F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (2024)

Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

Post Reply

  • Print view
Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #1

Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:11 am

I got a question about the F-14 Tomcat,

From what I remember the F-14 Tomcat could carry up to 4 x AIM-54 Phoenix missiles each on it's own pallet carried under the pancake.

I've been told that the pancake posed a drag problem on aircraft as you had interference drag interactions between the two nacelles. Did the pancake/tunnel cause significant interference effect problems on the F-14 (compared to a fighter that did not have a tunnel, such as the F-15)? Also did the pallets with the AIM-54's cause major problems regarding interference effects with the tunnel/pancake?

Blackbird

Top

Zkpilot
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #2

Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:31 am

I'm not sure if you are just talking about under the fuselage only, but the F-14 could also carry another AIM-54 under each wing... 6 in total... it was an unusual load and when they did take off with it they HAD to fire 2 to bring the weight of the aircraft down for landing on carrier.... makes for one expensive flight!

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #3

Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:49 am

Zkpilot,

Under the particular circumstances, the questions I was asking pertained to the four AIM-54's carried under the fuselage (the four under the pancake)

Blackbird

Top

LMP737
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #4

Thu Sep 11, 2008 3:32 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
I got a question about the F-14 Tomcat,

From what I remember the F-14 Tomcat could carry up to 4 x AIM-54 Phoenix missiles each on it's own pallet carried under the pancake.

I've been told that the pancake posed a drag problem on aircraft as you had interference drag interactions between the two nacelles. Did the pancake/tunnel cause significant interference effect problems on the F-14 (compared to a fighter that did not have a tunnel, such as the F-15)? Also did the pallets with the AIM-54's cause major problems regarding interference effects with the tunnel/pancake?

I don't think it casued major problems. There was of course increased fuel burn and performance penalties due to the weight and drag of the LAU-92.

When you see pictures of an F-14 carrying a full load of AIM-54's it was either a photo op with dummy missiles or during flight testing. Typical load out of an F-14 was 2-2-2, AIM-7, AIM-9 and AIM-54.

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #5

Thu Sep 11, 2008 5:49 pm

LMP737,

So, the performance penalty was not major or drastic -- would you say the performance penalty was moderate or minor versus a clean set-up?

KJ

_Lesnick
BTW: What's an LAU-92?

Top

LMP737
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #6

Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:26 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 4):
LMP737,

So, the performance penalty was not major or drastic -- would you say the performance penalty was moderate or minor versus a clean set-up?

KJ_Lesnick
BTW: What's an LAU-92?

I would say that the performance penalty was moderate. However like I said earlier the F-14 rarely carried four or six AIM-54.

The LAU-92 was the launch rail for the AIM-7. I meant to say LAU-93 which was the launch rail for the AIM -54.

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #7

Thu Sep 11, 2008 6:45 pm

LMP737,

I'm aware that it rarely carried 4 x AIM-54's.

Out of curiosity which posed more of an effect on the plane's capability: The weight of the missiles/pallet, or the drag of the missiles/pallet? (Sounds like a weird question, there are some airplanes where the drag causes more of a penalty than the weight and there are cases where the weight causes more of a penalty than the drag)

Blackbird

Top

LMP737
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #8

Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:13 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
LMP737,

I'm aware that it rarely carried 4 x AIM-54's.

Out of curiosity which posed more of an effect on the plane's capability: The weight of the missiles/pallet, or the drag of the missiles/pallet? (Sounds like a weird question, there are some airplanes where the drag causes more of a penalty than the weight and there are cases where the weight causes more of a penalty than the drag)

Blackbird

I honestly don't know.

Top

rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #9

Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:36 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
Out of curiosity which posed more of an effect on the plane's capability: The weight of the missiles/pallet, or the drag of the missiles/pallet? (Sounds like a weird question, there are some airplanes where the drag causes more of a penalty than the weight and there are cases where the weight causes more of a penalty than the drag)

Sure. The weight of the external payload increases induced drag, while its shape increases parasitic drag. The later is going to be constant assuming a constant speed and no important interactions with local flow around the aircraft. OTOH, the amount of induced drag depends on the efficiency of aircraft's wing at that speed. So you'd generate much more induced drag by adding weight to a fighter with a stubby low-aspect ratio wing than you would to a glider. It's just a matter of which (parasitic or induced) drag is bigger.

And, of course, those change as do the flight conditions. Not least, the additional induced drag goes down with airspeed, while parasitic drag increases. So the hypothetical payload might contribute more induced drag at 200kts, but more parasitic drag at 400kts.

At one extreme, a very light, but very bulky shape, will practically always cause more parasitic drag than induced drag. At the other, a streamlined block of lead will usually create more induced drag than parasitic drag. Somewhere between those will be objects where the dominating drag contribution varies between aircraft and with different flight regimes.

Top

AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #10

Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:49 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 1):
6 in total... it was an unusual load and when they did take off with it they HAD to fire 2 to bring the weight of the aircraft down for landing on carrier

Not quite true. In early '80s CVW-11 turkeys regularly flew exercise missions with 6-0-2 loads [6xAIM54, 0xAIM7, 2xAIM9]. As combat training exercises, the missiles were all dummies, but at full size and weight. F-14A's had to be pretty low on the fuel when returning,but since we were simulating real combat scenarios the objective was to exercise the equipment & crew as you would during real combat missions.

As to weight vs. drag issue, the weight always became the real issue since the AIM54 was about 1,000 lbs. The more you load, the higher the fuel burn, less manouverable the plane and lighter the fuel load required for

CV

landing. A 6-0-2 load would be for a pretty "strategic" mission. The standard "tactical" load was 1-1-1 or 2-2-2 (or some combination of same).

Since the F14 was designed with the pallet system, the pallets did not create much aerodynamic issues for the F14. You can not compare the pallet issue with other aircraft though as no other fighter was designed to use the pallets... no other fighter used the AIM54 either.

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #11

Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:15 pm

AAR90,

Quote:
Not quite true. In early '80s CVW-11 turkeys regularly flew exercise missions with 6-0-2 loads [6xAIM54, 0xAIM7, 2xAIM9]. As combat training exercises, the missiles were all dummies, but at full size and weight. F-14A's had to be pretty low on the fuel when returning,but since we were simulating real combat scenarios the objective was to exercise the equipment & crew as you would during real combat missions.

Reasonably speaking, it *is* generally a good idea to practice combat under realistic conditions.

Quote:
As to weight vs. drag issue, the weight always became the real issue since the AIM54 was about 1,000 lbs. The more you load, the higher the fuel burn, less manouverable the plane and lighter the fuel load required for CV landing. A 6-0-2 load would be for a pretty "strategic" mission. The standard "tactical" load was 1-1-1 or 2-2-2 (or some combination of same).

Which was worse, the range reduction or the speed reduction?

Quote:
Since the F14 was designed with the pallet system, the pallets did not create much aerodynamic issues for the F14. You can not compare the pallet issue with other aircraft though as no other fighter was designed to use the pallets... no other fighter used the AIM54 either.

That's a good point.

Blackbird

Top

AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #12

Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:53 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
Reasonably speaking, it *is* generally a good idea to practice combat under realistic conditions.

CVW-11/BG-F was the first battle group to actually count the weapons used during OpEval exercises, probability-of-kill (PK) for all missile shots [both surface-to-air and air-to-air] and realistic "turnaround" times for returning planes to be used again [required actual downloading of weapons and uploading of new (different) weapons]. We were even trying to simulate missile time-of-flight to impact. Plus a whole host of other stuff was just "swag'd" before then. CV

BG

magazine mix was significantly changed when the pentagon planners started to see actual weapon use levels. F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (13)

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 10):
Which was worse, the range reduction or the speed reduction?

The more Phoenix one carried, the more "strategic" the mission... and the less manouverability/speed required. When carrying a lot of AIM54's, you're going after bombers so range is more important to start with. Therefore, the range reduction was "worse" but could be countered with effective tanker practices. It became pretty much SOP for CVW-11 F14s to operate 1,000 nm missions with 6-0-2 loads. Big headache for the Hummer Moles [who had to coordinate all the real-time support for such missions] and I don't want to know what the "lucky" guys who flew them were thinking. F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (14)

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #13

Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:20 pm

AAR90,

CVW-11 was attached to the USS Enterprise from 1982 or 1983 to 1986 right? I could imagine "Crazy Bob" (then Enterprise C.O. Capt. R.L. Leuschner) playing a role in that one: From what I recall (It was a website about crew members who served on the USS Enterprise) he was legendary for elaborate and highly realistic combat-drills.

Blackbird

[Edited 2008-09-12 16:20:54]

Top

AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #14

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:21 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 12):
CVW-11 was attached to the USS Enterprise from 1982 or 1983 to 1986 right? I could imagine "Crazy Bob" (then Enterprise C.O. Capt. R.L. Leuschner) playing a role in that one: From what I recall (It was a website about crew members who served on the USS Enterprise) he was legendary for elaborate and highly realistic combat-drills.

Late -81 to.... I don't know when as I left in.................. Jan.85 IIRC. Capt. Bob was there in the later half of my tour. Yes, many sea-tales about Capt.Bob.... most of which are based in significant fact. Yes, he had a hand in the "realism" but CVW-11's "Burner Bob" Hickey was the one who started the counting of actual weapons used. When compared to what the ship's magazines stored, the discrepancies were "enlightening" to say the least. Once the ball got rolling, we kept getting more and more "realistic." SecNav Lehman flew aboard once during OpEval and the Hummer's reply to his check-in was "turn right 40 degrees, descend & maintain XXXXX, welcome to the Big-E's world Navy-1, by the way...... you're dead." I kept the tape of that for almost 6 months. F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (17)

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #15

Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:14 pm

Quote:
SecNav Lehman flew aboard once during OpEval and the Hummer's reply to his check-in was "turn right 40 degrees, descend & maintain XXXXX, welcome to the Big-E's world Navy-1, by the way...... you're dead." I kept the tape of that for almost 6 months. F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (19)

So basically if the simulation was real his COD would have been hit? Ballsy transmission!

Blackbird

Top

AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #16

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:07 am

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 14):
So basically if the simulation was real his COD would have been hit? Ballsy transmission!

Lehman was a

USN

Reserve A-6

BN

flying during his "active duty assignment." They did not do ANY of the appropriate "friendly

ID

" things they were supposed to do so.... the became just one of the 486 "enemy" targets shot down that day [Orange Forces launched 485 planes so we were pretty busy and he just got caught up in all the missile firings]. He was just a bit "upset" and I guess his pilot (supposedly that squadron's "top hook") making 4 bolters before successfully trapping aboard Big-E didn't help his attitude [the square island makes for an ugly "burble" behind the ship]. IIRC, it was Leuschner who squeezed him into the back-end of an E2C sitting on the flight deck (only working

CIC

available on the ship due to simulated "battle damage") to show him the progress of the "war." His spirits were much improved by the time he met us after we landed some 4+ hours later. Improved even more the next day as he got to watch/listen to the early morning 900+nm 45 acft "Alpha Strike" on

NAS

Miramar,

NAS

North Island, and NALF San Clemente (the "orange force" airfields). So much so he had Orange Forces "stand down" for the day [unheard of in exercises] since they supposedly had no useable runways anymore. That worked out much better than it was planned. F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (21)

Top

Blackbird

Topic Author

Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #17

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:27 am

Sweet Jesus: That was one hell of a simulated battle!

Blackbird

Top

AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question

  • Quote
  • #18

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:10 am

That was but one day. OpEval lasted 3 full weeks.

Top

Post Reply

  • Print view

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last: 24 Hours48 Hours7 Days30 Days180 Days365 DaysAll Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos

F-14 / AIM-54 Phoenix Mounting Question (2024)
Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Domingo Moore

Last Updated:

Views: 6408

Rating: 4.2 / 5 (53 voted)

Reviews: 84% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Domingo Moore

Birthday: 1997-05-20

Address: 6485 Kohler Route, Antonioton, VT 77375-0299

Phone: +3213869077934

Job: Sales Analyst

Hobby: Kayaking, Roller skating, Cabaret, Rugby, Homebrewing, Creative writing, amateur radio

Introduction: My name is Domingo Moore, I am a attractive, gorgeous, funny, jolly, spotless, nice, fantastic person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.