External fuel tanks for F-14's

[eastmanace]

....how prevelant were they, especially in the overseas theater of operations? I have a couple of sets of the SB tanks that I can use, but it seems to me that the vast majority of Tomcat shots that I've see are of airframes sans tanks. Was thinking maybe the Bombcats would need the extra legs, but that's only a guess on my part.....Cliff

[David Walker]

Well, this is completely unscientific, but looking through the photos that I have saved at least three quarters of the aircraft have the tanks installed. And when I looked at photos of just carrier operations it appears to be a lot closer to 100%.

Edited April 17, 2008 by David Walker

[Brian P: Fightertown Decals]

Outside of the first couple deployments, Tomcats almost always have the tanks. When shore based and going through something like Fighterderby it's pretty common to see the tanks unloaded since they are operating close to home and want to get rid of the drag for performance.

Built it the way you want, but the VAST majority of fleet jets have them on more often than not. Besides why waste the AM parts...

-brian

[jhe56]

When I was on NIMITZ in the mid-80s, I was told that there was a shortage of F-14 external tanks, so they pretty much always went to the squadrons on deployment, with very few left stateside.

[MickeyThickey]

...on the other hand, Iranian Turkeys were delivered without tanks, if memory serves. So you're basically never going to see an IRIAF-14 with tanks attached.

[Impatient Pete]

...on the other hand, Iranian Turkeys were delivered without tanks, if memory serves. So you're basically never going to see an IRIAF-14 with tanks attached.

Interesting. I'm sure they could design and manufacture a local version, so it's intersting that you never see them. Maybe they don't need them due to mission profile or lack of use???

Pete

[Jay Chladek]

Interesting. I'm sure they could design and manufacture a local version, so it's intersting that you never see them. Maybe they don't need them due to mission profile or lack of use???

Pete

Looking at pictures in the Tomcat Alley book, one didn't tend to see a lot of tanks mounted to USN F-14s until the Block 85/90 production batch and the Iranian birds came after block 90 (Block "05" according to the book). I don't even know if some of the early Navy F-14s (or the Iranian ones) were necessarily plumbed for tanks anyway, but the early Navy ones did get retrofitted for them later.

In terms of Iranian use, they were intended for intercept duties and as such, the thought was probably for a clean airframe that could accelerate quick. Unlike a ship, there were plenty of divert bases that could be utilized if a Tomcat needed gas over Iran and the IIAF was already pretty heavily invested in large tanker assets in the form of KC-707 and KC-747 airframes. So fuel wasn't really a concern. Long range of the Phoenix missile also meant they could strike air targets before they entered Iranian airspace (theoretically).

Now one interesting tidbit I gleemed off of a guy from VF-2 at Tomcat Sunset was that at least in their squadron during the last couple cruises, if they were operating with the external fuel tanks, the IFR probe cover was left on the planes. If they were not mounting the tanks, then the IFR probe door was left off since they needed to do more tanking (presumeably meaning more tanking ops potentially from USAF KC-135s, nicknamed by Aussie Hornet drivers as the "Wrecking ball" due to the hard and small basket that could damage a probe if one wasn't careful) as there were more concerns for ripping off the probe bay cover and potentially having it injested by the plane. Interestingly, Iranian cats had their cover doors removed for similar concerns.

Another point brought up by Tomcat drivers was that the F-14 already had some pretty long legs and this came in handy during OIF with flights up to Mosul and back. A Tomcat could do it apparently without need for many refuellings (one I believe if that) while an F/A-18 Legacys needed to tank at least two times on the trip up and back from the Gulf.

[Iron Eagle]

On the other hand: how common is it for NSAWC Tomcats to have the tanks installed? In particular, I am thinking of building NSAWC 13, the brown scheme. Hi-Decal's instructions labeled it as having tanks installed, but I couldn't find a single picture to support that. I like the looks of the Tomcats with tanks much more.

[GreyGhost]

Also, it was common to see the FRS, VF-101 and VF-124 without the tanks ...

Gregg

[Huey Gunner]

Was in VF-24 in '77 to '78. Never flew without them. Ashore or afloat.

[Reddog]

For Tomcat's deployed aboard ship they always flew with tanks, there were only one or two exception. VF-101, VX-23 and other "shore based" squadrons, they hardly ever had tank. For sea going squadrons, we normally flew with tanks except for something liks SFARP, etc.

HTH

Reddog

[MickeyThickey]

Interesting. I'm sure they could design and manufacture a local version, so it's intersting that you never see them. Maybe they don't need them due to mission profile or lack of use???

As Jay said, the aircraft were/are used to defend Iranian airspace, not invade other countries, so long range capabilities aren't much of an issue. The tanks weren't needed/wanted in the first place, hence not being included in the purchase. As you said, they *could* manufacture one indigenously, but it'd be superfluous to their needs.

Interesting info on the tank/door combinations though. The IIAF requested its Turkeys be delivered without the IFR bay doors, being aware it was prone to malfunction. No tanks, a respectable tanker force, no door... wonder if they decided to trade off drop tanks for more Phoenixes at the cost of higher tanker ops?

[Jay Chladek]

As Jay said, the aircraft were/are used to defend Iranian airspace, not invade other countries, so long range capabilities aren't much of an issue. The tanks weren't needed/wanted in the first place, hence not being included in the purchase. As you said, they *could* manufacture one indigenously, but it'd be superfluous to their needs.

Interesting info on the tank/door combinations though. The IIAF requested its Turkeys be delivered without the IFR bay doors, being aware it was prone to malfunction. No tanks, a respectable tanker force, no door... wonder if they decided to trade off drop tanks for more Phoenixes at the cost of higher tanker ops?

Actually, I have seen a picture of an IIAF jet being pulled out of storage with a door, so it seems the planes were shipped with them. They were just removed once they got to Iran. The Iranians apparently did keep them around when the jets were in storage though as it probably kept dirt out of the bay. Plus, the Iranians also were planning to convert their F-14 fleet to utilize the Boeing Flying Boom based system for tanker ops and the 80th jet procurred as part of the IIAF order (buer #160378) was still in the US to be the first plane fitted with such a system when the Shah got deposed. If that system had been fitted, then I imagine the original IFR probe systems would have been removed and the covers refitted for slightly cleaner aerodynamics around the nose.

[GreyGhost]

Jay, do you know where about the IFR receptacle was to be placed on the Tomcat, that's an interesting fact I didn't know ?

Gregg

[VFA-103guy]

Actually, I have seen a picture of an IIAF jet being pulled out of storage with a door, so it seems the planes were shipped with them. They were just removed once they got to Iran. The Iranians apparently did keep them around when the jets were in storage though as it probably kept dirt out of the bay. Plus, the Iranians also were planning to convert their F-14 fleet to utilize the Boeing Flying Boom based system for tanker ops and the 80th jet procurred as part of the IIAF order (buer #160378) was still in the US to be the first plane fitted with such a system when the Shah got deposed. If that system had been fitted, then I imagine the original IFR probe systems would have been removed and the covers refitted for slightly cleaner aerodynamics around the nose.

Jay,

Not all of the jets were shipped with the IFR doors installed. There was some debate over this a while back, and quite frankly there's a lot of mixed intell on it.

The end result is, Iran removed the doors for one reason only and that was, as you stated; to convert them to the boom system as apposed to the probe and basket.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Brian, i was always curious how long did it take to remove that little door?

[Reddog]

Brian, i was always curious how long did it take to remove that little door?

About five minutes. All you had to do was pump the probe out, have a ladder and thne undo four bolts (there was two brackets) and presto, the door is removed. It was common practice in all the squadrons I was in to remove the door if were going to be doing heave tanking, seems one good basket strike and that door usually found it's way down the starboard intake.

HTH

Reddog B)

[TaiidanTomcat]

Thanks Reddog, i assumed it would be something quick like that few bolts and brackets, but then in aviation the simplest things can get crazy-- friend of mine works on blackhawks and you have to remove the engines to check something simple (cant remember what right now) , harriers you have to remove the wings to get the engine out ETC...

[Jay Chladek]

I think the door was only held on by a couple of bracket clamps. There was no hinge to pull off since it was just fitted to the probe. Time to remove it probably would have bee about five minutes with the proper tools and it has been done on Navy cats during operational deployments.

As for images of the boom refuelling system, I've never seen any diagrams as to where it was going to be located since to my knowledge it was never fitted to the one jet that was going to be the test bed for it (the Shah fell from power first). I've not even seen any diagrams of it. My best guess for its placement would be mid part of the spine behind the cockpit (and the two blade antennas topside) since that location would be similar to the placement on the F-4 Phantom. Plus, in that spot it would be the least likely to require any extensive refit work due to proximity of the fuel tanks.

[Reddog]

That would not be a good place to put it, all the flight control rods run just under those panels (turtlebacks) so you would have to figure out a way to move them and make room for the fuel line. There's hardly any room in those panels so I would believe they would put in on the wing glove area, there's more room and no flight controls.

Reddog B)

Edited April 20, 2008 by Reddog

[Jay Chladek]

Alrighty, so much for that guess. Based on where the control linkages are then, what might be a good spot for it?

[TaiidanTomcat]

Wing glove is probably the best guess like reddog said. i have seen it on some whifs like that. Just brings up a question i have always had - in this era of "jointness" and thrifty spending why doesnt the Air Force use the hose and basket combo that the USMC, USN, and all of Europe use?

[Fiddler]

I thought the flying boom has a faster refueling capacity compared to the basket... So better for the bigger aircraft the USAF has compared to the NAVY.

And I think that is because of the pressure that can be put on a flexible tube compared to a metal pipe. I guess the latter is much better controled at higher pressures since a flexible tube might start to whip around because of the speed of the fluid.

Edited April 20, 2008 by Fiddler

[GreyGhost]

Maybe even in the nose where the probe comes out from ...

Gregg

[Jay Chladek]

It pretty much got covered in another thread. The boom system can pump faster then a hose and drogue system which is of great benefit to the USAF's fleet of heavies. Plus, when the system was developed, the aircraft being used for tankers were B-29s, B-50s and KC-97s and the latest bombers in SAC's inventory were jet powered and getting VERY large. So you had a deal where the tanker was firewalling it while the bomber was right above stall. So it made more sense from SAC's standpoint to utilize a system where the bomber just had to fly to a specific point and hold there and have a boom operator on the tanker engage contact rather then the bomber pilot trying to chase a hose unit with a very large plane that was sluggish on the controls. The weight and balance of a plane also changes as it is getting pumped, which adds additional items for the pilot to be aware of during tanking.

RAF bombers utilized the hose system (NATO standard) as by that point their tanker fleets were jet powered and the speed ranges made more sense, plus the aircraft being tanked were smaller. The NATO and RAF E-3s utilize the boom as well, but since an E-3 operates as a single unit on station rather then as part of a bigger formation, they don't have as big a need to fast pump gas.