• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

What if, Grumman went with a fixed wing for the Tomcat

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
796
Indeed it is, I apologize for my harshness. It was the result of a rush of unattributed material in other threads, the low point being an image from a gamers' site, presented as an example of which direction AFV-development might take.
The diorama image fooled me too, compliments to its maker.

Do provide sources, though :)
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
664
Reaction score
993
Indeed it is, I apologize for my harshness. It was the result of a rush of unattributed material in other threads, the low point being an image from a gamers' site, presented as an example of which direction AFV-development might take.
The diorama image fooled me too, compliments to its maker.

Do provide sources, though :)
i do my best ;)
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
76
Reaction score
101
yup its a very great model! Iran never received F-16s

but I remember back in the days this image floated around
iiaf-jpg.98549
The Iranian Tomcats have a few nice pictures well not with F-16s but other interesting things


1623356978991.png

These are two of my favorite aircraft, and with little insight, are related to the topic.

The MiG-29 is a mini Tomcat with single seat crew, fixed wing.

1623357254159.png

If I am honest I see the MiG-29 as the fixed wing Tomcat variant just with better design in terms of aerodynamics.

Leading edge root extensions to reduce wing size and increase lift, fully ventral intake position to enhance air suction under the wings to improve AoA.


The wing planform of the F-16 is effectively that of a cropped delta with a 40-degree leading edge sweep. The wing has 4 percent thickness/chord ratio, and the aerofoil section is 64A204. The wing structure incorporates five spars and 11 ribs. Upper and lower wing skins are one-piece machined components. From left to right, the wing gradually blends with the fuselage, making it impossible to tell where the wing begins and the fuselage ends. This wing/body blending made it possible to increase the internal volume, enabling more fuel could be carried. In fact, 31 percent of the loaded weight of an F-16 is fuel, accounting for the long range of the Fighting Falcon. Gradually increasing the thickness of the wing in the region of the root resulted in a stiffer wing than would have been possible with a conventional design.
In forward-to-aft planform, the wing leading edge blends smoothly with the fuselage by means of leading edge strakes. At high angles of attack, these strakes create vortices which maintain the energy of the boundary air layer flowing over the inner section of the wing. This delays wing root stalling and maintains directional stability at low speeds and high angles of attack. Vortex energy also provides a measure of forebody lift, reducing the need for drag-inducing tail trim. By keeping the inner-wing boundary layer energized, the strakes allowed the wing area to be kept smaller, saving about 500 pounds in weight.

The strake also increases the total lifting area, but it is usually not included in the reference planform area

Nose strakes offer significantly improved lateral/ directional performance with a minimum increase in wetted area and little effect on longitudinal characteristics. Forebody strakes provide beneficial linearlization of the pitching moment curve, improved maneuver lift, and in some cases, improved lateral/directional characteristics. Although the application of the strakes is highly configuration-dependent and optimization will undoubtedly require tunnel testing, initial design guidelines have been developed and several recommendations can be forwarded. Design guidelines have been developed that
Aerodynamic of Forebody and Nose Strakes Based on F-16 Wind Tunnel Test Experience Volume I: Summary and Analysis C. W. Smith, J. N. Ralston, and H. W. Mann CONTRACT NASl-1

Grumman never saw what Sukhoi and GD did see

. 1623358281079.png 1623357500247.png

The Su-27 was to my personal opinion the truly enhanced Tomcat


1623357600391.png

The Su-33 had similar weight to an F-14 but instead of using a bigger wing they used canards and reduced LEX, higher power Al-31, basically Su-33 is the fixed wing Tomcat.
1623357763886.png

I think in the Russian design school F-14 really influenced their design school.


1623357844799.png

I think F-14 still lives in the Su-57, but as a 1970s kid I still will consider the Tomcat my favorite aircraft, and the ghost riders camo as my favorite camo, long life to the F-14 the coolest aircraft ever
 
Last edited:

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
1,070
The MiG-29 is a mini Tomcat with single seat crew, fixed wing.
The MiG-29 is in no way, shape, or form a mini-Tomcat. They were designed for completely different missions and roles. You really need to stop comparing the two. The aircraft that's actually comparable to it, is the F/A-18A and C models.
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
740
Can you provide any substantive evidence that the F-14's variable geometry wing had a very high need for maintenance? Any source documentation? Do you know what the top 10 maintenance drivers were?

Protip: source documentation (not endlessly repeated web comments) will build your case.
The last flight of the F-14 Tomcat in US service took place October 4, 2006, with the final flight retirement ceremony on September 21, 2006. Two F-14’s were readied for the ceremonial final flight; after the primary plane experiencing mechanical problems, a backup was flown instead. The failure was a reminder of one of the reasons for the retirement, high maintenance costs. The F-14 Tomcat was officially retired on September 22, 2006 at Naval Air Station Oceana. The F-14 fleet is mothballed at the Davis-Monthan “Boneyard.”

Grumman F-14D Tomcat – Prairie Aviation Museum

this is a museum of aviation thus you can consider it a good source.

Now this is an official source consider here they say money matters early in the F-14 program Grumman was delivering an overpriced jet and not achieving the goals upon the budget they promised here are some extracts


A valid schedule variance could be determined by comparing the planned value of work scheduled versus the planned value of work accomplished (PVWA). Likewise, a valid cost variance could be determined by comparing the planned value of work accomplished with the actual cost incurred to complete this same accomplished work. For example, assume that the contractor scheduled $50 worth of planned work but only accomplished $30 worth of this planned work at an actual cost of $100. In this case, an unfavorable cost variance of $70 (actual costs - PVWA) and an unfavorable schedule variance of $20 (PVWS - PVWA) would result. However, in the CASSR this condition would be reflected as an unfavorable current variance of only $50 (actual costs - PVWS). Further distortion would arise if PVWS and actual costs were the same. For example, if PVWS is $100, PVWA is $30, and the'actual cost for this work is $100, then the current variance as reported in the CASSR would be zero (PVVWS - actual costs), while there should be both a $70 unfavorable cost variance (actual costs - PVWA) and a $70 unfavorable schedule variance (PVWS - PVWA). We therefore believe that the current variances as cited in the Cost Account and Summary Status Report are not meaningful.

The estimated cost progression of the program is as follows: Date Quantity Estimate Unit Cost Jan. 13, 1969* 469 $6, 166 million $13.1 million June 30, 1969 469 $6,373 million $13.6 million June 30, 1970 722 $8,279 million $11.5 million June 30, 1971 313 $5,212 million $16.6 million


See that originally they were going to purchase 469 aircraft at a price of 13.1 million dollars but by 1971 it went down to 313 aircraft at a price of 16.6 million dollars.


this of course inpacted the F-14B since they say
Most of the total net cost reduction is due to the change in quantity planned for production. The increases in estimated costs were primarily attributed to inflation, the crash of the first aircraft, and development problems on the advanced technology engine. The unit cost has risen primarily due to the development cost being appropriated over fewer aircraft.

I was there for the arrival of the F-14 that the Prairie Aviation Museum was receiving - had a spot on the control tower balcony and was pumped for the opportunity. The aircraft made one pass then had a partial electrical failure which led to an immediate landing. Bummer....

Enjoiy the Day! Mark
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,000
Reaction score
5,672
The MiG-29 is a mini Tomcat with single seat crew, fixed wing.
The MiG-29 is in no way, shape, or form a mini-Tomcat. They were designed for completely different missions and roles. You really need to stop comparing the two. The aircraft that's actually comparable to it, is the F/A-18A and C models.
He means in terms of layout (widely spaced engines, boat-tail) not roles. F-18 has tightly packed engines.
 

Mirage4000

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
76
Reaction score
101
The MiG-29 is a mini Tomcat with single seat crew, fixed wing.
The MiG-29 is in no way, shape, or form a mini-Tomcat. They were designed for completely different missions and roles. You really need to stop comparing the two. The aircraft that's actually comparable to it, is the F/A-18A and C models.
in terms of mission, yes you are correct.

But in terms of basic aerodynamic layout, it is a F-14 with blended F-16 aerodynamics.

Originally Grumman claimed the Variable geometry needed less area to generate more lift, that was correct the F-14 with Variable geometry wing reduced wing size with relation to the fixed wing on the F-14 studies.

However on F-16, the strake increased lift reducing wing size


1623362177358.png



1623362225382.png

On the MiG-29 you see F-14 features, widely separated engines with a flattened fuselage fairing beaver tail, same type of intake, with multishock ramps, twin tails.

On F-14 they went Variable geometry for take off and mainly Landing performance, however they added mechanical complexities with glove vanes and pivot and wing center section wing box this added substantial weight.
1623362820571.png
On MiG-29 the LEX added lateral/directional stability gains and increase lift with relatively smaller wetted area as on F-16.

It means the strake increased lift without a substantial wing area increase.

Consider F-14 at empty weight is 7000 kg heavier than MiG-29 but it is only 2 meters longer, Su-27 is longer but lighter than F-14 at empty weight. almost less than 2000kg, and MiG-29K is much lighter.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,787
Reaction score
4,009
I remember at whatifmodellers some talented modelers mixed 1/72 scale Phantoms, Tomcat, Eagle, Hornet... which I could have more time to make such mixes, throwing MiG-29 and Su-27 into the lot.
 

Similar threads

Top