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

F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:40 am

Why didn't the Navy take the F-15 Seagle, which was a modified F-15 with a stronger undercarriage, arrestor hook, and such?

Just curious as the F-15 had very good low-speed performance, I think it carried more fuel as well.

Andrea Kent
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:21 pm

The USN already had the F-14 by that point in time. Depending on whom you talk to, why would you want an F-15 when you have the F-14?
rm -r *
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:41 pm

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Why didn't the Navy take the F-15 Seagle, which was a modified F-15 with a stronger undercarriage, arrestor hook, and such?

Just curious as the F-15 had very good low-speed performance, I think it carried more fuel as well.

The additional weight which would have been added as a result of structural beef up would have diminished the F-15s performance. I believe that was why General Dynamics wasn't able to sell the Navy on a carrier based F-16 as well.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:27 pm

Quoting N74jw (Reply 1):
why would you want an F-15 when you have the F-14?

I don't know, maybe just to have a better airplane?

The kill ratio for the F-14 is; 14:2 (it is thought 2 IIAF F-14s were air to air kills during the Iran/Iraq war)

The kill ratio for the F-15 is; 105:0

This does not count either type shoot down by ground fire (F-14 about 6 to 8, F-15 is 4, all F-15Es).
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:00 pm

Like I said, it all depends on how you feel. We know what side TopBoom is on...

Those stats are not exactly valid. The F-15 has a larger user base and has been in more conflicts than the F-14. US F-14s dominated their adversaries at every turn.

F-15: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia
F-14: USA, Iran
rm -r *
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:02 pm

The F-15 could not operate the AGM-120 Phoenix, so that alone would have likely killed the idea.

At the time, the USN expected to be facing waves of Soviet cruise missiles, not waves of Soviet fighters. So the F-14 was far more important and valued for her capability as a "missile sled" then as a dogfighter.
 
GDB
Posts: 12652
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:08 pm

The USN still wanted a AIM-54 missile/AWG-9 weapon sytem combination, for defence against large scale attacks by Soviet bombers and missiles.
It had been botched with the F-111B, so they designed a better platform for it, the F-14.

So aside from making major modifications to a land based design, like the F-15, you've also got to shoehorn in a whole new radar system (and any Navy F-15 would be a twin seater due to this), as well as intergrating the large AIM-54 missile on an aircraft not designed for it.

The history of adpating land based aircraft for carrier use, is not a happy one.
Even a much more simple type, like Spitfire to Seafire, was not ideal.
Anti corrosion protection, ensuring no avionic interference with ship based systems, a complete re-design of the F-15's undercarriage, differences in the approach, a beefed up structure-carrier landings take it out of aircraft, modifcations for catapult launch.
F-15 was a big bird, not designed to fit a carrier hangars, developing a folding wing is just the obvious change here, there would be many more.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:10 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
The kill ratio for the F-14 is; 14:2 (it is thought 2 IIAF F-14s were air to air kills during the Iran/Iraq war)

The kill ratio for the F-15 is; 105:0

I think this has much less to do with the inherent capabilities of the airframe and more to do with the particular missions of the airframe. The fact is that the F-14 never really engaged its intended enemy, whereas the F-15 did. Much of that had to do with the theaters each was employed in.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
da man
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 8:27 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:57 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
The F-15 could not operate the AGM-120 Phoenix, so that alone would have likely killed the idea.

Uh, AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-120 is the AMRAAM.
War Eagle!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
I don't know, maybe just to have a better airplane?

The kill ratio for the F-14 is; 14:2 (it is thought 2 IIAF F-14s were air to air kills during the Iran/Iraq war)

The kill ratio for the F-15 is; 105:0

This does not count either type shoot down by ground fire (F-14 about 6 to 8, F-15 is 4, all F-15Es).

Try reading IRANIAN F-14 TOMCAT UNITS IN COMBAT by Osprey Press. The kills made by IIAF F-14 units are more than what is usually thought in the West.

Quite frankly trying to compare which is the better aircraft by the kill ratio without looking at the conflicts they were involved is a bit disingenuous. In the case of kills made by Israeli F-15's you have to remember the quality of the pilots. Pilot for pilot the Syrians were outmatched. Add to that a superior aircraft the end result was almost a foregone conclusion. My guess is that if the IAF were flying F-14's the kill ratio would have been the same. With USAF F-15's in the first gulf war it was pretty much the same situation.

Compare that to the IIAF during the Iran-Iraq War. Overnight their supply of spare parts was cutoff and shortly there after Saddam decided to cross the border. Along with the spares issues quite a few of Iran's best fighter pilots fled the country after the revolution. Those that stayed were thrown in jail or hounded by the Revolutionary Guard. Add the stress of constant war for almost eight years it should not be a surprise that they took a loss or two. Wonder if the F-15 would have been invincible in similar circumstances.

When it comes right down to it both aircraft did an outstanding job for their respective services.

[Edited 2007-10-17 16:17:14]
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:13 pm

Quoting Da man (Reply 8):
Uh, AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-120 is the AMRAAM.

Thanks for the catch.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:36 am

Why would they when they the superior F-14 already?
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 11):
Why would they when they the superior F-14 already?

I assume you meant "when they had the superior F-14". If that is the case, boy do you need some educating. Either that or you're just  stirthepot  .
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 am

Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter):
Why didn't the Navy take the F-15 Seagle, which was a modified F-15 with a stronger undercarriage, arrestor hook, and such?

Just curious as the F-15 had very good low-speed performance, I think it carried more fuel as well.

1. F14 was an INTERCEPTOR with air superiority capability.
2. F14 was designed/built/delivered PRIOR to F15 (was never an option for USN).
3. F15 is an air superiority FIGHTER with interceptor capability (<100nm radar vs. 150nm radar, etc.).
4. F15 could be "navalized" but at SIGNIFICANT performance reduction (same as F16... and every other attempt to adapt land-based acft to CV operations.

Bottom line: F15 was never an option for USN when USN was making their decision (late '60's) and even if it was, it was never designed for the F14's primary mission.... long-range simultaneous intercept of multiple targets. F15 only gained the simultaneous target capability with the introduction of AMRAAM (originally a Sparrow/Sidewinder only acft).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:22 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 12):
I assume you meant "when they had the superior F-14". If that is the case, boy do you need some educating. Either that or you're just .

At the time we are talking about the Navy did have the F-14
Yes I do know that the F-14 is no longer in service which is a shame and is a direct result of Donald Rumsfeld being a dick and getting his panties twisted by Grumman.
The F-15 (apart from the bomber versions) is no longer being made for the USAF either... they don't have as hard a life as Navy aircraft (salt water vs dry desert air) hard carrier landings vs smooth runway landings etc so they can be expected to last longer...
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:26 pm

Quoting N74jw (Reply 4):
Those stats are not exactly valid. The F-15 has a larger user base and has been in more conflicts than the F-14. US F-14s dominated their adversaries at every turn.

F-15: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia
F-14: USA, Iran

You forgot one more F-15 operator, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Cheers,

John
Cheers, John YYC
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:50 pm

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 15):
Those stats are not exactly valid. The F-15 has a larger user base and has been in more conflicts than the F-14. US F-14s dominated their adversaries at every turn.

F-15: USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia
F-14: USA, Iran

You forgot one more F-15 operator, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Perhaps their was a reason the F-15 is flown by 4 countries (for the F-15A-D, J) vs. two countries for the F-14A.

Quoting Da man (Reply 8):
Uh, AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-120 is the AMRAAM.

The F-15C/D does carry the AIM-120.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 9):
Try reading IRANIAN F-14 TOMCAT UNITS IN COMBAT by Osprey Press. The kills made by IIAF F-14 units are more than what is usually thought in the West.

That is true, of the 14 F-14 kills, 10 were made by the IIAF, the USN had 4. But compare the USN F-14 with just 4 kills and compare that to the USAF F-15 with 16 kills. BTW, until this year (FY-2008) the F-14 waqs in US service longer than the F-15, now in FY-08, the lenght of service is the same, because of the FY-2005 retirement of the F-14.

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 13):
4. F15 could be "navalized" but at SIGNIFICANT performance reduction (same as F16... and every other attempt to adapt land-based acft to CV operations.

But the USN took the airplane that lost to the F-16, in the light weight fighter program in the late 1970s, the F-17, and "Navalized" it, then renamed it the F/A-18?

How about both decisions (a navalized F-15 and F-16) being a military/political decision of not wanting a USAF airplane? The USN could have had the Phonix capability they said they badly needed by taking some F-111Bs as an interium airplane until the F-14A arrived.

BTW, I also think the USAF did the same thing by keeping the F-106A in service longer than originally planned (then used F-4D/Es), when they could have had an AF version of the F-14 for their interceptor.
 
N74JW
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:31 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:01 pm

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 15):
You forgot one more F-15 operator, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

Not actually, JASDF never took their eagles into combat. While we are splitting hairs, the RoKAF is now an eagle operator as well. Singapore is also slated to take delivery of a number of F-15S' (Not the Saudi F-15S)...
rm -r *
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:18 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
But the USN took the airplane that lost to the F-16, in the light weight fighter program in the late 1970s, the F-17, and "Navalized" it, then renamed it the F/A-18?

The USN "took" it, but never "wanted" it. What USN _wanted_ was an attack aircraft, not a "light weight fighter" (fighter role already being filled by F-14s). Congress would not pay for ANY new USN aircraft that was not based upon the YF-16 or YF-17, so USN chose the YF-17 (primary stated reasons being twin-engine and easily modified nose gear). Note: YF-17 and F/A-18A share the same lineage, but very little else. F/A-18A is almost 30% LARGER with less than 20% parts commonality with YF-17. These are virtually completely different aircraft.

Quote:
How about both decisions (a navalized F-15 and F-16) being a military/political decision of not wanting a USAF airplane?

The issue is not about not wanting a USAF plane, but if ANYBODY has EVER successfully modified a land-based aircraft into a successful CV aircraft.... it has never been successfully done. F/A-18A was the first, but only after virtually redesigning the ENTIRE airframe.

Quote:
The USN could have had the Phonix capability they said they badly needed by taking some F-111Bs as an interium airplane until the F-14A arrived.

At 80,000 lbs... not a chance. The F-111B program was cancelled because the plane WEIGHED TOO MUCH to operate off a CV. No catapult could launch the thing! And IF (as you theorize) the USN had taken the F-111B, there would then have been no need for the F-14 in the first place. Please understand, the F-14 program began AFTER the F-111B was cancelled. Grumman, a prime sub-contractor on the F-111 program, saw the handwriting on the wall and began a crash design program for the USN's replacement. Grumman won the design competition and the end result was the first US military aircraft program designed from the start to include "block upgrades." F-14A was to QUICKLY get a new airframe to lift the AWG-9/Phoenix system into the air using "off-the-shelf" engines (TF-30s from F-111 program). F-14B (first upgrade) was to be new engines (~40% more thrust than TF-30) --which the new airframe was designed the utilize. F-14C was to be the avionics upgrade (digitial to replace analog AWG-9). THAT is the PROGRAM the USN wanted (and thought it had purchased). All done in late 1960s... long before the F-15 program was even begun (USAF still planned on purchasing F-111A's).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:40 pm

AAR90 said pretty much what I was going to say so I guess I'll leave it at that.

KC135, I highly recommend IRANIAN F-14 TOMCAT UNITS IN COMBAT. Try your local Borders, they usually have it.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 12:48 am

When was the idea for the F-14 and F-15 born, and when was the contract for the F-14 and F-15 awarded?


Andrea Kent
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:27 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
When was the idea for the F-14 and F-15 born, and when was the contract for the F-14 and F-15 awarded?

Grumman received the contract for the F-14 on January 15, 1969. The F-14 first flew on December 21, 1970. McDonnell Douglas received a contract for the F-15 on December 23, 1969 and it flew on July 27, 1972. By the way the F-14 crashed on its first flight.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:47 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 21):
By the way the F-14 crashed on its first flight.

It was the first test bird on it's second flight.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:56 am

Does anybody know what companies submitted proposals for the F-14 program? I know Grumman won the competition, but I wonder who else was in the competition.


474218,

Quote:
By the way the F-14 crashed on its first flight.

What caused the crash?


Andrea Kent
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22953
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
Does anybody know what companies submitted proposals for the F-14 program? I know Grumman won the competition, but I wonder who else was in the competition.

The F-14 arose from the original TFX program, which was RFP'd by Boeing and eventual winner General Dynamics. Once awarded, it became the F-111 program with the F-111A for the USAF and the F-111B for the USN. The -B model was canceled due to inability to meet requirements so the USN created their own RFP which became the F-14.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 23):
What caused the crash?

IIRC it was an hydraulic leak caused by the lines flexing/moving due to not enough/designed in the wrong places holders. The crew tried to make it back but lossed all pressure about a mile short of the the runway and had to punch out

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

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:16 am



Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 25):
IIRC it was an hydraulic leak caused by the lines flexing/moving due to not enough/designed in the wrong places holders. The crew tried to make it back but lossed all pressure about a mile short of the the runway and had to punch out

Flex line coupling leaked. Flex line was used to keep on the extremely short development time line (not that uncommon practice in the late 60's). The original design called for a hard hydraulic line there and that was the "fix" applied to the prototypes and production aircraft. You can see the actual ejection/crash at the start of this video.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:45 pm



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 26):
Flex line coupling leaked

Ok I remember the "flex" part about it.  Smile

Dan in Jupiter
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:02 pm

What's "flex-line coupling" exactly?


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

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Tue Jan 08, 2008 3:54 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 28):
What's "flex-line coupling" exactly?

A flexible hose or tube (usually steel reinforced) instead of a hard metal tube. Often used as temporary repair of a broken "hard-line." The coupling is the plumbing fitting that connects the flex-line to the hard metal tube. Anytime you add connectors, you increase the potential for a leak. Look at the plumbing under your kitchen sink for comparable examples.  Wink
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:28 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
The F-15C/D does carry the AIM-120.

Sure it does...who told you that??
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:45 pm



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 29):
A flexible hose or tube (usually steel reinforced) instead of a hard metal tube. Often used as temporary repair of a broken "hard-line." The coupling is the plumbing fitting that connects the flex-line to the hard metal tube. Anytime you add connectors, you increase the potential for a leak. Look at the plumbing under your kitchen sink for comparable examples.

Have you been reading maintenance manuals again?  Wink
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:17 pm



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 31):
Have you been reading maintenance manuals again?

You forget... I started out as an Airframes Branch Officer way back when.  spin  Knew enough to keep clear of the maintenance action, but not enough to not ask a lot of questions.  Wink
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:51 pm

AAR90,

So the hydraulic line set-up was prone to leaking? That's why they lost pressure and had to punch out.

I would assume they had fixed the defect right?

BTW: You were an airframes branch officer while you flew E-2C's on the carriers?


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

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Jan 09, 2008 7:21 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 33):
So the hydraulic line set-up was prone to leaking? That's why they lost pressure and had to punch out.

"Prone to leaking?" Anything that carries fluid is "prone to leaking." The more connections you make, the more "prone to leaking" you have.

Quote:
I would assume they had fixed the defect right?

Correct. The "fix" to the "problem" was to complete the custom-made hard (read: fewer connections) metal hydraulic lines before allowing the flight test program to proceed. Could have happened with or to any aircraft.

Quote:
BTW: You were an airframes branch officer while you flew E-2C's on the carriers?

My first fleet assignments were as Branch Officer (officer in charge of...) Corrosion Control and Airframes shops in the squadron's Maintenance Dept. Airframes maintained the aircraft structure and mechanical operations. Corrosion Control... well, that's self-explanetory.  yes 
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:47 pm



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 34):
"Prone to leaking?"

One of our linemen was telling me yesterday that if Tomcats weren't leaking then you called MX, because that meant there wasn't any fluid in the bird. I think he was referring to oil though.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:50 am



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 32):
You forget... I started out as an Airframes Branch Officer way back when. Knew enough to keep clear of the maintenance action, but not enough to not ask a lot of questions.

Another officer bugging you when your busy fixing his plane.  Wink

Actually I didn't mind it when the O's asked questions. Showed they wanted to know more about the aircraft they flew other than the normal pilot stuff.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 33):
So the hydraulic line set-up was prone to leaking? That's why they lost pressure and had to punch out.

Prone to leaking is putting it mildly. Fortunately the F-14 used 5606 an a hydraulic fluid and not Skydrol. Otherwise my corneas would have been trashed long ago. If I remember my F-14 history part of what caused that prototype crash was a harmonic resonance occurring. I know I have an article regarding it somewhere.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:05 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 36):
Another officer bugging you when your busy fixing his plane. Wink

Well they'd quit if you'd stop trying to kill them by given them bad airplanes!!!  Wink

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 36):

Actually I didn't mind it when the O's asked questions. Showed they wanted to know more about the aircraft they flew other than the normal pilot stuff.

Mx guys are tops no doubt about it. I noticed a slight leak the other day and the mech was all over it. He already knew about it, had it written up, why it was leaking, how to fix it. As you know there'd be no Os flying if it weren't for mx.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:28 am

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 35):
One of our linemen was telling me yesterday that if Tomcats weren't leaking then you called MX, because that meant there wasn't any fluid in the bird. I think he was referring to oil though.

He was talking about hydraulics.

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 35):
One of our linemen was telling me yesterday that if Tomcats weren't leaking then you called MX, because that meant there wasn't any fluid in the bird. I think he was referring to oil though.

He was talking about hydraulics. On the F-14 hydraulic leaks were part of the game. If the engine, TF-30 at least, was leaking it usually meant there was something wrong.

[Edited 2008-01-09 17:29:09]

[Edited 2008-01-09 17:29:43]
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:58 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 36):
Another officer bugging you when your busy fixing his plane.

Or anything else he is charge of. As an ET, I had every O and senior enlisted bugging me from the TAO to the OS on watch when the comms went down. Best one was when the OSC ask me what was wrong with the secure VHF so he could tell the CO. So I told him--transistor Q-XXX in the KY-8 was in thermal runaway and there is nothing I could do about it at that time--get a call from the ERO(Electronic Readiness Officer,MY BOSS) telling me not to F*ck with the OS chief, just tell him it overheated due to the air conditioning being down.

Dan in Jupiter
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:40 am

Okay, so the hydraulic tubing was more leak-prone than usual due to the way it was designed, and the frequency of the airplane vibrating happened to resonate on it's natural frequency which caused a failure?


Andrea Kent
 
sprout5199
Posts: 1681
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:26 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:22 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 40):
Okay, so the hydraulic tubing was more leak-prone than usual due to the way it was designed, and the frequency of the airplane vibrating happened to resonate on it's natural frequency which caused a failure?

Yep. that was it. Next time try to google it. Sometimes I just think you ask a question just to see if you get five different answers.

Dan in Jupiter
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:18 am

In a fly off when the Shaw of Iran was deciding on which aircraft to purchase he was given the option o fbuying the F-14 or the F-15. Both aircraft flew and the F-14 won very decidingly. So the Navy had its own fighter it didnt need to look at the F-15.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:43 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 40):
...and the frequency of the airplane vibrating happened to resonate on it's natural frequency which caused a failure?

Remember, you're now talking about the natural frequency of the flex-line/coupler connection, not the hard line the plane was originally designed to have. Once the hard line was installed, that problem did not return for the service life of the aircraft.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
checksixx
Posts: 1148
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:34 pm

I think that should read F-15N Sea Eagle...which was proposed only and never built.
 
Blackbird
Topic Author
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: F-15 "Seagle"

Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:58 pm

AAR90,

That is what I had thought. If the hard-line vibrated the same way, it would have broke and leaked too.


Checksixx,

Do you have pictures of what it would have looked like?


Andrea Kent

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests