F-14D Super Tomcat | with Hillary "Toro" O'Connor Mueri *PART 1*
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2019
- "Toro" chats about her time flying and operating the F-14D Tomcat with VF-213 Blacklions with the US Navy.
She includes what the role of the D model was, what it was like operating from a carrier and also some great personal stories that will get you thinking!
Filmed at Gatwick Aviation Museum - gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk
Laco - www.laco.de
Help keep the channel going:
/ aircrewinterview
or donate
www.aircrewinterview.tv/donate/ - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![บุษบา - มอส รัศมี [COVER VERSION]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_n0yENSl8d8/mqdefault.jpg)
This lady personifies professionalism . Her objective analysis is great to hear, on one of the most charismatic aeroplanes ever to fly for me.
real wifey material.
Good stuff, she was one of my branch officers when she was a JO when I was in 213
Thank you Hillary "Toro" O'Connor for your service & pioneering fields that are very challenging for women period! A true hero, /salute!
Not to be generalizing but women seem to make better pilots/aircrew with their attention to detail and smarts (With shorter statures, you could argue they can handle "gee" better than men too). We need more. Anyone who believes women can't "measure up" is sorely deluded and backwards and most often is simply *projecting* about their own inadequacies. Sorry, Bubba!
@@guitarsarelikestupid7200 th-cam.com/video/6Q_anBB3M0A/w-d-xo.html
@@markspencer171 th-cam.com/video/C8I8654guK8/w-d-xo.html
@@markspencer171 Thing is, you gotta know at least a bit about how airplanes work. You a pilot? I am.
@@guitarsarelikestupid7200 until they are shot down and captured then they are demorale
What an incredible story. An amazing human being. Brave, intelligent and an inspiration to many. My daughter wants to be an engineer and she is well on her way to becoming one. It's people like you who show everyone what is possible. Brilliant just brilliant and thank you from the UK. I'm ex forces. British Army. You make us proud.
She’s just too cool for school! Amazing!
And, she’s 100% right; the Tomcat will always be the King of Cool. 😎👍🔥
I’m a little older having gone to flight school in 1978, so flew the then fairly new F-14A as a RIO. My one regret was never getting a chance to fly the backseat in the D. A truly tremendous weapons system. Don’t get me wrong, the AWG 9 and TCS with link 4 was cutting edge for its day, but the leap to a next gen APG, TCS, IRST and MIDS was such an improvement and really, along with those wonderful GE engines, made the F-14D a true 4G+ fighter.
Great interview with a true professional! Who doesn’t love the Tomcat???
The mechanics who worked on it hated it lmao
But I surely love the tomcat.
The Libyans?
Holy crap I remember. Her. I was in 213 2000-2005. I had a crush on her
What was your job?
@@vaultsuit AD
Grreat interview! As usual yet another awesome work by this channel. Was incredibly fun to watch her share her experiences. It is quite apparent once the cold war was over, it became less about ACM and more about precision strikes and air-to-ground missions. Some of the earlier F-14 A/B pilots on this channel talked obsessively about their DACT against F-15s, F-18s, F-16s, F-5s, A-4s while the focus definitely shifted as it became less and less about air-to-air and more about air-to-ground in the 2000s.
That was a good 1st part interview … looking forwards 2 part 2
The trip to Germany she mentioned where they were going to fly against MiG-29's, I think is a reference to the Red October exercise which had US Navy and Marine pilots flying against JG73 and their MiG-29's.
As much as I love the Tomcat, I would hate to be flying an F-14 and realize that a MiG-29 was close enough for me to see it.
@@larrythorn4715 the Mig29 wasn't as hot as hyped by the Soviet Union. An F14 could actually kill a Mig29.
@@samueladams1775 an f15 killed a 29 without firing a shot.
Great to her passion for the Tomcat, loved hearing her story. Tomcats and Targets!
I was the last visitor of VF-213 in 1996 at Nas Miramar ! a few days later all F-14's moved to Oceana
"I like being nerdy!" - my quote for the day! :D
I served with VA95 an A6 squadron in CVW11 with VF114 and VF213 on board USS Enterprise from 82 to 86 they were flying F14A at that time.
Absolutely amazing interview, looking forward to part Deux :)
awesome...look forward to the the next part !!!
Great interview. Can't wait for part 2.
Interesting interview, loved hearing about her experiences. She phrases her job so professionally. Thank you for your service Hillary!
Great example of preparation meeting opportunity. Well done Toro.
Wow this is a good one! Thanks Air Crew Interviews and Mrs. O'Connor Mueri.
Thank you!
Just watched this, another great interview, thanks to Hillary for taking part.
Fantastic interview, it's really interesting to hear Hillary's experiences.
Awesome interview!
What a great interview
Great interview!!
Great interview, and a nice touch to have a Sea Vixen in the background.
Love the TOMCAT. Would be an honour to fly
Great stories thanks
Thx for your service miss.
Sitting in the back-seat of an F-14 on a dark night with nugget pilot up front...takes...well, you know what I mean. There's nothing that will make your blood run cold than hearing a Tomcat on the ball and the LSO screaming, "power, power, power!!!! WAVE OFF WAVE OFF WAVE OFF...Heard it a few times while flying in plane guard in the helicopter ready for immediate water entry...
I was a RIO and, frankly, didn't want to be a pilot. The back seat was filled with adventure and enough to keep you busy. A giant video game kind of.
Great interview, really enjoyed listening to Hillary, she’s very cool
Thanks!
If you notice, the F-14 had widely spaced engines compared to say, the Hornet. In full afterburner, if you lose one engine the plane, particularly at low speeds, will rapidly roll (almost snap-roll) into the dead engine faster than the pilot can correct and exceeding rudder authority. An advantage to having more powerful and reliable engines and being able to launch without afterburner reduces this hazard if an engine should fail. The engines on the earlier models were known to suffer from surges and stalls.
On another note, from what I can surmise (maybe I am wrong) when launching from the deck the sudden "deceleration" on leaving the deck will inadvertently cause the throttles to slam into full power with AB. There may be some kind of "stopper bar" that can be selected up or down on the AB zone on the throttles where this can be used and prevented according to pilot's discretion (?). But in vids of the pilot's throttles (the vids of F-18 launches not F-14) on launch this can be observed. Sorry if I can't be more clear; I don't have a diagram or chalkbord. Oh and thank you, Hillary!
D's had the GE's; understood no AB needed for launch. Agreed, to replacing Corsair's and Intruders, with Hornets, but Tomcats had the edge in fleet defense and speed. I would have preferred to see one squadron of Tomcats retained in the carrier air wing, at least, until the Lightning II's were adopted into the air wings.
Lotsa love for the D, they should have built many more D models rather than converting A's to D's.
You could thank former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney for that. He didn't want to spend the money.
@@simflier8298 That sucks.
@@simflier8298 I remember reading Randy 'Duke' Cunningham's report to congress in which he passionately pleaded that there is no other Navy fighter that can compare to the F-14D. He went on one by one going through the weaknesses of the F-18 and how F-14 was much superior. Navy really fought hard for the F-14s. Dick Cheney was in the pocket of the Hornet lobbyists. He had been trying to kill Grumman since the 80s. Not many people realize, he tried to buy out Grumman in 1977, but was rejected.
That's interesting! And I agree with you. The F14 did a better job with fleet defense than the Hornet. Anytime a plane is designed for multi-roles, it won't do either job perfect. You'll lose something through trade offs. Navy pilots admit it too that F18s can't fill the shoes of the Tomcat.
@@simflier8298 People often forget the scale of the differences. When Randy 'Duke' Cunningham ferociously appealed to the Congress to not kill the F-14 program, he gave the example of how the F-14 could carry 4 two thousand bombs, its air-to-air defense weapons and fuel load then go to the enemy territory fighting its way in and then dropping the bombs and come back home fast to retire while the F-18 was not even capable enough to taxi to the runway with that type of weapon load.
Straight talking, businesslike, highly intelligent and dedicated .. seems to sum up the qualities of Aircrew as against the partying, ego driven, sex besotted, half wits portrayed by Hollywood, who just jump in planes, break the rules and act the rebel, cause its cool....
"Business in the streets, cocky in the sheets." ;)
She's amazing💪👊
Very cool 😎
15:47 Potential for JBD damage, potential for unrecoverable yaw rates on an engine failure, and also because in certain conditions the F110 powered tomcats can outrun the catapult slightly which can lead to it yawing off course and running into aircraft parked next to its launch path or being put into unrecoverable yaw rates.
20:28 It depends on altitude, air temperature, how much you have onboard the plane, etc.
At least in DCS ive gotten the F-14B to supercruise, but it was a completely clean airplane and i only had 4000 pounds or so of fuel left. So a configuration that would never be seen.
thank you Toro
2:58 "Baby Hornets", ha ha! :D
I caught that as well. Too funny.
What a cool lady 😎👍
Nice.
I thought it was DCS F-14 in the thumbnail..
Can't have been mine, It's not in a flat spin on fire! ;)
Hillary is a phenomenal woman and a class act, great interview!
Cheers.
"I think people would be surprised on how study intensive the aviation community is..."
F-14 DCS pilots: "Hear hear!"
8:18 is that the back seat? I didn't realize they had dual controls...
Yes... Tomcat Rio cant fly the plane ... that stick use for control the Radar Antena or Camera ... check this Out for better Answer : th-cam.com/video/r4-Dd4ss2Rc/w-d-xo.html
Where's it ?
Harriers I hear in the background? Very interesting video :D
ElliotL- CBGSpotter The Gatwick Aviation Museum is situated just outside London Gatwick Airport, the aircraft you could hear were airliners on approach to R08
She is very humble and well experience a true joy to listen to... but just for the record... she is a RIO not a Pilot as the title of the video suggest.
Such an awesome woman !
brilliant! where is part 2?
It is out this Sunday.
It's unfortunate that the Tomcat did not receive upgraded IFF gear that was given to Super Hornets.
13:45 "I can't answer that question."
is that a twin Hunter in the background??
No. It is De Havilland Sea Vixen. That is the Navigators window above the Roundel. It was known as the Coal Hole.
If we’re discussing the Grumman F-14 why isn’t she in front of one?
No F-14s in UK museums
aggressively assistive haha
Translation pilot pull your head out of your ass before we both die
02:06 did she just say, "sometimes i went on LSD trips"....Fkng nice! My kind of pilot.
Dock Landing Ship -LSD
Is that a de havilland vampire in the background?
Sea Vixen
@@Aircrewinterview Thanks, great interview with a very impressive lady!
I enjoyed this interview. Makes me wish I had some friends from Iran who would let me fly their F14….wishful thinking
What about her qualifications?
F-14B/D versus the A-model.
The GE engines on the B/D-model were FAR more powerful than the P&W engines on the A-model. GE specs: 16,000lbs+ in military, about 27,600 in full afterburner but some articles claim it gets up to 30,000lbs+ in flight. The digital engine controls trim the engine in flight so the GE engine doesn't see the power surge that the TF30 has in flight. The GE engine was supposedly derated in the F-14D's last decade of operation to 23,000+lbs to reduce maintenance. Full power could be restored in wartime emergency.
The A-model engines, the TF30, I think put out around 12,000 lbs thrust in military power. They COULD take off in military power but only at low weights. (An F-14A squadron actually operated off the Coral Sea in the late 1980s during an exercise. They were guest-hosted NOT permanently based on that Midway-class carrier. They took off from that carrier in military power either because the jet blaster deflector on the Coral Sea weren't designed to handle the power of the TF30 or the far separation of the F-14's engines creating a hazard for the deck crew if they used afterburner.) Initially, the TF30 developed 20,900 lbs in afterburner on takeoff but this rose to 28,000 lbs the closer you got to Mach 1. That accounts for the MUCH better acceleration of the F-14A at speed. An F-4 MIGHT beat the F-14A off the runway (the F-4 turbojets accelerated to full power faster than early turbofans; TF30 and Spey were both first generation afterburning turbofans; it's been noted by pilot that flew these early turbofan engines that they BOTH lagged behind throttle inputs) but once they're in the air and in the transonic speed zone the F-14A would probably beat the F-4 if the F-14 is not carrying heavy load (ie, Phoenix missiles). Later in its operation, the TF30 in the A-model was derated to 17,700 lbs maximum thrust in afterburner. Again, it was to reduce maintenance. If the engine is running at maximum power, it's not developing full heat and that reduces wear and tear on components. NOTE: The F-14A was retired 2 years ahead of the D-model. The B-model was retired in 2005.
The B/D-model engines generated around 16,000lbs thrust in military power. I NEVER heard of a B or D-model using afterburner for carrier takeoffs. The reason I read that they DIDN'T do afterburner takeoffs was related to the F-14 airframe not the jet blast deflectors. Remember the F-14 is sized to fit into a carrier; that's why it's 16ft tall. The problem there is rudder control authority. If you have an F110 in afterburner and you have an engine failure, there may not be enough control authority to deal with the abrupt yaw on takeoff. That's what I understood the issue was.
There was a yaw problem on the F-14 because of the wide spacing of the engines. When you have engines that are 9 ft apart, the worst thing that can happen is if you lose an engine at full power in the low speed range. If the pilot does not correct for the yaw quickly, you can lose the plane.
The Su-27 and MiG-29 also have yaw issues because their engine layout is very similar to the F-14. They have lost engines in air shows and there was a noticeable yawing moment of the MiGs and Sukhois involved in these accidents.
Now, why WOULD you design a plane with widely spaced engines?
The pragmatic solution: if you space engines spaced widely apart, when one engine takes damage (bullets, missile hit), the other engine is far less likely to be lost. You also DO NOT have to build in titanium "fire" walls between the engines to keep a damaged or "exploding" engine from destroying the other. Titanium is a very expensive metal. You want to keep down percentages of exotic metals in the airframe to keep your costs down.
The last benefit of having widely spaced engines is that you create a pod area/tunnel between the engine nacelles to carry weapons. This can be a very low drag area. Everything will have to be carried tangentially but it's less drag than carrying those weapons under the wing in horizontal rows which multiply drag and reduce your performance (acceleration, range, speed). Not to mention with weapons carriage closer to the centerline, there won't be a huge penalty on roll rate, either. In the F-14, there was a lot of extra lift area created by the pancake that housed the mechanisms for the swing wings. About 44% of the total lifting surface is from the pancake. However, if you do carry weapons in the tunnel area between the engine nacelles, it kills a lot of that lift. The F-14 obviously did NOT perform as well when it was carrying Phoenix missiles or 2,000lb bombs in the tunnel area.
Another reason they designed the F-14 with widely spaced nacelle pods was the TF30 itself. That engine was notoriously sensitive and to keep optimal airflow (in other words as straight as possible to the engine core and to minimize disturbed airflow) they spaced the engines apart. There's also no bending and turning inlet ducting like on the F-22. It makes the F-14 an excellent radar reflector (the engine compressors are very visible on radar return) but in theory it was also supposed to reduce the TF30 stalls.
TOMCATS!
She is beautiful 😍
Shes a bad ass..thats all.
It's good to hear from someone else who couldn't be a pilot due to poor eyesight.
Gamut
Nice to see a career woman who doesn't have the bullshit factor.
f14 -A ? a hard yank on the throttle and you go down thanks to engine stall :D
Incorrect. You can see airshows where F-14A pilots slam the throttle from idle to full zone 5 afterburner and back. It took a lot of things to happen to stall the engine. Very slow airspeed below 200 knots, nose at high angle of attack (slow airflow into the intakes making it susceptible to disruption in airflow), aggressive rudder inputs (cross controlling laterally and vertically) and it would stall. It was not easy to stall as many things had to happen, but if it did stall at low altitude, it could result in a crash. The engines ran like a champ generating more and more thrust with higher airflow at high mach speed over 350 - 400 knots up to Mach 2.4. It was prone to stalling at 80 - 300 knots or so.
@@KLRGT500KR because they all have upgraded engines.
@@tomast9034 I was talking about TF-030 engines. Most 'Snort' Snodgrass' airshow demos were in F-14A like this one. You can see he can make the F-14A dance like no other. Throttle slamming is fine with TF--030 engines as long as there is enough airspeed forcing enough air into the intakes.
th-cam.com/video/ipRS5gHMEQM/w-d-xo.html
In F14A you pray to not a get engine stall xD
TOMCATS
she gave truth: blue angels with f18s are boring, with tomcats they would have been more exciting.
The F-14 was nearly as large as a B-17, but it was 7000 heavier than a B-17
Incorrect. F-14 was over 1 foot shorter than the B-17 bomber, but empty weight wise, it was around 40,000 lbs (F-14 A/B) due to radar, those big engines and variable geometry wings. That is comparing 1930s bomber to the 1970s Mach 2.4 fighter/interceptor/multi-role. Apples to oranges.
@@KLRGT500KR Okay, apparently you do not understand the term "nearly"
www.bing.com/search?q=define+nearly&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN
As to the second part of your objection, I am comparing the *SIZE* and *WEIGHT* of two difference aircraft.
One aircraft, by the way, that was classed as a *HEAVY* bomber and the other is a fighter/interceptor.
As you had trouble with "nearly" I am not so sure you can get "heavy bomber" so I'll save you the trouble of further misunderstanding.
A heavy bomber is classed as an aircraft capable of carrying a heavy bomb load. It has nothing to do with the aircraft itself.
Now, if I were comparing capability or equipment carried, I'd agree, these airplanes are from different eras, rending them apples and oranges in terms of capability, but I'm comparing *JUST* weight and size.
Even if I compared the weight and size of the F-14 to the weight and size of my sister's German shepherd dog, it would still be a valid comparison. (My sister's dog is smaller and lighter than an F-14)
@@KLRGT500KR what don't you understand about the word "nearly"?
@@Spacklatard Over 1 foot is not nearly. Not even close. That is a huge difference in terms of surface area. Likewise, F-16 is 1 foot shorter than the F-15 or F-14 so then using your own analogy, F-16 is "nearly" as long as the F-14 and F-15. It sounds comical.
KLRGT500KR
It depends on your definition of nearly.
“Hey i’m 1.85m tall”
“Hey i’m 1.80. nearly as tall as you”
“No you arent. You are over 50000 micrometers shorter! You are not even close”
Its a matter of perception really. But in practical terms of pure lenght the F-14 is around 8.5/10 of a B-17.
Thats not that shorter.
As an F-16 is 8/10 of an F-14. Not that shorter either but are planes of the same generation built for more similar roles, for how broad such determination can be.
While the B-17 is strategic ww2 bomber carrying a crew of 10.
Its more of a statement of technology.
Its all a matter of perception.
She’s a RIO but she’s also a Democrat so i am relieved. I saw that red shirt and just assumed she had her tongue buried in trump’s rear seat. I guess she is one of the good guys. Thank fuck.
How's that TDS working for ya now?
Useless.
i bet male pilots would groan knowing they had a female back-seat driver in a combat navy jet