Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: fjs@floyd.ATT.COM Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F-4 : really an interceptor Summary: Apology for calling the F-4 Phantom a fighter / more on engines Message-ID: <7832@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 28 Jun 89 12:28:52 GMT References: <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 123 Approved: military@att.att.com From: fjs@floyd.ATT.COM In article <7740@cbnews.ATT.COM>, mjt@super.org (Michael J. Tighe) writes: > > From: Fred J. Shubert > > Oh contraire! The F-14 was built to replace one of the best naval fighters > > around, the F-4 Phantom. > > The F-4 a fighter? I respectfully disagree. The F-4 was an air defense ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This kinda flame-free posting is only found in this newsgroup, thats for sure!!! [my note] > interceptor, not a fighter. Sure they tried to turn it into one, but it > wasn't. Those J-79 engines put out so much smoke, you could see it for > miles. Early versions didn't even have a cannon. It wasn't very Tomcats smoke a lot too, with the TF30. > maneuverable either. Migs could run circles around it. And it had two > seats. (see below). > > > ...had some requirements left over from the then terminated F-111B. They > > were 1) tandem two-seat twin engined aircraft... > > By fighter pilot definition, any aircraft that has two seats, or air-to- > ground capability, cannot be a fighter. :-) Sorry. (I probably offended Mary Shafer, too! Her E-mail's on the way. :-) ) My mistake. I'm not really up on the F-4's, except I've always perceived them as a fighter. BUT the NAVY really did want to replace them with a high-tech fighter, the F-14 Tomcat eventually fit the bill when the F-111B didn't. > From: Fred J. Shubert > >When the ATE engines became available in 1977-78 (I forgot), GE was the > >clear winner. But NNNNNNNOOOOOOOO, the fool NAVY wanted to second source > >the GE engine and asked GE to give P&W the design so the NAVY could buy > >the engine from both. Wisely (?), GE told the NAVY they didn't give a > >flying wallenda what they wanted, they wouldn't give anyone the design. I need to somewhat correct a previous posting about the Tomcat engines..... This newsgroup is VERY sharp. It belongs on Wall Street. The idea of the ATE (Advanced Tactical Engine) originally came from a 1968 AIR FORCE Technology Demonstration Program. This program pitted P&W against GE, both who supposedly had fairly equal engine building talents at that time. P&W came up with the winning engine and was awarded the ATE contract on Feb. 27, 1970 for the F401-PW-400. This engine developed 28,000 lbs. of augmented thrust. Its sister engine, the F401-PW-100 was the later chosen by the AIR FORCE for the F-15 and F-16. But cost overruns, budget, and time-to-production ended the ATE engine in the early 70's. So, here we are, stuck with the TF30 because of the never-ending bitching about costs. In 1972 the NAVY projected that for every 1000 flight hours, the engines in the Tomcat would see 597 afterburner lights and 1165 engine cycles (1 cycle being running engine through all power settings). Between January 1975 and November 1978, we lost 31 Tomcats, with 35% (11) being lost due to the TF30 (~$400 M worth of planes). In 1979, a Naval Air Test Center study found that the Tomcat engines ACTUALLY see 2250 afterburner lights and 10,549 cycles per 1000 flight hours. (AMAZING, huh? What did they expect.......put a kid in the seat of the newest, hottest fighter, and expect him to treat it like glass?! Something like when I rent a Mustang GT when traveling, huh? :-) ) In all honesty, P&W got the raw end of the deal here because the TF30 was ONLY supposed to be a temporary engine for the Tomcat until the ATE was ready. The NAVY GROSSLY underestimated the usage of the engine in the Tomcat and could never get their money in order or in their pockets when they asked for engines. P&W did the come up with improved engines, but there was never enough money and the TF30 was too expensive just to throw out and replace after 4 years. Until I did some more in-depth research, I had a negatively biased opinion of P&W and their engines. I was wrong. Anyhow, in late 1976, there existed three new engine possibilities for the Tomcat (through what means or developement contract I don't know): The P&W F401-PW-26C, the GE F101-X (soon to be F101DFE), and the Allison TF41-912-B31. Come 1977 there was only $15M in NAVY funding for engine development and NO money for 1978. So much for these engines. On November 5, 1978, the AIR FORCE, in an effort to bring GE up to the same supposed level as P&W in engine technology (interesting, huh?) awarded GE a 30 month developement contract that eventually became an improved version of the F101-X, the F101DFE (Derivative Fighter Engine). This engine was said to be somewhat better than what P&W had to offer, which the NAVY admitted was quite an impressive engine greatly improving the TF30, but it was also 18 months ahead of P&W in production readiness. There still was money trouble, though. So much for these engines. Finally, on February 3, 1984, the AIR FORCE awarded GE the engine contract for the F-16 (F110-GE-100). This forced the NAVYs' hand because the NRE (for those who don't know, Non Recurring Engineering) and all the R&D burden was bore by the AIR FORCE, thus making it somewhat cheaper, plus the pressures of commonality. Hence the F110-GE-400 was born for the F-14D Tomcat (SuperTomcat). Just to be killed again by the NAVY for money troubles!! So much for this plane. I don't retract my original posting of the NAVY's request to GE for second sourcing the engine in 1979 (not 1977-1978) to P&W. I just can't find the book where I read it and it was funny as hell when I read it. But otherwise, many apologies for the few discrepancies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred J. Shubert | "You haven't lived until you've seen a 'cat fly!!!" AT&T Bell Labs |----------------------------------------------------- Whippany, N.J. | DISCLAIMER: All views are that of my own. PERIOD. Ma-Bell 201-386-3094 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ \ _ / \ /^ ^\ / F-14D ____________\_( . )_/____________ SUPERTOMCATS --*/--|_| (___) |_|--\*-- RULE * O O * (I Love 'Em) Write your congressperson and bring the F-14D SuperTomcat back to the skys.