i do my bestIndeed 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
The Iranian Tomcats have a few nice pictures well not with F-16s but other interesting thingsyup its a very great model! Iran never received F-16s
but I remember back in the days this image floated around
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.
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....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.”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.
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.
He means in terms of layout (widely spaced engines, boat-tail) not roles. F-18 has tightly packed engines.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.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.