Grumman F-14 Tomcat

In reply to Paul's question on the first flight of the F-14A, I was in Grumman's Plant 7 flight test hanger in Calverton the day the first F-14A crashed. It fell in the scrub-oak woods just south of Swan Pond Road, which lines the southern border of Calverton Airport, on its approach to the runway. Both crewmembers ejected safely. Someone, I don't recall who, yelled out that the F-14 had cracked up.Looking out the open hanger doors toward the south, I could see the F-4 chase plane flying in slow circles around the crash site, from which gray smoke was rising. Needless to say it seemed quite a setback for this new, variable sweep, airplane. However, it was soon determined that the cause was a faulty hydraulic fitting, as Paul says. Since I was working that day it couldn't have been New Year's Day , though, Paul. As I remember, the plane was supposed to have its first flight on the day previous to the accident but for some reason it was rescheduled for the following day. As far as the date goes, I believe it was later than 1970, probably 1973 as you say. Remember that the F-111B was cancelled in 1968 and it would have been impossible to create, build, and flight test a new F-14A (replacement) aircraft in only two years.

reply

The opening paragraph states that the F14 first flew in 1970.
I worked as a development engineer at Raychem developing hydraulic fittings for the F14 using Nitinol. ( Metal with a memory.) As my memory serves me,for better of for worse,the first flight was on New years day,1973. While returning from a test flight the airplane lost control due to a total hydaulic fitting(s) failure. ( Not one of ours,as it turned out.) The pilots managed to get the aircraft on final approach using manual control, but it was porposing so bad they elected to eject just prior to the runway at Calverton AIrport. The airplane crashed at the beginning of the runway and both piots servived.
Was there prior test flights to the date I mentioned above>
Can some one set the record straight?

reply

Gary to answer your question, the engine was a GE F404.

reply

The F-14A was the first acft that I worked on as a Plane Captain out of the Line Shack in VF-1 "WOLFPACK", This bird was a superior fighting acft which could carry missles and bombs. The engine they had in them were a GE F404 engine. I'll miss the F-14 for it's long range flights, They could fly for over 2 hrs without being refuled.

reply

The F14 was crap that killed two people at a time. The plane was a danger to land on carriers from its wingspan and it could not handle high g wing loading [common with swing wings]. It is a really cool looking plan but most swept wing such as blackjack, F111, B1, etc. are all cool. Top Gun makes you believe that this was a great air superiority fighter and it clearly was not. Do I like the F14, Yesssssss - but even new the maintenance was like a harley davidson it is a boat to fly [like the F4].

reply

I hve heard the Navy wanted the GE F110 but since the Kennedy's were heavily invested in PW Congress was persuaded to go with the inferior PW motor.

reply

I thought this aircraft was also powered by the GE F-110 motor. Like to know?

reply

I am really upset that they retired this beautiful plane!!!!!:(

reply

Shortly after my retirement from the AF I was called by one of my X-boss' who gave me a sales pitch about signing on with Grumman and going to Iran. The F14 was coming out of a Navy system in the US but going into an AF setup in Iran and they wanted some people with AF logistics background. I was assigned to the IIAF Logistic Command F14 Program. When the first 3 F14s arrived the Shah was on the reviewing stan. Some smart PR work went in to effect at this point. The planes taxied up in V formation. The pilots them raised the nose gear so the nose of the F14 kneeled, and the wings were swepted giving the appearance of the planes bowing to the Shah. All the Iranies thought that was great, an airplane bowing to their leader. I was in one hell of a chain of command, as the F14 Weapons System manager I reported directly to my Grumman supervisor, also the IIAF Logistics Commander(Lt Gen), the US Navy (Captain), the USAF-MAAG commander (Brig Gen), IIAF Program manager (Colonel), and a civilian company hired by the USN to oversee the whole program. I was able to survive 3 years of so much supervision. In time we got a good logistics system going. Many parts were beyond repair in country so we had to set up a repair program at USN facilities in the US. When the roof fell in and the Shah was forced out many F14 parts were in the US for repair. In time all those parts became USN assets. Not sure if we ever pair Iram for them. Upon my return to the States I remain with Grumman and in time made 3 cruises on aircraft carriers USS Constilation, USS Midway and USS Roosevelt (the last to the Gulf War) as the F14 logistics manager. I had problems with the way the Navy logistics people loaded F14 support on the carriers for deployment. Most of the time they loaded parts based on production model. By the time I was ready for deployment most of the F14s had been upgraded and much of the supplies were for older models. With a lot of luck I was able to get the proper supplies on board by departure time. I did like working the logistics side of the F14. And the Navy people were gret to work with. On one cruise I contacted malaria and was put in a hospital in Singapore. One morning I woke up from one of my attacks to see the entire officer corps of VF-24 standing in my room, all decked out in their dress whites. Yes I loved the F14 and all those I worked with.

reply

Any of you old timer F-14 guys remember Nev Hunter. Nev was a Navy pilot who was attached to the AF /Navy F-111 development at Wright Field. When the Navy broke away to the F-14 Nev went to it. He told me one one of the interesting things about the F-14 was the small rear profile (not shown above) compared to the F-18.

reply

VF-84 Jolly Rodgers went from F-4 to F-14 1976 Awesome bird with two P+W TF-30 turbo fan w / 5-stage afterburners...The TF-30 is a J-52 modified

reply

Two words....TOP GUN!

reply

I worked on this A /C from 1978-81 onboard the USS Nimitz this machine had balls & took balls to fly it.

reply

I worked for HAC and Raytheon on the AWG-9 (F-14A) and APG-71 (F-14D) Weapons Systems from 1968 (Originally on the F-111B) until its retirement in 2006. Another reason for the demise of this aircraft was the maintenance requirement for the Weapons Sytem with its distributed architecture (units spread throughout the aircraft structure with long cable runs). Some notes of interest: As far as we know, there was never a combat launch of an AIM-54 Phoenix missile. However, there were two live warhead test launches in 1973 against T-33 and F-9 drones. The AMRAAM missile was test fired on the F-14, but it was never incorporated into the Weapon System. Finally, one F-14D was outfitted with an Electronic Scan Antenna (ESA) for feasibility testing and High Resolution Map (HRM) was completed on the F-14D shorly before it was retired (never fielded).

reply

i am not military but i love fighter jets, the F-14 in my opinion was one of the best fighters made,too bad it got mothballed.

reply

The F-14 died of neglect at the hands of Congress and its own community. The primary safety complaint was the TF-30 engine which had a tendency to suffer compressor stalls in the face of rapid throttle movements common in the landing environment and air combat maneuvering. The TF-30--a legacy of the misbegotten F-111B--was intended to be fitted in only the first 30 airframes. Congressional parsimony resulted in TF-30s being fitted in all of the A models. The F110 engine later fitted in the F-14B and F-14D had been intended to equip the plane much earlier in the production run.

The F-14 community also cut its own throat to a certain extent, resisting the air-to-ground mission until it was too late. The phrase "not a pound for air-to-ground" was bandied about by the more militant "pure fighter" types. When it became apparent the A-6 would be retired and the A-12 stillborn, the F /A-18 community jumped on the air-to-ground mission before the F-14 community. The Tomcat flyers were slow to sense which way the wind was blowing and got left behind. This was in spite of the Tomcat having more growth capacity than the F /A-18 (as witnessed by the eventual necessity of fielding a whole new airplane--the E /F "model"--to "rectify" the deficiencies of the design).

The later the F-14 entered the upgrade game, the more expensive the upgrades became, which meant that although F-14Bs and later the superb F-14Ds began to perform air-to-ground missions, the F /A-18 was farther ahead on systems integration and politics.

Not that there wasn't a degree of chicanery involved. Particularly infamous was a graphic in Navy Times showing the "superiority" of the F /A-18E /F over the F-14D in the air-to-ground profile carrying four LGBs. The F /A-18E /F flew something like 415 miles to the F-14D's 410--hardly significant. More significant was the caveat: the F-14D was lugging only the two small standard external tanks under the nacelles; the F /A /-18E /F was lugging three huge 400 gallon drop tanks with a commisserate negative impact on performance. Both aircraft were carrying four AAMs as well.

Ultimately, the F-14D was more expensive to maintain, not so much due to the wiring as the hydraulics necessary for the swing-wing design. When all was said and done, that was the sole line item that was not comparable.

In the air, the F-14 was a victim of restrictive Rules Of Engagement that prevented it from employing its best assets, and of USAF control of the Desert Storm air battle that gave pride of place to their own units for air-to-air killing missions.

None of this negates what a truly remarkable design, and what an aviation design milestone this aircraft truly was. It was designed on speculation by Grumman to meet a perceived need by the USN upon the F-111B's failure. It was intended to meet a requirement to lug six massive Phoenix missiles and their associated AWG-9 radar into the air from a carrier and scramble out to meeting incoming bomber raids. That was a demanding enough performance requirement, yet Grumman managed to also make a superbly agile aircraft (particularly for its size and weight) that was very rugged and had the growth capacity to take the air-to-ground mission from the very start, as well as the later tactical reconnaissance mission (using TARPS pods). The swing wing was brilliantly employed, and its computerization for automatic optimum positioning provided a capability well beyond comparable designs. It was also key to enabling the aircraft to operate from carriers. Less recognized, less visible and equally brilliant was the "third wing" formed by the "pancake" airfoil between the nacelles which gave the F-14 a much lower wing-loading in fact than appeared by conventional standards. This lifting body was key to carrying the massive payload of Phoenix and to the aircraft's turning ability. As recounted by more than one aviation writer, the ability of an F-14 to suddenly whip around in the face of a smaller and more agile opponent could be startling.

reply

y Dad, Edward A. Wagner, joined Grumman in 1950 as an engineer. He was very successful and became a project manager on the A-6E and F-14. I have great memorabilia from Grumman and these projects which I am planning on donating to the museum. While going through Dad's things I also discovered he was a model for Grumman advertisements in the newspaper! Can't wait to give that to the museum. My brother was an engineer on the LEM. I worked in the summers on the space shuttle program but decided, even though I also became an engineer, not to join Grumman. God Bless America!

reply

Although not quite the same, the technical and maintenace problems associated seem to run with BAC's (English Electric's) Lightning - fine interceptors, the world's best, but not without problems. That said, I love both the F-14 and the Lightning!

reply

I have not yet heard it mentioned that the Tomcat was possibly removed from service without an equivalent or better replacement because the pipeline for maintenance and repair parts could not be effectively sealed to prevent Iranian fingers from dabbling in the stockroom. Stranger still after all the time spent before they got it right (F-14-D) This also leaves the Phoenix without a firing platform.

reply

While I do not think people owe thanks to the tools we create, I would, and many others too, I think, would love to see a serious militarily based international platform challenge to vet the raptor and the Su-37. Old the tomcat may be; an expensive, maintenance intensive gas guzzler; sure. The question is, has anyone truly bettered it where it counts-in the air? Even at numbers of 4 to 1, our lesser experienced pilots(top guns get new stuff)have had real reason for confidence.

reply