F-14 Tomcat FAQ

[Josh1971]

How about the kits? Specifically the 1/48 Hasegawa B and D kits- are they pretty up to date with everything?

[Skull Leader]

problems with the hasegawa B/D kits:

-most kits these days include the LANTIRN rail, but no pod
-No bomb racks
-GPS dome missing on the spine
-Barrel shrouds are still the grooved F-14A style ones instead of the featureless carbon-fiber ones used on the super tomcats
-Cockpits still have the round Fishbowl TID in the rear seat, not the square PTID one.

otherwise, pretty much up to date so far as I know. All aforementioned problems are easily correctable.

[Josh1971]

Thanks, dude. Yeah, you can get/modify all that stuff. I've just gotten tired of scribing and sanding raised panels, and I was pretty disappointed in the new parts with the Revell D.

[Josh1971]

Another Black Aces question on the later years- sounds like they had the PTID screen in back, but which configuration was the front seat instrument panel in? Trying to get the right panel for when I get to this build.

JB

Originally Posted by Josh1971

Another Black Aces question on the later years- sounds like they had the PTID screen in back, but which configuration was the front seat instrument panel in? Trying to get the right panel for when I get to this build.

JB

I don't think -41 every got the PTID's and the front cockpit should be a regular Alpha's cockpit. IIRC -41 has the oldest Tomcats and transitioned to the dark side before they got upgraded with PTIDs.

HTH
Reddog

For you Tomcat guys, video of a F-14D cockpit with a round TID.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...MpStgQervaXqDQ

[VFA-103guy]

Originally Posted by Josh1971

Another Black Aces question on the later years- sounds like they had the PTID screen in back, but which configuration was the front seat instrument panel in? Trying to get the right panel for when I get to this build.

JB

Some of VF-41's jets had PTID during the last tomcat cruise. I think it may have been BuNo specific, but I can't confirm which ones. I know Fast Eagle 100 for sure, and I think 102 and 105.

[Josh1971]

Originally Posted by VFA-103guy

Some of VF-41's jets had PTID during the last tomcat cruise. I think it may have been BuNo specific, but I can't confirm which ones. I know Fast Eagle 100 for sure, and I think 102 and 105.

Roger that, thanks.

[Winnie]

nevermind... I'm an asshat, found what I needed...

[VFA-103guy]

Tomcats 101 Part 4, LTS (LANTIRN), ROVER, and other details

Some random shots of the different color arrangements LTS pods were in.











Below are some shots of the ROVER antenna that was added to VF-213 and VF-31's F-14D's. Nick Kessel quoted the following: "ROVER WAS UNIQUE TO VF-31 AND VF-213 FOR THE TIME FRAME OF DECEMBER 2005 TO FEBRUARY 2006 ONLY. APART FROM A NON-FLYING TEST AIRFRAME THAT WAS USED IN VF-101, NO OTHER SQUADRONS CARRIED ROVER. ALL 22 TOMCATS FROM THE FINAL CRUISE WERE MODDED."

Thanks to Nick Kessel for the use of these photos

[GW8345]

With Brian's permission I am re-posting the flap/slat info here. (Thanks Brian)

I’m sure some of you are probably going to be telling me that I shouldn’t be doing this but I felt that the information would be useful to members here.

Over at ARC someone asked the following question;

Am rebuilding a Monogram 1/48 F-14A and would like to display it with wings open.

But as you know the slats are an integral part of the wing in that kit, and come in the up position.

Was there a way to lock the slats in the up position? Want to know as I will not deploy the slats ( ) and I would like the kit to be as accurate as possible.

Many thanks in advance,

The answers varied from “it was uncommon” to “it was a standard take off configuration”. I feel that the question hasn’t been answered totally nor explained so here is some information on the F-14’s Flap/Slat system from someone who has scrapped a knuckle or two working on them. The information below is from my experience and is not intended to be all encompassing, there were exceptions and I’m sure if you looked you will find photos to contradict the information I am providing as far as the configuration information, so if you find a photo keep in mind you found an exception, not the norm. The configuration information is based on the general day to day operations in a Tomcat squadron and the happenings on the flight line at Oceana between 1987 and 2000.

First of all, the Tomcat had Slats, they were not leading edge flaps or any of that stuff, they were slats. Three of the most hated words in the Tomcat community were “Flap/Slat Lockout”, to this day those three words will cause any Tomcat guy to break out in a cold sweat and if you were an Airframer, you would probably just pass out. More on Flap/Slat Lockout later.

The Tomcat’s flaps and slats were not tied to the wing position and worked independently of the wing sweep system. The flaps and slats were electrically linked together so if the flaps came down, so did the slats, you could not isolate the two by pulling circuit breakers either (at least we never did). The flaps were connected by what is called torque tubes, long tubes that connected each drive mechanisms together so that all the flaps (except the aux flap, it could be isolated) would deploy together, the slats were also connected together so that all sections of the slats deployed together, uniformly.

The most common configuration for the flaps and slats was the up position, and the wings folded back into oversweep. If the wings were left out, the flaps and slats were most likely in the up position. Usually the only time the flaps and slats where down with the plane parked was that it was set up for the wash job or for maintenance such as a phases inspection, special inspection or the dreaded flap/slat lockout.

For takeoff, especially carrier, the flaps and slats were always deployed; it was a requirement, no matter what the wind over the deck was. You will see pics of the Tomcats taxing up with the flaps and slats up, you will see pics of it in kneel, launch bar down and it looks like the plane is about to be launched with the flaps and slats up but look closely, you will see the launch bar is not in the shuttle but resting on top of it and here’s why. The flap and slats were powered by the flap/slat drive hydraulic motor, which was not cooled while on deck. When the temperature was hot we would leave the flaps and slats up until the last minute to keep from burning the motor up. In colder weather it wasn’t an issue but on hot days, you did not want to run that motor if you didn’t have to, it was a REAL PITA to replace. So, that is why you will see photos of the Tomcat on the cat with the flaps and slats up, and even on land with the engines running.

On land they could take off with them up, depending on the aircraft load. In the two videos posted on ARC you will notice that both aircraft don’t have tanks or weapons rails, they are lightly loaded so the aircraft can get off the ground without the use of the flaps/slats. A put tanks and weapons rail on it and it’s a different story. I rarely saw a Tomcat take off without flap/slats down, but then again, we just about always had at least two rails and both tanks installed.

So, it was very common that when the wings were out that the flaps and slats were in the up position. If you want to do a diorama with the bird going down the cat, the flaps and slats better be out, but if you are doing one where it’s taxing up to the cat, you can easily get away with leaving them up.

One more thing about flaps/slats, in flight, it was possible for the flaps and slats to be deployed with the wings swept to 50 degrees. This was called “maneuver flaps” or “bomb mod”. When the wings where swept back out of 22 degrees the aux flap (inner most flap) was locked in the retracted position but the other flaps (including the slats) could still deploy as long as the wings didn’t go past 50 degrees, once past 50 degrees the flaps/slats were locked in the retracted position. When the wings were fully swept forward (22 degrees) and flaps/slats were deployed, the wings were locked forward and could not be swept in order to prevent the aux flap from striking the fuselage. Part of the pre-flights checks was to drop the “maneuver flaps” (basically the flaps and slats minus the aux flap) and sweep the wings until the stopped at 50 degrees. If the wings didn’t stop the flaps would strike the fuselage so the PC, Pilot and troubleshooter had to watch closely when this was done or it would be hell of a time explaining it to the MMCPO why you just let one of his jets get crunched.

Now for that dreaded flap/slat lockout I talked about earlier. The flaps and slats were most of the time controlled by the aircraft computer during flight. During ACM the computer sometimes was playing catch up with the aircraft changing aerodynamics and thus would constantly retracting/deploying the flaps/slats. If the computer changed them too fast, it would cause the torque tubes in the system to break due to the forward/reverse driving of them. Basically, take a paper towel roll and twist one end one way and the other end the other way, that’s what was happening to the torque tubes. When a tube failed the whole system would drive to the full deployed state and lock up.

Now everything in the system had to be timed together, so when one tube broke, it threw the whole timing off, basically FUBAR’ing it. When a plane came back with a flap/slat lockout you could not retract them, which on the boat made parking it even challenging. In order to fix a flap/slat system, you had to replace the broken torque tubes, inspect everything and then rebuild the drive system which meant you had to re-time everything. After you had it all put back together you had to hook up a test set to the system and run it, it would give you a read out that looked like an EKG that would tell you if the system was timed correctly, if not, you broke everything loose again, re-timed it all over, and then run the test all over again.

Hopefully someone will find the above useful,
Gerry

BTW, here is the description of the flap/slat system from the NATOPS.

FLAPS AND SLATS
The flaps and slats form the high-lift system, which
provides the aircraft with augmented lift during the two
modes of operation: take off or landing and maneuvering
flight. The flaps are of the single-slotted type,
sectioned into three panels on each wing. The two
outboard sections are the main flaps utilized during both
modes of operation. The inboard section (auxiliary flap)
is commanded only during takeoff or landing. The slats
consist of two sections per wing mechanically linked to
the main flaps. Flaps down greater than 10° enables the
wheels warning light interlock, and greater than 25°
enables direct lift control.

Main Flaps.
The main flaps on each wing
consist of two sections, simultaneously driven by four
mechanical actuators geared to a common flap driveshaft.
Each wing incorporates a flap asymmetry sensor
and flap overtravel switches for both the extension and
retraction cycles. Cove doors, spoilers, eyebrow doors, and gusses
operate with the flaps to form a slot to optimize airflow
over the deflected flap. The cove doors are secondary
surfaces along the underside of the wing forward of the
flap. As the flaps pass 25° deflection, a
negative command received from the DFCS depresses
the spoilers to –4 1/2° to meet with the cove doors.
Because the spoilers do not span the entire wing as do
the flaps, gusses inboard and outboard of the spoilers
perform the flap-down function of the spoilers. With the
flaps retracted, the eyebrow doors, which are the
forward upper surface of the flaps, are spring loaded in
the up position to close the gap between the trailing edge
of the spoiler or guss and the leading edge of the flaps.
Mechanical linkage retracts the eyebrow door when the
flaps are lowered to provide a smooth contour over the
upper surface of the deflected flap.

Auxiliary Flaps.
The auxiliary flaps are
inboard of the main flaps and are powered by the
combined hydraulic system. The actuator is designed to
mechanically lock the auxiliary flaps when in the up
position. In the event of high dynamic-pressure conditions,
a bypass valve within each control valve opens
causing the auxiliary flap to be blown back, thus
avoiding possible structural damage. During loss of
electrical power, the control valve is spring loaded to
retract, retracting the auxiliary flaps within 1 minute.
The auxiliary flaps use cove doors, eyebrow doors, and
gusses identical in purpose and operation with those
associated with the main flaps.

Slats.
The slats on each wing are divided
into two sections, both of which are driven simultaneously
by a single-slat driveshaft. The slats are
supported and guided by seven curved tracks.

And here is some info on the spoilers.

Outboard spoiler operation is electrically inhibited at wing-sweep angles greater than 62°, only the two inboard spoilers will deploy when the wings are fully swept back.

Forgot to mention, for everyones info, the Tomcat actually has 5 spoilers if you count them. Starting at the wing tips and counting inboard, there is a fifth one that is covered up when the wings are swept back. That fifth one is bolted closed and is not functional, the third and forth from the wing tip are the ones that operate when the wings were swept back. The two outboard ones operate when the wings were less then 62 degrees. Also, they will not be as open as you see on deck, on deck that is what was called ground breaking, in the air they opened about half of what you see on deck.

IIRC, on deck they opened to 55 degrees, in the air the opened to like 25 degrees.

[Viper Enforcer]

Originally Posted by VFA-103guy

We call those "S Band" Antennas, which are quite prevalent on our Flight Test Vipers.

[GW8345]

(and once again, I'm hijacking Brian's thread)

Hi, for the next installment of Tomcat 101 we are going to focus on the LAU-138 BOL's Chaff, not really the launcher but the chaff/flare rounds used in the LAU-138.

The below question was asked in another thread so I though it would be good to post the answer here so it's easier to find.

The BOL rails and the dreaded chaff/flare dispenser: It looks like the chaff/flares go at the back of the launcher. I've got the DACO book and I've seen a lot of these launchers on various aircraft in my research. But it looks to me like not a single one was ever loaded. Does the launcher look any different when empty, vs. loaded?

And on that note, the rails and the area designed for the chaff/flare cartridge (I'm assuming it's a cartridge) looks positively tiny, compared to the cartridges in the boat tail, for instance. How many rounds would this thing hold? Was it either/or (chaff/flare) or both?

Below is a drawing (from one of the chaff/flare manuals) of what the round looked like:




The chaff rounds used in the LAU-138 were the RR-184 (Tactical) and the RR-189 (Training), for the flare it was the MJU-52/B.

All the rounds had a black plastic frame and the chaff/flare was wrapped in brown wax paper. The rounds would "snap" or lock together the LAU-138 was capable of holding 160 rounds. It was illegal (when I was in Tomcat's) to mix the rounds so we mostly flew chaff in the launcher and flares in the aft buckets in the tail. (besides, those BOL's flares could barely light a cigarette, I've see matches produce more flame)

The launcher would dispense four rounds from each launcher each time the chaff button was pushed. We normally flew two LAU-138's and the only time we wouldn't was when one of the launchers had to be removed for maintenance and there was no replacement spares, so we would just throw a LAU-7 up there or leave the station empty. This was rare but we did do it from time to time, especially when we where back at the beach.

In another thread Neeko mentioned that the Tomcat had a nasty habit of "shitting" out chaff during a launch and here's why. In order to load the launcher the legal way you had to use a special loader we called the star wars gun. It would hold 80 rounds but here's the kicker, FITWING only gave each squadron two of them. So basically, you had enough loaders for one launcher, no one plane, just one launcher. The premise was that you would load up one launcher, run down to the chaff/flare locker in the ship, load up the launcher, then run back up to the plane and do the other launcher, repeat for each aircraft that was to be loaded. No I don't know what moron was smoking crack but there was no way this was going to work when you had 2 to 4 planes going out and you only had about 15-20 minutes to do this. What we basically did was hand load them. The rounds came in 16 round bundles so we would just fill a 20mm ammo can up with a shit load of bundles, and hand jam them in the ass end of the launcher. Most of the time when you pushed them in the aft bundle would lock in with the front bundle and everything would be fine but occasionally, the very aft bundle would not lock with the front section, coupled with the launching mechanism wearing out the aft end of the launcher would not hold the last few rounds so on the cat stroke it would "shit" several rounds of chaff.

The round was designed to break apart as soon as it hit the airstream, hence the air diverters on the back end, they helped funnel air to speed up the rounds breaking up.

There was different size chaff wrapped in tiny bundles, the smallest bundle was about the size of a piece of Chiclet gun, the largest was three times the size of a piece of Chiclet gun. The flare was a pyrophoric metal element so as soon as it hit air, it would burn. We never played much with the flares but while I was at VX-23 I was the ordie they picked to do a training film on the proper loading and handling of the MJU-52/B. Not sure what ever became of that but if you see a training film about the MJU-52, those are my hands.

Please refer to the drawings I posted for the dimensions. These things weren't that big and as I sit here typing this I am looking at one of my sons Ipod 4 gb nano's (the one with the one and half by three inch screens) and the rounds were about that just about that size.

One of the biggest draw backs to the launcher that there was no way of telling how many rounds were fired unless you downloaded the launcher. So, when the bird came back, we had to down load the launcher, count what was left, then reload it. After a while we would just count how many we packed into it but this would not give you the most accurate count because sometimes you couldn't get 180 rounds in the thing, the track would bind up and jam so the only way to get an accurate count was to down load it.

I won't go into the rest of what was wrong with the launcher, we'll save that for another day.

A few details about the launcher, it was basically a modified LAU-7, the front was redesigned for the nitrogen bottle (called the N2 Bottle) and the aft end where the N2 bottle normally went was where the engineers jammed the BOL's system. The "mech assembly" was the same as a LAU-7 and the power supply was the same (IIRC). It mounted to the aircraft the same way as a LAU-7 but you could only put it on the A stations. You could put it on the B station but you would not be able to open the handle for the N2 bottle in order to change it so you would only get a flight or two out of the bottle before you had to change it. If you see a bird with a LAU-138 on the B station it was either for a stupid photo op (someone was smoking some serious crack) or a fit test.

Okay, I've bored you enough but that is some of the basics of the BOLs rounds and the LAU-138. One last thing, WTF!!!! does BOL's stand for, we could never figure it out the engineers that came down to Oceana in 96 didn't have a freaking clue either (BTW, I was about a inch away from choking the shit out of one of them when he asked my was my job as the Ord Shop LPO).

Until the next boring installment, happy modeling.

Gerry

[MickyG]

Awesome info Gerry! So, am I correct in my thinking that fully loaded and empty, they look the same? Is there anything that can be seen at the back? And more importantly, if it can be seen, is it going to be noticed on a model?

[GW8345]

There's no detail that needs to be added to make it look loaded, just paint the back area a watery brown and some black lines to make it look loaded, for empty just paint it steel or MM jet exhaust.

Gerry

[Drewe]

I guess itls a measure fo hw much I love the Tomcat that I'm practically inhaling all this stuff! GW'd slat/flap post was totally engrossing! I may, in fact, be a nerd!

[VFA-103guy]

Gerry-

Is there not a way to save the PDF's as a JPG?

Sorry, I'm not very PDF savvy...lol

[GW8345]

Originally Posted by VFA-103guy

Gerry-

Is there not a way to save the PDF's as a JPG?

Sorry, I'm not very PDF savvy...lol

Not that I know of. What I have to do is copy the PDF over to Paint, then save it as a JPG. When I looked at the Paint and JPG files on my computer they looked small as hell but after I uploaded them to photobucket and then linked them here the came out freaking huge.

I'll try to resize them and see what happens.

Gerry

Edit: looks like the resizing worked, the drawings should be a bit more manageable size now.

[VFA-103guy]

Originally Posted by GW8345

Edit: looks like the resizing worked, the drawings should be a bit more manageable size now.

Yes it did! Nice work!

[VFA-103guy]

Somebody asked me for some recommendations for aftermarket items for the 1/48 F-14, so here goes. I will add photos or links when time permits.

GRU-7A Ejection Seats:

Verlinden all the way with this one. Out of all of the aftermarket GRU-7A's, nobody has come close to what Verlinden has done. They truly captured the seat in size and shape, and it is the most accurate rendition of the GRU-7A for the F-14A/B. The Aires or Quickboost seats follow closely.

True Details seats are a bit too tall and actually look a tad bit like those in the A-6, but for a modeler on a budget, they will do fine.

SJU-17 Ejection Seats:

Aires/Quickboost is the way to go here, closely followed by Wolfpack's.

LAU-138:

Currently, there is no accurate rendtion of the 138 in 1/48 scale.

Wolfpack and F4dable Models have some very nice rendtions, but have some minor shape issues.

Wolfpack's Chaff dispenser is just a smidge too short and slightly lacking in detail, but the N2 Gas Bottle at the nose is correctly shaped. Also, the adapter is a seperate piece, thus requiring the modeler to align the rail, which I know isn't difficult, but I'm a simple guy and anything to make the construction easier I'm all for.

F4dable's 138 N2 gas Bottle is a little undersized, but their chaff dispenser nicely done. Their 138 is also a simple drop in replacement and does not require any aligning.

To be quite honest, nothing I have noted will make any difference once an AIM-9L/M has been added to them

Chin Pods:

For the TCS chin pod that is on the F-14A and B, the Avionix TCS chin pod is the way to go, but with the Avionix "bombcat" set not being readily available, there is no other accurately shaped TCS chin pod on the market. Before Avionix sold out to Squadron, they had a section on their site called "The Bone Yard". They were offering a chin pod set that included the TCS for the A/B, and the dual chin pod for the D. I was able to pick up several copies of them at a cost of about $4 for the pair. I sure wish they'd bring that back.

Having said that, in the newer releases of the Revell F-14B and F-14D, there is a very nicely done TCS chin pod included with the kit.

More to follow...