Here is my eyewitness statement. I clicked on the video on Youtube. The title was, F-14 crash. The plane went over the carrier. Then it made a sonic boom. Then I noticed the video was probably recorded with a backwards Media Beta tape recorder. It is grainy and I can see every pixel. Then I got up and went and made me some popcorn. And now I about to click on another grainy, pixelated video on Youtube. That is my statement. Thank you.
@gmanzeroalpha - the plane's cost over its years of service reduces whereas the pilot's will increase. You can fix the plane in a week, the pilot not so much. You have completely missed the point and obviously the military and money are not your forte...
In an Air Force located within the Australian Mainland, as an aeroplane's wheels leave the ground, it 's classification, (officially or not), 'alters' from (equipment) Accountable, to 'X' class, -NON-ACCOUNTABLE.
An aeroplane is build within a few MONTHS, at a known cost.
It does what it's design parameters enable it to do, that's all.
Expendable.
A Pilot is BORN, Motivated, Educated, for at least 17 years.
I'll not get into a slanging match, no point. I did 21 years in the R.A.A.F, not as aircrew, but had a fair sampling of flying in that time.
In one instance, a Fighter Pilot flew his failing aeroplane back to a very dangerous landing, though he was advised to eject. He got his butt kicked because he needlessly endangered the most valuable asset all fighting forces have,
@Weibkoln Dude, you have never had military service have you?
Honestly it hasn't happened. while twinstu50 's point is valid and that event has happened, there are lots more examples where that is the opposite. You have to LIVE in the environment to see it and you would not experience that from the ground or just flying it is not the SOPs either. Its the persuit of reaching a successful mission. You are expendable the entire militray HAS to operate on that basis.
If this happens in Holland, and you caused it yourself, your no longer pilot anymore, and if it was a technical defect the plane is no longer plane anymore...
...and I think that it was NOT a technical defect...
@SuperIjoker : Bird strike at very high speed i guess. you can see one of the two engine blowing up, but it can also be an engine failure as a fighter jet is not supposed to fly that fast in dense air environnement. In fact, you should be at high altitude to do such demonstration and he was at less 300 feet when doing it's low flyby.
@lothar2048 Bird strike if near land, but why making such performance making sonic booms near coast? As you say, dense air environment, low clouds and humid air at that speed is a likely cause. Good to see CO greeting him onboard.
Sure, because US intelligence gathering aircraft have perfectly valid reasons to be within a dozen miles of Soviet territory and maybe drift in... the whole event happened precisely BECAUSE of our practice of ghosting civilian flights on that route, the Soviets were sick of it. The pilot identified windows of a civilian plane but his commanders posited that didn't mean it wasn't a spy plane-it's doubtful they had any idea it had all the people aboard.
problem is Iran was getting old F-14 parts somehow through the black market, even with restrictions they were still showing up going to Iran. Big reason why so many were dismantled
Actually i never heard that rumor about MIG pilots and considering the MIG-29 was far superior in combat maneuvering i really can't think of any reason anyone would tell them that...Perhaps the long range intercept capability of the Tomcat but thats just about it.
@pwhite7608 Every aircraft has mechanical issues. And the tomcat survived 35 years or service. True, there were engine issues on the Alpha, however they were addressed and improved over the years. The tomcat still did the job done and MiG pilots were even told to not engage Tomcats if they came across them. That is pretty impressive I must say, and I don't believe I ever heard that about a Hornet or an Eagle.
Funny, I had thought that the F-14 usually went fully swept for high speed at low level, and the half-sweep was more for cruising at high altitude? Or is it just full-sweep for Mach 2? Can the F-14 (ehem...COULD the F-14) make Mach 2 at low altitude? I know it was very capable, but that seems pretty extreme!
@justforever96 Uhh...nevermind. I only watched the first seconds before I posted that. He was only cruising then, and had full-sweep for the supersonic pass.
12 hours ago PLEASE DONT READ THIS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS.IN THE NEARE ST FRIDAY U WILL BE KISSED BY UR LOVER .TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF UR LIFE . HOWEVER IF U DONT POST THIS TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS U WILL DIE WITH IN 2 DAYS . THIS IS SO SCARY . NOW THAT U STARTED READING THIS DONT STOP. IF U POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 5 VIDEOS WHEN DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAME WILL APPEAR IN THE SCREEN WITH BIG LETTERS . THIS IS SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS
@chico358 The color of the shirts determine their roles on the aircraft carrier. Red-Ordinance, Green-Flight Deck Maintenance and Aircraft Maintenance, White-Medical and Safety, Blue aircraft Handlers, Yellow-Flight Deck Supervisors who run aircraft movement, and Purple are the fuel crews.
went from a "damn that sucks" mood to "dammit" when it was announced everyone had to write a statement....i just had to come outside for this boom didn't I, now i'm stuck writing a legal statement, fuck its due by the end of the hour, i knew i shoulda been running rack ops....
@thebigroyboyski on Blackbird at maximum speed and altitude there even wasn't ejecton, plane just disintegrated around the pilot who fell down with seat and parachute did open automatically.
@WeedIsGood4Y0u THIS COMMENT MADE BY AN AUSTRALIAN FOOL. The USA and australie have a mutual defense agreement called ANZUS. If australians have this kind of attitude towards the USA we should get out of ANZUS immediately. Good luck with the Chinese etc. in the future australia. America WON'T be there to help you. You get what you ask for.
as a retierd f-14 ordie, I can only say that the tomcat was a maintanance nightmare, but if I had my choice of an aircraft to defend me and my family,...give me a tomcat! even with its "Problems" it was and is one of the greatest planes to ever grace a flightdeck! plus it is one "sexy " damn plane!!
@fish365724 I agree with you 100%. As a former Tomcat airframer and flight deck troubleshooter I have to admit they could be a big pain to work on. But, man, were they the shit!!! I LOVED that bird!
@fish365724 The "D" super tomcat has to be the most expensive plane to maintain in history, after every four hours of flight time the entire exhaust system needs to be replaced.... but I think that Northrop Gumman needed to update it or modify the internal design to make it more cost effective and reliable rather than scrap it. (sexiest aircraft since the F-4)
@fish365724 Saw a show about these planes on History channel that chronicled the F-14 from beginning to the last flight. They said the plane, from a capability standpoint, was the best even compared to current planes. Seems the decision maker was maintenance cost.
@satanicmechanic86 I think F-16, F-4 and MiG-21 and probably Mirage III variants seemed to be more long lived and overally practical than the Tomcat. A carrierborne long-range air-superiority fighter was probably too USNavy-specific to be considered the "most capable".
@DINDRAGON Which is why the proposed USAF version of the Tomcat was not chosen, because of the F-15. In the book I read(I think this was why), the F-15 was chosen for it's capabilities, and the cost to operate it.
@fish365724 You are right about the tomcat. Too bad your government had to scrap every last one of them because of bad politics with Iran... Do you happen to know of any civilian tomcats?
@sikorsky158 Maybe I'm lowering myself by even replying to this...but I'm pretty sure F/A-18's do NOT "blow up every time they hit 200mph". There are Cessna prop planes that can reach 200mph. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of Hornets going supersonic at low level...last I knew that was more like 700mph. I guess you must be a troll or something, unless you're really that ignorant. Lets say the F/A-18 is lacking in certain areas, but it is by no means a bad plane, just "overly average".
I read some books on it and I think that when it chrashes the carrier and it's escourt get toghter to look for wreckage, find the problem, and check other planes to see if the other planes have the same problem and if they don't the pilot is cleared.
@roost....yes i hear ya. Who gives the pilot clearance to make a supersonic fly-by? the airboss or the captain? And if damage occurs to the aircraft because of the fly-by, what happens to te men? I know the navy has NO sense of humor.
Can you just imagine ejecting in the ocean and then being rescued! WOW....What in the world happens to the pilot when he returns to the ship and is cleared by the doctor? They don't look for the black box, they don't pull the plane up. So do they take the pilot's word for it? And then he goes back on flight status?. That must be a terrrible thing to have on your service record. I mean it is not like crashig a fork lift into a wall.
depending on what type aircraft crashed determines the depth of recover, there is a alot of decisions made by very important people when it comes to crashes, and trust me when I say they investigate every crash very throughly, when a plane hits the water its in hundreds of pieces and there usually aint enough to pick up.
The major issue was that the TF30 engine wasn't designed for fast throttle inputs or high angles of attack. A holdover from the F-111B program, it was only intended to be used in the preproduction F-14s until the DFE (F101) program was in production. The Navy's portion of the DFE was canceled, the entire line of F-14A's were stuck with the TF30 and thus, the Turkey was born and a number of pilots and RIOs lost their lives in a move that saved exactly zero dollars, as the F101 went ahead.
yup, i remember when i designed fighter jet engines and made them designed for smooth/slow throttle inputs. Boy were those the days....sure did pass the time when we tested those things in combat situations....
Well, the TF30 wasn't designed for fighters, it was intended for the F6D Missileer, which was canceled because a big, fat, slow missile truck was easy pickings for anyone in a MiG. They stuck an afterburner on the engine and declared it fit for the F-111 (it wasn't), although it allowed for long range, when it wasn't choking for air (despite the F-111's Dash-1 calling for few throttle changes and it's modus operandi for ACM/BFM being: run! -- the only confirmed F-111 kill was the result of CFIT)
It was more the result of two different Administration's civilian secretaries' whims: SecDef McNamara, the former President of Ford Motor Company, was convinced that the military was too factionalized and, like a kid in a candy store, wanted everything it saw, even if it didn't need it. His team figured they knew better what the services needed and could save money through commonality and multi-mission equipment. (Sounds a lot like the specious arguments for the "Super" Hornet, huh?)
Tons of knowledge there mang! Keep posting here and I'll keep reading.
Yeah, I heard a good deal about McNamara and his hopes for some multi-service multi-purpose fighter, among other things. I understood that he really believed the F-111 capable of fulfilling this role. It couldn't of course. The fact that the F-4 managed to do a pretty good job of this was pure dumb luck.
Gen Olds was right about more stuff then people think or know.
And what's wrong with the Super Hornet? I agree about McNamara though. I still think that it's quite possible that the F-111 was never intended to work. Make a majorly expensive and long project to make an aircraft to save money, and then have to build three more anyway when it doesn't work. Even if it was accidental because of McNamara, it worked out well for the defense industry. That way you can have the planes ypou need, PLUS an extra and ridiculously priced side project. Cash in pocket.
The Super Hornet was pitched as a low-cost program to improve the shortcomings of the Hornet (loiter/range, bring-back, weapons carriage). Instead, it became an almost entirely new aircraft, with only marginal improvements, at the cost of some nasty aerodynamic quirks during ACM. It still relies heavily on USAF tankers and has only slightly improved bring-back, at a much higher cost than the original Hornet with only ~10% commonality.
I agree 100% Shark. All the extra power of the F414s was negated by the extra fuel,avionics,weight and drag. The F18E/Fs can barely get 1.6 mach. They have no real rate of climb. Even the grossly overweight F18 Charlies have a desent climb rate. Basically the F18EF is a A6F with no fuel. The RAAF is going to see a real reduction when they try to replace their F111s in the strike role with them. The F15E is shorter ranged than the F111.The Super Hornet is a pointy nose attack jet.
@sharkd59 I believe these jets were equipped with GE F110s, though I don't recall if they were F14A+ or F14D models At any rate, the failure was due to an Environmental Control System failure that took out the hydraulic system on the jet. I was on the flight deck when this event took place, attached to VA196 and maintaining the Buddy Stores for 196 and VS35. I ended up working for the Maintenance Officer for VF213 in a subsequent lifetime. We were sure glad to get the aircrew back. -A6
true, but the aircraft that crashed in this video was an F-14D with GE F110 engines. When the pilot pulled the throttles out of max afterburner the starboard engine had a compressor stall and blew up - at that speed any compressor stall is almost guaranteeing an explosive engine event.
@sharkd59 Those TF-30's had a nasty habit of throwing hot compressor turbine blades right off the spool and through the airframe! Fuel cells are everywhere on fighter aircraft and also the resulting fuel fed fires, so the loss of the aircraft were common. There were even 'scatter shield' mods surrounding the engine installed early on in an attempt to increase survivability somewhat. They called it an airliner engine stuffed into a fighter jet. The Phoenix missile was a good F-111B hand me down.
I mixed up my engine development (mis-)adventures.
In 1970, the Navy and the Air Force were directed by the DoD to co-fund a program known as the Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator (ATEGG), with the intention of using it to power both the VFX (Tomcat) and the F-X (Eagle).
Later, Nixon & Ford's SecNav, Bill Middendorf, IIRC, an opponent of naval aviation, directed the Navy to continue funding development of the ATEGG, but cancel procurement of the F401.
Are you sure it's a F110? That's wierd. You always hear so much about the TF30 being so awful, I just automatically assumed that's what it was. That and the video looked like it was from like 1990 or something. What year did they start putting the F110 it the F-14?
YES! This documentary was done in the mid-90's, with VF-11 and VF-31 part of CVW-14 aboard USS Carl Vinson. As you know, they were flying the F-14D Super Tomcat at the time.
The GE110 was fitted to the F-14A+ which became the F-14B. That was in 1989. After that all the B and Ds were west coast and As on the east. In 1996 when Fighter Wing Pacific was disestablished, all the Pacific birds moved to NAS Oceana.
Ahh, I see. Thanks. I already miss the Tomcat. What do they do with these planes when they retire them? Aside from a number of A-6's they sunk to make coral reefs (waste of aluminum!) I don't know. Do they scrap them, or store them, or what? I hope they store them. If the world sudedenly goes to hell, all of a sudden the F-14 might seem pretty useful to have around. Along with some others that have been sent on their way a bit early.
DoD was storing the retired airworthy F-14s that were not donated for museum or gate guard display at Davis-Monthan AFB's AMARG facility (formerly AMARC). Then, in June 2007, a Sen Wyden (D-Oregon) decided to capitalize on paranoia regarding Iran and proposed a ban on export licenses for F-14 components, the Pentagon got antsy about lost revenue streams and decided, instead, to mechanically shred all F-14s not already on display. The resulting photos are disheartening.
I didn't say that coral reefs are a waste; I just think that they could find something a lot less wasteful of good scrap metal than sinking ships and planes. You know how many tons of steel are in a ship? Aluminum in an airframe? Not to mention the man-hours and production it takes to build them in the first place. I guess I'm just a conservationist. It's the same with all the old cars that they crush. Most of those have good parts, engines, etc that could still be used. Just seems wasteful.
@justforever96 The only other operator is Iran who still use them. To prevent Iran obtaining parts all retired US navy F14's were completely destroyed except one, which was at the Naval Air Station Pensacola.
@binaway And that almost makes it even MORE painful! WTF are they worried about Iran getting ahold of F-14 parts? They couldn't have shipped them to museums? They think the Smithsonian would clandistinely sell Iranians parts piece by piece from a display F-14? Even if they had a few operational ones, how easy is it to steal and sell airplane parts to a foreign country? Even if it could happen, it seems as if it'd be cheaper and easier for Iran to just buy some old MiG's or F-16's...
@justforever96 Iran's air force used F14's as an AWAC, during the 10 year Iran Iraq war, because of it's superior radar, directing F4's&F5's. Spare parts not available from the US Iran supplied an F14 phased array radar set to the USSR to copy & sell to Iran. Current Russian fighters still use a version of this radar. British F4's used Rolls Royce Spey engines, then being produced under license in China. Iran tried to buy some and obtain a scrapped RAF airframe to copy the differences
Oh dont worry you guys,it was only Maverick and Goose..
aish340 2 days ago
that was bush flying.
mahender6969 5 days ago
I like the brotherhood at the end of the video. Nice to see that people are still worried about their crew member's safety :)
Rasmorak 5 days ago
planetcheck 1 week ago
@planetcheck loser...
yonz2nugget 6 days ago
heeeehehehehe!!!! no, thank you....
TeachYou2Endo 1 day ago
In USA...sound barrier breaks YOU :))))
aerofilll 1 week ago
That was probebly Tom Cruise flying
starguard 2 weeks ago
request permission for flyby, negative coast rider your engine will blow !!
wolfe1970 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It looked like an engine failure to me, they were pretty common among F-14As from what I've heard
MrAmirahmadi 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrAmirahmadi 2 weeks ago
what pixel is the plane?
lolito123ify 1 month ago
looked like he blew an engine to me
crotchboots 1 month ago
No longer pilot anymore!!!
Weibkoln 1 month ago
@gmanzeroalpha - the plane's cost over its years of service reduces whereas the pilot's will increase. You can fix the plane in a week, the pilot not so much. You have completely missed the point and obviously the military and money are not your forte...
Semper Fi
Gregolomaniac 1 month ago
vhs ftw
erichitz79 2 months ago
"most crewmen had never heard a sonic boom." yes take off them damn ear protectors they'll be able to hear it...duh.
EdenSpace117 2 months ago
bullshit
plustrost 2 months ago
What exactly happened, theres to many comments about the planes history and pilots future. What actually happened to cause the crash.
callum1131 3 months ago
Adjust the tracking on your VHS please
moomoo1337 3 months ago
LAZARSHOW 3 months ago
Got a new jet within a few weeks i bet
bee4010 3 months ago
In an Air Force located within the Australian Mainland, as an aeroplane's wheels leave the ground, it 's classification, (officially or not), 'alters' from (equipment) Accountable, to 'X' class, -NON-ACCOUNTABLE.
An aeroplane is build within a few MONTHS, at a known cost.
It does what it's design parameters enable it to do, that's all.
Expendable.
A Pilot is BORN, Motivated, Educated, for at least 17 years.
Cost- Worth every cent.
Design parameters,- None.
twinstu50 3 months ago 13
@twinstu50 What fantasy world do you live in? Aircraft 25 Mill dollars - pilot training of which hundreds of thousands line up to do, 5 mill max.
Humans have operating perameters. The aircraft is DESIGNED to deal with those parameters. G Suit, the entire cockpit, etc
A pilot is a comodity that the AirForce has to deal with and if you don't get that then you HAVE NEVER EVER server in the air force.
gmanzeroalpha 2 months ago
@gmanzeroalpha
I'll not get into a slanging match, no point. I did 21 years in the R.A.A.F, not as aircrew, but had a fair sampling of flying in that time.
In one instance, a Fighter Pilot flew his failing aeroplane back to a very dangerous landing, though he was advised to eject. He got his butt kicked because he needlessly endangered the most valuable asset all fighting forces have,
- the person.
Here's the equation.
Plane- millions of dollars.
Pilot-PRICELESS.
twinstu50 2 months ago
@gmanzeroalpha
Wow!!! How do you think with you ass??? Or are you gonna tell me that you use your brain for that??!!
Weibkoln 1 month ago
@Weibkoln Dude, you have never had military service have you?
Honestly it hasn't happened. while twinstu50 's point is valid and that event has happened, there are lots more examples where that is the opposite. You have to LIVE in the environment to see it and you would not experience that from the ground or just flying it is not the SOPs either. Its the persuit of reaching a successful mission. You are expendable the entire militray HAS to operate on that basis.
gmanzeroalpha 1 month ago
@gmanzeroalpha
If this happens in Holland, and you caused it yourself, your no longer pilot anymore, and if it was a technical defect the plane is no longer plane anymore...
...and I think that it was NOT a technical defect...
Weibkoln 1 month ago
the helo pilots apparently had a fight on who saves him xD
Rijelthelovefool 4 months ago
@Rijelthelovefool They always do. I was in one of those squadrons. The rescue swimmers will kill their buddy's for a chance to save a stranger.
SacredSocietyAP 3 months ago
i see how annoying is to write in a paper what you offitially saw that....god that must be bad
xXxMartin96xXx 4 months ago
flame out
OsceolaLongBeard 5 months ago
Sooo good to see the pilot step off of that chopper safe.
jdb79jdb79 5 months ago 2
"Most crew have never heard a Sonic Boom"
That's because they never had the time to play Street Fighter.
Guile would be disappointed.
FilipePhoenix 6 months ago 2
Whos fault was it in the end? Pilot, or Aircraft?
SuperIjoker 6 months ago
@SuperIjoker : Bird strike at very high speed i guess. you can see one of the two engine blowing up, but it can also be an engine failure as a fighter jet is not supposed to fly that fast in dense air environnement. In fact, you should be at high altitude to do such demonstration and he was at less 300 feet when doing it's low flyby.
lothar2048 6 months ago
@lothar2048 Bird strike if near land, but why making such performance making sonic booms near coast? As you say, dense air environment, low clouds and humid air at that speed is a likely cause. Good to see CO greeting him onboard.
anneloev 4 months ago
that pilot looked shook up, like "what just happened... to my career?"
andrespereyda 6 months ago 13
@andrespereyda more like "holy shit does it hurt to eject at 600 kias!" and more than likely, nothing happened to his career....
jeepnutnh 4 months ago
@jeepnutnh Are you talking about 600 Kia automobiles?
andrespereyda 4 months ago
@andrespereyda Knots Indicated Air Speed
jeepnutnh 4 months ago
@jeepnutnh so, about 690 miles per hour? ya, but i'm still interested in anti-gravity
andrespereyda 4 months ago
@andrespereyda what DID happen to his career? Do they lose their jobs if they crash?
poyanator 3 months ago
@poyanator i don't know. i've never been in the military. i was just making a rather shallow comment. too much rhetoric sometimes
andrespereyda 3 months ago
@poyanator no lol. they dont lose there jobs.. unless they die.. then yes other wise its a shit ton of reports but he will fly again.
whitemotorsportz 3 months ago
@whitemotorsportz lol "Unless they die"
poyanator 3 months ago
@andrespereyda Unless his name were John McCain, in which case he could do this 5 times and afterward still brag about his "carer".
jrg8008 2 months ago
discovery..??
enricrealmadridraul7 6 months ago
goose GOOSE!!!
plopkinggamer 7 months ago
" There was never a need for 'ghosting'."
Sure, because US intelligence gathering aircraft have perfectly valid reasons to be within a dozen miles of Soviet territory and maybe drift in... the whole event happened precisely BECAUSE of our practice of ghosting civilian flights on that route, the Soviets were sick of it. The pilot identified windows of a civilian plane but his commanders posited that didn't mean it wasn't a spy plane-it's doubtful they had any idea it had all the people aboard.
batvette 7 months ago
anyone know what year this is from?
TheB52freak 7 months ago
Fish, you are completely right. Most of the maint. was done by the AE's. But I still Loved the ol' bird
I was an AE3 in Japan.
slcraigie 7 months ago
Well, if I ever am onboard an aircraft carrier, I learned from this video to look away from seeing the plane crash so I can avoid paperwork.
Nagittchi 7 months ago
Showing off on taxpayers money.
lostindiancamp 7 months ago
problem is Iran was getting old F-14 parts somehow through the black market, even with restrictions they were still showing up going to Iran. Big reason why so many were dismantled
jtoatoktoe 7 months ago
I"D LIKE THIS STATEMENT WITHIN THE HOUR AWRIGHT!
Lynkk 7 months ago
what a shitty plane
OMG
biohimera 8 months ago
stupid maverick n goose did it again.....
preserverofislam 8 months ago
lucky shit
razor11079 8 months ago
Actually i never heard that rumor about MIG pilots and considering the MIG-29 was far superior in combat maneuvering i really can't think of any reason anyone would tell them that...Perhaps the long range intercept capability of the Tomcat but thats just about it.
NikKast1981 8 months ago
@pwhite7608 True. Hell, why are we even comparing the Tomcat with the Eagle? They aren't even in the same branch of the military.
b747dude 8 months ago
@pwhite7608 Every aircraft has mechanical issues. And the tomcat survived 35 years or service. True, there were engine issues on the Alpha, however they were addressed and improved over the years. The tomcat still did the job done and MiG pilots were even told to not engage Tomcats if they came across them. That is pretty impressive I must say, and I don't believe I ever heard that about a Hornet or an Eagle.
b747dude 8 months ago
@pwhite7608 The tomcat never suffered a loss either from enemy fire while in service with the Navy...
b747dude 8 months ago
бу ГАГА XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
MsGuano 8 months ago
Funny, I had thought that the F-14 usually went fully swept for high speed at low level, and the half-sweep was more for cruising at high altitude? Or is it just full-sweep for Mach 2? Can the F-14 (ehem...COULD the F-14) make Mach 2 at low altitude? I know it was very capable, but that seems pretty extreme!
justforever96 8 months ago
@justforever96 Uhh...nevermind. I only watched the first seconds before I posted that. He was only cruising then, and had full-sweep for the supersonic pass.
justforever96 8 months ago
How fast can an F-14 reach?
gamer7459 8 months ago
talk to me goose
longlivestalin1 8 months ago
Good observation sharkd59 but the aircraft accident in the video was a F-14D which had GE egines.
Skimousn 9 months ago
I saw the plane flame-out. Did the pilot and co-pilot survive?
StephenB58 9 months ago
All jets were 'maintenance nightmares' until they started going all modular!
drguffey 9 months ago
grimy blue shirts lol
925explicit 9 months ago
First rule of maintenance: Anything can break and most things eventually do.
fixitman21 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
american shit
Vyun1969 11 months ago
Ukraine. What do you have??? Jack n SH!T.
Mrdoctile 9 months ago
good thing they made out alright
aesniper 11 months ago
Navy life without the tomcat must be suck
montoya6k 11 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
12 hours ago PLEASE DONT READ THIS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS.IN THE NEARE ST FRIDAY U WILL BE KISSED BY UR LOVER .TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF UR LIFE . HOWEVER IF U DONT POST THIS TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS U WILL DIE WITH IN 2 DAYS . THIS IS SO SCARY . NOW THAT U STARTED READING THIS DONT STOP. IF U POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 5 VIDEOS WHEN DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAME WILL APPEAR IN THE SCREEN WITH BIG LETTERS . THIS IS SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS
lurjap3r1818 1 year ago
Três... pancados da ideia... uuuuuuuuuu bluuuuuuuu cuuuuuuuuuu
Arrombados! kkkkkkkkkkk
carloslopesmg 1 year ago 3
can anyone tell me what are those guys in colored suits are?
chico358 1 year ago
@chico358 The color of the shirts determine their roles on the aircraft carrier. Red-Ordinance, Green-Flight Deck Maintenance and Aircraft Maintenance, White-Medical and Safety, Blue aircraft Handlers, Yellow-Flight Deck Supervisors who run aircraft movement, and Purple are the fuel crews.
duanedonecker 1 year ago
@duanedonecker You forgot the Brown shirts, PC's backbone of the fleet aircraft.
David611950 9 months ago
went from a "damn that sucks" mood to "dammit" when it was announced everyone had to write a statement....i just had to come outside for this boom didn't I, now i'm stuck writing a legal statement, fuck its due by the end of the hour, i knew i shoulda been running rack ops....
gts5001 1 year ago 2
"WHAT HAPPEN!?"
"It blu up!"
Vix847 1 year ago
almost cried seeing that
kkoloftt 1 year ago
Oh man, I was so relieved seeing the pilots coming out of that helicopter unharmed!!!
Spetsop 1 year ago 2
It was a compressor stall wasn't it?
RickyboyH 1 year ago
This is one of the fundamental problems with plans. Most failures ether need a quick repair job or result in the total loss of the plan.
tina6581 1 year ago
>>. Gosto de ver os Três Patetas! de Vermelho!
carloslopesmg 1 year ago
did he live? how could yo ueject at that speed? impossible
Drew927 1 year ago
@Drew927 I'm pretty sure he lost "that speed" very quickly.
ewthmatth 1 year ago
@Drew927 Yeah the pilot and rio lived. you see them at the end coming off the helicopter.
Pilots have survived ejections at 3x that speed from the blackbird
thebigroyboyski 1 year ago
@thebigroyboyski on Blackbird at maximum speed and altitude there even wasn't ejecton, plane just disintegrated around the pilot who fell down with seat and parachute did open automatically.
urmo345 1 year ago
Holy shit, after reviewing 1:35 several times I could have sworn the guy looks like George W. Bush. Check it out !
beerborn 1 year ago
@beerborn thats probably because that look mimmicks the same look of being intoxicated
Sataribus 1 year ago
Beautiful plane!
...but this guy was really lucky!
1048luca 1 year ago
That was a blade out of the.
Jimbo898 1 year ago
Lucky Guys!!
SWMoneyMaker 1 year ago
i saw a longer verson of this clip once, The RIO didn't have his visor attached to his HGU-55 helmet. Maybe the wind ripped it off when they ejected?
RickyboyH 1 year ago
Enyone remember "Dark Gablr?" A USNR pilot who's mission was to get ghetto kids to stay in school. He drove the tomcat, and was awesome!
littlefred811 1 year ago
have a hug buddy!
thedreamdealer 1 year ago
THOSE TF-30 Engines are a FUCKING NIGHTMARE FOR THE F-14
Skybolter 1 year ago
NICE JOB IN WASTING TAX-PAYERS' MONEY FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON.
robertjohnson487 1 year ago
what happened? some stupid American soldier left his beer can in the engine intake?
WeedIsGood4Y0u 1 year ago
@WeedIsGood4Y0u THIS COMMENT MADE BY AN AUSTRALIAN FOOL. The USA and australie have a mutual defense agreement called ANZUS. If australians have this kind of attitude towards the USA we should get out of ANZUS immediately. Good luck with the Chinese etc. in the future australia. America WON'T be there to help you. You get what you ask for.
robertjohnson487 1 year ago
@robertjohnson487 RELAX dude! lmfao! don't be hatin' i'm just a joking, besides this is ME SPEAKING not the australian Government. drama queen
WeedIsGood4Y0u 1 year ago
Comment removed
joee75 1 year ago
@robertjohnson487 ANZUS? More like ANUS!
I'll be leaving now...
fatmikecj 1 year ago
Anyone have any movies of F-14 drive "Heater Heatley?
brent52 1 year ago
@brent52
I got no movies. He was a long time ago; but I remember a book in the 80's my buddy in the Boy Scouts had: The Cutting Edge. It was awesome.
glocdan 1 year ago
Thank God the Pilot and RIO were ok!
SNOOZE3091 1 year ago
What? The Discovery Channel has great documentary programs back then? Wow!
Fuck you Discovery Communications. Give me the old Discover Channel pre-1999. Crab fishing? Loggers? Go fuck yourself.
thechoosendude 1 year ago 38
@thechoosendude i know right.... fuck
DKF22 7 months ago
@thechoosendude hahah
andrespereyda 6 months ago
No paralysis. After Tomcats, the pilot flew T-45As at VT-22 in the Naval Air Training Command. He is currently flying for American Airlines.
banger4695 1 year ago
TOMCATS are one of the best creations of mankind... never flew in 1
but seen them perform
joey7286 2 years ago 2
as a retierd f-14 ordie, I can only say that the tomcat was a maintanance nightmare, but if I had my choice of an aircraft to defend me and my family,...give me a tomcat! even with its "Problems" it was and is one of the greatest planes to ever grace a flightdeck! plus it is one "sexy " damn plane!!
fish365724 2 years ago 88
@fish365724 I agree with you 100%. As a former Tomcat airframer and flight deck troubleshooter I have to admit they could be a big pain to work on. But, man, were they the shit!!! I LOVED that bird!
vf74tomcat 2 years ago 2
Sexy damn aircraft dude. Perfect competitor against the Hornet loser.
delanyify 1 year ago
@fish365724 The "D" super tomcat has to be the most expensive plane to maintain in history, after every four hours of flight time the entire exhaust system needs to be replaced.... but I think that Northrop Gumman needed to update it or modify the internal design to make it more cost effective and reliable rather than scrap it. (sexiest aircraft since the F-4)
BillyCauseyjr 1 year ago
@fish365724 TOMCATS FOEVER!!!!!!!!
indyjons321 1 year ago
@fish365724 was it a problem when it was new ??? or when it got older ???
rickbar123 1 year ago
You are a sarcastic F-14 Lover
Skybolter 1 year ago
@fish365724 troll
DrKlantskalle 1 year ago
@fish365724 Saw a show about these planes on History channel that chronicled the F-14 from beginning to the last flight. They said the plane, from a capability standpoint, was the best even compared to current planes. Seems the decision maker was maintenance cost.
satanicmechanic86 10 months ago 12
@satanicmechanic86 I think F-16, F-4 and MiG-21 and probably Mirage III variants seemed to be more long lived and overally practical than the Tomcat. A carrierborne long-range air-superiority fighter was probably too USNavy-specific to be considered the "most capable".
DINDRAGON 5 months ago
@DINDRAGON Which is why the proposed USAF version of the Tomcat was not chosen, because of the F-15. In the book I read(I think this was why), the F-15 was chosen for it's capabilities, and the cost to operate it.
TheRazorbackpilot 5 months ago
@satanicmechanic86 its an excellent platform from a CAS stand point...You can put almost anything you want to on it ordinance wise.
jbyrd0861 5 months ago
@fish365724 As an ordie, you had VERY LITTLE in the way of maintenance. Well over 90% of any issues you had were reassigned to the AEs.
Robbob9933 8 months ago
@fish365724 You are right about the tomcat. Too bad your government had to scrap every last one of them because of bad politics with Iran... Do you happen to know of any civilian tomcats?
LastBornProductions 8 months ago
Martin Sheen!
yourass117 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
F-18s are worst. They blow up everytime they hit 200 miles per hour!!!!
Hornets by mandate, Tomcats by choice!
sikorsky158 2 years ago
@sikorsky158 Maybe I'm lowering myself by even replying to this...but I'm pretty sure F/A-18's do NOT "blow up every time they hit 200mph". There are Cessna prop planes that can reach 200mph. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen videos of Hornets going supersonic at low level...last I knew that was more like 700mph. I guess you must be a troll or something, unless you're really that ignorant. Lets say the F/A-18 is lacking in certain areas, but it is by no means a bad plane, just "overly average".
justforever96 8 months ago
That was my helicopter command who grabbed the pilot out of the water HSC-8 " the World Famous Eightballers" formerly HS-8
bullet7x 2 years ago
Wow. Everyone is a DOD consultant.
jbranco254 2 years ago
I read some books on it and I think that when it chrashes the carrier and it's escourt get toghter to look for wreckage, find the problem, and check other planes to see if the other planes have the same problem and if they don't the pilot is cleared.
halo43v3r7777 2 years ago
@roost....yes i hear ya. Who gives the pilot clearance to make a supersonic fly-by? the airboss or the captain? And if damage occurs to the aircraft because of the fly-by, what happens to te men? I know the navy has NO sense of humor.
barmtrail 2 years ago
Can you just imagine ejecting in the ocean and then being rescued! WOW....What in the world happens to the pilot when he returns to the ship and is cleared by the doctor? They don't look for the black box, they don't pull the plane up. So do they take the pilot's word for it? And then he goes back on flight status?. That must be a terrrible thing to have on your service record. I mean it is not like crashig a fork lift into a wall.
barmtrail 2 years ago
I think in this case having 50 odd deck crewmen see your engine explode pretty much has you cleared
Ralroost 2 years ago 3
depending on what type aircraft crashed determines the depth of recover, there is a alot of decisions made by very important people when it comes to crashes, and trust me when I say they investigate every crash very throughly, when a plane hits the water its in hundreds of pieces and there usually aint enough to pick up.
fish365724 1 year ago
Is that George Bush? Before he went on to declare victory in IRAQ?
Amooshahryar 2 years ago
Thank goodness they were OK. Shows repetitive training surely pays dividends! Thanks loads for sharing.
TrueCourse 2 years ago 3
The early tomcats had a problem with engine compressor stalls at certain angles of attack.
HuasoPodrido 2 years ago 3
The major issue was that the TF30 engine wasn't designed for fast throttle inputs or high angles of attack. A holdover from the F-111B program, it was only intended to be used in the preproduction F-14s until the DFE (F101) program was in production. The Navy's portion of the DFE was canceled, the entire line of F-14A's were stuck with the TF30 and thus, the Turkey was born and a number of pilots and RIOs lost their lives in a move that saved exactly zero dollars, as the F101 went ahead.
sharkd59 2 years ago 26
yup, i remember when i designed fighter jet engines and made them designed for smooth/slow throttle inputs. Boy were those the days....sure did pass the time when we tested those things in combat situations....
but no really, what an engineering disaster.
viasevenvai 2 years ago
Well, the TF30 wasn't designed for fighters, it was intended for the F6D Missileer, which was canceled because a big, fat, slow missile truck was easy pickings for anyone in a MiG. They stuck an afterburner on the engine and declared it fit for the F-111 (it wasn't), although it allowed for long range, when it wasn't choking for air (despite the F-111's Dash-1 calling for few throttle changes and it's modus operandi for ACM/BFM being: run! -- the only confirmed F-111 kill was the result of CFIT)
sharkd59 2 years ago
sounds like automobile manufacturers! they have like 2-3 motors for a fleet of 10 cars.
viasevenvai 2 years ago
It was more the result of two different Administration's civilian secretaries' whims: SecDef McNamara, the former President of Ford Motor Company, was convinced that the military was too factionalized and, like a kid in a candy store, wanted everything it saw, even if it didn't need it. His team figured they knew better what the services needed and could save money through commonality and multi-mission equipment. (Sounds a lot like the specious arguments for the "Super" Hornet, huh?)
sharkd59 2 years ago 3
Hey sharkd59!
Tons of knowledge there mang! Keep posting here and I'll keep reading.
Yeah, I heard a good deal about McNamara and his hopes for some multi-service multi-purpose fighter, among other things. I understood that he really believed the F-111 capable of fulfilling this role. It couldn't of course. The fact that the F-4 managed to do a pretty good job of this was pure dumb luck.
Gen Olds was right about more stuff then people think or know.
BDKR 2 years ago
And what's wrong with the Super Hornet? I agree about McNamara though. I still think that it's quite possible that the F-111 was never intended to work. Make a majorly expensive and long project to make an aircraft to save money, and then have to build three more anyway when it doesn't work. Even if it was accidental because of McNamara, it worked out well for the defense industry. That way you can have the planes ypou need, PLUS an extra and ridiculously priced side project. Cash in pocket.
justforever96 2 years ago
The Super Hornet was pitched as a low-cost program to improve the shortcomings of the Hornet (loiter/range, bring-back, weapons carriage). Instead, it became an almost entirely new aircraft, with only marginal improvements, at the cost of some nasty aerodynamic quirks during ACM. It still relies heavily on USAF tankers and has only slightly improved bring-back, at a much higher cost than the original Hornet with only ~10% commonality.
sharkd59 2 years ago
I agree 100% Shark. All the extra power of the F414s was negated by the extra fuel,avionics,weight and drag. The F18E/Fs can barely get 1.6 mach. They have no real rate of climb. Even the grossly overweight F18 Charlies have a desent climb rate. Basically the F18EF is a A6F with no fuel. The RAAF is going to see a real reduction when they try to replace their F111s in the strike role with them. The F15E is shorter ranged than the F111.The Super Hornet is a pointy nose attack jet.
hudge28 2 years ago
thank you for the additional information!
HuasoPodrido 2 years ago
damm idiots have to check everything first your right abaut this
and damm this is really shocking its goed that the plane didnt crasheed into the carrier that will be dramatik
dimidm14 2 years ago
Learn to spell.
agentfazexx 2 years ago
@sharkd59 I believe these jets were equipped with GE F110s, though I don't recall if they were F14A+ or F14D models At any rate, the failure was due to an Environmental Control System failure that took out the hydraulic system on the jet. I was on the flight deck when this event took place, attached to VA196 and maintaining the Buddy Stores for 196 and VS35. I ended up working for the Maintenance Officer for VF213 in a subsequent lifetime. We were sure glad to get the aircrew back. -A6
a6emech 1 year ago
@sharkd59
true, but the aircraft that crashed in this video was an F-14D with GE F110 engines. When the pilot pulled the throttles out of max afterburner the starboard engine had a compressor stall and blew up - at that speed any compressor stall is almost guaranteeing an explosive engine event.
wpaisley 1 year ago
@sharkd59 Those TF-30's had a nasty habit of throwing hot compressor turbine blades right off the spool and through the airframe! Fuel cells are everywhere on fighter aircraft and also the resulting fuel fed fires, so the loss of the aircraft were common. There were even 'scatter shield' mods surrounding the engine installed early on in an attempt to increase survivability somewhat. They called it an airliner engine stuffed into a fighter jet. The Phoenix missile was a good F-111B hand me down.
bigisezhi 1 year ago
@sharkd59 Actually the Bravo's and Delta's used the GE F-110, not 101, the TF30 was an Alpha tomcat engine!, not VEN (variable exhaust nozzle)
wilz1122 1 year ago
@wilz1122
It's a bit more complicated.
The F-14A had the TF30.
This was supposed to be replaced in the F-14B by the P&W F401 (a naval version of the F100 engine later used in the F-15). It was cancelled.
In the eighties, a Tomcat flew with GE F101DFE engines, developed from the B-1's engine.
Ultimately this engine was developed into the F110 engine used in the F-14A+ (later renamed the F-14B) and F-14D.
MadPhysics101 1 year ago
@MadPhysics101 true, i used to work on the F-14B for 4 years in the Navy!
wilz1122 1 year ago
@wilz1122
I mixed up my engine development (mis-)adventures.
In 1970, the Navy and the Air Force were directed by the DoD to co-fund a program known as the Advanced Turbine Engine Gas Generator (ATEGG), with the intention of using it to power both the VFX (Tomcat) and the F-X (Eagle).
Later, Nixon & Ford's SecNav, Bill Middendorf, IIRC, an opponent of naval aviation, directed the Navy to continue funding development of the ATEGG, but cancel procurement of the F401.
The DFE SNAFU was later.
sharkd59 1 year ago
@sharkd59 The high AOA problem was evident in Kara Hultgreens fatal crash off the back of the Lincoln in....94 I think it was.
acsherm3 1 year ago
@sharkd59 Stupid bureaucracy..
Paun991 11 months ago
@sharkd59 when i read your comment i feel stupid...
TheSanoth23 9 months ago
This was a F110GE400 powered F-14D Super Tomcat that went down, not a TF30 powered F-14A.
fanofrhymeswithstar 2 years ago 4
Are you sure it's a F110? That's wierd. You always hear so much about the TF30 being so awful, I just automatically assumed that's what it was. That and the video looked like it was from like 1990 or something. What year did they start putting the F110 it the F-14?
justforever96 2 years ago
YES! This documentary was done in the mid-90's, with VF-11 and VF-31 part of CVW-14 aboard USS Carl Vinson. As you know, they were flying the F-14D Super Tomcat at the time.
fanofrhymeswithstar 2 years ago
The GE110 was fitted to the F-14A+ which became the F-14B. That was in 1989. After that all the B and Ds were west coast and As on the east. In 1996 when Fighter Wing Pacific was disestablished, all the Pacific birds moved to NAS Oceana.
hudge28 2 years ago
Ahh, I see. Thanks. I already miss the Tomcat. What do they do with these planes when they retire them? Aside from a number of A-6's they sunk to make coral reefs (waste of aluminum!) I don't know. Do they scrap them, or store them, or what? I hope they store them. If the world sudedenly goes to hell, all of a sudden the F-14 might seem pretty useful to have around. Along with some others that have been sent on their way a bit early.
justforever96 2 years ago
DoD was storing the retired airworthy F-14s that were not donated for museum or gate guard display at Davis-Monthan AFB's AMARG facility (formerly AMARC). Then, in June 2007, a Sen Wyden (D-Oregon) decided to capitalize on paranoia regarding Iran and proposed a ban on export licenses for F-14 components, the Pentagon got antsy about lost revenue streams and decided, instead, to mechanically shred all F-14s not already on display. The resulting photos are disheartening.
sharkd59 2 years ago
Coral reefs are not a waste, the navy should sink all of it's old ships.
gregrutz 2 years ago
I didn't say that coral reefs are a waste; I just think that they could find something a lot less wasteful of good scrap metal than sinking ships and planes. You know how many tons of steel are in a ship? Aluminum in an airframe? Not to mention the man-hours and production it takes to build them in the first place. I guess I'm just a conservationist. It's the same with all the old cars that they crush. Most of those have good parts, engines, etc that could still be used. Just seems wasteful.
justforever96 2 years ago 2
@justforever96
When they're done with them, they park them down here in Tucson. ;)
SputnikJunior 2 years ago
@justforever96 The only other operator is Iran who still use them. To prevent Iran obtaining parts all retired US navy F14's were completely destroyed except one, which was at the Naval Air Station Pensacola.
binaway 8 months ago
@binaway And that almost makes it even MORE painful! WTF are they worried about Iran getting ahold of F-14 parts? They couldn't have shipped them to museums? They think the Smithsonian would clandistinely sell Iranians parts piece by piece from a display F-14? Even if they had a few operational ones, how easy is it to steal and sell airplane parts to a foreign country? Even if it could happen, it seems as if it'd be cheaper and easier for Iran to just buy some old MiG's or F-16's...
justforever96 8 months ago
@justforever96 Iran's air force used F14's as an AWAC, during the 10 year Iran Iraq war, because of it's superior radar, directing F4's&F5's. Spare parts not available from the US Iran supplied an F14 phased array radar set to the USSR to copy & sell to Iran. Current Russian fighters still use a version of this radar. British F4's used Rolls Royce Spey engines, then being produced under license in China. Iran tried to buy some and obtain a scrapped RAF airframe to copy the differences
binaway 8 months ago