic actuator:

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-wsm.htm

Hypothetically, couldn't they have made a design with both engines right beside each other, and fuel tanks, and pylons for weapons and drop tanks on the outside of the "engine box"?

Couldn't the pivoting of wing mounted weapons stations be driven by the airflow over the mounted weapon, rather than mechanically?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com