f 14 tomcat wikipedia

navigation Jump search Carrier based air superiority fighter aircraft family redirects here. For other uses, see disambiguation TomcatA U.S. Navy 14D. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. programming. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming) Apache: Apache Tomcat. When the Grumman F-14 Tomcat flew its last mission in February, an era of The F-14 program promised to produce an airplane ready for first flight 17.

watch the thematic video

Beretta for sale in ma

Beretta for sale in ma


beretta for sale in ma 00 1d 12h 28m 9573206: Beretta FULL CHOKE TUBE FOR 20 GAUGE SHOTGUNS - 20 GA $19. Chevrolet BERETTA For Sale In Massachusetts. The reason is that it was designed - and has kept evolving - to be and remain the most accurate, durable and reliable semi-auto handgun on the market. 00: 0 $11. 40 S&W, (3) 12 Rd Mags, LE First Responder's Model- J9T4G14 - Label # HG4460E-N Out of stock View Details » View Details » Out of stock Oct 26, 2021 · The most popular Beretta handguns for sale include the 92FS, 96, PX4 Storm, and the APX, as well as the pocket-sized BU9 Nano and Pico. The Beretta Px4 Inox pistol brings a fresh look and unique style to Beretta's Px4 line of handguns for sale, epitomizing functional elegance for even the most demanding handgun shooters. Clear (Beretta Wikipedia Page) 52 Item(s) Found Page 1 1 2 Next. (2) ProMag BER-A4 Beretta M92F Magazine 32RD 9mm Blued Steel. Save money on one of 2 used Chevrolet Berettas in Attleboro, MA. A third elastomer dampener, located in the stock bolt, absorbs Beretta M9 M9A1. BERETTA 410 FOR SALE - IN STOCK PRICES Info. Locate a Beretta dealer near you to get a first-hand look at our line of firearms, accessories and apparel. 22 LR 10RD. 02361. 99. 95 : beretta al390 390 sport 28 inch " barrel charlton, ma 01507: used: 8/14/2021: $375. $369. Used Cars for Sale 1990 Chevy Beretta INDY EDITION with only 4K MILESyou read that rightONLY 4. new in box. 22 LR 6". (53) Beretta JU2S60B U22 Neos 10+1. 5 stars out of 5 stars from 53 ratings. Used Chevrolet Beretta for Sale in Plymouth, MA. Shop Chevrolet Beretta vehicles in Foxboro, MA for sale at Cars. Research, compare, and save listings, or contact sellers directly from 2 Beretta models in Foxboro, MA. 00 : al390 beretta 390 3901 slug barrel miami, fl 33185: used: 7/30/2021: $950. 99 $20. Located in Taunton, Ma, but travel to all parts of the state (including 413). The APX semiautomatic pistol makes Beretta one of the few manufacturers to offer full size Beretta M9 Pistol -This legendary semi auto handgun has not only won the historic contract with the US military in 1985, but has achieved a triumphant contract renewal after more than two decades of hard use in the world s toughest and most extreme conditions, from the scorching deserts of Iraq to the frigid heights of the Afghan mountains. $25. Designed specifically for military and law enforcement operators, the Beretta APX has been put through extensive testing and evaluation at the professional end user level. $ 9,600. Boston, MA 02215 SKU: Beretta M9 M9A1. Umarex 8 Shot Beretta 92. 22 - $900 b/o. LR Massachusetts Compliant Lc


The F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, variable sweep wing, two-place strike fighter manufactured by Grumman Aircraft Corporation. The multiple tasks of navigation, target acquisition, electronic counter measures (ECM), and weapons employment are divided between the pilot and the radar intercept officer (RIO).

Primary missions include precision strike against ground targets, air superiority, and fleet air defense.

The first flight was in December of 1970. The F-14 Tomcat was officially retired on September 22, 2006 at Naval Air Station Oceana.

Propulsion:
     F-14A: (2) TF30-414A Afterburning Turbofans with over 40,000 lb Total Thrust
     F-14B/D: (2) F110-GE400 Afterburning Turbofans with over 54,000 lb Total Thrust.
Length: 62 feet 9 inches (18.9 meters).
Height: 16 feet (4.8 meters).
Wingspan: 64 feet (19 meters) unswept; 38 feet (11.4 meters) swept.
Weight: 43,600 lb (19,777 kg) (F-14B).
Airspeed: Mach 2+. Ceiling: 50,000+ feet.
Range: 1600 nautical miles. Crew: Two (pilot and radar intercept officer).

F-14A Tomcat

F-14A Tomcat

F-14A Tomcat

F-14A Tomcat

 

F-14A Tomcat in Seattle, Washington

F-14A Tomcat


U.S. Navy F-14A Tomcat 159848 at Tillamook in Oregon

U.S. Navy F-14A Tomcat 159848

U.S. Navy F-14A Tomcat 159848 of the Fighting 14 Tophatters, USS John F. Kennedy

U.S. Navy F-14A Tomcat 159848 of the Fighting 14 Tophatters, USS John F. Kennedy

 

Источник: https://www.airplanes-online.com/f14-tomcat.htm

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a supersonic, twin-engine, two-seat, variable-sweep wing fighter aircraft. The Tomcat was developed for the United States Navy's Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX) program following the collapse of the F-111B project. The F-14 was the first of the American teen-series fighters which were designed incorporating the experience of air combat against MiG fighters during the Vietnam War.

The F-14 first flew in December 1970 and made its first deployment in 1974 with the U.S. Navy aboard the USS Enterprise, replacing the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II. The F-14 served as the U.S. Navy's primary maritime air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tactical reconnaissance platform. In the 1990s, it added the Block I Strike upgrade and Low Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night (LANTIRN) pod system and began performing precision ground-attack missions.

As of 2012, the F-14 is currently used by the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, IRIAF, and United States Navy.

Variants[edit]

F-14A Tomcat[edit]

The F-14A Tomcat was designed to f 14 tomcat wikipedia the F-4 Phantoms as the Navy's main interceptor, Some F-14A was also specially fitted with TARP to replace the RF-8G in 1981. The F-14A Tomcat proved to be a much more superior fighter compare to any fighter in the late 70's. When compared the F-14A has an improvement of 21% of acceleration and sustained G-Force, 20% increase in rate of climb, 27% increase in maneuvering capability and 40% in turning radius. The pilot is seated in a Martin-Baker GRU7A rocket assisted zero/zero ejection seat, under a one-piece canopy.

The F-14A wings are made out of one TI-6A1-4V titanium alloy with a width of 6.71m. The fuselage has machined frames, which consist of titanium main longerons and light alloy skins; the center fuselage is a fuel carrying box. Fuel dump can be found at the extreme end of the aircraft, fins and rudder are made out of light alloy honeycomb sandwich and the tail-planes consist of multiple spars, honeycomb trailing edges and boron/epoxy composite skins.

Electronically the F-14A Tomcat is fitted with an AWG-9 fire control system representing the most capable long-range interceptor today. The AWG-9 is a heft 1,293lb. /28cu ft liquid cooled package with the vital coherent pulse Doppler mode for look down capability, its antenna is a 36-inch flat plate unit; the output power is 10.2 kilowatt. Early Tomcats was fitted with the AN/ALR-32 infrared detection fitted just under the nose. The AN/ALR-32 would proved to be ineffective and later replaced by Northrop AXX-1 TV Camera set (TCS). A TV screen is installed inside the Tomcat and the pilot is able to identify other fighter with the TCS. The F-14A is also fitted with a CP-1066/A Central Air Data Computer (CADC) and a CO-1050/A computer signal data converter; it is used to determine the best angle for the sweep wing by collecting data from the sensors. The F-14A uses the AVA-12 vertical situation display and electronically separated but mechanically integrated HUD along with an AN/ASA-79 north central ford staff display indicator groups. The F-14A also housed the APX-71 IFF transponder, AXX-76 interrogator, ARC-51/159 UHF Radio, KY-58 cryptographic system, APN-154 beacon augmenter, ASN-92 NAV system, APN-194 radar altimeter, ARN 84 TACAB and ARA 50 automatic direction finder. It is also fitted by an ALR-50 SAM warning system and an AN/ALQ-126A deception jammer.

One of the great weakness of the Tomcat is its under power engine. The F-14A is equipped with the ill under powered TF30-P-412 Pratt & Whitney axial flow turbo fan. The engine produces 12,350 lb. of dry thrust and 20,900-lb. afterburn. Merely enough to lift a 70,764lb fully loaded F-14A

Common problem that occurred with the engine involves threaded fan blade, low speed compressor stall especially at high altitude and low speed. To combat this problem P-414 was installed, although it is an improvement compared to the P-412, it still has its own problem at high altitude.

The F-14A is designed to carry Air to Air weapons including the AIM-54, AIM-7E Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder. Although the F-14A was designed to have ground capability, it is only capable of carrying retard bombs. Only later versions of Tomcats can carry other versions of ground ordnance.

80 aircraft were ordered by the Imperial Iranian Air Force, with 79 delivered before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Due to embargo on parts from the United States, and other economic sanctions, the Iranian Government would sell the entire fleet of F-14A Tomcats to Canada for CAD$1.3 Billion. The United States would subsequently sell the undelivered Iranian F-14 and the undelivered stock of AIM-54 Missiles to the Canadian Forces. The 80 CF-184A Tomcats would be immediately put into service as long-ranged interceptors from CFB Cold Lake and CFB Bagotville.

F-14A+ Tomcat[edit]

The F-14A+ main upgrade was the engine but also new systems such as Fairchild AN/AWG-15F fire control set, AN/ALR-69, ARC-182 UHF-VHF radio and an improved direct lift system. The problem of dangerous engine flameout was also fixed in this version.

The first F-14A+ first flew on July 14th 1981 at Calverton. It was powered by two General Electric F101 (later renamed as F110) turbofan, providing 16,400 lb. thrust dry and 27,800 lb. afterburner.

With the new engine installed the Tomcats interception radius is increased by 62% and it is possible to have a carrier takeoff without afterburn. Subsequently, the F-14A+ was re-designated as the F-14B. 38 was new built was 32 was upgraded from F-14A. A total of 6 squadron received the F-14A+ (F-14B) from 1988.

The F-14A+ has a larger engine exhaust compare to the F-14A, the A+ model also had its gun door modified and new system such as AN/ARL-67 RWR, fatigue/engine monitoring system and AN/ARC-182 UHF/VHF was installed to the A+.

First Squadron to receive the A+(B) was the VF-74, and up to six squadrons has received the F-14A+/B (most in the Atlantic).

F-14B Tomcat[edit]

Under powered, Grumman suggested to the Navy that the Tomcat needed a more powerful engine.F-14B Test Plane With two mains engine available, General Electric GE1/10 and Pratt & Whitney JTF22 (later became F401-P-400), it was decided that JTF22 would be fitted to the BuNo 157986 for testing. The JTF22 provided 16,480 lb. thrust dry and 28,090 lb. on afterburners and was believed that it was capable of increasing the Tomcats turning radius by 40%, 21% in sustaining g-capability and 80% greater in radius capability.

With the Vietnam War draining Navy's budget along with production problem with the F401-PW400 turbofan, the plan was abandoned on April 1974. Unfortunately for the Tomcat, they were still stuck with the TF-30. Seven years later, the plane that would be the F-14B test plane would become the F-14A+ and F-14D test plane equipped with the General Electric F101 turbo fan.

It was planned that Grumman would construct 722 F-14Bs at $11.5 million per plane with the first F-14Bs entering service in the mid-1970s.

F-14C Tomcat[edit]

Seeking to replace the Navy strike fighters, the F-14C was proposed. It is basically the same as the F-14B, except it has ground capability added to it. With the high cost of the Tomcat, the plan was abandoned even before it got to the factory. The navy instead decided to buy more Intruders and start the VFAX program.

F-14D Tomcat[edit]

F-14D Super Tomcat[edit]

An F-14D Tomcat of the USN in flight.

Unlike the F-14A+, the F-14D was designed to have digital avionics. The F-14D first flew on 9th February 1990 from Grumman's Claverton plant. Powered by the same engine as the F-14A+, the D version included the new Hughes APG-71 (similar to the Eagles APG-70), AN/ALR-67 Radar Warning Receiver, AB/ALQ-165 airborne self-protection jammer, ASN-130 digital navigational system, ASN-139 laser inertial navigation system and a dual AKY-14 standard airborne computer which connected all avionics digitally.

The APG-71 is one of the most advanced radar around. Its 10.5kW output gives it's a search range of 370km. It also allows Tomcat to link up with other various aircraft through JTIDS (Joint Tactical Information Distribution Systems). The APG-71 also process information faster than the AWG-9. The radar is also capable of ground mapping.

The pilots now have the new Martin Baker NACES ejection system along with 2 new HUDs providing multi function display. In the backseat, the analog instrument is replaced by a multi function display. Fitted in the F-14 is the ALQ-165 Electronic counter measures, one of the most advance jammer available to US fighters.

Externally, the F-14D has a dual pod under its nose that house both the Television Camera system and the IRST (Infrared search and Track system). The IRST allows the pilot to identify targets up to 190km away.

Unlike all previous F-14 versions, the F-14D tomcat is capable of carrying wide range of ground ordnance including LANTIRN and in the near future the JDAM, and it is also planned to carry HARM and AMRAAM. One feature of the F-14D tomcat with previous versions is that it is capable of carry TARP without needing special wiring.

Like the F-15 family, the plan was to upgrade all F-14 capable of having ground capability, it would first involve upgrading the Tomcat into F-14D standard (digital avionics, F110 engines) then AN/ALE-50 towed decoy, a navigation FLIR and night vision cockpit would be added. And at the final stage, software mode from the F-15E APG-71 would be added which is capable of "Doppler bean sharpening, synthetic aperture, sea surface search and terrain following mode.

CF-184B Super Tomcat[edit]

Soon after the purchase of the Tomcats, complaints from Canadian Forces personnel about the TF30 engines and ludicrous maintenance requirements reached the ears of Bombardier and plans were made to reduce some inefficiencies of the original design.

With the orders to re-engine the CF-184A Tomcats after a tragic crash in 1990, Bombardier took the opportunity to do more than just a simple engine refit, and told the shocked military brass of their ambitious plans. Each air-frame was carefully opened up, and engineers worked frantically to rebuild the planes' systems. The wiring and control systems were simplified as much as possible, with the flight controls now connected to an improved fly-by-wire computer made by ATI Technologies. A number of never-used components were deleted altogether, reducing weight and maintenance requirements. The hydraulic systems of the wings were slightly simplified, and the avionics of the F-14D Super Tomcat were installed. As a result, the military was not fully prepared for the first plane to complete the refit in July.

The Bombardier CF-184B (Often shortened to CF-14B) Super Tomcat, which also included the replacement of the hated TF30 turbofans with GE F110s, shocked everyone by needing only 10-15 maintenance manhours per flight hour (as opposed to 15 to 25 hours needed with American F-14s), and a slight decrease in total weight, improving the manoeuvrability of the Canadian aircraft by 5 percent over its American F-14D counterparts. While there were still some grumbles about the added costs to the refits, in a stroke of fate, Saudi Arabia had donated 2.1 billion dollars to Ottawa for its help in Operation Desert Storm; some of the money was used to pay for the upgrades, which surprisingly cost less than what American Taxpayer had to pay for the US Navy's F-14 refits.

F-14E/CF-184C Supercat[edit]

A 3D image of the F-14E/CF-184C.

In 1994, Grumman, with some assistance from Bombardier, proposed the Super Tomcat 21, an advanced derivative of the Tomcat design. However, the USN while quite enthusiastic about the Super Tomcat 21 after the cancellation of the NATF and later A/FX, was shot down by the Department of Defense. The Canadian Air Force (as well as the Fleet Air Arm), however, were very enthusiastic and asked Grumman and Bombardier to deliver on the proposal.

The plans took nearly a decade to complete, as Bombardier executives decided to make a gamble and establish its credentials in the fighter jet business. Bombardier and Grumman took the notoriously high-maintenance, complex Tomcat design and completely reworked everything. Engineers planned to have the complex hydraulic variable wing mechanisms be replaced with high efficiency electric motors and servos. Newly developed touch screen technology was also implemented in the cockpits, and a new Canadian variant of the APG-71 radar was installed. In addition, many 21st century electronics were added in later in the development, meaning that the design kept changing.

In 2004, the new CF-184C "Supercat" finally debuted. The new variant had numerous improvement to the airframe itself. Reshaped wing gloves, thicker wings, fowler flaps, reshaped leading edges and forward wing extensions were implemented to give greater range and better performance at speed. The planes were refitted with improved F110-GE-429D engines that had brand new two-dimensional thrust vectoring to improve maneuverability.

The cockpit now had a Single-piece windshield for better visibility. RIM produced new helmet-mounted displays, replacing the older style HUDs. New radar modes were added for terrain following, forward air control, moving target indication, sea search and synthetic aperture radar reconnaissance. The Supercat also had a full night-vision cockpit including FLIR systems and infrared tracking, improved databus and electronic components with liquid cooling, additional hardpoints for extra carrying capacity, a reshaped tail for less drag, a towed decoy, and even a new missile launch warning system.

In short, the Supercat south florida state college panther central a world beater, a 4.5th+ Generation fighter aircraft that in exercises even defeated USAF F-15C and Indian Su-30MKI jets. It's thrust vectoring meant it was the most maneuverable carrier aircraft of the time, with Canadian Supercats even managing to outfly smaller F/A-18E/Fs and F-16C/Ds with ease. The US Navy had in fact ordered their own units as the F-14E Super Tomcat, built by Grumman but with many Canadian parts.

Users[edit]

  • Canada
  • Germany
  • Iran
    • Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (1977-1980, 2008-Present)
      • 62nd Tactial Fighter Squadron
      • 72nd Tactical Fighter Squadron
      • 73rd Tactical Fighter Squadron
      • 81st Tactical Fighter Squadron
      • 82nd Tactical Fighter Squadron
      • 83rd Tactical Fighter Squadron
      • Tomcat Flight School
  • Japan
  • United Kingdom
  • United States
    • United States Navy (1973-Present)
      • VF-1 "Wolfpack"
      • VF-2 "Bounty Hunters"
      • VF-8 "Hellcats"
      • VF-11 "Red Rippers"
      • VF-12 "Ubangis"
      • VF-14 "Tophatters"
      • VF-21 "Freelancers"
      • VF-24 "Fighting Renegades"
      • VF-31 "Tomcatters"
      • VF-32 "Swordsmen"
      • VF-33 "Starfighters"
      • VF-41 "Black Aces"
      • VF-43 "Challengers"
      • VF-51 "Screaming Eagles"
      • VF-74 "Bedivilers"
      • VF-84 "Jolly Rogers"
      • VF-92 "Silver Kings"
      • VF-96 "Fighting Falcons"
      • VF-101 "Grim Reapers"
      • VF-102 "Diamondbacks"
      • VF-103 "Sluggers"
      • VF-111 "Sundowners"
      • VF-114 "Aardvarks"
      • VF-121 "Pacemakers"
      • VF-124 "Gunfighters"
      • VF-126 "Bandits"
      • VF-142 "Ghostriders"
      • VF-143 "Pukin' Dogs"
      • VF-154 "Black Knights"
      • VF-162 "Zodiacs"
      • VF-171 "Aces"
      • VF-191 "Satan's Kittens"
      • VF-194 "Red Lightning"
      • VF-201 "Hunters"
      • VF-202 "Superheats"
      • VF-211 "Fighting Checkmates"
      • VF-213 "Black Lions"
      • VF-301 "Devil's Disciples"
      • VF-302 "Stallions"
      • VF-1285 "Fighting Fubijars"
      • VF-1485 "Americans"
      • VF-1486 "Fighting Hobos"
      • VX-4 "Evaluators"
      • VX-6 "Ice Pirates"
      • VX-9 "Vampires"
      • VX-23 "Salty Dogs"
      • VX-30 "Bloodhounds"
      • Navy Fighter Weapons School

Ordnance[edit]

  • AtA Missiles: AIM-7R Sparrow, AIM-9X Sidewinder, AIM-54D Pheonix, AIM-120D AMRAAM
  • AtG Missiles: AGM-53 Condor, AGM-65 Maverick, AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-84E SLAM, AGM-88 HARM, AGM-119 Penguin, AGM-154 JSOW, AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-158C LRASM, Taurus KEPD 350
  • Bombs: Mk.80 series iron bombs, Paveway Series laser guided bombs, JDAM GPS-guided bombs, GBU-15 Glide Bomb, GBU-28 "Bunker Buster" bomb, GBU-31/-32/-35/-38 laser-guided bombs, GBU-35 Icefire thermobaric bomb, GBU-39 and GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb, CBU-99 and CBU-100 Rockeye, CBU-107 Passive Attack Weapon,

See Also[edit]

Источник: http://canadianpower.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat

Talk:Grumman F-14 Tomcat/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Adm. Michael Mullen quote about F-14

Although I asked Emt147 (talk·contribs) not to removes this quote from the introduction, I thought I'd include it here too:

Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement:
There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself. It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just rockland federal credit union rockland ma hours, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.'
(from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-22-F14-tomcat_x.htm)

66.167.139.50 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing it out. People tend to say nice things about a subject at retirements and funerals. Though I'm not sure which one this is. As far as notability, it would have been noteworthy if he had come out and disparaged the aircraft at its retirement. --Dual Freq 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, though in this day and age senior military leaders like Mullen can usually be counted on to take some care in their public remarks. It will be interesting to see if Mullen's statement generates controversy among naval aviators (and if it stands the test of time). 66.167.139.50 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC).

Admiral quote

Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, commented on the plane in an interview held at the time of its retirement:[1]

There's something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself. It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there's a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.

This is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. Claims made by one man are given undue weight and are clearly used by the anonymous user to advance his or her giddy fanboyism of f 14 tomcat wikipedia aircraft. I will continue to revert this addition mercilessly -- if you think it belongs, call for an arbitration now. - Emt147Burninate! 23:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You (1) misunderstand NPOV, (2) leapt to a conclusion about the motivation for including the f 14 tomcat wikipedia ("giddy fanboyism of the aircraft"), and (3) violated your use of Template:User 1RR on your home page by your threat to "revert this addition mercilessly".
Since (2) is less important that (1), let me address it first. Let's take a look at one of the bits of objective information about the anon that is easily available to us all: his history of contributions. Click on "contribs" list for 66.167.139.50 (talk·contribs).notice the various changes he made? No evidence of fighter fanboyism found there. Our "giddy fanboy" does appear to be a fan of activities such as category organization, editing disambiguation pages, utilizing the WP:PROD process, and updating the talk pages of various users about actions he was undertaking that they may be interested in.
But let's get back to NPOV. What you seem to misunderstand is that there's a difference between
The Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way the legendary Corsair, Mustang and Spitfire.
and
Adm. Michael Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations believes that the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way the legendary Corsair, Mustang and Spitfire.
You are of course free to believe that CNO Mullen is guilty of "giddy fanboyism" but unlike Adm. Mullen, your belief is unlikely to warrant inclusion in the F-14 article. But Adm. Mullen's beliefs are legitimate content for the article. He is, after all, the Chief of Naval Operations, with almost forty years of service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.207.136 (talk • contribs)
Yes, it is giddy fanboyism to seize upon saccharine comments spoken for the sake of a funeral as a representative NPOV view of the aircraft, or, for that matter, of Adm. Mullen's views. Wiki is not required to uncritically accept all statements. Go ahead and take it to arbitration you'd like, I'm not budging. --Mmx1 15:14, 25 September 2006 f 14 tomcat wikipedia I f 14 tomcat wikipedia all the "wtf dude" replies, here are some quotes from the aforementioned Wikipedia policy article:

  • None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth
  • The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Putting a giant quote banner at the top of the article is an obvious violation of this policy, particularly since the quote reflects biased opinions and beliefs of one person that are not substantiated by hard facts. - Emt147Burninate! 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I only looked at the diff, I didn't realize it was in the intro. I would have deleted it from the lead as well. Sorry about that. My comments above were meant to point out that the CNO was possibly just being polite, as someone would be at a funeral or a retirement. I concur with it's removal from the lead. --Dual Freq 00:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unlike the claims of NPOV violation, whether the quote belongs in the introduction is a valid issue. IMHO the quote can be included in the lead section assuming that Mullen's belief about the plane's potential for legendary status is uncontroversial or being given undue weight. So is it controversial? Any one have a counter-argument from someone prominent enough to disagree with the CNO? 72.244.207.136 (f.k.a. 66.167.139.50) 10:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

Anyone? The burden of proof on Wikipedia lies with the contributing editor. Therefore, YOU are the one who has to prove Mullen's claims of legendary status (how's that time machine coming along?). Do you honestly believe that offset raving text in HUGE quotation marks does not carry undue weight?

Oh, and brilliant. Let's start a separate article quoting every semi-important person about the F-14. Regardless of who Mullen is (and with all due respect to him), his quote still represents one man's totally subjective opinion not substantiated in any way by hard facts. If Mullen personally showed up and edited the article, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because his quote would violate WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. But since it's in quotation marks, it's magically okay. Besides, the quotation is entirely un-encyclopedic -- it contributes nothing whatsoever to the reader's knowledge of the F-14 other than the fact that it apparently makes grown men giddy. - Emt147Burninate! 03:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible compromise about the CNO quote

One compromise w.r.t. the CNO quote would be to move it to the section on decommissioning (and leave out the {{cquote}} in the process). Locating the quote in that section puts it in perspective (i.e. the CNO made the statement at that time). Comments? 66.167.141.36 10:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

I agree with this. The quote is from a high level officer and his opinion is relevant. However, it probably doesn't belong in the introduction. Since it was a statement made in response to the decommissioning, putting it in the decommissioning section seems appropriate. Lord Bodak 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Pray tell, what is the encyclopedic value of this quote? In what ways does it expand the reader's knowledge about the F-14? What facts does it contain? - Emt147Burninate! 02:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Besides, wiki is not in the habit of using blockquotes; favoring NPOV statements instead. What is the content of this statement? CNO Mullen believes it will be a legendary aircraft? What value does that statement have? --Mmx1
How is it NOT encyclopedic or relevant to include the statement that the current CNO believes the aircraft will be remembered with the likes of the Corsair, Mustang, and Spitfire? We're talking about the CNO here. Quoting his opinion is not NPOV, it is quoting the opinion of a respected, high-level officer in the Navy. Lord Bodak 13:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Quoting his opinion is not NPOV. Thank you. That's exactly it. Cut and dried. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Please review WP:NPOV--Mmx1 13:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.
For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.
I don't particularly care how many times you repeat it, but providing a referenced quote from a respected individual is NPOV, and WP:NPOV clearly says so right there. Lord Bodak 14:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fact an an opinion. "John Doe is the best baseball player" can be a fact. "F-14 will be remembered like the Spitfire" cannot be.

No fanboyism. CNO is not an oracle, he has no way of knowing how the F-14 will be remembered. This is a PR quote of no encyclopedic value and I will revert it. If you disagree, call arbitration. This conversation is over. - Emt147Burninate! 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. "John Doe is the best baseball player" cannot be a fact; it is an opinion, as was the CNO's statement. Obviously we don't agree on this one, but I'm not the original person who put the quote in, and if they want to call arbitration for it, that's their choice. Regardless of what they do, this conversation is not "over", since Wikipedia is constantly changing and others are welcome to throw their opinions in here at any time. Lord Bodak 19:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that it is valuable to include the CNO's quote in the section on decomissioning. It is self-evident to me that a quote from the Chief of Naval Operations, labeled as such and made upon the occasion of its retirement, is notable and appropriate content for that section. The original NPOV argument for reversion has been repeatedly demonstrated in this talk page as a misunderstanding.
FWIW, there are plenty of examples of quotes scattered throughout Wikipedia (e.g. the Rommel quote in the fighter aircraft article).
Perhaps one way to achieve consensus on this issue would be to include a quote attributable to another naval leader or expert that discounts the CNO's opinion as funereal puffery. I don't know if such a quote exists but the strong feelings that the CNO quote provokes among at least a couple of editors makes me think that such a quote should be easy to find.
At this point, if User:Emt147 thinks the only alternative left at this point is arbitration, I'm willing to participate. What form should the arbitration take? Wikipedia:Resolving disputes says trying the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or perhaps getting a Wikipedia:Third opinion are good options. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Straw poll? There's also the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Is the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee the only option at this point? Kayaker 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC).
Examples of quotes elsewhere do not constitute precedent nor override wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is done poorly elsewhere does not mean it should be done here. I, too am unwilling to budge, take this to whatever mediation method you'd like.--Mmx1 05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
What wikipedia guidelines are violated by the CNO quote? Do you think its an NPOV issue? Kayaker 06:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

WP:NPOV by virtue of undue weight and WP:Verify by virtue of being a source of dubious reliability. Per Wikipedia policy, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight (furthermore, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves). - Emt147Burninate! 23:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You honestly think USA Today is a "source of dubious reliability"? And putting the quote in the retirement section is not giving it undue weight. I do agree the original giant block quote in the introduction was undue weight. Lord Bodak 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the CNO is a source of dubious reliability since the words coming out of his mouth do not undergo fact-checking (not that there are any facts in his quote to begin with). The quote is useless in an encyclopedia because it a) states the F-14 looks awesome (I think readers can look at pictures are draw their own conclusions) and b) claims the F-14 will be as famous as the Spitfire (no one can make that claim). If people put half the effort into writing contents that they do into fanboy quotes and anime references, this would've been an FA by now. - Emt147Burninate! 00:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Come now, there's a world of difference between anime crap and quotes from the senior serving officer of the primary user of the aircraft in question. One would not remove a quote about the B-52 made by Curtiss LeMay. Or would you? Yes, it's saccharine, but no it's not worth all this vitriol. The Admiral has earned the right to make such statements. I suggest the quote by moved someplace like the popular culture section, since it refers directly to the position the Tomcat holds in popular culture and memory.

The CNO's comments are unreliable because of the context they were delivered in. The CNO's statements to Conress are reliable; his comments at a social function or funeral can be expected to carry bias. In any case it is of little encyclopedic value as the content of the comments are of no use, as Emt explained. --Mmx1 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell, three quarters of wikipedia is of little encyclopedic value. Tis best to tuck it away somewhere and move on. Anyone who reads that quote and doesn't see it as the man's opinion is too stupid to worry with anyhow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.181.12.201 (talk • contribs) .

Content questions

It would be more useful to discuss the 6+ paragraphs of Iranian air force material that is currently over weighting this article. A user of 11% of the aircraft built, look at that section size compared to the entirety of the article. The US had 30 years of usage, 30+ squadrons, 600+ aircraft, but we use 6 paragraphs to document the entire Iranian purchase agreement, how many planes missiles and wrenches, who trained whom, who overthrew who, who sabotaged what missiles or maybe didn't, speculative kill numbers etc. There is less material in this article about the actual US R&D, testing, construction, etc. All the origins section says is the F-111B sucks, F-14 is better with most powerful radar in the universe and it was controversially replaced by the Hornet even though the F-14 was the first/best air superiority aircraft or maybe not. It's more worthwhile to trim that section than to put a 64 word quote from the CNO for the aircraft's retirement. And what about the reference section, with its 10 refs, 4 of which are Tom Cooper. Someone must be trying to sell some of his books. I guess what I'm trying to say is the article needs work and we should be discussing that instead of one single quote from one man. --Dual Freq 23:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of engaged, but i will support your edits. Under the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV, it is necessary to give his views the appropriate weight that they deserve. --Mmx1 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This article barely passes "B-class" criteria and needs a substantial rewrite and expansion. - Emt147Burninate! 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that I am keeping the CNO quote issue alive doesn't mean that I disagree with User:Dual Freq. I agree that the content questions listed above are more significant to the article's quality. Kayaker 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC).

Somewhat related comment. Currently there's a subsection under Operational history labeled About. I believe it was labeled Hi lo before. Something more descriptive would be good. I'm just not sure what it should be called since contains the Superhornet and Decommissioning subsections. -Fnlayson 16:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've prosified the pop culture section. Hopefully that will reduce the urge to add bullet point after bullet point of various types of cruft. I also removed some of the more obvious trivia from the Iranian AF section and requested citations for some of the material presented as fact. It still seems long. I've also trimmed the ref section. If I've removed too much, just add the reference to the appropriate location in the text. We don't need a long list of books that may or may not actually be references. I've merged the sections Hi Lo / about, but it still seems wrong. Still much work to be done, I'm no Shakespeare. --Dual Freq 02:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Trivia sections in all these articles need to go, see WP:AVTRIV. - Emt147Burninate! 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

F-14 in fiction and popular culture

Dual Freq has already wittled down the Pop Culture section to almost nothing, as per the guideline's recommentations in lieu of immediate deletion of trivia sections. The two movie references both feature significant use of the F-14, and are worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Currently, there are many more avitation articles containing much longer lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillCJ (talk • contribs) Oops. Thought I had signed it. Thanks --BillCJ 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That section is far from being a trivia section. The F-14 is a notable aircraft because its presence extends far beyond the realm of military knowledge into the public arena. Whether that is due to particular mass media productions or merely symptomatic of something else is debatable; however, the section is still warranted because it's one of the most recognizable aircraft from the 80s/90s (hence its inclusion in so many pop culture sources).
That being said, "prosifying" it is counter-productive, IMO; since each source listed is only a sentence or two, instead of having a coherent paragraph it ends up being a series of unrelated sentences (other than their chronological organization). Unless the section is rewritten to analyze the emergence of the F-14 in pop culture and use the sources as milestones in that description (which would most likely be OR, since I can't think of any sources that might have done so), a list is far more concise and intelligible. Of course, IMO it would have been better to split off a List of F-14 appearances in fiction and popular culture months ago and saved everyone a lot of grief. Virogtheconq 01:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I never claimed to be a writer. Please, reword it into something that makes sense and analyzes the pop culture role of the F-14. Having a list of bullet points only encourages the addition of more and more useless video games, GI Joe toys, comic books. Making it paragraph form will hopefully deter future expansion. IMO, a separate article would be pointless and likely deleted like the M-16 list was. Would anyone like to improve the rest of the article and get this thing pointed toward FA or GA status? Fix origins section? Expand US Navy operational history section? --Dual Freq 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I can try to write something out for that, but my time is rather limited, so it may take a while. Virogtheconq 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
You cannot make any anime/cartoon assertions without violating WP:NOR. - Emt147Burninate! 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you can, but only if the creator has explicitly stated it to be so (such as the case with Macross/Robotech). There's no violation if the plane expressly appears in the work (such as the case with the removed Area 88), though that of course is subject to consensus of notability. Virogtheconq 03:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the minor details of the Macross info, what we really need here is for someone to sort through the History of the F-14 Tomcat article for information, remove the NPOV stuff and re-add it here to replace the origins section with something more useful. I've been adding images to commons:Category:F-14 Tomcat for VF articles, maybe some of them are useful here as well. --Dual Freq 02:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll give it a crack, have here a primary source from Connolly which should be fairly even-handed. As for the prose pop culture, an adaptation of the Wikiproject Aircraft guideline on it was adopteed by Wikiproject Military History:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#Popular_culture. --Mmx1 02:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Gunston, the first prototype, B/N 147980, crashed in its second test flight. I wonder if a current aircraft program would survive a similar blow so early in development. Might be an interesting note in the history / development or maybe not. It was also one of the most expensive interceptor aircraft of its time and there was serious pressure on the affordability front as well. Had it not been for the paranoia about the MiG-25, it may have not been purchased in the first place. --Dual Freq 04:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, thanks for reworking the origins section, still small compared to the Iranian F-14 historical section. That section seems too big, but I don't know what to get rid of. Some of it seems to be decent historical trivia, though uncited, but it seems way too long for a generic F-14 article. Also, I was adding images to the VF articles and I noticed that two squadrons were disbanded September 11, 1994, has someone told those loose change guys? --Dual Freq 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now the two closest huntington bank near me about the same length; I'd devote more time on cleaning up the operational history part on the US side; it's a bit short and if lengthened, would give the article the appropriate balance. LANTIRN and ROVER acquisition have interesting stories that deserve more than a sentence, and the issue of the missing stores software needs to be addressed. I think a bit much may be being made of the decommissioning, but ah well, so long as it's adquately source, the status quo should be fine. The issue of its replacement needs heavy cleanup as well. --Mmx1 03:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I also see that this article is missing a "characteristics" section that actually describes the aircraft in detail. --Mmx1 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
On further thought, the History section should be S(electively)merged into this article; there's a lot that can be moved into a "characteristics", some that belongs under History, and some that should outright be moved to the F-111B. There's also a lot of POV stuff that just doesn't belong anywhere. --Mmx1 04:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Iranian section

I have a question about the following lines in the article: Most Iranian F-14 pilots and technicians trained in the U.S. fled Iran, fearing their association with the Shah's regime, and their time in the U.S. would endanger them. Only two pilots out of the original flight class chose to remain in Iran. Their fears proved correct, and many of the original Iranian F-14 crews and technicians who remained were jailed or murdered by the new regime. Eventually, several F-14 pilots who were jailed were released when war broke out with Iraq. My main question is if only two pilots stayed, how can "many of the original" crews have been murdered or jailed? How many could there have been? This probably came from the Cooper source, can someone clarify this? --Dual Freq 02:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Answer: if you are interested about Iranian F-14s (and air combat in general) vist ACIG.org. There aren't many reliable sources about Iran's F-14s due to a lack of credible sources, you would be amazed at the wealth of knowledge, photographs out there and the etiquette of the contributors at ACIG. I'm not sure but I get the slight feeling that some here do not respect Tom Cooper's insight on Iran's F-14 fleet. I would suggest you ask him yourself. I found early on that popular sources lack any clear insight on Iran's Air Force. I also found that most western sources don't want to believe that Iran could even fly the plane let alone use the AIM-54 to score a kill, even if their pilots were trained by the US Navy. Even less want to believe that Iran scored more air victories with the F-14 than their US Navy counterparts. The USN had far fewer oppurtunities, obviously.

I think there is a reason Iran continues to maintain, fly and update their F-14 fleet at great expense and it is not because of the "4 or 5" kills that this wiki article cites. Just try to balance both points of view; Iran's F-14s were largely ineffective in air-to-air engagements and simply used as mini-AWACs or Iran's F-14s were integral to the defense of vital locations and population centers from Iraqi incursions and are still operated with great care and expense. Do not simply go by the quantity of sources that say one thing, as they will often just cite eachother.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.61.73 on 01:26, November 20, 2006 (UTC)

Cooper says 100+ kills and 4 to 6 kills with one missile. That is not credible. See talk archives. --Dual Freq 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Credible according to who, the "western sources" who attribute "4 or 5" kills to IRIAF's F-14? Saddam's IrAF had 700 planes by war's end, none of these had BVR capabilities or a radar equivalent to the AWG-9. I will choose a published account over the "4 or 5" theory. just my 2 cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.61.73 (talk • contribs)

If Iran only claimed some 35-45 kills why would anyone credit them with many more than 45? Why would Iranian pilots or Iran state less kills than they acually had? Also, the idea of four fighters being shot down by a single AIM54A is nonsense when you consider the distance between each aircraft in flight. Not even a formation change would result in all four aircraft being close enough to be destroyed by the blast of a single AIM54A. -Interested Reader (68.118.180.187)
It was three IrAF MiG-23BN that were indirectly 'shotdown' with this hit. The reason for its distructive power was not the AIM-54 but the fact that when the lead aircraft in the formation was hit the bomb load it was carrying (on strike to Ahwaz) was detonated. This caused debris to hit the rest of the strike package (either directly or being forced to flying through it). The last MiG-23BN (#4) was spotted leaving the area trailing smoke. The Iranian pilots only 'officially' claimed 3 as the fate of the #4 was not known. The strike package was said to be in tight formation (possibly to hide their number) and engaged at 23nm out. Tom Cooper i believe interviewed the pilots of this mission which took place 7th Jan '81. It was one of two multiple shoot down incidents scored by IRIAF F-14 pilots/RIOs during the Iran-Iraq war. Remember the pilots were the same Shah's Eagles that were held in so high regard by the USAF (having conducted mixed crew missions) and the PAF (who around this time were hopping around the middle east training/flying with many AFs) before the war. Constant combat operations and foolish levels of bravardo made them very proficient by the end of the war. Just to be clear - there has never been a 4 kill by 1 AIM-54 claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.2.198.20 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
I have tried to contact the author of the website with his "official" IRIAF claim of 35-45 (which in itself seems very unspecific for an offical claim). I can find no reference for this else where (has anyone else spotted it?). I am currently trying to find out via the Iranian embassy if an official figure was ever released (i do not believe it ever has been). The question then is, what is the origin of this number? Did someone just make it up? The originating website in its references does not list one that you can relate this number back to.

I report by ACIG sites stuff like this: At around 10:40hrs, at 12.200m (40,000ft) and only eight kilometres from the Iranian border, two IRIAF F-4Es underway to attack targets in Iraq, were approaching a Boeing 707-3J9C-tanker escorted by two F-14As, led by Capt. M. Khosrodad. The Tomcats were flying a race-track pattern around the tanker, with one of them continuously scanning the airspace over the front by its AWG-9 radar. Around 10:45hrs, just as the first Phantom started receiving fuel from the tanker, the radar onboard Capt. Khosrodad’s F-14A acquired several Iraqi fighters apparently closing from the west and well within the range of the AIM-54 missiles of his Tomcat.

Despite the standing order not to fly into the Iraqi airspace or leave the tanker unprotected, Capt. Khosrodad decided to attack: he ordered his wingman, whose aircraft was only armed with Sparrows and Sidewinders, to remain with the Boeing and the two Phantoms; then Capt. Khosrodad headed off west.

Working swiftly, he and his RIO fired two AIM-54As and two AIM-7E-4s in rapid succession, and both were most pleased when they noticed that at least two of their radar contacts disappeared within seconds of each other: apparently, so they thought, they had just spoiled ‘another Iraqi air raid’….or so they thought.

Meanwhile, although their radar net was supposedly able to track aircraft up to 200km deep inside the Iranian airspace, the Iraqis were completely unaware of the two Iranian Tomcats nearby. The first sign of something going wrong for Capt. Mousa was when the pilot of one of the escorting Mi-8s – which was flying a couple of kilometres ahead - shouted out a warning that no less than three of escorting fighters (or what was left of them) were falling out of the skies in flame to their left and right, and that the helicopter carrying generals should make a hard right turn in order to evade the debris.

Seconds later, also one of the MiG-pilots started shouting warnings, saying that they had no clue what had attacked them, but “strongly” suggested the Mi-8 with the generals onboard to leave the area and immediately turn west! Seeing the wreckage of the downed MiGs falling towards him, Capt. Mousa was in a complete agreement with his colleagues, so he turned around, and the trip to the front by Maj. Gen. Rashid and Lt. Gen. Mohsen was over before it really started.

So this example, believe or not in it ( [1] ) is in cleary and definite contrast vs the claim '4-5fighters' made in West. Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling? But there is a reason also for the low number declared by Iranians as well: Cooper says, IRIAF was always put on trial because his men were too westernized, so hated by regime. In many occasions, flak of Army was taken on charge about these success: better the army than ariforce, do you understand me? --Stefanomencarelli 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole point I believe that is being made here is this: It is just a story that someone is telling on a website until there is a way to verify the claim. You say Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling?, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference. --Chuck Sirloin 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

See below---Stefanomencarelli 16:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The US Air Force was looking for to replace the F-106 Delta Dart, {the plane used to guard the USA against bomber attack], in the early 1980s. The USAF briefly considered the F-14 Tomcat, but, although the Air Force had adopted Navy planes in the past, i.e. the A-1 Skyraider and the A-7 Corsair II; the F-15 Eagle was selected to replace the F-106. It was felt the F-14 was too expensive to be picked, ($38 million for the Tomcat vs. $29.9 million for the Eagle).204.80.61.10 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Shah's support

It is reported that some significant amount of the funding for the development of the Tomcat program was from Iran during the reign of the Shah through the National State owned Bank E Melli. This has also been confirmed by former IIAF pilots of the Shahs reign. More info on the matter available at Official IIAF Webpage.

This was placed in the introduction today. Given that the source is billed as the official IIAF website (with no cite to the quoted article), I feel it needs review. It certainly doesn't go in the Introduction, especially as written, but I don't know where else to put it either. Most likely, somewhere on the History of the F-14 Tomcat page.

As far as to the validity of the reports, is this talking about something beyond Iran's payments for the F-14 they purchased? It makes it sound like they were partners in the development, which I have never heard about. It is common in US programs now, such as the JSF and the P-8, but not so much back then, to my knowledge.

Any comments/suggestions? - BillCJ 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Here it is from a US source as reported by J Baugher [2]:

In August of 1973, the Shah selected the F-14 Tomcat, and the sale was approved by the US government in November of 1973. The initial order signed in January of 1974 covered 30 Tomcats, but in June 50 more were added to the contract. At the same time, the Iranian government-owned Melli Bank agreed to loan Grumman $75 million to partially make up for a US government loan of $200 to Grumman which had just been cancelled. This loan enabled Grumman to secure a further loan of $125 from a consortium of American banks, ensuring at least for the moment that the F-14 program would continue.

So I wouldn't say a significant amount of funding was for the "development" of the Tomcat as that the initial nonrecurring development was paid for by the US Navy as by the time the additional funding was needed, the Tomcat was already in production (around Lot 5 or 6 according to excellent oral history of George Spangenburg) and suffering from cost escalation and need to fix all manner of issues witht he Tomcat that threatened to drive Grumman under hence the need for the loan. At any rate, they were certainly NOT partners in the development as evidenced by the example of today's JSF or the Kuwaiti support of the improved engines for their A-4KU and later F/A-18C aircraft. They bought Tomcats right off the production line with only minor differences between their versions and the then current Navy model. Good question though. HJ 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How should it be organized? Alphabetical order by museum, location? By BuNos? Kyuusei 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Just wanted to add that the Quonset Air Museum in Rhode Island has a F-14A which is freshly painted in VF-101 Grim Reapers colors.

Red Storm Rising

I'm not questiong that the F-14 is in Red Storm Rising, as I remember it being there when I read the book years ago. But Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate lists. Per WP:AIR/PC#Popular culture, Pop culture sections should be limited to the appearances are especially notable. To be included, the notability must be proven by verifiable sources. Without sources, the statements regarding the F-14 and its importance in the book are original research, and therefore not permitted in Wikipedia. I don't doubt that Red Storm Rising is used in military schools, but the book covers many other types of aircraft and varios other equipmant. Claiming the F-14's appearence in the book as "especially notable" requires verifiable soureces. PIf those can be provided to the satisfaction of other editors here, and a consensus reached to include the book, then fine. Until then, please refrain from inserting the appearance. Thanks. - BillCJ 05:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Iranian air forces section label

I've renamed this section from "Imperial Iranian Air Force / Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force" to "Iranian air forces" (note lower case on air forces). I did this before and got a knee jerk revert calling it vandalism. I think it is unneccassary and unencyclopedic to have the longer section label. -Fnlayson 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - BillCJ 16:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, because the Military of Iran also has the IRGC Air Force, which does not operate the F-14. --Eurocopter tigre 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The text in the section lists Imperial Iranian Air Force and Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, so I don't see that as a problem. It's not trying to say all Iranian air forces. -Fnlayson 17:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomcats being shredded

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/02/shredding.tomcats.ap/index.html

Pentagon shreds F-14s to keep parts from enemies

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 on to its guts. Finally, all that's left is a pile of shredded rubble -- like scraps from a Thanksgiving turkey.
.

drh 18:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. This has been added to the article today. Please don't copy & paste large parts of articles. That can be a copyright violation. -Fnlayson 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

PW Engines

The Pratt and Whitney F100/F401 engines were developed for the Air Force and Navy team until the Navy dropped out according to my F-15 Davies book. They were slightly different versions of the same engine. One version had slightly better performance and the other was easier to maintain, I think. Anyway, what the article says now matches my reference. -Fnlayson 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Mike SPick's books, which is really in depth, the F100 and F401 share a similar core, but are different engines. He refers to them as cousins rather than brothers. Both engines were sized to meet different requirements (what exactly is not stated). GLad you're OK with my rewrite! - BillCJ 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My book says the F100/F401 contract was awarded to P&W in 1970. The AF and Navy formed a Joint Engine Project Office to coordinate their different requirements. The Navy wanted more thrust and the AF wanted less frequent overhauls and could deal with less thrust. Testing ran a few months late due to a turbine failure. The Navy cut back its order and problems arose. The Navy canceled its order for F401s in 1971 and dropped out. With the Navy requirements gone, they switched to an advanced aerodynamic compressor (was too heavy for Navy). The new compressor handled performance problems and deficiencies. -Fnlayson 03:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good details of the brief report i have heard. If your source is usable, you might consider adding it to the Pratt & Whitney F100 page. There is really not much history on the engine as a whole there, nor do we even have a redirect on the F401. FOr now, we could put a mention of it on the F100 page. - BillCJ 03:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparent censorship

I have restored all the three links to Acig site. Obviousely, all these were deleted because some guys are still acting thinking that all the stuff not ufficial by US Navy is no good enough to be here. Regardless that these materials are widely discussed in acig and other sites, regardless that T.Cooper has written several books about, regardless that the logic simply suggest, that seen F-14s are still in service NOW, then 20 years ago obviousely Iran had still some in flyable conditions. BUT, since wikipedia has 'decided' that Cooper don't speak true, then he is cutted out from any articles about F-14 or whetever else. I find this simply unaccetable, but this is not my problem, is of those have still and still decided to ignore all Cooper had wrote about

Considering the circumstances under which the F-14s and their crews had to operate in Iran during the eight-years long war against Iraq - without any support from AWACS or AEW aircraft, without even a proper support from the GCI, against an enemy that was repeatedly introducing new and more capable fighters, radars, weapons and ECM-systems in combat and was supported by no less but three "superpowers" (USSR, France, and the USA), with their crews being permanently under heavy pressure from the regime in Tehran - it is actually a pure mirracle that an aircraft as complex as the Tomcat remained operational at all. That it proved as successful in combat, and is still the premier fighter in the Iranian Air Force, is a fact beyond what most of the observers world-wide are able to comprehend, but also a result of sternous efforts of IRIAF personnel and immense investment of the Iranian economy.

(from acig site, Persian cat's article). --Stefanomencarelli 22:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not US junk? And when, of grace, will be considered by the grate Wikipedia that over US exists also other sources 'reliable' about something? Here is made what needs to an enciclopedic article or just to what US Gov. liked to be done?--Stefanomencarelli 22:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I can not understand what you just wrote. I removed a whole lot of links from bloated EL section. I certainly did not remove just the Iranian ones. The ACIG site does not do a very good job of asserting its verifiability though. --Chuck Sirloin 13:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's how it looked to me. You just cleared out a lot of links. WP:EL does not require verifiability for links, but it is a good idea to follow. References have to be of course. -Fnlayson 15:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apart that i don't found 'fair' that someone choises to prone some links, and casually, all acig. i would inform you that if there is a site that has the capabilities to give good info and also discuss them it is Acig without any doubt, surely not the Mats home. There are not many sites that have both a forum and a webmaster that is a book autor, or?

Second, someone (Billbc) has whipped out my contributions about the tecnical description of F-14. This is not an excuse in any sense. I gave a overall description about all the aircraft. If someone found that it's unusual, futile or so on, it' his problem not mine. The works about aircrafts that i usually read (made visa freedom credit card login professionists like N.Sgarlato or A.Nativi) are composed of these four parts: origins, tecnical, versions, operativity. This make readable and well armonized an article, so it's not guilth of mine if the F-14s one have not a tecnical description. If you get a look to the stuff i have wrote all it's reparted in this manner, so i expects, that if one wants really improve an aircraft article, and F-14 is a class apart, he must point to the tecnology. If there is a 'design' section without any detailed description, then do not make a guilth to me that try to post it. You can improve what i have wrote, correct, rearranged, but delete it it's not definively an 'improvement' for the article, it's vandalize it. It's not because i wrote it, it's because the article need that section as hell, F-14 is an universe to describe just for tecnology used. So i invite you to improve that i wrote, but not delete it for funny reasons.--Stefanomencarelli 15:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a conspiracy to silence your contributions or the Iranian contingent. The fact is that the section you added was completely unsourced (no references) and to be honest, poorly written. I understand that English is probably a second language for you, but, while I appreciate your contribution attempts, it is not other editors jobs to fix the things you write just because you feel it should be in the article. Most of the things that you added are already covered in the article. --Chuck Sirloin 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The following was placed on the talk page for NOR. It does not belong there . I imagine it belongs here, or on the Iraq War talk page.

Right.

I found instead that there is such 'silence conspiration'. The fact, what happens here in the page, speaks alone.

Recent books by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop seem to suggest that the Iranian use of the Tomcat might have been more effective than had been previously reported. These books report that during the Iran-Iraq war Iranian Tomcat crews scored numerous AIM-54 kills, that there were several Tomcat aces with over 8 kills, and that there were over 100 total victory claims. (from Joe Baughet site, another illuse that believes in Cooper Claims enough to post them).

Now to your comments:

The whole point I believe that is being made here is this: It is just a story that someone is telling on a website until there is a way to verify the claim. You say Tom Cooper is a liar? Perhaps, but where are the proofs of his babbling?, but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference. --Chuck Sirloin 15:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • First, you are advocate to your judgement IF T.Cooper is not a reliable author. Maybe i miss something, but are you authorized to do so? Where are your references that denies all the claims of Cooper?
  • Second:Look, the wiki.en is not a dependance of US Government and surely this latter is not a reliable source. All references to the stinky bottles used by C.Powell 4 years ago at ONU about Iraqui WMD are obviousely, casuals.
  • Third: T.Cooper are published several books, his works are published in several magazines, and he holds by several years a forum/site that is one of the most cited in the web about aereonautics, both in well and bad. I have discussed with him for several years and my clear opinion in his regard is that he is in good faith. He is ready to discuss everything he had written in his site: how many are available to do so? If there is an author that don't gives a dawn to any political or economical interference, hell, is him. And perhaps this hurts someone, right? I personally am a pro-soviet stuff fan, so for me he gives mainly bad news. Even so, even if i don't believe everything he sais, to me he looks as one of the most honest and reliable writers in the actual journalistic world. So i don't see any reason to exclude him by the articles.
  • Fourth. There is more than this: Why and how wikipedia is making differentiations between sources? All works already published are perfectly reasonable as sources. T.Cooper do not says that Tomcats are capable to go to horbit, he had weitten things that are much more reasonable than the ridicolous explainations about the 'sabotaged' to all the Tomcats/F-14. In every case there are many sources that states about the air victories of F-14s, in Iran. As example Joe Baugher site. So all rests is YOUR strumenctal statements that don't believes in what Cooper says.

but the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the person questioning the data. Anyone can make a website and put up claims, but they need to be verifiable to be used as a reference.

LOL-With the same thinking, i would not believe in the Men on the moon, in the Holocaust, in the 11 september, and so on. But in every cases, there are not reasons to exclude his works about F-14 if not a clear case of genuine censorship. And you still not give me the reasons about that. Even the greatest historians have made herrors, lies and so on: there is not any sources sure 100%, Wikipedia has tons of pages about gods, goddeness, Silence conspiracies, etc. etc. But look, just T.Cooper is a 'non reliable source'. And this is due to what? To your judments obviousely. So i talk cleary to you and those like you: this is censorship and nothing else, a ridicolous one, a shamelessy one.--Stefanomencarelli 17:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Combat losses

"The F-14 suffered its only loss from enemy action on 21 January 1991 when b/n 161430, an F-14A upgraded to an F-14A+, from VF-103 was shot down by an SA-2 surface-to-air missile."

Mmmk so I guess this isn't all that specific, but the Mirage F1 article states that two other Iranian F-14's were shot down by Iraqi Mirages during the Iran-Iraq war. Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article either, so I think someone should add it Masterblooregard 18:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The combat loss sentence is in the US Navy section and is referring to US losses. Also the paragraph in the Mirage article is unreferenced. -Fnlayson 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the list of F-14 losses (2-3 to Mirages and one to MiG) is from Acig.org, that is obviousely 'dislaked' in wiki.en.--Stefanomencarelli 11:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical description section

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I noticed that Stefanomencarelli added a very extensive "Technical Description" section. While I appreciate the level of detail and depth this section brings to the article, I noticed there are some grammar and organizational issues with the section as is. To that end, I submit for your consideration this version of the Technical Description section, below. I used Stefanomencarelli's version as a base and moved, added, and deleted some information.

Technical description

The F-14's fuselage consists primarily of a large flat section, called the "pancake", the forward fuselage section ahead of the "pancake", and two engine pods below it. This "pancake" forms a flat deck between the two engine pods at the rear, and extends forward where it smoothly transitions into the forward fuselage pod, which houses the cockpit, radar and avionics, among other systems, as well as a retractable in-flight refueling probe. The flat deck allows space for weapons underneath, and contains integral fuel tanks. At the extreme aft end of the "pancake" deck, called the "beavertail", there are speedbrakes on the upper and lower surfaces, and an arrestor hook beneath the beavertail, as well as a fuel dump pipe inside the beavertail.

Each engine pod houses one engine at the extreme aft of the pod. At the front, each pod has a rectangular, highly swept back air intake. These intakes stand off the central fuselage enough so that complex splitters are not needed, as on other aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom. Inside each intake are a series of movable ramps that help to regulate the airflow into each engine, keeping it below subsonic speeds and keeping shockwaves from reaching the engine. Atop the intakes are bleed doors that alternately allow extra air into the engines (such as during takeoff) or allow excess air to bleed away. The intakes are cambridge savings bank arlington hours outward from top to bottom when viewed from the front.

Extending outboard of each engine pod is a wing glove, which houses the variable-sweep wing mechanism and structure. These wing gloves form a diamond shape when viewed from above. Inside these gloves is a massive wing carry-through box, formed of titanium alloy. This carry-through box has the pivots for the variable sweep wing sections at each end. This carry-through box also contains integral fuel tanks. The glove vane provides hardpoints for missile pylons and launchers.

Attached to this carry-through box are the outer, swinging, wing sections. Each wing is of dual-spar construction, with fuel tanks between the spars. Attached to the trailing edge of the wing are flaps which extend the full span of the trailing edge. Slats span the entire leading edge, and spoilers are situated on the wing upper surface. These flaps and slats can be moved under the command of the central air-data computer to provide increased lift during maneuvering (early aircraft, before Block 90, had manual control only). There are no ailerons; roll control is provided by the spoilers and the all-moving horizontal tail. At wing sweep angles greater than 57°, the spoilers are locked down, and roll control is provided solely by the horizontal tail. Also, during carrier approaches, the spoilers are used as part of the Direct Lift Control (DLC) system, which, when engaged, causes the spoilers to extend slightly. When extra lift is required, the spoilers fully retract, providing lift without requiring changes in attitude.

The wing sweep angle is controlled by a AiResearch CP-1166B/A central air data computer (ADC), which calculates the optimum wing sweep based on speed and other conditions. It also controls the air intake geometry and maneuvering flap/slat positions. At takeoff and landing, the wings are set at their full forward position, which gives a 20° wing sweep. As speed increases, the wings are swung aft by actuators under the control of the ADC, until full wing sweep (68°) is achieved for high-speed flight. The ADC can, of course, be overridden by the pilot in emergencies. On the ground, the wings can be overswept to 75°, which reduces the space needed for carrier stowage and eliminates the need for folding wings. Throughout the wing sweep range, an aerodynamic seal between the wing and the part of the fuselage it swings over is maintained by inflatable canvas bags that are coated with Teflon to reduce friction. These bags inflate to fill the gap when the wings are swept forward.

Inside each of the wing gloves is a triangular glove vane. These were originally designed to aid stability at supersonic speeds; however in practice they provided marginal benefit and added weight and complexity. In the field they were locked shut and their actuators removed, and later build Tomcats were built without them.

Atop the aft section of each engine pod is a vertical stabilizer. The original Grumman design featured a single tail, but this was changed to the twin-tail arrangement at the request of the Navy. The twin tails each have conventional rudders and provide better yaw control, increased survivability (allowing for continued flight if one tail is damaged), and reduced height for carrier storage.

On the outboard side of each engine pod is an all-flying horizontal stabilizer. There are no separate elevators; the entire stabilizer moves on a pivot. The two stabilizers can move in the same direction for pitch control, as well as in different directions for roll control. These stabilizers are constructed primarily of boron composite, with aluminium leading and trailing edge and tip parts.

The flight controls are mechanical, using rods, cables and springs, among other devices. There is no fly-by-wire or artificial stability system, but there was an analog stability augmentation system which was intended to improve control. This was not effective, and in the late 1990s to early 2001 a new Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) was developed and installed fleet-wide. The DFCS improved handling and provided protection from unrecoverable flat spins (a notorious and dangerous flight characteristic of the Tomcat).

The pilot and Radar Intercept Officer (RIO, colloquially known as the "Guy in the Back Seat") are seated in either Martin-Baker GRU-7A (F-14A/B) or Martin-Baker SJU-17 NACES (F-14D) ejection seats. The crew is arranged in a tandem, one-behind-the-other, arrangement, which provides less drag than a side-by-side arrangement. The crew is covered by a large canopy that provides good all-around visibility.

The F-14A (the first version) was powered by two Pratt & Whitney TF30 afterburning turbofan engines. At the exhaust end of the engine there are variable exhaust nozzles, which slide fore and aft to open or close the nozzle opening, respectively. These engines were not intended for a fighter like the F-14, were underpowered, finicky, and especially susceptible to compressor stalls and blade failures. More detail on these problems can be found in "Upgrades", below. The later F-14B and F-14D models were fitted with much more reliable, more powerful and less temperamental General Electric F110 engines.

The F-14 has a tricycle landing gear, with a twin-wheel nose gear strut in the forward fuselage and single-wheel main gear struts outboard of the engine pods. F 14 tomcat wikipedia gear struts retract forward; the main gear wheels rotate 90° to lie flat in the gear well.

The F-14 has a comprehensive suite of electronics for navigation, communications, electronic countermeasures (ECM)/jamming, and identification and targeting of enemy aircraft. The F-14A is equipped with a Hughes AN/AWG-9 radar and fire control system. This system is able to track 24 targets and attack six more targets with its Hughes AIM-54 Phoenix missiles. The system is also capable of looking down, to identify low-level targets. The later F-14D variant was equipped with an upgraded Hughes AN/APG-71 radar.

Beneath the nose of the F-14 are a variety of electronic chin pods, depending on variant. Early F-14As were equipped only with an electronic jamming pod, an AN/ALR-23 infrared (IR) seeker, or both. In practice, this IR seeker was ineffective and replaced on later F-14As and F-14Bs with a Northrop Television Camera System (TCS) which enabled long-range visual identification of targets. The later F-14D is equipped with a dual chin pod with the TCS and an IR seeker side-by-side.

Other avionics and on-board electronic systems include

  • ASN-92 CAINS II (Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System II) inertial navigation system
  • APX-71 transponder and AXX-76 identification friend-or-foe (IFF) equipment
  • ARC-51 (replaced by ARC-159) UHF radios, and KY-58 cryptographic system
  • APN-154 beacon augmenter, APN-194 radar altimeter, Gould ARN-84 TACAN and ARA-50 automatic direction finder
  • ASW-27B digital datalink, for high speed communication between the aircraft and the ground, as well as early warning aircraft

The F-14 can be armed with a variety of weapons, including air-to-air missiles and bombs. The F-14 can be loaded with the following missiles:

  • AIM-54 Phoenix: A long range, radar-guided missile. The Phoenix works with the AN/AWG-9/APG-71 radar to reach its target. It can fly a preprogrammed course to its target, home in on radar signals reflected off the target by the F-14's radar, or use its own radar to home in on the target. The Phoenix can be mounted under the tunnel between the engine pods on special pallets, or on pylons beneath the wing gloves.
  • AIM-7 Sparrow: A medium range, radar guided missile. This missile requires that the F-14 illuminate the target with its radar in order for the missile to hit the target. Sparrows can be mounted in the tunnel between the engines, semi-recessed, although this is rare. They are more frequently mounted on the wing glove pylons.
  • AIM-9 Sidewinder: A short range, heat-seeking missile. They are usually mounted on the underwing glove pylons.

There were plans to modify the F-14 to accept the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, but these were scrapped by the US government.

The F-14 is also equipped with a 20 mm M61A1 Vulcan cannon for close-in dogfighting. It fires out of the port side of the forward fuselage looking forward, and contains 675 rounds.

The F-14 can also be used for precision guided and unguided bombing; see "Transformation" below.

Please tell me what you think, and if you think that this version should replace the current section. If you have comments or changes for me to make, please say so here as well! I am aware of the lack of references, wikilinks/external links, or sources, and will add them if/when it is decided to add this section to the article.

Thanks very much, Nick L. 10:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick this is an immense improvement on the section. I have highlighted small typos but otherwise, the only other concern is to provide some corroboration in the form of citing reference sources. FWIW Bzuk 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
We're been trying to fix spelling and format issues. It still needs copyeditting. That's why the Copyedit tag is there. Anything you can do there would be great. I don't totally get this bolding errors thing. It adds more stuff to fix/delete later. Try the {{clarifyme}} tag for confusing wording. Spelling degrees is not really an error. -Fnlayson 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find so 'good' such version. The part about electronic is whipped out, that's unaccettable for the F-14 description. The fuel system is lacking, unaccettable as well. When Bzuk will finish to magnificate every thing against my work, perhaps he also will see that this version is not complete and an overall worsement respect to the one now present. Dont' rely too much about 'language spelling issues' i know i am not of mother language, but i am not a moron as well()).--Stefanomencarelli 20:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the proposed version, especially with regard to electronic and fuel systems. I am working on a revision that will address these areas which you have found lacking. Nick L. 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made some changes to the section, mostly about the electronics. I've also seen to some of the sections that needed work, and removed the bolded text (seems like they've been fixed). Please comment. Also, I would like to know your opinions regarding the replacement of the section in the article with the above version. Thanks, Nick L. 04:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks alright to me. Seems like you can just tweak the wording in the article instead of here. -Fnlayson 04:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think it would be better to replace the section in the article with the above versus fixing the section that is currently in the article? Nick L. 17:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Technical Description 2

A lot of interesting stuff, but a lot is also mentioned in several other places. There are lot of stuff missing, there are a different set of ejection seats in the F-14D, and the stuff about the Tomcat lacking multi funciton displays is just not right. With the additon of the LANTIRN in the 1990's, MFDs were added. The text is mainly about the F-14A. And the A-model must have had MFD's as well, at least the RIO, otherwise it would have been problematic due to the LANTIRN pod and the RIO must at least be able to select options and what not when using the LANTIRN and laser guided bombs.

The section about the engines are only in regard to the F-14A, nothing is deeply mentioned about the B and D. Hagman1983 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Hagman1983

Technical description 3

Hi. I went through the section and copy edited it. I understand that there are plans to replace or rewrite the whole section, but the section in its current form was pretty much incomprehensible in places, so I thought it best to do something ASAP. There are also a lot of uncited statements. Regards Davidelit 06:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statements from Joe Baugher site. The word 'only' about internal fuel capability: are you aware how much is 9000 l.? Just to checking. There is no other western fighter capable to do so. So definitively 'only' is a wrong word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I only proofread the article, but point taken. "Only" deleted. Davidelit 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

--

I just divided the "Tech description" section for better readability and further summarizing. Did it because that section was just too huge, but all most important components of this bird are explained, at least for the "A-cats". So I rearranged a little bit to glue these together. I just found that here are some, who really care about this article, hope this gives them a bit of a framework to move on. Please don't mind the headings for it's just a try to break the text into tinier parts. As english isn't my mother tongue it's impossible to me to shorten it properly.

Hope that's allright for the moment. Greetings, Andi 11:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


See my comments on your "talk" page. Better readabillity is a laudable goal considering the patched up mess this article that has resulted from recent edits but my question was over the use of the word "gear" which may not always mean "landing gear." BTW, get a proper userid so that your work is identified to a serious researcher. Also, use the four tilde (~) method to sign off the comments on talk pages. FWIW Bzuk 11:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC).

Technical description 4

I think it just should be removed. It's too much, it's cumbersome to read, unnecessary information. You don't see the wiki-pages about the F-15, F-16 or the F/A-18 variants with such information. Remove it, the page will look more cleaner, better readability and it's too "technical" and a this page has turned into a total mess. Hagman1983 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It's too long but not all to it has to go. Also, the Upgrades and Transformations sections are over detailed as well, in my opinion. I'll try to cut things back. -Fnlayson 16:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr, if F-15/16/18 have not this 'over-unnecessary' info it's not a merit, it's because they are not enough deepth in description. You cannot delete tecnical description of F-14 except you want to have a drastically incomplete article about it. It's simply impossible make a good work without this info level, that is usually searched by aviation fans (the more interested to such articles).

Moreover: it's false that the tecnical description is already covering the whole avionics set. Just the main elements like the radar, but the list total is far more greater.

But the others are much more, over 40:

Radar: Hughes AWG-9, (later APG-71), APN-194 radar altimeter, DSQ-23 (Phoenix missiles)

  • Central Air Data Computer (CADC): AiResearch CP-1166B/A
  • RWR: Originally an AN/APR-25 and AN/APR-27, then replaced by AN/ALR-45 and finally by AN/ALR-67
  • IRST/TV: Originally, AN/ALR-23, later Northrop TCS
  • RWR:ALR-45, ALR-50
  • ECM: ALQ-100, later ALQ-126B, (against enemy tracking radars), ALQ-91 (against data links), AN/ALE-29 (chaff/flare), later replaced by AN-ALE-39
  • HUD: Kaiser AN/AWG-12
  • Com/nav.: data link KY-28, JTDS, radio UHF AN/ARC-51, 159 and AN/ARR-69, TACAN, radio compass AN/ARA-50, KY-58 cryptographic system, radios Have Quick, ARN-84 TACAN, ARA-50 automatic direction finder, ASN-92 CAINS (Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System II) II inertial navigation system
  • IFF: AN/APX-72, AXX-76 IFF interrogator
  • Flight controls and data: CP-1166B/A Central Air Data Computer (CADC), AN/ARA-63 aircraft approach control system (with AN/SPN-41 AN/TRN-28 transmitters), Direct Lift Control (DLC).


If you don't like this part, there is not much problem (even if i think this should be in the article). There are sub-articles of F-14 tomcat, so the best thing could be simply to split the stuff in a dedicated article about the detailed, tecnical analysis and description of Tomcat. This aircraft is, among the many fighter, the most sofistied as tecnical and avionics, with ten aerodinamic surfaces and dozens avionic elements. Just think to Mirage III, that has only three fixed surfaces, one radar, one RWR and one radio-nav set. Almost a toy.

I propose: F-14 tecnical description.

Or History of the F-14 Tomcat, enlarged to tecnical analysis.--Stefanomencarelli 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhmm, yeah, sorry. A seperate article would work of course. Hagman1983 13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So we agree?--Stefanomencarelli 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I say no. Aircraft already has a few split off articles. There weren't enough F-14s made to justify more articles, imo. -Fnlayson 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and especially because this is what has happened in the recent past, see:[3]. .FWIW Bzuk 14:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the F-14 should not be split, but without a complete and extensive tecnical description the article loose greatly in deepth and for 'aviation fans' also in interest. I think that no F-14 article could be made without an extensive tecnical-avionic description, so i don't think that this is excessive. But if someone is interested to cut it a bit, this cannot be done removing the stuff. It must be done with the right solutions. So i'll remove the F-14 tecnical description and place it in History of F-14.--Stefanomencarelli 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, listing every piece of electornic ever used in the F-14 simply becouase it is listed somewhere else in unnecessary and unencyclopedic. I would remove such a list no matter WHO added it. THere's nothing wrong with listing the radars and other major items in the appropriate places, but we don't need a article simply for the list, nor does it belong on the History page. Also, pointing out that a certain editor has done this sort of thing in the past in other articles is NOT an attack to any reasonable person. ANt there is a simple way to stop people from "attacking" someone who makes these types of edits: STOP making these types of edits. Unless of course getting "attacked" is the goal here, not improving the articles. Makes one wonder. - BillCJ 21:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So the famous duo Bill/Bzuk strike again. Every time you can make gratouitous provocations is good enough, huh? First, Bill, you have no really clue of what you are saying, unless you desire to make a second rate class article.

Second, the stuff to remove a simple prhase that claiming a clear attack against me made by Bzuk is unsupportable and illegal. I remark that in discussion pages there must be much care to 'remove' 'personal attacks' far from be proof. The only thing i can say for sure, is still that you two dear boys are still hers JUST to provocke me as mob. So, since while someone has deleted absolutely in a illegal manner my 'partial edit' to Bzuk, i not only contest this, but also remove the Bzuk statement itself, that was a clear and gratuoitus attack on my self.--Stefanomencarelli 00:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. I concur with Bill and Bzuk for the same reasons listed. Quit claiming a reference to your past work as a personal attack. --Mmx1 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

One, BE POLITE in discussions. Your kindly word should be keep away from this. Two:

Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by fnba cd rates an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page.

Since: Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor. is considered a PERSONAL ATTACK, so Bzuk has made one against me, for the obvious purpuse to throw me discredit and surely this cannot be accepted in a CIVIL discussion.

So who is babbling about 'personal attacks' Huh?.--Stefanomencarelli 09:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gents, I was lucky enough to pilot the F-14A with VF-1 on USS RANGER 1991-92, then the F-14D with VF-2 on USS CONSTELLATION 1993-1994. I enjoy your descriptions, and have two items to add.

First, the 'pancake' section of the fuselage (I've never heard it called that), being flat on the bottom and cambered on the top (between the heat exchanger vents) is actually a LIFTING BODY. This comes into play at high speed when the wings are swept and provide little lift. Its noteworthy that when the wings are swept, the wings spoilers are locked down and only the horizontal stabs provide roll.

Second, the reason for Cheney cancelling the F-14D freedom mortgage address for payments more simple than stated here. The airplane had huge downtime maintenance compared to the Hornet. For two-plane launches we almost always manned a third jet as a spare in case a Tomcat went down before launch. Hornet squadrons would seldom man spares, or would do so with just one spare per 4 or 6 Hornet launches. It always amused me to see our RIOs make elaborate, impassioned presentations during squadron meetings on how the Navy was blowing it by canceling the Tomcat instead of continuing upgrades. First, we squadron members of course have no say on the future of the program. Second, it made perfect sense to me to go with the newer F/A-18 E/F. I have friends who fly it and rave about how the 'bubble' expanded for them tactically.

The Tomcat was an iconic aircraft, a marvelous weapons platform and a real crowd pleaser at airshows. It was ahead of its time, and bridged the gap very well between the Phantom and the Hornet. Tbarn9 (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LastCatshot.jpg

Correction to Survivors

Источник: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGrumman_F-14_Tomcat%2FArchive_2

15 Things You Didn't Know About The Grumman F-14 Tomcat

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat is the definition of supersonic speed developed by the best of the bests. Wait…what does that even mean? Bringing physics and geometry into play, the American Navy designed a variable aircraft with wings that had the ability for lift maximization during takeoff and drag minimization in times of a high-speed flight creating an image of absolute supersonic beauty.

Grumman had a scholarship program which encouraged champions to be included in the making of the F-14 Tomcat. This encouraged engineering students to work in different sections of the production sector for a month. The whole arrangement engaged genius brains into devising of the aircraft. Subject to constant improvisations, this bomber hunter was created for a war that never happened in the history of the world.

As you can already imagine, the Grumman F-14 Tomcat is a daredevil in the world of naval aviation. Let’s check out 15 reasons why that is so:

15 First Flight

In the year 1970, F-14 Tomcat flew for the first time on 21st December. It was a short flight due to low light and extreme critical weather conditions. After 9 days, the plane set out for a second time, crashed minutes after takeoff due to sudden hydraulic failure. The crew members survived the crash.

RELATED: 15 Things About The US Navy We’re Not Supposed To Know

14 Engine With F 14 tomcat wikipedia Grumman F-14 Tomcat had engines with afterburners that produced an approx. of 55,000 pounds of thrust. Due to the rectangular air inlets, the supersonic air was allowed into the engine and the installation of portable ramps allowed this engine to accept supersonic air. The naval aircraft could fly over a speed of 1500 mph.

13 High Speed Aviation

The F-14 Tomcat was brutal for a reason. The engine was designed for high speed and powerful aviation. The one-off hot rod engineered by top brains could go crazy in 90 seconds from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8, i.e. flying almost twice as fast as the speed of sound.

12 Paul Newman & F-14

Remember Paul Newman? The first winner of the Sports Car Club of America Championship. The F-14 Tomcat might have something to do with that victory. With the help of an experimental fluid developed by DOW and Grumman suggested by a friend, Newman fixed the brake issues of his race car. This fluid also solved a recurrent issue of F-14.

11 Cartoon Character Named Tomcat

During the early 1970s, Grumman published cartoons. One of the characters was a pilot named Tom Cat (you got the pun, right?) who was a playboy and another character was the RIO (Radar Information Officer) who did almost everything except flying. This concept of Goose-Maverick duo was developed as an inside joke.

10 Sweep Wings

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat’s variable-sweep wings could be set to distinct angles. This notion was derived from one of the renowned X Planes. The Bell X-5 was rendered as the pioneer that had the ability to reposition its wings during aviation. The idea for adjustable sweep wings came from the Messerschmidt P.1101.

9 Regulating Wings

The sweep wings of the F-14 Tomcat had an extraordinary setting for stopping. While outstretched was best for low-speed mobility, and took care of was perfect for supersonic runs, getting the wings past a point that would be valuable for flying empowered groups to get planes tucked intently together.

RELATED: 15 Facts You Didn’t Know About The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

8 Similarities To Soviet Aircraft

The Grumman F-14 Tomcat aviators chased Soviet aircraft for sport. The Soviets would fly excessively close for a bearer's solace and the fierce F-14 would fly up to welcome it. They would then hover nearby as an escort while going through at any new weapons the Soviets may have had.

7 Last Flight In 2006

The F-14 Tomcat naval aircraft formally flew from 22nd September 1974 to 22nd September 2006. However, a couple of flights proceeded for another couple of weeks as planes were traveled to their last resting place. F-14 jet was a US Naval force staple for a long time to the day.

6 Powerful Radar

The badass aircraft, Tomcat's radar could follow up to 24 discrete targets at the same time. One reason the plane is so huge is that it can fit such an immense radar framework. At the point when the F/A-18 originally turned into the F-14's substitution, everything was downsized.

5 Long Range

The aircraft was designed very intricately with an ability to be deadly at a scope of more than 115 miles. The AIM-54 Phoenix missile was utilized solely related to the Grumman F-14 Tomcat's radar and had a scope of 115 standard miles.

RELATED: 15 Fighter Jets That Were A Total Embarrassment To Their Military

4 Costly Rocket Firing Test

An aircraft aeronaut once terminated each of the six rockets all at the same time. There was a need to perceive what a Tomcat and Phoenix mix could truly do, so targets were set up, and within a period of 38 seconds, six rockets were sent on their way, from which 4 of them made the perfect hit. Walmart money card number was one genuinely costly seconds of testing.

3 Iranian Involvement With F-14

The main F-14s left in administration today are Iranian. Very little is thought about the present condition of the armada, yet at one time Iran aviated almost 80, which were requested a couple of years before the Iranian Revolution. The F-14 pilot with the most executions is Jalil Zandi, an Iranian.

2 Showmanship

Iran purchased the airplane as a demonstration of showmanship. Back when Iran used to be an ally, Shah was given an individual exhibition of both the F-14 and the F-15. He picked the F-14 for purchase. Tomcat's group invested the whole energy consuming off overabundance fuel to cause it to seem lighter, quicker, and nimbler during its run. They at that point continued to move the wings to and fro for included impact.

1 End Of F-14 Era

When Iran wasn’t an ally any longer, the issue of spare parts turned somewhat embarrassing. There was genuine worry that Iran would buy or source parts from the US boneyard in Arizona. The arrangement was to destroy them. After Tomcat resigned, practically all the American F-14s were destroyed so Iran couldn't source anything. Today, some pieces are kept in one American museum.

NEXT: 19 Codes That Only Fighter Jet Pilots Know About

Check Out What Makes This Ultra-Rare Shelby 427 Cobra Unique

An interesting combination of features may just make this a one-of-a-kind ride.

Read Next

ShareTweetEmail

About The Author
Chris Flynn (910 Articles Published)

Chris is a proficient reader and writer. He has written for many publications including TheRichest, TheClever, TheQuiz, and ListVerse. Cars are his passion.

More From Chris Flynn
Источник: https://www.hotcars.com/15-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-grumman-f-14-tomcat/

Dcs a10c 2 forum

dcs a10c 2 forum BGM:徐梦圆 china-p 英文字幕来自软件翻译,如果不对可以弹字幕 Dec 02, 2016 · Posted December 4, 2016. 1 table of contents • part 1 – introduction & training structure • part 2 – controls setup • part 3 – cockpit & gauges • part 4 – start-up procedure • part 5 – mission preparation & takeoff • part 6 – landing • part 7 – engine management • part 8 – understanding how systems work • part 9 Jun 22, 2019 · Checking In – Star Citizen & IL-2 Battle of Kuban Naval Action Mega Patch 10. 794 INFO DCS: Command line: "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\bin/DCS. At the moment I only have the base install / caucasus / dcs world ver 2. Post. 222. 1 table of contents • part 1 – introduction & training structure • part 2 – controls setup • part 3 – cockpit & gauges • part 4 – start-up procedure • part 5 – mission preparation & takeoff • part 6 – landing • part 7 – engine management • part 8 – understanding how systems work • part 9 Dec 02, 2016 · Posted December 4, 2016. Dcs a10c 2 guide. Gun, Unguided ist kein Thema, aber ich schaff es einfach nicht, eine Maverick abzuschiessen Hab schon im Manual und auf den ED Foren gesucht, werd aber nicht so richtig schlau Master Arm On. Download Beta Builds. 5 Trainers; 2. 2 also one thing to note, when going into the options menu>controls you need to change the white drop down menu to a-10 sim if you are playing in sim mode. dll file in your DCS\bin folder. 105:25010 Currently only pitch, roll (bank) and yaw (heading) are implemented. 15. S. Just sit there and watch the F10 map, make it a 7 vs 8. The radio integrates into all existing and future aircraft available in DCS. 05 alpha 64-bit version and drop the d3d9. Posts: 15. Profiles with A-10C Stick. I’ve added the MQ-9, and have tried an F15-C and the A10C both as “ground strike” flights. Servers can configure SRS to be more or less realistic – enforcing realistic line of sight and distance limitations or allowing aircraft to always Leatherneck Simulations, in association with The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics are immensely proud to announce the development of the F-14 Tomcat for DCS World! The F-14 Tomcat is a fourth-generation, twin tail, supersonic naval interceptor aircraft, developed for the United States' Navy VFX programme. Dcs a10c 2 hotas. you may also find data like radio comms, multi jdam, low visibility landing, and air-to-air refueling tutorials on WIKIPEDIA where original a10c Jan 02, 2013 · DCS: A10C Warthog Keys? In my library I have, "Men of War: Assault Squad" and "DCS: A10C Warthog". Carrier Strike Sinkable, Base Captureable or Train at Night, Day. Jun 07, 2014 · It collects the data from DCS, converts it into LFS format and outputs to UDP port 192. Based on real world qualification requirements you will fly 10 performance check rides to execute against pre-defined performance objectives. I agree nothing compares to the vr not even 55 inch tv in 3dvision in this sim. DCS Uh-1h Huey. after changing this you will see all the control settings. dcs guide. Sep 16, 2020 · By davidzill, Sunday at 11:27 PM. There are new modules to download that will add A-10C and Black Shark 2 to DCS World. Sign in. DCS SimpleRadio Standalone (DCS-SRS) DCS-SRS aims to provide easy to use and realistic communication in DCS Multiplayer. Make sure your macro looks something like this: Press LShift Down Pause. 2 Attack; 2. Compare Search ( Please select at least 2 keywords ) Most To call DCS A10C a "game" would be inaccurate - A10C Warthog is a commercially available version of a flight simulator created for the US National Guard That's right, the developers of this sim spent a lot of time with the real thing, made a military version of the simulator and now released a "civilian" one. Remote Throttle Controller for DCS A10C. Play cos I need Activation Key,and can't find it anywhere. ATC. TM HOTAS Warthog Profiles. Mensagens: 1978 Data de inscrição: 25/01 Oct 14, 2010 · DCS A10C - Bin Maverick-untauglich. Arrive in the cockpit. Last post Re: Flight Training Programme. 40GHz : Windows 10 Famille 64 : 16,00 Go DDR3 G. Missions and Campaigns. Founded in 1915, Yokogawa Electric Corporation has over 100 years experience in the measurement, control, and information businesses, and provides leading-edge products. posts. exe 基于DCS制作的 A10C飞机,需要花钱买,有破解版 Dec 03, 2021 · I realise this isn't a Spitfire but I'm having some trouble sustaining turns. Well, F-5 Tiger is a good "jet" option, not too complicate and provide good match-up online with MiG-21 Bis. lua file and check the PORTS walmart money card number or modify if desire. 0 2017-05-24. Warthog brings the most realistic PC simulation of a modern. The specific entries were: 'Send Value for 1st -> 2nd State:' 1. 3: Unplug your camera, and uninstall the TrackIR software. also one thing to note, when going into the options menu>controls you need to change the white drop down menu to a-10 sim if you are playing in sim mode. Next, start the FaceTrackNoIR program, and load the DCS_A10C. Jan 05, 2021 · The quest 2 after update 23 and my quite powerful PC rig has been a turning point for flight sims (for me). Free kitchen appliance user manuals, instructions, and product support information. MarcusCoull July 22, 2021, 9:50pm #4. Hello guys! flew whit some of you 1 hour ago, and I Dec 03, 2010 · Theres a problem using game booster and A10 warthog pc game. 100% Upvoted. Mar 08, 2015 · Clickable cockpit is one of the best things about dcs world. Jun 03, 2021 · Welcome to the DCS Tutorial Collection An unofficial Webproject by MemphisBelle. Oct 29, 2021 · The A-10C Advanced Aircraft Training Qualification campaign puts you in the cockpit of an A-10C Warthog, and tests your ability to use the aircraft's weapon systems successfully. its in the top left. By deep, November 3. About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy & Safety How YouTube works Test new features Press Copyright Contact us Creators Nov 20, 2021 · Forums DCS World DCS: A-10C Warthog Serial. Apr 29, 2011 · Here is what you need to do: 1) Grab SoftTH 2. Right click on the installer, and select "Run as Part 1 of 2 of trying out the new DCS A-10C II upgrade. United States (English) Feb 04, 2012 · I'm in the market for a new Video Card. I’m finding Blue 120’s rarely get a kill. Warten bis TGP abgekühlt und dann im rechten MFD von STBY auf A-G gewechselt. premier Close Air Support attack aircraft. Dcs a10c 2 trim. A-10C CMSP A-10C UFC F 14 tomcat wikipedia HUD 3rd-party API Custom moving map And more Apr 24, 2021 · Igor, prepare the experiment! Use DCS 2. This one is Pagan Island. 168. 1 Fighter/Multirole; 2. 13 Likes. A-10C II: Iron Flag campaign demo mission by Baltic Dragon. CN Admin. Post by Mower » Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:34 pm [quote=evilnate][quote=molleh]TrackIR will work just fine with A10 on any 64bit Windows OS, just not with the 64bit A10 client. Originally streamed live on Tw In a nutshell, conjecture has it that ED set the HUD in the A10C's new cockpit to work great for VR users, and assumed a certain amount of parallax, which 2D/TrackIR users don't have. I would also like to add, that the Warthog was my favorite aircraft growing up. 7 VR deserves its own thread so information doesn’t get lost in the general 2. The AIM-7 and 9’s seem fine. 7 impressiona Ontem à(s) 23:57. I Hate America, but it is soooo slooooow. 2) In your graphics. 6 Tools & Utilities; 3 Non-DCS World Sims; 4 Technique Guides & Resources; 5 Multiplayer Guides; 6 Setup Guides; 7 Mission Making; 8 Modding; 9 Other Links; 10 Current Prices on Recommended Gear Oct 14, 2010 · DCS A10C - Bin Maverick-untauglich. TGP On. 本视频是这个小工具的使用说明。. 2. 要是不做舱,可以跳过这一期。. Chucks Tutorials. Dcs Black shark 2 Russian heli. 3. Need a fix. Come richiedere di diventare un pilota di A10c del 14'Stormo Virtuale. A-1/2a. DCS A10C 面板调试工具演示. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. Available here. Carrier Strike Sinkable, Base Captureable or Train at Day, Night. Display Exports. Here is a copy of the log file: === Log opened UTC 2019-10-19 22:39:04 2019-10-19 22:39:03. 'Send Value for 2nd -> 1st State:' 0. Inhabited up till 1981, when its volcano erupted. A-10C MFCDs A-10C CDU A-10C RWR A-10C CMSC A-10C Clock Kneeboard KA-50 ABRIS KA-50 SHKVAL Su-25T SHKVAL Su-27 & Su-33 Mig-29A/G/S F-15C Radar F-15C TEWS A-10A. On this page download/install the file named A-10C module for DCS. memory. You will experience cranial overload, and you will, unless you're a devout ED disciple, curse the developer for (for DCS 1. Dcs a10c cbu 105. 2. the apkws looks like a total game-changer, especially as it could also be added to the f16. PHL188 July 22, 2021, 9:50pm #3. Results 1 to 2 of 2 Thread: Dcs A10C Input Cords on CDU (JTAC) Tutorial Apr 19, 2013 · Dcs A10C Sam Tutorial. Download a new copy of the latest version of the TrackIR software, and save it to your desktop (note: do not run from the downloader). Speed of Heat Shader Apr 24, 2021 · Igor, prepare the experiment! Use DCS 2. 05 seconds Release Pause Release LWin Release LShift Your pause times may vary, so, try different values until it works right. Come diventare un Capo di stato. Try this with 5. 3 - Open f 14 tomcat wikipedia export. Carrier Strike Sinkable, Base Captureable or Train in Few Wind. Come aprire o importare un tuo Stormo Virtuale. This is the opening an account with pnc bank aircraft in the DCS series, following DCS: Black Shark, and raises the bar even higher in the DCS series. & buff. by NaturalPoint - Mike » Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:23 pm. 3 Rotorcraft; 2. Keke's stable server on Xeon W-2295 & ECC reg. DCS a10c include Training and missions. Tank Killer brings you the most realistic PC simulation of the A-10C Discussion primarily focuses on DCS: World and BMS. First thing is that im not an Ace, (I am a pig whitout wings ) but I think this is one of the most difficult things on the sim, evading sams, and this videos and tutorials helped me alot, and I am sure, most of you can do or teach a better tutorial, i just want to help. 7 Beta Tester Thud’s VR4DCS Optimization Guide Lukas S. Feb 04, 2012 · I'm in the market for a new Video Card. Sep 09, 2021 · YouTube Tutorial Series. The fearsome Fairchild Republic A-10C Thunderbolt II “Warthog” was the second module added to DCS and features depth and complexity that set the bar for PC simulation titles. thumb_up Gosto. 03:43 PM Serial number for activation. 16. Apr 20, 2016 · Without my rift for 2 nights and ahhhhhhhhhhh in Off-Topic 05-03-2017 Use flight stick and throttle with Oculus in General 06-19-2016 DCS A10-C warthog on the Rift (looking for some help) in Games and Apps 04-19-2016 Dec 03, 2010 · Theres a problem using game booster and A10 warthog pc game. Apr 20, 2013 · To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Jun 22, 2019 · Checking In – Star Citizen & IL-2 Battle of Kuban Naval Action Mega Patch 10. Oct 15, 2021 · To improve search results for Dcs A10c Warthog try to exclude using words such as: serial, code, keygen, hacked, patch, warez, etc. DCS: A-10C II Tank Killer is the follow-on to the renowned DCS: A-10C Warthog, and it brings many improvements and new additions like the latest weapons, a helmet-mounted sight, and new graphics. in training there are aircraft familiarizationhandling and combat Tutorial. general Tutorials. Also if you already know the aircraft aka a10c for example. Can't wait for the valve product and someday the Cv1 whenever that will be. 8165. Feb 15, 2007 · Re: DCS-5222L Rev B - Firmware Version 2. ) [/quote] Jan 19, 2021 · Chuck’s Guides – DCS A-10C Warthog. If succesfull, I can implement the other values too (they are currently all 0) I have tested the plugin with DCS 1. Dcs a 10c Jul 31, 2020 · Re: a10c 2 News Post by fly_george » Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:40 pm I have read that existing warthog owner will get a substantial discount, I couldn't find any info on how much that discount will be, unfortunately. Apr 19, 2021 · Ok, I thought DCS 2. Gentle banking turns are nice but if I give any backwards pressure on the stick during a turn I find it very easy to enter a horrible lurching PIO that often ends up in a 3000fpm sideslip. So far I keep coming back to that the best plane in DCS by far is the A10C. Mensagens: 1978 Data de inscrição: 25/01 Jul 13, 2015 · Location:London, England. Testing the F-16's AG radar on the new islands they've added to the Marianas map. Share your missions and campaigns. Sort By. Oct 18, 2020 · Forum: General Discussions DCS: AH-64D DCS: Mi-24P Hind DCS: F/A-18C Hornet DCS: F-16C Viper DCS: A-10C Tank Killer DCS: Supercarrier DCS: World War 2 Bugs & Problems How to, Help & Guides Wishlist Chit Chat Multiplayer Discussion Events & Announcements Dec 29, 2011 · 1) using the Targeting Pod (TGP) in air-to-ground mode, 2) the setting up of Sensor Point of Interest (SPI) 3) use of the Digital Stores Management System (DSMS) 4) firing a $50,000 bundle of shaped-charge warhead stuck to a big ass rocket at some Russkis in an amoured tin can. Do a ‘Flight → Engage → Bandits’. thumb_up Gosto thumb_down Não gosto. 05 seconds Press Pause Pause. I would ideally like to get one plane or helicopter. It is satisfying to rain hate and discontent on Mr. 07 Released « Reply #14 on: December 27, 2020, 10:36:11 PM » I would ask the mfr of this 3rd party cam app for help and information. description DCS World 2. Jul 11, 2015 · Android App to Control the Throttle in DCS Simulator. ini file (its in the headtracker folder you placed in the bin directory). The A-10C is the premier Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft of the United States, and it saw extensive use in Iraq and Afghanistan. 00 Arma 3 – Jets DLC Released IL-2 Sturmovik – New Update, New Aircraft DCS World – Oilfield Campaign and More Elite Dangerous – Light Shed On Three-Year-Old Mystery Arma 3 – Jets DLC Details Star Citizen 3. DCS Module Buyer guide Series. 6 because this was available on my PC. 🌏. Cosa serve per partecipare. Dcs a 10c Apr 27, 2019 · Re: DCS A10C-II HMCS (viseur casque) ASUS P8Z68 DELUXE (LGA1155): Intel Core i7 2600K @ 4. 2 - You need to know your DCS HOST First financial bank texas customer service number, I mean your PC IP --> open a terminal and ipconfing command. Simplifying your search query should return more download results. more_horiz. Dcs a 10c SQL Server. whenever i use the game box to start A10, everything is ok, the problem is whenever you pick f 14 tomcat wikipedia mission, or training mission, A10 warthog automatically goes back to desktop, then start up again to play the mission Now this is men't to ha also one thing to note, when going into the options menu>controls you need to change the white drop down menu to a-10 sim if you are playing in sim mode. DCS a-10C Flight Manual EN2020 by Charlie November. Combat is a green light with the dk2. 1. 4 World War 2; 2. 0+ ) 2. / Wolta YouTube Channel, VR optimization guides As far as the popular shader mods go: Kegetys Shader Mod: Not IC (Integrity Check) compliant for any server that has IC turned on. Sep 06, 2021 · description DCS Wolrd - A10C Flight Manual Seg Set 06 2021, 13:26. 6 Tools & Utilities; 3 Non-DCS World Sims; 4 Technique Guides & Resources; 5 Multiplayer Guides; 6 Setup Guides; 7 Mission Making; 8 Modding; 9 Other Links; 10 Current Prices on Recommended Gear Nov 15, 2020 · Topics: 6. lua, set Resolution=2720x1200, Aspect Ratio=2. Thrustmaster Warthog Script for A-10C Warthog + Virtual Reality Headsets. 正在缓冲 加载视频地址 播放器初始化 奎克造飞机 这是奎克写的一个面板调试小工具。. 软件: DCS_World_1. Jun 26, 2018 · I fired it up today for the first time in a long time. When I right MOW, i see all of the options including CD Key, DLC, Manual, etc, but when I right click DCS, i see none of them besides the basic ones. This is not a full on reprimand-you-for-having-your-navigation-lights-on-when-you-shouldn't-have type outfit here. by vLyrinx. Oct 19, 2019 · DCS World is crashing at startup. Then the DCS command dropdown for the switch input was configured appropriately. You'll find we foster a laid back atmosphere to learn how to work the various modules available in DCS. 9 worx too. VR Notes from a DCS 2. Dec 03, 2021 · I realise this isn't a Spitfire but I'm having some trouble sustaining turns. Welcome to /r/hoggit, a noob-friendly community for fans of high-fidelity combat flight simulation. ) That's also one thing to note, when going into the options menu>controls you need to change the white drop down menu to a-10 sim if you are playing in sim mode. Tempo di guerra. DCS A10C Warthog for PC Windows and PC. F/A-18C / Instant Action / Caucasus / BVR 8v8. 462 topics in this forum. This becomes particularly helpful if you have selected the wrong monitor setup by accident and subsequently elements (such as the 'OK' button or the dropdown list) are being hidden 2 Mb) 2: DCS 221712 Manuals: DCS Ventilation Hood 221712 Installation manual (48 pages, 1. lua to your /Users/ []/Saved Games/DCS/Scripts. Sat Jul 17, why is cinnamon good for you to eat 4:05 pm. Hotas Warthog Profile for A-10C. Many downloads like Dcs A10c Warthog may also include a crack, serial number, unlock code or keygen (key generator). r/hoggit. SoftTHconfig and paste in the following: [main] Oct 04, 2010 · Re: DCS A10C Warthog support. Aug 06, 2020 · 2) The second method is a little less convenient, but this method can also be used to restore back to any monitor setup without having to go through the DCS client. Share. Aug 21, 2008 · 3 ecrans 1920x1080 sur 6970 2 Go, nView actif ecran principal = centre DCS marche hardware marche 3 ecrans marchent softTH marche en mode simple (3 écrans par defaut, mais peu d'intérêt par rapport à DCS seul) MAIS je voudrais afficher : DCS renderer: mainview 2 x (1920 x1080) Sep 19, 2011 · Download the ED API interface x64 dll package and extracted the headtracker folder (with contents) into the game's "bin" directory. Why a Tutorial Collection and what is the purpose behind? Years ago I created a tutorial Collection for all systems and subsystems of the A-10C Warthog on the ED Forums. Helicopter is Ka-50. 0 – Planetary Tech, Setbacks, and Ambition Back 2. Partecipare alla situazione globale simulata in tempo di pace. 0. ) That's Jul 21, 2021 · Mission Editor: Creating & Interacting With An AI AFAC/JTAC Tutorial

f 14 tomcat wikipedia
f 14 tomcat wikipedia

2 Replies to “F 14 tomcat wikipedia”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *