David Hingtgen

http://www.flightinternational.com/fi_issu...184091&Code=123 Don't know how long that link'll last, so here's the full text: Northrop Grumman's "forgotten" advanced tactical fighter leaves museum and could be heading for bomber contest Northrop Grumman's long-abandoned YF-23A advanced tactical fighter (ATF) is emerging as the possible basis for a surprise contender for the US Air Force's interim bomber requirement. The company recently retrieved the second of the two YF-23A "Black Widow II" prototypes (PAV-2) from the Western Museum of Flight in Hathorne, California, ostensibly for repainting for display at a forthcoming Northrop Grumman-backed air fair in August. However, the restoration is also thought to include several changes, including new cockpit displays and other possible cosmetic modifications. Northrop Grumman confirms restoration of the General Electric YF120-powered PAV-2 is taking place, but declines to comment on whether the revived YF-23A is linked to any USAF proposal. But sources close to the studies, which were kicked off by the USAF's recently issued request for information, say Northrop Grumman now includes a YF-23-based "regional" bomber concept among its raft of proposals and that the USAF "is interested". Until now, the company's offerings are known to include an upgraded B-2, X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) -based studies and possible designs based on its quiet supersonic technology programme. The distinctive, rhomboid-winged YF-23A lost out to Lockheed Martin's YF-22 in the ATF competition in 1991, but proved a valuable technology testbed for Northrop Grumman, which gave it all-aspect stealth. The company says it "drew upon a wide range of experience for its response to the interim bomber RFI, and the YF-23 is one". Other contenders include a Boeing's B-1R (regional) re-engined bomber studies and a larger D-model version of its X-45 UCAV, while Lockheed Martin is considering various derivatives of the F/A-22. These include single- and two-seat, re-winged and tailless versions dubbed the FB-22, the larger of which would be able to cruise at Mach 1.8 and have 75% of the range of the B-2 carrying up to 30 115kg (250lb) small-diameter bombs. Lockheed Martin is also understood to be offering a variety of other manned designs, including a flying-wing concept. The interim bomber is intended to bridge the gap between the current bomber fleet and a next-generation aircraft planned for 2037. The present timetable calls for a development effort to start in 2006, with an initial operating capability by 2015. GUY NORRIS / LOS ANGELES

That is a particular SR-71, during when it was stationed at Kadena. 17978, "Rapid Rabbit". >>> 61-7978 (c/n 2029) lost July 20, 1972 during landing accident at Kadena AB, Okinawa. >>> All the info you could want on that plane: http://www.habu.org/sr-71/17978.html

Anyone actually built a metal-plated VF-1 kit and decaled it? Some plated kits pretty much refuse to be decaled (Tamiya), I wonder if these do.

I wouldn't describe the F-14 and MiG-29 as valks, nor do you need to specify they're molded in fighter mode. I doubt there'll be any "MiG-29 Battroid" kits for a while...

While I do like F-4's a lot, my point has always been that the F-14 is, AFAIK, vastly superior to the F-4 in every single possible way. Speed/range/agility in all situations/missiles/radar/gun. The Super Hornet can't make that claim to the F-14.

I abbr. it to 17th wing as I didn't know how well-known "CVW" would be.

Yeah, and very soon after Iran had their revolution, Russia "came up with" the AA-9 long-range radar-guide missile:

Clarification: I only use 3M as "filler", the actual painted edge should always be Tamiya. But if you need to mask off an area like the size of your hand, use 3M blue for the center area to fill out the Tamiya-masked edge. PS--I recently got some tape from HLJ by "Aizu". It seems to be Tamiya tape cut in VERY thin widths. (EXACT same color). Will try it out on canopies soon. Less than 2 bucks a roll, well worth the price, because 0.4mm is too hard to try to cut yourself, and you'd never get good consistency. I suspect that thinness will be able to pretty much curve into a complete a circle.

Tamiya tape is worth its weight in gold. Though 3M blue tape is decent (as in, low-tack) it can't conform to a curve or surface half as well as Tamiya. Use 3M is you're just masking straight lines and flat areas, as its cheap. But if you need a curve or 3D area, Tamiya's the way to go.

IMHO, those companies are exactly like those that make, say, replica/replacement parts for a '67 Corvette. A product completely unsupported by the manufacturer for decades, yet there's a great want to keep some of them in complete, mint condition. Much more of a "providing a service for people who bought the product, but can no longer get spare parts from the manufacturer" than "trying to make money off someone else's work" situation.

One of the things is, Boeing even did "low-vis" AA tailcodes. Even the current low-vis planes in the wing get the lightning-style lettering. See here: Or look at the yellow-tipped CAG about 3 posts above.

"Even with the arrival of the F/A-18E Super Hornet in the force, the F-14 remains the platform of choice for precision targeting. It has longer range than the Super Hornet, and the LANTIRN targeting pod is superior to the Nite Hawk the F/A-18E's carry" --CAPT Scott Swift, deputy commander, CVW-14, 2003

But "traditionally" Sue Storm is a very fair-skinned, blue-eyed blonde. Jessica Alba, while pretty hot, is about the exact opposite of that.

Don't forget planes like the Harrier and Tornado. They can't blow off their canopy, so there's det cord embedded inside to blow it to bits before the seats come out. F-16's are pretty unique in having no forward frame for the canopy, so they actually blow off the windshield and middle, as opposed to most planes which have the windshield stay and they blow off the middle and rear sections.

Hey, Phoenixes are supposed to take out heavy bombers in one shot--they'd just vaporize a fighter. And yes, F-14's have horrific spin characteristics, combined with crappy engines. F110's help prevent spins, but you're still pretty screwed if you spin a Tomcat. Jetwash/propwash: generally, it's actually the wings making the effect. (Wingtip vortices). Few things on earth have a nastier wake than a 757.

While the F-14 was technically not involved in the Vietnam war (since Nixon declared end of offenses in Jan. 73) the F-14's did CAP cover the evacuation of Saigon in '75 and patrolled throughout the latter half of '74. So they were flying around Vietnam, fully armed, in the 70's, just not technically when a high-school textbook's illustrated time-line would show the Vietnam war as occuring in.

Skull Leader--gotcha. Knight26---143 are the Dogs, not 103, which everybody knows are the Sluggers. (They're not the Jolly Rogers till they change the number to 84 IMHO) Stamen--no, Goose shouldn't have died. There are lots of things specifically designed to prevent that. The most obvious one being that the seats are taller than the headrest, so you'd have to be like 8 feet tall to have your head poke above the metal frame. Now, you can lean up and out above the headrest (and you'll usually see the crew sitting like that), but when you eject the harnesses automatically pull you in tight, down into the seat. In addition to the fact that the canopy fires off in such a way as to get out of the way as fast as possible (they pitch up 90 degrees so they catch air and instantly flip/fall out of the way due to drag). Plus the upper frame of the seats (not the pilot's head) are designed to punch through a canopy, should all else fail. Let's see... 1. They rock! 2. VF-101 is gone in a few months. They will not disgrace themselves with Shornets. "Death before Bugs! " VFA-106 is expected to add on E and F models to be the new RAG, or possibly re-establish VA-174 as VFA-174. 3. F-14's are so inherently good at bombing, the Black Aces have won "best attack squadron" awards with non-upgraded A models! They didn't even need Bombcats to out-bomb A-6 and F-18 squadrons. 4. VF-1 and VF-2 were deployed to Vietnam to cover Saigon, but never got a chance to encounter MiG's. THAT would have been a lopsided fight, F-14 vs MiG-21....

trueblueeyes---normal F-14A engine position when shutdown is one open, one closed. Which one does what? It varies, despite many people's claims that it's one way or the other. I see both ways about equally. Also see them both open fairly often. Rarely see both closed. (They are supposed to be different, if they're both in the same position, someone wasn't following procedure) If you really want me to say the "most normal/correct/common" way, I vote for right open, left closed. F-14B/D's leave them both open. Shin---full burner doesn't necessairly mean fully open. Nozzle position is above all, dependent upon pressure ratio. Depends how fast the exhaust is, how fast the plane is moving, and how dense the air is. Go look at say an F-15 engine being tested---it'll be at FULL power with a 50 foot long flame, but the nozzle will be mostly closed because it's not moving. The nozzle's function is to equalize the pressure of the exhaust with the outside air--and the speed of the plane will affect that. You'll often see "open" on an F-14 taking off, but not FULLY open, which'll only happen at very high speeds and altitudes. Skull Leader--I'm not following your 203/117 discussion at all. Navy planes AFAIK give their modex over the radio. "Victory 103" would be the Jolly Roger's #103 plane, the showbird. Etc. I don't get where you get the Black Knights and Aardvarks from the numbers. Topgun stuff: Most of the planes filmed for flying around were from VF-51, including Maverick's. However, Iceman's was from VF-111. (VF-51 and 111 are sister squadrons, and were "available" at the time) Maverick's plane (and jacket) were actually marked up as VAW-110, an E-2C squadron. Picked simply because the director liked the logo. Iceman's was marked up as VFA-25, which is my favorite HORNET squadron. Of course, since VF-111 has the all-time coolest squadron markings ever (sorry, Jolly Rogers are #2 IMHO) they really shouldn't have repainted the plane. Yes, VFA-25's pretty cool, but to paint over the Sundowners markings... Maybe they didn't want Val Kilmer to have the cooler plane. Misc F-14 stuff: F-14B/D's are operationally limited to Mach 1.88 in peacetime, due to having so much thrust it can't maintain yaw control if one failed at Mach 2+. The true top speed is still unknown/classified, but likely around Mach 2.5 F-14A's are limited to about 2.2 for the above reason, Max speed is 2.41 F-14 fired its gun in anger for the first time in 2003, doing CAS! F-14's don't move ANY part of the wing at all for control when the wings are swept back. Everything is done with the tail--roll/yaw/pitch. An F-14's wing center-section is INCREDIBLY strong. They have been removed intact from otherwise smoking craters that crashed F-14's leave behind. You might find 100,000 little bits of metal, and 1 perfectly fine wing center-section with the pivots to attach the outer wings still attached. Electron-welded titanium. The most extreme/impressive move an F-14 can do is the bat turn. Start out at high subsonic speed with the wings swept back, and simultaneously hit full afterburner and command over-ride the wings to full forward, while rolling 90 degrees, and pull back on the stick HARD. Basically a right-angle turn, faster than even an F-18 or F-16 can do. Will suck up an incredible amount of energy (like a Cobra), but will result in one incredible turn. You pretty much trade a LOT of kinetic energy for the ability to turn like that for about 1 second without falling out of the sky. The epitome of "instantaneous rate of turn". The F-14 came very close to having 1 large v.stab and 2 large ventral fins. Was changed to 2 smaller v.stabs and 2 small ventral fins quite late, mainly on clearance issues. (Both ground and hanger deck height). The F-14 was the first fighter to carry AMRAAM's, and much of the initial AMRAAM flight testing was with F-14's from Pt Mugu. F-14's were supposed to be the first plane to get them, to make them nigh-invincible in BVR, as they would have had Phoenixes, AMRAAM's, and Sparrows, combined with the most powerful radar flying. F-14 #1 crashed on its second flight after all the hydraulics failed. F-14 #6 shot itself down with a Sparrow. (missile pitched up sharply IMMEDIATELY after launch)

Yellow wingtips? That hasn't been seen since they had F-8's. Coincidentally, both VF-84 and VF-103 had yellow wingtip markings at the time. FYI: AA is the tailcode for the 17th wing. http://www.jolly-rogers.com/cvw-103.htm The stripe on the nose is known as the vagabond stripe. PS--I wonder if even VF-84's 1959 flaming intake scheme would be enough to make a Super Bug look cool... Note, the h.stabs should have stripes too, they forgot.

Gotta nit-pick, since this is the topic of discussion: Rotating about the central axis is ROLL. BANK is actually turning/changing heading. (the "pulling up while rolled to the side" part) And which is usually coupled with yaw. You can roll without banking or yawing. Your standard 360 roll for example, or a 4-point roll. Flying with the wings swept: F-14 can get 90% of its lift from the fuselage and gloves under some circumstances, and I think gets 60% from the gloves in normal "swept-back" high-speed flight. VF-1 isn't quite a smooth in that area, but certainly has gloves, probably has some effect. Though it SURE doesn't even have .001% as lifting of a fuselage as the F-14 does, and that hurts it. F-14 is still one of the most aerodynamically efficient aircraft designs ever, period. And because of the glove/fuselage design, it can fly with large chunks of the wings gone. Roll etc: same way the F-14 does, tail+spoilers when unswept, and differential tail when swept. Of course, VF-1 would use differential thrust vectoring, having no h.stabs. But the vectoring'd be very effective with the engine spacing. Having no ailerons is not a problem. B-52's don't. B-1B's don't. Tornados don't. F-111's don't.

Ok, more info coming out: 1. VF-103 requested a high-vis plane for #101, Boeing said no, that wouldnt be to mil specs. The real answer is that it would have cost another 2 bucks of paint to add some black and yellow stripes... Repaints come out of the squadron's own money, not Boeing's contracted money, so we'll have to wait until the squadron gets ahold of them. 2. They'll probably have dark grey (36081) tails for most of the squadron. 3. The showbird (likely #103) will have *black* tails, regardless of what some higher-ups want. 4. To quote the CO of the Jolly Rogers regarding the new Boeing-applied logos-- "That crap's coming off as soon as we get back! "

Navy does have B and D models, but you can't use them operationally on carriers, the Hornet is SO pressed for weight, the 2nd guy is enough to preclude their use. They are only with the training squadrons. So there's like, 5. Blue Angels have probably the only operational B model in the fleet. In addition to range, the main goal of a Super Hornet was to increase the allowable bring-back weight of a Hornet. So that you can actually USE 2-seaters. Almost all F-14 squadrons (that survive) are getting Hornet-F's. A few are getting E's, but most E's are going to former C-model users and just a few re-established VA squadrons, ex-A-7 users and such.

I think they should go ultra-flourescent-high-vis to counter the admiral's rules. All yellow-tail, black skull, white accents. Most likely thing they'll do IMHO: Late 80's grey-tail variation. Also gets around the tailcode rule by having them on the inside. Of course, maybe just maybe there'll be enough of an uproar that the rule will change, and the Black Knights, Black Aces, and Jolly Rogers can have black tails again. Blah, the friggin Tophatters get to have black tails because they've got E-models....

Rear view: You'll notice it'd look a lot more "right" if the tailcodes were on the rudder, and there'd be room for a larger skull.

Disclaimer: I didn't paint them, Boeing did. PS---the Jolly Rogers are currently on deployment with their F-14's and aren't on-hand to "customize" the markings. But the squadron commander apparently isn't happy, and basically plans to repaint as soon as possible. PPS--apparently there is some admiral who doesn't like certain paint on Super Hornets, notably no tailcodes on the rudders, (many squadrons have had to have them moved) and worst of all--NO BLACK TAILS ON F-MODELS! So nobody knows what they're going to do. This is why the Black Knights don't have black tails anymore. PPPS--full credit goes to Brian Marbrey at ARC, aka "VF-103 guy".