A historical perspective of the evolution of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat design presented by former Northrop Grumman VP Mike Ciminera. Produced by Betty Wheaton and Jarel Wheaton for Peninsula Seniors pvseniors.org
If you're an "Aircraft Guy" set aside an hour for the most informative narration of an aircraft's evolution and development by the most articulate and informative narrator I've ever heard.
wow great information. my father worked at Hughes and was one of the lead engineers on the AWG 9 and aim 54 Pheonix ,he drive me to Sandiego to a motel where I spent 2 days just wat hyung the f14s take off and land ,it never got old .
Superb presentation and videos. As a RIO (with 3200+ hrs in type), I had the privilege of flying all three versions of the aircraft during a tour with VX-4 from 1987-1989. During that time we re-constituted the Tomcats air-to-ground capabilities and proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it could be the ultimate Navy strike-fighter. In mid-1989, during a Topgun class at Fallon, VX-4 provided the striker role. We loaded an F-14B with 4 x MK-83 in the tunnel (we were using BRU-9 ejector racks vice the certified fleet standard BRU-32), 2 x drop tanks, 2 x AIM-7 Sparrow and 2 x AIM-9 Sidewinder. Our mission was to do self-escort into the B-19 target area after splitting off of our F-18 escorts. Our initial run-in altitude was 28K' and with that load we were doing 1.2 Mach without afterburners. We split S to the deck and was cruising in Mil power doing about 550 KTS when I got tally on an F15 aggressor at our 3 O-clock /~4-5miles trying to lead turn us. I told my stick who promptly lit the burners and we literally walked away from that F15 without him even coming close to getting a shot. So yes Mr. Ciminera you guys built one helluva of a dynamic yet graceful fighter. A little more historical data regarding the Tomcat 21and other advance F14 concepts. When these proposals were being developed for presentation in the 5-sided wind tunnel, Sec Def Dick Chaney had just wiped out Naval Aviation ( I was in the Pentagon from 1991-1993) by cancelling the A-12, P-7, A-6F, NATF and truncating the F-14D buy to 55 aircraft. Mac D was all over the building getting face time with everyone touting their Hornet 2000 "upgrade" to the F-18C (became the F/A-18E/F). For what ever reason someone in SEC DEF office or PA&E had a burr up their butt about Grumman and would not take the Grumman presentations. Shortly after the 1st Gulf War concluded, in a social setting Adm Dunleavey OP-05 at the time, commented to RADM "Sweetpea" Allen and myself that they had "picked" McDonnell Douglas to proceed with the Hornet 2000"Upgrade". And that was how the Navy ended up spending 5B$ to grow the Hornet to the same size as an F14 but without the kinematic/range or load carrying capability of the Tomcat. Again, Thanks Mr. Ciminera for an awesome presentation. I spent 3-4 months in Calverton testing the F-14B/D and enjoyed the steaks at the Town Pump restaurant.
Philip Nelson thank you for your service, though I’m kinda jealous at the same time. I’m curious about the M1.2 w/ full load-out. How is that even remotely possible? I didn’t think any variant was capable of “super cruise” even in a light / clean config. Regardless of speed, that load-out is simply amazing - and as I understand it, there were very few limitations on the airframe in that config. I’m lucky to live only a few miles from the Udvar Hazy museum, being able to look at one of the airframes involved in the Libyan incidents is amazing.
Alex, Good question. Here's how it was done but I admit not for very long; 1. The GE F110 engines produced 27K thrust in full blower. They produced the same amount of thrust in military that the TF-30 produced in zone 3 afterburner. 2. The MK-83's are carried on the Phoenix rails along the centerline in the tunnel between the engines. The front rails have aerodynamic fairings that reduce induced drag and the aft two bombs are right behind the front two again creating a reduced induced drag condition. Admittedly the two drop tanks created the largest drag index but the additional fuel outweighed that issue. 3. The tactical ranges are not that far from NAS Fallon so we knew we had a large load of gogo juice to blow out the rear and thats what we did. 4. Acting like the fighter escort, we started a few miles behind and couple of K' higher in full blower then our F-18 escorts at 28K' We got to 1.2Mach at which point we started a gradual descent in military passing our F-18 escorts at around 28K'. We were trying to confuse the bandits as to who was the real strike aircraft. That's when I noticed we were still doing 1.2M. How long that lasted I'm not sure but probably not that long. That was also about the time we split S away from the F18's and proceeded on our own. So I wouldn't go so far as saying we were super-cruising but we had some good smash on for the loadout we were carrying. And we did walk away from the F15 aggressor down on the deck. The GE F110 engine was the engine the Tomcat was designed to run with. It was a sweet engine with unrestricted throttle movement in all flight regimes and AOA, had rapid response with eye-watering acceleration and was down right dependable. The only fighter that could accelerate with a clean Tomcat was a clean F-16N that also had the F110 (At VX-4 we did clean F-14B side-by-side acceleration races with F-18A/C, F-4S, F-5E, F-15C/F-16C from the Air Force 422nd Test Sqd and F-16N from Topgun/VF-126). Something I find currently interesting is the upcoming integration of the F14D AAS-42 IRST (upgraded) on the F-15C and F/A-18E/F. Should have had those a long time ago and the F22 should get it as well. Everybody is talking about Link-16/MIDS and the F-35 MADL? data link capability. We had that on the F14D in the 90's. Of course it's undoubtably more complex and capable today. Anyway appreciate the interest.
Yes sir! I was an AT in VX-4 from 90-93. By the time I got out in 93 the F-14D was developing into an incredibly advanced machine IRST and JTIDS the new radar etc. While repair man hours per flight hour were higher than the hornets all the tomcats were still up on the line the next morning just like the hornets. Maybe it was too expensive? Or was it political?
@@willwarden2603 Politics and stupidity. Say what you will about the Tomcat's maintenance record, the airframe had more inborn capability built into it and MORE growth potential than the F-18 in EITHER of its base forms! The Super Hornet STILL cannot match the speed or range capability of the F-14. They've been talking of producing conformal tanks for the Super Hornet to extend its range but those will STILL have a parasitic drag effect and reduce its performance. It's already the slowest of the fighters evolved from the 1970s in the US. The Super Hornet actually accelerates and climbs slower than the F-18A-D models. The original Hornet was notably slower than the F-15, F-16, and F-14B/D. There were definitely politics involved with the F-18 Super Hornet procurement decision just like the ATF buy was settled on perception, too. At least with the ATF they flew two prototype designs before a decision was made. There was fly-off between an advanced F-14 and the F-18 Super Hornet... It was a paper decision based on flawed assumptions made about the Super Hornet before they even flew a prototype plane! The ATF decision was based on a generally more impressive flight demo by the Lockheed team. Even Northrop's lead test pilot on the YF-23 admitted that in the end it looked like Lockheed flew a more impressive test demo with its YF-22s. They did a number of things that made great-looking photo ops like weapon test releases and high angle of attack maneuvers. BOTH planes satisfied the base requirements of the USAF but the service chose the F-22 because it put on a better-looking show. There are people to this day who believe Northrop was cheated but anybody reading the books written back then would have to conclude based on visual evidence that the YF-22 flew a more challenging program. The fact of the matter was NEITHER plane was flown as rigorously as originally intended. They only did about 50 flights apiece for both prototype instead of 350 as originally intended AND the program began the testing in August of 1990 INSTEAD of January that year as originally intended! It was a much more truncated program. &&&&&&&&&&&&& ****************** The F-18 had a troubled development cycle in its first two forms, the YF-17 and the YF-18. Compared to the other Teen Fighters of the 1970s, the YF-18 underwent the most radical re-engineering from base prototype to final production form. They had to redesign the wings and LERX because of drag issues that reduced roll rate, acceleration, and range. NONE of the other planes (F-14, F-15, and F-16) were as radically redesigned as the F-18! They ended up stiffening the wing more because it flexed too much and reduced roll rate, there were issues with the wingtip mounted missiles reducing roll rate (there were assymetry bomb release issues with the Legacy Hornet through its carrier career), and most importantly the drag issue that followed the YF-18 from its YF-17 predecessor. You know they LOST the Air Combat Fighter program to the YF-16 because the YF-17 just could not accelerate or roll as fast as the YF-16 and that was because of a drag issue that they didn't anticipate in the wind tunnel studies. They were NEVER able to resolve that problem fully in the F-18 program -- and it actually got worse in the Super Hornet redesign! -- and the F-18 has NEVER met the specs for range and acceleration requirements. There were many aviators upset that the Navy bought a new strike fighter (F-18) with less range and payload carry than the A-7! Heck, the F-4 chase planes, if they didn't throttle back during their test duties would actually PULL MILES AHEAD of the F-18 test planes before the end of the test cycle. A plane 20 years older than the F-18 Hornet was faster than its replacement! ************************** ************************** The F-14 itself developed a reputation for having certain bugs and reliability issues. The main problems were A) the powerplant selected for the A-model was AWFUL; B) the basic airframe was ahead of its time and very heavy. There simply wasn't an engine available in the early 1970s in the minimum thrust class (28,000lbs) needed to make the F-14 a GREAT fighter so they had to make do with the TF30 (21,000lb class) which already showed problems on the plane it was originally designed for, the F-111. It wasn't until 1980 that a decent prototype engine was available to test on a free F-14 prototype. The 1970s was NOT a good era for afterburning turbofans. The TF30 mentioned had problems. The F100 entering service with the F-15 (and later F-16) also had significant problems and was to be the basis of the DEFINITIVE engine (the P&W F401 turbofan) that would power the original F-14B production plane but the F401 NEVER went into production because of technical issues (the engine wasn't durable enough and blew up on the test stand at least once) and the Navy didn't have the funds to properly develop the engine and make it reliable for service. The F100 itself didn't become reliable until the mid-1980s after a redesign and upgrade with digital engine controls. The F-14 entered service significantly underpowered with a very complicated swing wing system just as there was a renewed emphasis being put on maintenance man hours. (The F-18 spent a protracted period -- close to ten years from the first flight in 1974 of the YF-17 to service entry of the F-18 in 1983 -- being tweaked to AVOID many of the problems the F-14 had. The F-14 was in flight test just barely over 3 years before the Navy put in into frontline service in late 1974.) The F-4 itself had reliability and high maintenance requirements (70 maintenance man hours per flight hour), too, but that perception didn't bite it as much as the F-14 AND the F-4's prototype DIDN'T crash 10 days after its first flight in the middle of the drawdown of US involvement in Vietnam. The F-14 had a lot of things going against it from the beginning. The Defense establishment was PO'd that the F-111B was scuttled by "disloyal high-level naval officers" and that a company that was on the outs with part of the Pentagon (Grumman) had been given the contract for a heavy fighter after not having built their own new design for at least ten years at that point! There were many decent ideas to improve the F-14's reliability AND increase its capability at the same time BUT every time they were about ready to put hardware into production to fix issues the funding "mysteriously" got cut at the last minute and transferred to other programs, half the time that funding going to the F-18. They were playing favorites in the Pentagon for sure. The F-14 head guys DIDN'T want to spike the F-18 program because they Navy NEEDED a light fighter to replace the A-7 and some F-4 squadrons in the Navy and Marine Corps but the F-14 upgrades were desperately needed, too. Very few officers wanted to stick their necks out because they KNEW going against the general trend at the Pentagon would mean the end of their careers or deferred promotions.
@@philipnelson1274 Just wanted to say thank you for your service and for sharing your experience with us. I envy you for getting the opportunity to fly such an amazing aircraft. Best wishes.
So proud my family's machine shop made tooling for assembly, inspection, and machining of parts for Grumman from 1952 until they quit making aircraft. We were their #1 quality supplier of tooling with tooling for the C-2, E-2C, F-14, A-6, EA-6, EF-111, X-29, and many more.
Impressive presentation by such a humble engineer, "You never do anything alone", well said. It's great that he acknowledged the progress made by GD in the development of the F-111 as part of the input for the F-14 design. Y
The F-14 was a fabulous aircraft and brilliantly designed. I was always a huge fan of it because The Final Countdown was one of my favorite films. My father in law was on the Nimitz and he was a mechanic for the F-14. From his perspective he did not like the F-14 and I can see why. It was a great fighter but as my father in law said... it was horrible to work on. He said that everything on the F-14 was incredibly complicated especially compared to the F-18 and on a carrier that is not good. But in the air it was unbeatable.
I swore I wasn't going to watch this whole thing... I watched the whole thing. Couldn't stop listening to this guy talk about this phenomenal aircraft.
I touched on it because the F-14 is one of my favorite if not my most favorite jet aircraft. I figured I'd watch some of it when I saw how long it was and maybe pick up on it later. The speaker was so engaging with a lot of really good information here I am at the end commenting on your post.
It's great seeing this. My Dad worked for Grumman in the 60's-70's and worked on the Tomcat and the C-2 and E-2C as a draftsman and mechanical designer. Was probably the work experience he most enjoyed and was most proud of.
This is one of the most thorough, most detailed presentations on an aircraft development I've ever seen. He got in most of the VFX model 303 design variants, he mentioned the Vought and North American competitors (with pics!), and really, really delved into the actual production design. Absolutely top notch, thanks so much for posting.
This lecture is a treasure trove of information. His presentation and delivery was top notch; no unnecessary flash just 100% information (but in no way dry). I couldn't believe it was an hour it went by so quickly and effortlessly. I can't say enough good things about it.
The best technical presentation of any airplane anywhere... I have tons of respect to the engineers involved in the program. Imagine doing all these development without Matlab and 3D CAD.
Mike has published a book on Grumman, I purchased mine through the Grumman Store. Great reading. They have some interesting items for sale. I worked for Grumman for 8 years in assembly in Plant 6 in Calverton, NY. I left just before the F-14 was delivered for assembly. Had worked on the S2 and the A6 group of birds. A great company with a great history.
It should. And had most powerfull long ranged missiles for that era in world. And i was exclusive for this aircraft. AIM-54 Phoenix. (with todays tech this missile is totally enhanceable)
it is in service and modernized...In Iran ;) 20-24 are fully operational. They managed to produce quite a lot of parts and refurbish others.So that is why they are still flying + US selling parts in late 80s
As an Iranian F - 14 saved Iran from Saddam invasion. It was actually a MIG killer. Even MIG 25 and French Mirage were no match for it. Here it is considered a legendary warplane. Much respect for this Learned man; how well he explained everything.
MiG-25 was not used properly by Iraqis...nor much of their air force. They would send MiG-25 head on,which was as dumb as it gets.MiG-25 was never an air superiority fighter,it was an interceptor-bomber.Its advantage,if they were smart to use it,would have been to have kept MiG-25 high enough to avoid getting hit by F-14 and at a distance...Patrolling and scanning with its powerful radar and waiting for the right time to go down and fire its missiles and ran back.That was the only way to fight F-14,since it had zero air superiority and dog fighting fighter,while F-14 was best of its time.Iraqi's would often try to invade Iranian air space deep,which,again,was not smart.Iran had great ground radars as well and F-14 that could attack fighters from even further range than MiG-25s.Thou at long ranges,hits were a rarity and still are and AIM-54 did not prove reliable at the extremely long ranges.ITs advantage was its range and its massive warhead that ensured a kill if it hit anywhere near the aircraft,but wasn't as reliable as many think. Iraqi's trying to use MiG-25 to invade Iranian air space and to do hit and ran tactics was dumb,as well as trying to engage F-14 directly.It had no chance in such application. Good part is,despite bad strategies and tactics used by Iraqi higher ups,Iraqi pilots gained some great experience...well,those that survived.
I do not deny success of the Iranian Tomcats but it is most likely unfair to attribute it to the superiority of the bird (and I am not saying it is not great plane). But the Iraqi pilots were most likely not trained on par with those in Iran neither I have ever heard that export version of the Tomcat had been ever made. While soviet weapons sold to the 3rd world countries often had greatly reduced capability. Mig-25 was 100% pure interceptor but if used properly and at its full capacity it would be nasty opponent even for the Tomcat.
I'm happy to have stumbled onto this video - it is packed with information not found in any of the videos I've seen ! Thank you very much for providing this !
The most well presented and interesting briefing of it's type I've ever heard. Gives me as a novice, but big fan of the Tomcat, a much greater understanding and appreciation of the effort that went into design and manufacturing of the aircraft. To me the aircraft represents American exceptionalism at it's best. Sure wish they had been able to get that F-14B in service early 70's.
Great presentation. I worked as a avionics installer when I was 20 at the Bethpage plant. To see the plane fly brought goose bumps and made me so proud to be an American. Now at the twilight of my time here your story again makes me so proud that I helped to build the F14..
I was in a Navy air squadron from 1971-75. We were at Miramar for war games and I was out at the refueling stations, which were right off the runway, and waiting for our planes to return from the day's exercises, when the first operational F-14's came in. It was an incredible sight to see. Those F-14's came in so slow, with their wings full forward, and touched down so lightly, and then were able to turn off the runway in an incredibly short distance...I dunno...maybe 50-60 yards...? It was amazing to watch. Our squadron shared the same hangar with the Top Gun squadron...that was cool. And no...I didn't see Tom Cruise..LOL..!!
This was always THE plane to me. Excellent presentation. This man does an incredible job here. I hope he was a teacher ar some point because he's fantastic and engaging and energetic. Plus this was well edited, clear audio, the slides were shown at the right times. Just overall a great production. Thank you!
The Russians were kind of afraid of it. It is mentioned by name in "Mig Pilot" by Viktor Belenko, "an aircraft that had the ability to track and engage 12 targets at the same time". "If what they were saying is true, this Tomcat will destroy us before we ever see it!" Thought Belenko... also they told the truth about American pilots in Vietnam, "they would drive on to the target no matter how many missiles or how much flak was fired at them".
I got to arm one of these bad boys while I was overseas for OIF. We got to stand about 150ft from it when it took off with full ab's! My insides vibrated and my teeth chattered! I will NEVER forget that feeling as long as I live!!
I am not an American , my country never flew the F-14 but i love this plane so much it's my all time favorite plane in the world i just love to watch it fly , look at the movies it stared in , read about it and look up anything related to the F-14. Such a beauty and remarkable plane
I absolutly loved this plane. The noise they generated in afterburner was so great that 30 feet away you could not hear yourself scream. I always volunterred when they needed someone to ride in the back seat when they trimmed the engines at full thrust. It fellt like sitting inside a sustained explosion that would go on for minutes at a time. An afterburner blow out would nearly make you soil yourself in fear. I just could not get enough of the plane.
I worked for Grumman in the 90's (Calverton - Flight Test). Really miss that place. On the crash they show at 43 minutes, my brother was a witness to that crash out on Long Island (he was out on the LIE driving for work that day).
This has got to be my favorite video on RU-vid. As Norman said, the information is so articulately presented even with its complexity. I wish more videos like this existed.
Complex but he presented it in such a way that it was very understandable. I am sure it helps to have a basic understanding of how fighters operate but I think even some one with no real knowledge would have been able to follow along well enough. I too wish there were more videos out there like this. Would love to hear this stuff about the F-15, F-16, F-22, A-10 and F-35. Not to mention some of the planes overseas like the Typhoon or Rafale.
As well as aircraft like the Corsair. People are so fickle, they think something is better simply if it’s prettier than another. Yes, if it looks right it’s usually right, but you can’t limit your brain like that.
Thank you for sharing this wonderful lecture. I tremendously enjoyed it. Mr. Ciminera is a great presenter, excellent communicator and a very smart man. Our country is fortunate to have talented engineers like him.
Nice job on production of this clip...I was plane Capt with VF_41, share the same hanger as these guys...every thing mentioned here is right on and boy do I miss it ...to me F14 will always be the best...
One quibble in the Q&A the speaker says 'the F-111 could do 1.2 Mach on the deck, no other aircraft could do that" - well the 1950's era F-105 routinely did 1.2 to even 1.3 Mach on the deck in egress from North Vietnam - and it accelerated to that speed quickly. Post-strike in SAM country with MiGs, the F-105 would often dive to the deck and egress at 100 ft AGL at 941 knots or better, then zoom up to tank after leaving the danger zone and fly back at cruise altitude. For many decades, nothing beat an F-105 on the deck.
It was a great pleasure to listen to your words and stories. A proper presentation about the most beautiful plane ever crossed the skies. Thank you Sir.
F-14 Plane Captain, Ordnanceman, Rescue Swimmer.......The roar of the Tomcat launching over you in the waste cats would make your teeth literally chatter ! I felt safe knowing Tomcats were protecting the carrier at all times ! Once alerted the Tomcats were launched in five minutes launch bar hooked in kneel at all times. I can't believe the Phoenix missiles are either destroyed at a million dollars a copy or sitting in an ordnance bunker. What an honor and privlidge as a young man to have been apart of the Tomcat.
Superb vidio ! NAS Mirimar & the F-14 were the pride of San Diego until Clinton turned over the base to the Marines & they sent Top Gun to NAS Fallon, the base has never felt the same, those were great times.
scott satren Ah yes the Clinton era. It was a great time to NOT be in the military! I left active duty in 1992 because it didn’t take genius to figure out which direction things would go under him. I stayed in the reserves until I retired in 2003. When I was at an active duty installation you could see how moral was low. Coming out of Desert Storm the HQMC estimated it would take 7 years to reset / rebuild its forces to prewar levels. Before Clinton mind you. Under Clinton, units went without combat essential equipment for years. It was a hollow force. It stayed that way until George Bush the 2nd was elected, and the GWOT began. Things were so bad in under Clinton that when you went into the restrooms on base you were not going to find soap, or paper towels. If you found a role of toilet paper in a stall you took it with you when you left and hid it. You did not see any pens laying around. Those were fare game and stolen on sight. And our forced got to relive those years under Obama with sequestration. Even today the services are trying to rebuild their air components, and increase the number of pilots, and planes.
To Pennisula Senior, is it possible to re-edit this fantastic presentation into HD version? I could almost use it as a lecture to my student for advanced aeronautic and weapon studying. A classic no doubt!
RyanKC I liked the plane before I even saw the movie, the plane caught my attention after reading up about it, those wings make it look so awesome, I bet if they had not gotten rid of it we would still be using it and probably reduced size, made it a 1 seater and expanded its arsenal of useable equipment
Wow, this was THE best technical explanation I've ever seen! TYVM! He carefully, yet concisely explained complex stuff so we all can understand it. I can't even explain what I had for lunch yesterday this accurately! Also very much appreciate his professionalism to repeat each question asked. Most just answer, leaving subsequent audiences guessing and less informed, & angry...haha!
hi, I knew Bob Kress, he designed the swing wing on the F14 Tom Cat and the software to make it work! he was also an avid RC modeler. he was a genus***** Nick Ziroli also worked on the F14 design and is a RC model aircraft designer too. but again, I knew Bob Kress and got a couple of his wonderful nitro Ducted Fan units, the RK740 and the RK 720. all the best***** Gary
I grew up just outside of Bethpage, NY, where the Tomcat was engineered and constructed. Seeing the early test article in the Cradle of Aviation at a young age doomed me to pursue a degree in aerospace engineering. My only regret is that Grumman is not here any longer to employ me, but this lecture is a sweet taste of what that may have been like.
First thing I want to say ts thank you to all the men and woman that create these beautiful machines. Now i have to say that this was simply amazing to listen to and watch. So comprehensive yet easily digested. I fell in love with military planes as a kid mostly because of my affinity for Tomcat and I have watched many docs on the Tomcat but this was just something special, to be able to listen to a guy that was integral to the design and development of this phenomenal aircraft was humbling. I think it's just amazing the things that these guys can do. I read the book Skunk Works and it's just truly mind boggling how these engineers are tasked with a project and their ability to solve 'impossible' problems to create these amazing machines that protect our great nation.
Ohhh... that's the glove vane! I though there's something wrong with my large scale F-14 model (Revell) i assembled in the late or mid 70's when I was a kid. So every time i close the sweep wings it pops out that sharp (i thought it ugly) part. I though I assembled the wing sprocket incorrectly.
