Since a few people have asked how the program counter can be stored in the ROM. It was a special register physically on the ROM chip, not a read-only address in ROM itself. Ray's paper states it was resettable and steppable and could accept an address input. So, I'm 95% sure that allowed for full program flow control. @phirenz makes a good argument for why this may not be quite so simple though....and may have actually required additional ICs to actually implement. The SAAB Viggen is getting a lot of mentions in the comments. It had a highly advanced flight computer composed of many discrete ICs. Not a microprocessor but very impressive nontheless. I am considering doing a video about it in the future. The 'MiG-25' at 6:11 is actually a MiG-31. Thanks @AvArIeNmArKu4 An ‘assembler’ translates to machine code, not a compiler. Thanks @Mat-Ellis Swing wings are a subset of variable wing geometry. Variable wing geometries may be implemented in other configurations and the field is not 'obsolete' as I stated. Thanks @nobodynoone2500 31:48 bottom line: "U if P > L" should be "U if P > U". Thanks @MatthijsvanDuin (I'm really mad I got that one wrong!) 10:00 - Lateral Axis, not longitudinal axis. So, the aircraft is pitch stable. Thanks @UnitSe7en 45:00 - The hardware prototype ran at the same speed as the final product. And yes, I know higher aspect ratio doesn't equal more drag (it's the opposite for subsonic flight). I was trying to simplify and probably simplified a bit too much...I said I always screw up supersonic flight discussions.
[ retired Engineer ] Caught out on a technicality... When I bit-banged on 4004,8008/80/88 and 6502 a microprocessor _was_ a single chip, not a collection of six. One of the Engineers that worked on it wrote a book that was published in 2017! PS I'll still give the vid a thumb though, you made a half decent vid.
The F-14 could engage 6 targets simultaneously but it could track many more. The F-14 could track 24 targets and fire on any 6 with the half dozen Phoenix missiles it carried. Very interesting video I really enjoyed it and recommended it to a few friends.
The old chip designers were crazy. No simulations, no HDL, no DRC/LVS. They would cut photomasks by hand. Imagine seeing some bug in silicon and coming up with the concept of setup and hold time to explain it.
There's a great amount of info and real world experience in "Commodore: A Company on the Edge" detailing the process they used to design the 6502, hand cutting rubylith to form the masks for the different chip layers. Absolutely mind boggling how hardcore chip designers were back in the day. Even more impressive when they then go on to explain how their chips "mostly worked" or in some cases "worked 100%" on the first batch with those old processes.
I remember it could perform 100k operations per second, which was unbelievable. I believe it could track 9 bogies and shoot at 6 simultaneously. Pretty crazy stuff back then.
do not be confused, the CADC is the flight computer, the ability to track and shoot 6 at the same time was due to another immensely complex part of the plane, the AN/AWG-9 radar.
high aspect ratio doesn't create more drag, it actually creates less at subsonic speeds, which is why gliders have high AR. At supersonic speeds you have shocks and delta becomes favorable I really liked the video though, keep up the good work!
I think there's some subtlety to this. High aspect ratio wings *do* create more drag overall, as a simple matter of increasing the frontal area of the aircraft. What they excel at is improving the lift:drag ratio. All other things being equal, a subsonic aircraft with shorter wings will experience less drag, but it will *also* be less efficient and have less endurance than the same aircraft with much longer wings. If we imagine that we change nothing about the aircraft aside from the length of the wings (i.e. we keep the same engine, propeller, fuel, etc.), then the aircraft with shorter wings will be able to achieve a higher top speed, but the aircraft with longer wings will be more fuel-efficient and have a higher service ceiling. Compare the Lockheed U-2 and the Corvair F-106. They both use the same engine, a Pratt & Whitney J75, and they have comparable gross weights. The most obvious difference is that the F-106 employs a delta wing, and the U-2 employs a high-aspect wing. The F-106 has a top speed of 1325kt, while the U-2 has a top speed of 412kt. The F-106 has a L:D ratio of 12.1 at subsonic speeds, while the U-2 has a L:D ratio of 25.6. The F-106 has a service ceiling of 57,000 feet, while the U-2 has a service ceiling which is still classified but is *at least* 80,000 feet. The F-106 has a range of 500nm, while the U-2 has a range of over 6,000nm, a difference which cannot be adequately explained by the fact that the U-2 can carry ~10,000 more pounds of fuel.
@@tissuepaper9962 frontal area alone is misleading, especially at lower airspeeds. And you can massively increase Aspect Ratio of a given design, without changing the Frontal area at all, or even reduce the frontal area at the same time.
@@tissuepaper9962 in aircraft aerodynamics, we typically consider the projected or wetted surface area, not the frontal area. You can keep this area the same while increasing aspect ratio to reduce your drag.
@@tissuepaper9962 High aspect ratio wings only create more drag overall supersonic (and very high transonic). The reduction in induced drag when subsonic *more* than makes up for the increased frontal area, and thus a high aspect wing is lower drag when subsonic. Consider: a modern airliner at basically all phases of flight always is making lift equal to weight, so lift is fundamentally fixed. If you improve the lift to drag ratio, you aren't making more lift, because your lift still has to equal weight, so what are you doing? Decreasing drag. During cruise, there's fundamentally no difference between "improving lift to drag ratio" and "reducing drag", because lift is unchanging.
I was in the Army and was a mechanic for the 1980's light tank and I was impressed by the components, open one up and it was filled with multiple universal cards, so we could essentially lose a few cards(around 4 if I remember correctly) before the whole box needed replacing.
They started teaching computer architecture in A school in the 80s. They had Altair looking computers where you would actually hand enter opcodes by hitting switches (they were Octal - so base 8) and pressing a button to enter the value into a register or memory. You had to basically hand enter the program one opcode after another. The press another button to execute the program and you crossed your fingers it would end up in the correct configuration after running your program :D. I, of course, had already taught myself Assembler using DOS 3.2 and the DEBUG program when I was 14, so that unit was a breeze for me. A lot of people struggled with that unit, but I was lucky. Ironically I taught myself Assembler because I wanted to get closer to the "metal". When I discovered PCs I was in an electronics phase, so for me it was the EE part that was interesting. I eventually became a full time programmer / software engineer :D
14:00 an FPGA is not a microprocessor - it's a collection of logic that can be configured for different arbitary logic functions, possibly including one or more microprocessors
I think he was pointing out how loose the term was back and any sort of chip that could do arbitrary logic whether that be in hardware or software could have been considered a micro processor by old parlance
Great video! I really wish we would have a program today that could be used to verify that every transistor in the system is actually working correctly. Even if running that program once took a whole day, it would still be highly valuable to verify the hardware that you have, either to verify it after building a new system or to diagnose unstable system. Currently the state of art seems to be "randomly swap parts until it starts working again for the programs that you actually use daily".
Programs can be written and the trick is to be able to prove that a "single failure" is picked up. Overall its a simple concept. If a * b = c and if c is the incorrect answer then you have a problem. How many a * b or a/b do you have to do to catch all single failures. Now multiple failures are a different story. Ray Holt
@@firstmicro The problem is that you cannot know by definition which part of the hardware is potentially broken. If you *compare* any numbers to each other, what if the comparision operation in the CPU is broken? Modern CPUs have multiple execution units per core so even if you successfully execute 5 comparisions correctly with known values, you cannot know if the 6th execution would actually work correctly or not. And since the actual execution units are selected by proprieatry algorithms inside the CPU, you cannot assume you have a safe way to run any kind of test code on all units. We would need some hardware support to be able to test all the transistors in the CPU. For exaple, ability to select which execution units are in use (basically disable everything but one) is needed to check if those units work correctly. And to make things harder, the L1 or L2 cache could be broken and there you have the problem that e.g. 16-way associate cache can have the cached value in different locations in the cache and any random execution of the code may or may use the part of the cache that's broken. It's turtles all the way down and at best you can give some kind of statistical estimate how correctly the hardware is working.
Great video, brought back memories. I graduated with a computer science degree in 1978, and in 1979-1981 I worked for Marconi Avionics, Rochester, Kent. I worked on the first computer based air data systems for Altitude and 2 dimensional speed for helicopters. There were still a team of watchmakers who serviced the mechanical computers for the Vulcan bombers.
It actually changes stability around the _lateral_ axis. 10:00 The longitudinal axis runs longitudinally ie: the roll axis. Roll stability is also affected, but I think you were talking about pitch stability, hence, you are talking about the lateral axis.
Started watching the channel since your oceangate video, all videos have been fascinating and well delivered, i must say this is easily your best yet. Not only in terms of explanation and research, but the clarity of the video and application of 3d rendering of the aircraft etc just shows how well youre improving. Loved this and cant wait for the next video
Thanks. It’s interesting, I expected this video to be far less popular and to be a bit of a ‘stop gap’ between the elite one and another I have planned for a few months time. It’s proven far more popular than I expected.
Heh, even going simple, well... I hate to tell ya... xD (In all seriousness, great video! The polish and production quality is amazing, and this channel is going places I would think!) Now back to the hopefully informative, uh... information.
17:32 When defining a microprocessor, you need to compare to what came before, not what came after. Compared to discreet logic, the 4004 is absolutely a microprocessor.
That the little children you refer to were more interested in the prop plane than a Tornado baffles me. At a young age the military jet would be all I care about.
Interesting history For reference, here are release dates of the earliest home computers and the processors they used Altair 8800, released January 1975, used the 8080 processor Imsai 8080, released ~November 1975, used 8080 processor Apple 1, released April 1976, used 6502 processor TRS-80, released August 1977, used Z-80 processor (I bought one in 1977) Heathkit H11: released late 1977/ early 1978, processor was a mix of the KA11 plus other chips (would have bought one, but previous poor experience with their kits nixed that) Initiation of mass market): IBM PC, released August 1981 (I bought one in 1981)
Maaaate! 👌Possibly the best video I ever could of hoped to find on this... I first heard about this when I was about 12 when Sony was black listing PS2 exports as it could potentially be used for guided missile development but did not know enough to appreciate either back then. I later joined military, became a mechanic and in civy world specialized in vehicle management systems while being a PC and physics nerd the whole way. Looking back at it now its defiantly crazy to think what may have been...... What you said at the end I agree pretty well and had similar experience with many things. Why spend on War, F1, Soccer and Olympics when cost of living and healthcare is high but now I appreciate all of those things in some way. All I know for sure is hindsight is never truly 20:20 and I'm grateful to have lived life I have had and no longer wish to alter past and just do best I can to learn from it so as to not waste time with needless repetition.
Now, it's funny you mention the whole PS2 export concern issue. Because I'm thinking of doing a video on that exact topic! It's a difficult one to research and would require me to do a lot of Linux faff but it's very much on my 'probable video for 2024' list.
@@Alexander-the-ok Smashed that bell out the back of my screen just in case 👍 been waiting for a proper enthusiast dive into that since the day it all became public news here in Australia. I know most of the little pieces but a mini docco on it to share and review with mates would be bloody ripper and I know thousands of console bros that would be keen as to see it.
I'm currently in the US Air Force in F-15 Maintenance, but I also did 8 years in the US Army. The first fighter jet I ever sat in was an RAF Tornado in Kuwait in 2000. XD
Somewhere a nerd will now be trying to get Doom to run on the thing. The specifications state fixed-point calculations so depending on how many bits were used of exponent and how many for mantissa, VERY large numbers can be stored in just 20 bits. IEEE 16-bit fixed-point gives some idea of the ranges possible. The simple concept is to keep the most SIGNIFICANT bits of a value. Yes, that inherently means a loss of accuracy but not a SIGNIFICANT loss of accuracy. I guess someone who compares things to a 6502 might not be aware that fixed-point is a VERY old technique. We all had to start somewhere. That said, 3D games for 6502-based computers most certainly used fixed-point. Multiplication and division achieved simply by using Log and Antilog tables. I would presume the F14 would use this approach as a lookup table is WAY simpler than a multiplier and divider unit. Of course, it all depends on the cost of ROM.. Seems odd to think the 4004 having to fetch an instruction in two memory-fetches being odd since the 6502 has 2 and 3 byte instructions, so that does exactly the same thing. In fact even RISC chips often have instructions that require multiple reads. Literal pools being the most obvious example. Put simply, if you want to place a 32-bit value into a 32-bit register, obviously it has to read the instruction and then the data. I believe that modern x86 & x64 processors actually convert the CISC instructions into 'triads' of RISC instructions and use a VLIW approach. I'm pretty sure their were other custom MOS processors designed for specific purposes. ICBMs, SLBMs but to create the mask to produce just a few thousand examples would make them very costly indeed. It's when one can set up a large scale fabrication facility potentially producing billions of general purpose processors that the costs become reasonable. RISC was one of the key technologies in making faster processors that were physically smaller. In fact, the size stayed the same but the performance went up hugely - look at the CRAY computers. The clock speed wasn't THAT high but they could complete a 64-bit floating-point operation every cycle because the instructions were pipelined. Although officially 8-bit RISC processors are quite new,, even the 6502 had a 1 instruction pipeline. Longer wouldn't help because with so few registers, it was unlikely that their wouldn't be collisions but if one were to employ a RISC design with even 8 registers (which has been done) then it's possible for an 8-bit CPU to approach 1 MIP/MHz
Swng wings is a very good effect for viewers, see for example in the 1980 film The Final Countdown. In reality it makes no sense to seep the wings in the situations shown in the movie. Swing wing designs were expensive to manufacture and maintain. The extra mechanics adds weight and points of failure. Advances in aerodynamics and aircraft design methods reduced the appeal of swing wing designs. And in the modern days they're hard to make stealth. That's why the list of swing-wing designs in active use is pretty short: F-14 (limited use in Iran), Tornado (slowly being retired), Tu-22M, TU-160, B-1B, MiG-23, Su-17, Su-24 Many of these platforms are being retired, none is recent and no new swing wing designs are known to be on the drawing board.
@5:06 I got you, dont worry! if we are talking the pretty looking thing on the left next too big, scary, pointy, imo not very pretty F-14 on the right, I am picking the left one. But switch out the Tomcat for a Flanker, or Eagle, or Viper, or Gripen...I'm going with those, thx.
What is known about the the Saab 37 Viggen? First flight 2/8/1967 and introduction 6/21/1971. The Wikipedia entry refers to electronic digital computer.
Yes, it was highly advanced for the time. It consisted of many individual ICs, so didn't fall into the class of 'microprocessor' (a bit like the Apollo Guidance Computer but not quite as capable)
As far as I know, yes, the Intel 4004 was just the first widely commercially available consumer microprocessor. Just before and at the same time half a dozen other microprocessors were in development, some hit the market, some didn't. And I think there was even a clone (!) of the 4004.
8:30 the f111 doesn't have any bad behaviour during the swin of the wing. the plane simply ask for "changing the wing angle" like a car ask for an higher gear.
@5:54 I think it have a different aspect too, especially the way of a kid thinking: they love the fighter jets, but those planes are too serious, they heard always about how hard the pilot training and how hard to be a fighter pilot, these things build a "keep distance ambience", then herein this environment the kid see a plane that looks like a toy compared with the fighter jets. The first thing they thought probably it's an opportunity to sit in an aircraft, therefore they just lurking around it more. Maybe (probably) I'm wrong, but I wonder if the reaction is the same eg on a sport airfield where these lightweights are common.
Great explainer, fascinating for sure. And why is it ive never heard of those little "glove vanes"?? (Did i get that right, glove, had to check captions, not that those arw always accurate haha.)
IMO for semantic purposes, anything that isn't pure logic handling. i.e. 8 and gates on an IC, and can perform actual abstracted computational things. It counts as a micro processor (granted that it's all on one package)
because processors are quite varied and the structured definition of something like an x86 processor varies widely from that of an arm architecture, or risc-v for example. This just blankets anything into "pure logic IC" and everything that "isn't pure logic IC" i.e. the latter half being things intended to do a specific type of more complex, abstract processing. As opposed to just being a gate structure which handles specific rule sets.@@ravener96
@@nobodynoone2500 the minimum is that the system can perform instructions necessary to define a touring complete machine. basically if it can execute transformations on input data and do conditional operations you have a processor. i dont really care about the IO restrictions used in this video, if the chip can be fed data and do transformations and conditional operations it's a processor
Having flown the F-14A "Tomcat/Turkey" and then going on after my time in the Navy to work in the computer world... I can't count the number of times I had to bite my lip during conversations about CPUs and sit and wonder "when" until the Osborne, XT, Kaypro and Compaqs came online. We knew the processor was there however we really didn't get into in any depth. We were just dumb Aviators... NFOs. Coming from the A-4 "Skyhawk/Scooter", my initial instincts were to turn it off and control sweep manually. But, I came to trust it and in ACM school learned when to turn it off so as to fool the adversary as to your airspeed, turn it back on to get into position to get a splash. The real beauty of Bob Kress' overall designed was that he used this computer control and the airframe design to do something completely new... it didn't roll at the nose, but at the HUD. So when engaged in ACM, the plane rolled at your eyes, not your feet - Evolutionary. I never met Ray, but I did get to meet Bob in the mid-80s in Bethpage, NY. Was that a Data General Nova in your video (yellow/brown switches)? Worked on those too. I watched this with great interest.
It does kind of piss me off that bits and pieces of this architecture were not released to Intel, DEC, etc to jumpstart the microcomputing industry. They could have done that without revealing the specifics that made this so powerful in this application.
Does the F/A-18C do the same as in rolling at the eye level? I always wondered why it felt strange when playing it in DCS and rolling, and this would explain that if it does.
@@mikedavis7065 DEC already had processor kits consisting of several ICs at the time, at least PDP-8. Also, you don't need 20-bit CPU to perform 20-bit calculations, it's misconception.
The F-14 was the equivalent of the US Navy's current NGAD (next generation air dominance) program for 6th generation fighters. It was large, expensive, and had computing capabilities that people didn't realize were possible.
I admit I'm pretty ignorant of recent military computing, but I don't see how NGAD would be using leading edge computing technology as significantly as the F-14 was. At best they're probably using some Intel FPGA's in impressive ways. I'm not sure they have the hardware volume to create an ASIC on a leading edge node like Intel 4 (7nm)
@@1funnygameMy understanding is that the biggest advances in modern military computing are on the software and integration side rather than the hardware, which tends to be a few generations behind.
While mainframes at the time and later military microcomputers had capabilities, I'd be surprised if this system even had an MMU. I suspect the first integrated capability system remains the 601.
I worked on the 4004 back in the day for Intel. It was not a stand alone chip either It required a clock chip and a couple level translators. It was a PMOS chip and did not work with standard logic. The IC's required were the 4001, 4002 and 4024 as I recall.
@@tankermottindI used to be into building desktops back in the day, and I remember needing to keep an eye on northbridge and southbridge temps when overclocking. Have we really made those obsolete in the 15 years since I last looked?
@@mrb692the northbridge is mostly integrated into the CPU nowadays, although the most recent innovation is having it be a separate chiplet in the package on a lower density manufacturing node (more nanometers) compared to the CPU cores. The memory interface part of it was integrated in Athlon 64/Opteron days and was one reason they dominated over their Intel contemporaries. The Southbridge mostly still exists, except the expansion cards and mass storage (which used to run PCI and IDE/SATA through the Southbridge) now connect direct to CPU PCI-Express lanes (optionally through discrete PCI-E switches to distribute that resource between occupied slots). Southbridge (or "chipset controller", "platform controller hub", usually connected over PCI-E instead of a dedicated bus) handles slower stuff, like networking, SATA, slower USB (the bit rates of USB 3.2 and 4 have reached the point that CPUs have started to integrate some USB controllers for lower latency access). Mind you, 4 lanes of PCIe 4.0 to the Southbridge is still close to 64 Gb/s, so it's no slouch... But USB 4 is hitting 40 and 80 Gb/s now.
@@mrb692 yeah its pretty much all integrated on the cpu now. Even memory controllers sit on the cpu die now. Its neccessary since data moves so fast now, cutting the "middle men" on the motherboard was a huge leap forward in modern computing.
Professor Frank: "I predict that in 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.”
@@thomaswilliam630 the other thing was the "hot" chick might be the most manly ugly hot chick of any big budget movie either. No wonder they cut her from the remake, it looks like she's been on testosterone for the last 40 years.
I grew up around that airplane. It was the topic of conversation for decades because my old man was a test pilot who flew f-4's then moved to f-14s. He retired as the director of flight systems. For his masters he wrote a program that let them load and analyze flight data beyond the memory capacity of the old mainframes. Nasa was building the x-29 at the time and everyone in flight test needed more capabilities to analyze flight data.
I entered the USAF in 1978 and was a aircraft mechanic on C5’S they had a top secret (or at minimum secret) system called “ MADAR” (Malfunction - Data - And - Recording) it basically diagnosed the plane in real time and when called up the mechanic on board could figure out what he needed to repair the aircraft it also could be downloaded to put in the aircraft records for future use. Pretty cool stuff for that day!
This is a Lockheed feature in general; it was also available in Civilian aircraft like the L-1011 Tristar. The milspec one was probably fancier but Lockheed was ahead of its time in this regard.
I wonder if that eventually evolved into the self-diagnosing FBW computers that are used today on commercial airliners (probably not, I expect they were developed independantly but it's a fun thought).
@@Alexander-the-ok MADAR itself didn't, but Lockheed was about 20 years ahead of the competition with it. The systems that came about in the late 80s/early 90s brought similar functionality to other manufacturers' aircraft. I don't know how much lineage current Lockheed aircraft systems have to MADAR but it wouldn't surprise me if there's still some DNA.
MADAR that was a hell of a system, until you have to reload the program from tape with the engines running and flight crew staring at you. Bubble memory lives!
Top Gun was popular because it was the first movie where the air to air scenes didn’t look like tacked on scenes filmed in the wrong aspect ratio. Everything flowed together, and it was a good yarn of a story.
for real, i cant think of any other film off hand that was remotely as seamless. if you were a fighter jet fan nothing else compared. the original was a bit homoerotic though, ive not seen the new one lmao
Note on the glove vanes. They were designed to preserve agility at high supersonic speeds and would have had little effect at lower speeds. It was later found there was almost never a need for dogfighting at supersonic velocities; combat quickly became subsonic where the glove vanes gave no advantage As a result, glove vanes were disabled and/or deleted from later production runs to save weight and maintenance.
Imagine this is the exact field my undergraduate education was happened to be in, and they failed to give us the proper prospect of what we were actually learning over there breaks my heart, imagine a one hour presentation equal to this could have turned my entire understanding of my field around, and then... it was heartwarming to see even after 20 years of shelving my education i still fully understood all of this... thank you for the effort, both thorough research and admirable presentation... you sir, are a wonderful teacher...
@@_________________404 at our place computer science was divided into two undergraduate branches, hardware and software... i was a Hardware student about the end of last ice age...
A 4 bit CPU is pretty limiting and that was the only thing they were getting in that package in 1971. They were mostly used in scientific calculators where they performed with mediocrity. But when my dad was doing his master's, those calculators kept him from having to go over to the mainframe and futz around with punch cards so much.
This content is much appreciated , this officially pushes my level of F-14 geek to that next level that my old ride or die will never surpass . Cheers M8t!!!
What's so interesting to me is how the forefront of so many technologies came together in military applications in the cold war, and not just in the US. In Sweden Ericsson (of later cellphone fame) cut their teeth on the Saab Viggen's onboard computer.
Our government doesn't significantly invest in non-military technology sadly. A whole breakthrough in technology that could benefit society left to rot in secret in a useless fighter jet.
@@hueyiroquois3839 I just went to their website to check, and on the main splash page it's spelled twice, once as SAAB, then again as Saab. So clearly they don't care, and neither should you
I tought DATASAAB was a part of Saab before going independent and them at some point being swallowed by Ericsson when they wanted to grow from telecom into computers. Anyway. Data Saab. CK37. First flight computer with ICs. Very early 60’s. Also a 20-bit computer. Already a veteran by the time the F14 came out. Also lasted into the 2000s on the Viggen. Not microprocessor, but several years before, and in a small european country. Heck. The Brits make movies about how they discovered a way to crack the Enigma code, in Sweden, some guy broke it 2 years previously while riding his bike to work.
Worth noting that when transitioning to supersonic flight, the center of pressure moves back on every aircraft. This is not only due to the F-14's swing wings but the interaction of pressure with supersonic shocks.
Fascinating! In the early 80s, I worked in Garret Airesearch's environmental test lab. I received my first Confidential clearance so that I could work on the SCADC program. I can't remember the F-14 system ever being mentioned back then, but that could be just due to oldish age. The SCADC was a standardized air data computer that was intended to replace older units on A-6, A-7, and A-4 aircraft . The same electronics components but packaged to fit in the existing electronics bays of older aircraft. There were four total configurations, the fourth being sort of universal fit. Seeing this video, I can see the similarities. Environmental testing was to MIL-STD-510...vibration, temperature, altitude, humidity, etc. Fun time for me working with centrifuge, explosive shock testing, acoustic shock, explosive atmosphere. I left GA shortly after completion of these tests, going on to work at McDonnel Douglas on C-17 (FCSS and Flight Test and Escape Systems (ACES II Advanced Recovery Sequencer, a compact digital computer itself).
Hi! Still watching the video for the first time, wanted to thank you for your conscientiousness in using real captions instead of the auto-generated ones. That said, there's a few typos, maybe have someone read it over? Thanks!
17:50: As I recall, there are a number of "microprocessors" that are an aggregate of several chips. The 8080 "microprocessor" being one that comes to mind. Intel quite clearly refers to it as a "microprocessor" on their datasheets, but requires 8224 and 8228 to build a system around. Nomenclature wars anyone?
Generally, a microprocessor contains the ALU, registers, and the control logic to fetch instructions and send data along the correct path. I/O is usually included on modern microprocessors too, but generally interrupt controllers and such are not. A microcontroller is designed to be an all in one system containing ROM and RAM, along with all I/O. By putting these in one chip you can put computers in smaller devices at the cost of versatility of the system. There can be large debate as to which extensions would be required, such as floating point and multiplication for a microprocessor. The 8086 up to I think the 80286 required separate floating point co processors or FPUs such as the 8087. And x86 processors are what we still use today in most desktops. There were versions of the 386 I believe with and without the x87 floating point extensions. To say that we went from assembling computers transistor by transistor to microprocessors is very misleading as stated in the video. Computers before microprocessors were assembled by logic gates, as the 7400 series chips were released in the '60s. Then computers were assembled with more complex chips containing ROM, RAM, control, registers, and full ALUs in single chips. Just how we don't see the reason to combine our CPUs with SSDs and RAM now in our computers it wasn't very worth it to do it with the mainframe computers at the time. The technology jump from having separate control, registers, and ALU chips to one chip is smaller than most people make it out to be. There were much bigger jumps such as when the original 7400 chip was released, putting multiple transistors in one chip. There were also large technology leaps such as the PLA and other predecessors to the FPGA, allowing us to "program" a chip to behave like any logic chip we want to.
You are pretty much correct there. Actually, you could build simple microcomputer systems without the 8228 System Controller, though you lose easy access to certain signals such as whether you're accessing memory or I/O address space. (That removes a useful but not necessary feature: you can always use memory mapped I/O.) But yes, without the 8224 Clock Generator, you'd need other equivalent external circuitry to generate the unusual asymmetric ϕ1 and ϕ2 clocks that the 8080 requires.
Excellent video. I've greatly enjoyed these long-form deep dives into engineering relating to aerospace. As an aside, 2024 is supposedly the last year for the F-14. Iran is retiring them in favour of Su-35s (or a similar Flanker; I forget exactly).
Yeah.. There were parts of that movie that were cringe. The flight nerds loved it because of the air action with the music. Every guy identified with going up to 30k feet with his homeboy and kicking that smug prick Iceman and his RIO's ass. - That's two "O"s in Goose, boys.
In 1975 I was trying to work on the f-111, as a result I also did work on f-14s that came into the air base their systems are much alike because Grumman was a partner in the building of the f-111. You might be surprised to know that the F4 was originally designated the f-110 . As a result I did work on several f-14s and was familiar with their systems. Because it had to integrate a lot of mechanically driven actuators and control systems, it did require a lot and I do mean a lot of Maintenance time to keep it in the air. We complain today about the F-22 never being deployed with more than five planes at a time, and you are generally lucky if you can keep 50% of the F-22 flying at any given time. Much was the same about the f-14. It was an extremely difficult plane to keep flying. Especially in its first iteration. Iran was extremely short-sighted attempting to use that as their primary fighter. I'm sure that some mechanism of the are data computers were reduced in function for their application. However, I also worked with many Iranians. They were extremely good at understanding Electronics to the highest degree of the day. After having worked on a few of the f-14s I understand exactly why. When Carter cut our nation's throat and increase the instability in the Middle East by forcing the Shah out of Iran. It quickly rendered the vast majority of the Iranian Air Force, notably the f-14s out of existence until they can figure out how to get parts for them. They quickly learned how to build their own parts for those aircraft. That's why they still had several of them flying as of just a few years ago, I don't know if any are flying today. The earliest iteration of the F-14 was nothing to behold except when it was brand spanking new and everything worked on it properly. That was not always the case, as a matter of fact, it was rarely the case. I do not know if your remark about the f11 being difficult to fly while changing its wing sweep is true, it was never true on the f-111f model that I was tasked with. I also never had a problem flying the F-111 simulator, as I was the first one that the simulator Commander had ever seen fly it for the first time and not cause it to crash. I am not certain that we had chipsets in any of our flight data computers. We may have had them in the nav computer because even though it took the old school tape to load Mission parameters. The F model could be tasked with running a alternate routes to and from the bombing point, and never exceed 400 ft off the deck while doing so. You rarely would do a mission and approach a Target in excess of Mach 1 because you would leave a clear Sonic Trail. However you could do so quite easily. I never got into an F-14 simulator during my time in the Air Force because we didn't have any. But as an avionics Tech I was able to show them how to do things like engage terrain following radar while in articulated Terrain. That procedure leads me to the concept that we may have had some sort of microprocessor in the F-111. I cannot be certain, but it is possible. I also have a good feeling that given the restrictions that you had to mechanically put into your movement of the wing at times and other clues, that there was no chip on the flight data system, except in regards to navigation. I did see several iterations of the navigation computer in other devices, some still in the 1970s as a matter of fact. The last iteration of the F-14 was the most capable and had they upgraded it 2 a more powerful set of engines, something closer to what the f11f model, which had the same engines as the early F-16 and f-15, it may have been a much better aircraft. The unique issue with the high bypass turbofan hybrid engines, was that if you pulled back power on it too far and weren't paying close attention, you would scrub off speed at 50 knots per second. That is slowing down at a really fast rate and will you would get yourself in trouble, perhaps that's why you made the claim that the F-111 was hard to fly in transition. I never found such to be the case. You just had to remember to always run with a little bit more throttle than you thought was necessary. It was easy to adjust the speed of the f11 merely by sweeping the wings forward. With five stages of afterburner, you didn't even want to be on stage 1 while actually performing a mission. The f11 I would contend still to this day would be impervious to even the most modern anti-aircraft systems. There just isn't enough time to see it recognize it and shoot at it before it's already past you. Being able to Chase and shoot it down would be a Fool's errand. Especially if you were in any kind of articulated terrain, the ability to actually stay with it would be difficult in the extreme. Aircraft of North Vietnam even found the a model impossible to follow. That was however a much earlier time frame.
I don't know what happened there, ,and how. But the Soviet Union took possession of the F-111 back in the days of the Vietnam War. There is a story on this topic.
@goddoesnotexist5688 You can fly a jet in a sandstorm?! If I saw that in a movie I would be certain that was made up. I vaguely remember hearing about an airliner that had its engines fail because of a volcano spewing ash: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009# Apparently there was another such incident: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867 Not sure if volcanic ash is worse than sand though.
One thing on F-14 there is absolutely no plausible way for Iran to fabricate are the wing-box forgings. If USA had to remake those wingboxes it would be doable but take some time. They were forged on what was, & possibly still is, the largest forging press by size in existence. Simple drop-forging vs the complexity of hydraulic forging, its a multi storey forging press in Ohio that is one of a kind in the world, it is still used for extremely large & specialized forging applications. Majority of Soviet Unions heavy forging was done in Ukraine where all it's military shipbuilding & largest aircraft were designed & built. I would like to see drawings of the wing-box assembly, perhaps its pivot-pins used high-shock bushings & pins of forging-die alloys like A2 D2 O3 & Inconell, these are all very challenging to cut & press concentric into a forging without inducing stresses that could lead to "egging" or contact galling, bushings might delay the inevitable but everything gets work-hardened & microcracks over use time including a forged wingbox, I cannot imagine these Iranian F-14 wingboxes are still functional unless they are never flown, flown like a Piper Cub with no stresses on the wing-box, or possibly modified or replacements retrofitted as 1 piece to operate only in a fixed position
Some friendly corrections: (may border on the seriously pedantic, your call) 5:03 It has been known since the 1950's that the most highly manuverable craft are often somewhat inherently unstable. Nothing controversial to anyone knowlegable there. 7:38 Variable wing geometry is still in active development and is not obsolete. Swing wings are obsolete. There is a distinction with a difference. 10:18 IIRC, The computer controlled the reaction of the rest of the flight control surfaces to the extension and retraction more than the speed of actuation of the swingwings and vanes. It was required to control these so that the compensation worked correctly, as you noted earlier where manual actuation was still CADC controlled. 17:45 The stance that a "rEaL" microprocessor must have onboard rom, ram, IO, is farsical. My 6-month old top of the line pc has seperate IO chips, Ram chips, Rom chip, and a co-processor cars with all 4 onboard. So only SoC would count, which is not in the same realm. I think you just wasted time here. Just muddled the whole topic here, although explaing the rom etc was nice. 23:45 Not a correction, just think you should do a video on the "Four Phase" as I have never heard of it and can find little info. There are already many great and exhaustive videos on the 4004. 30:22 I don't get why that would be harder to program for, and you made no justification for this statement. 40:33 Machine code translates to binary with no real compilation, it's not a 'language' per se, but a 1:1 human readable formatting of binary commands. Which is to say they totally wrote it in assembly and that was just typed in as binary. Your image at 48:00 shows that in the context of the 4004. 45:30 Punch cards, and even magnetic tape were available then, but tape was the most common interchange format. At the time, data interchange between dissimalr systems was quite rare. 52:40 I know where there are more about in the USA, but for security reasons, I'll leave it at that. An enterprising hobbiest might be able to get their hands on at least a partial set. If I find some i'd invite der8auer to the states to see them and make a video (export restrictions invariably exist). I'm confident the iranians have already just used an FPGA to copy them, as most countries do with stolen digital tech (see: Russia and China using FPGA copies of us missle guidance computers, there are videos on this). 54:22 There were more. Some are still classified, which should make obvious their purpose. Others were just corporate dead-ends, although not all technologically so. All that said, you did an excelent job for a non-subject matter expert. Big respect. Got my sub.
Thanks, yes as you may have gathered by my tone, I do indeed think defining a microprocessor as essentially a SOC is indeed farcical: unfortunately there seem to be many that take that stance (for some reason). I didn't really enjoy having to be pedantic there but I was trying to make clear that 'if the 4004 is a microprocessor, then the MP944 is too'. Anything I say about coding in assembly/machine code should probably come with a disclaimer that I am about 40 years removed from that world. Btw, it was me saying supersonic aircraft are 'ugly' rather than 'unstable' which (rightly) made people mad!
The F-14 is not a inherently unstable aircraft, in fact, quite the opposite. Maybe if you compare it to something like a Cessna 172. The F-14 is especially stable to the point that even the famous flat spin is difficult to actually achieve and enter. Less than 10 airframes were lost in them. The F-14 actually is designed for stability because it lacks fly by wire or computer control over the primary maneuvering surfaces. As the wings sweep back, the center of lift moves aft, increasing the distance between the CG and the CoL. This was actually the reason for the glove vanes on the early F-14A's. They kept the CoL further forward, reduced mach tuck drag, and allowed for 7.5G maneuvering at any speed the F-14 could achieve. I'd argue that modern wing geometry hasn't made variable swept wings obsolete, but certainly has bridged the gap between them. A true delta will always have less drag than the hybrid delta of something like the F-22. A true straight wing will always have better leverage against the CG for maneuvering and provide more lift than a hybrid delta. The variable wing sweep allows for a greater optimization across the entire flight envelop. Aircraft like the F-14 had an impressive turn radius, turn rate, and speed relative to the thrust. I say that because the TF-30 equipped F-14A weighed significantly more than the F-15 did and had less thrust, and yet the top speed difference between them is not that great. The question is whether or not the weight and complexity or a variable wing sweep justify the performance gained over a hybrid delta, and that is where a variable wing sweep tends to fall behind. The other aspect is the difficulty in stealth. No one has made a modern variable wing sweep aircraft using modern low observability or composite technology. It may very well still present enough advantages, for the right aircraft, to justify its weight... but no one has really done it.
@@Whiskey11Gamingwrt swing wing, I think the real reason the Navy and Air Force don't use it anymore is because they can acheive "good enough" without having to maintain a swing wing system. Plus it adds weight, reducing fuel consumption. I think they found it just isn't worth the cost.
Formally, it's not wrong to refer to an assembler as a compiler. The definition of a compiler is basically just a translator for programs. An assembler qualifies, even if it's a lot simpler than we usually think of. As long as we're being pedantic. :)
@@Noisy_Cricket I concur, basically today they can beat the aerodynamic limitations with the force of sufficiently powerful contemporary engines to achieve acceptable results.
28:04 that Horner scheme rearrangement actually increases calculation precision and significantly decreases the number of multiplications required. It is still valid and truly useful algorithm till today. Can be even used to make manually evaluating polynomials much easier.
"You couldn't for example build a practical desktop computer with a 4 bit processor". I can't see why not. The "4 bit" in the 4004 was the ALU and data path width between the four chips. The memory addresses were actually 12 bits and that's the far more important number. It's still a bit small, but all the "8 bit" microprocessors had 16 bit memory addresses and people did quite a lot with 8080/z80 CP/M machines, the Apple ][, the C64, the Atari 400/800. Those had 2^16 memory locations each of which was 8 bits in size, while the 4004's 4096 memory locations were only 4 bits in size. But a 4 bit computer with 17 or 18 or 20 bit addresses would be just fine, as long as it ran at sufficiently high MHz. Note also that the z80 has a 4 bit ALU, two 4 bit buses, and separate latches for the hi and lo 4 bit ALU results, which are produced in different clock cycles. What surprises me about the 4004, looking back, is how many registers it has. There are 16 of them! So you can do quite a lot of calculations without hitting RAM at all. This is quite a stark contrast to for example the 6800 and 6502 which had three registers each for program variables (plus PC, stack pointer, and flags). Altogether the 4004 had 17 4-bit registers, 4 12-bit registers (PC plus 3 return stack levels), and a carry flag, for a total of 117 bits. The 6502 has 5 8-bit registers (A, X, Y, S, P) and a 16 bit PC, for a total of 56 bits, less than half as many register bits as the 4004!
You say addressing width is far more important, but bus width bring speed of operation. I'd say they're just different, except that when it comes to powerful computing like GPUs, it's often this data bus width that is the limiting factor of the architecture.
"You say addressing width is far more important, but bus width bring speed of operation." Yes, that's exactly what I said. Addressing width is fundamental. It determines the complexity of programs you can run. BUs width is merely speed, which can be compensated in any number of ways. “There is only one mistake that can be made in computer design that is difficult to recover from-not having enough address bits for memory addressing and memory management.” Bell and Strecker, 1976. @@VndNvwYvvSvv
It had good amount of registers but it was needed for addressing, fetching, arithmethic operations and narrow bus. The CPU lacked logical instructions and when I researched it it seemed it's hard to write more complex programs due to these limitations. It was really calculator on a chip designed for decadic calculations. Even the 4002 RAM chips were designed to store mantissa and exponent with sign in separate locations and you had to use different instructions to access them.
While in the US Navy for 20 years, 1970 to 1990, one of my main jobs, was to work on F-14 flight control actuators. One thing I was taught to do at a special instruction course was the wing sweep actuators and glove vane maint.. I could check and test the sweep actuators but was not allowed to go into them. They had to be sent to the Depot in Norfolk , Virginia for a complete overhaul. I was asked to do it several times, but I was smart enough to refuse. If the ship was in port ( USS Nimitz) I could get the paper work and hand carry to the depot that was a couple of miles down the road. I would want to see what the technicians there would find, particularly if we had a run of bad ones. Some times it would be bad aircraft wiring, a bad cannon plug or even that ADC, and not the actuator. It made for some good arguments. I spent 10 years in Squadrons, and 10 years in Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Departments (AIMD) I also spent 5 years after I retired doing F-14 structural repair at the Norfolk , Virginia Naval Aviation Depot, and I've just retired from 20 years at the Coast Guard Depot at Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
I found this entire video fascinating. Your explanations of definitions, concepts and use cases were excellent. My degree is in Digital Microprocessor and Telecommunications Technology, and included not just the basics of all electronics and simple digital circuits, but also integration into larger and larger I.Cs. Really took me back to those days of writing out machine code with pencil and paper, then hand-coding and old 6502 (8-bit) microprocessor in hexadecimal. And to think, they were handling 20 bits, 20 years earlier than that. Awesome stuff!
Well, they were handing many more bits even earlier than that, just not with microprocessors. The mid-60s CDC 6000 series were 60-bit machines. And the IBM 701, released in 1952, used 36-bit words.
Great video. In the past I have been involved in two small processor designs.. a silly one where I had an evaluation copy of a system level design tool and a 150 cell CPLD and an EPROM.. and another that sold in the millions , the de emphasis digital audio filter in a Philips CD player chip. It had to do several multiplications and some additions all in 24 clock cycles. It was bit serial and used modified Booths algorithm multiplication .. two bits per clock cycle on 18 bit data.. 18 bits because it began life in a Digital Compact Cassette player..
@6:26 Being from that era and from the US, I can speak to why it was so popular: it was so well received because, in addition to being just a spectacularly performed/shot/edited/etc. movie, it also served as a desperately needed reassurance 5 very long years before the Soviet Union would collapse. Every single day that the USSR was in existence came the renewed threat of nuclear annihilation. Many people very reasonably assumed that the only way we'd know the winner of WWIII would be for it to play out, which of course meant that very few of us would be alive to witness it, and many of those would find it very difficult to want to go on. Imagine the threat of being forced to live the IRL version of a Fallout game, where all the enemies are invisible, and the majority of them eat you by slowly and torturously melting you from the inside out. That was our day-to-day. Every day we knew that the sirens might come up, and we'd have very little time to say our goodbyes let alone make sure we could all be together with our loved ones at the end. Top Gun showed another way. It showed that we could fight the war in miniature, and if the USSR wanted anything worth conquering, it would have to take it the old fashioned way. And this was not without its merits. You can't grow crops on irradiated soil, and when Top Gun came out, only a month or so prior, Chernobyl had given the world but especially the Soviets a hard look at what the consequences of a full scale conflict would be. And Completely unbeknownst to all of us, the military technological capabilities of the Soviet union had been dropping behind that of the US for several years, and the USSR had been working very hard to hide that fact. When that very brave Russian officer defected with his aircraft on September 6, 1976 to the Western allies, the United States was able to dissect the MiG and learn its weaknesses. From that came the F14, and as far as I know, by the time top gun came out, the Russians knew that the movie represented no idle threat. Where the communists had kicked our asses in Vietnam and Korea due to our lack of dog fighting skills, the F14 was specifically designed to be able to get to conflict very quickly using the minimal amount of fuel, and then have the aerodynamic capability to outperform and outturn it's opponents in a dogfight, with more fuel to work with in an engagement. And that's not all. Not too long after the F14 came out, the United States brought out the F-16, and then the F-18. The Russians simply couldn't keep up, and they realized that these aircraft and the force stacking capability they represented made an impenetrable wall against their conventional military tactical ideas. That's what top gun showed the American public: that the Russians could be beat, and that maybe we might all live to see the coming millennium. VERY excellent video, and please believe me I don't blame you for not understanding why it was so popular. I'm really glad that you (likely) never had to live with that daily dread.
See, here is the thing though... I was born in 1988 and I saw this movie in 1994-1995 at a babysitter... I DISTINCTLY remember the movie and it began what has been a nearly 30 year obsession with the F-14 Tomcat. I was extremely disappointed that when I graduated from High School, the F-14 had been retired. There were no threats of nuclear annihilation in the post Soviet era when I saw the movie, and yet, I still love the movie today because it, and The Final Countdown, are two movies just chock full of F-14 porn... this super sexy high speed extra lethal display of US Military Might. I only began to really appreciate the things the F-14 accomplished as an adult... the F-14 was the F-35 of the 1970's... it defined what it meant to be a fourth generation fighter, and for nearly two decades it was the only fighter in US service which could fire multiple radar guided missiles at different targets and have it hit.
Or because this RUclipsr is tone deaf and missed out on the jingoistic and nationalism dripping out of Top Gun during the Reagan era and its unique concept and cinematography. Everybody wants to think they’re the good guys. Just look at us justifying several generations of ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
"When that very brave Russian officer defected with his aircraft on September 6, 1976 to the Western allies, the United States was able to dissect the MiG and learn its weaknesses. From that came the F14.... " Uh,.... Tomcats flew CAP over the evacuation of Saigon in 1975. Their development started long before Belenko flew his Mig-25 to Japan.
@@thatguy6054if anything, the Foxbat was one of the reasons the USAF got spooked and spurred them to make the F-15 The Belenko incident basically washed away all notion that the MiG-25 was a very capable aircraft, where infact it was a VERY, VERY chunky interceptor that was powered by engines that were derived from a cruise missile.
One thing, I think, you missed that was controlled by the flight computer were the variable ducted engine intakes that changed their profiles as the engines went from subsonic flight into mach speeds. I seem to remember one of the F14 WSO/RIOs talking about this...and in the early engine mods could cause a flameout under the right conditions.
Those were controlled by a different computer. Probably because the engines have a different manufacturer than the airframe, and existed independent of the F-14. So, use existing means to control the ramps, or add more cost and complication to a CADC.
@@pgtmr2713 The F-14's air intake geometry is built into the engine nacelles and air intakes... the control of the actual variable intake geometry was a Grumman design specifically to allow the TF30's to operate in the designed speed regimes. When the GE F110 was installed in the F-14B and F-14D, the scheduling of the intake ramps was changed to optimize performance in the transonic region. The end result was the TF30 actually produced more thrust at low altitude and at high mach (not necessarily both). Air stacking in the intake allowed the TF30 F-14A to go to Mach 2.34, the GE F110's were capped at 1.88.
What is a microprocessor? In reality it really does not matter, however, companies and marketing people love to label what they have. When I started the design of the F14 CADC the implementation of the “processor” was unknown. As we tended towards the new “integrated circuit (IC)” technology names such as IC processor or LSI (large scale integration) was used. Micro was also in there somewhere as the computer design evolution progressed from large, to mini, to micro. It was not a big issue to anyone. Ultimately, as the CADC project was completed and I wrote my paper I chose the name “microprocessor”. There was no focus on single-chip, multi-chip, program counter location, etc. In fact, even Turing was set aside as the main focus was to do the job irrespective of # of chips and what function was where, and even how data was transferred. The selection of any cleaver design techniques (pipelining, co-processing, in-flight self-test, dual redundancy), algorithms, and package selections we made to reach the speed and accuracy necessary to fly the F-14 as needed. It was unfortunate (for me and history) that the 1970 presentation of my paper and any patents were strongly refused by the US Navy thus 30 years of silence started. Around three years later the Intel marketing group started labeling their work. First came the World’s first microprocessor, then the World’s first commercial microprocessor, then Intel’s first microprocessor, then Intel’s single-chip microprocessor …. Today, everybody wants their design to be a microprocessor, otherwise, how are they going to out market Intel? In 1973, Hank Smith, Microprocessor Marketing Manager, Intel Corp made this statement at the IEEE 1973 WESCON Professional Program Session 11. “A CPU uses P-channel MOS and is contained in 1,2,3 or4 LSI standard dual-in-line packages from 16-42 pins per package”. Even at this time the word CPU was sometimes used for the entire processor and not microprocessor. After this, history started dissection the word CPU, microprocessor, single chip, etc to fit the functionality, design, and packaging of each product. Thus, here we are in 2024 (54 years later) still trying to make it all fit into convenient definitions. Ray Holt
For someone who doesn’t like Top Gun, you sure picked an interesting font 😅 This video is great! This topic just came up during a family dinner. My brother and I were huge nerds for the F-14 and other aircraft of that era. Thank you for this!
Great video. A couple of niggles (I know you love them): iirc the program which converts assembly language into machine code is called an assembler and not a compiler. I’m sure I’m like the 100th pedant to point this out. And between the 4004 and 6502/Z80 were the 9900 (no registers, first consumer “16-bit” chip), the 6800 (inspired the 6502) and the 8080, among others.
The glove veins were not even built on versions of the f14 past 1980s. The reason was they did not have any large effect on maneuverability for the cost, so they stopped making them.
You did an excellent job describing this fascinating element of the F-14 I have never seen investigated in detail like this. I was a little kid when the top gun movie came out and was absolutely enthralled with the F-14 because of that film. Approaching 50 now and I completely forget at times how far the hardware for computing has changed and how revolutionary an aircraft with chips like these were. I started in college with electrical engineering but changed to a degree in information systems, but your talk about this brought flash backs of my coming to the conclusion I was never going to be an electrical engineer 😂. Really nice video on an interesting subject.
It is sad that history often becomes corrupted into fiction. Important developments are forgotten and trivial things are elevated to legendary status. The F-14's multi-chip microprocessor is one of those important developments that has largely been forgotten. Thanks for posting this valuable piece of history.
I cant remember the last time I watched something this long, understanding next to nothing, still being captivated to the very end, even rewinding to rewatch parts I understood a little of. I absolutely loved this content! Instant subscriber. There is very little content on yt that deals with aeroplanes on this technical level. I would love to see what this channel would do with the subject of ”Centralkalkylator 37” the flightcomputer in the Saab Viggen. Big thanks!
This is very interesting. I was a structural design engineer on the F-14 program for a few years in the early 1980s. Even as I contributed my small part, it felt like i was chipping rocks compared to the stuff the guys in other parts of our building, and in other buildings, were doing.
Still, it's a long way from actually chipping rocks! That's what civil engineers do. (Mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets.)
Since a few people have asked how the program counter can be stored in the ROM. It was a special register physically on the ROM chip, not a read-only address in ROM itself. Ray's paper states it was resettable and steppable and could accept an address input. So, I'm 95% sure that allowed for full program flow control. @phirenz makes a good argument for why this may not be quite so simple though....and may have actually required additional ICs to actually implement.
The SAAB Viggen is getting a lot of mentions in the comments. It had a highly advanced flight computer composed of many discrete ICs. Not a microprocessor but very impressive nontheless. I am considering doing a video about it in the future.
The 'MiG-25' at 6:11 is actually a MiG-31. Thanks @AvArIeNmArKu4
An ‘assembler’ translates to machine code, not a compiler. Thanks @Mat-Ellis
Swing wings are a subset of variable wing geometry. Variable wing geometries may be implemented in other configurations and the field is not 'obsolete' as I stated. Thanks
@nobodynoone2500
31:48 bottom line: "U if P > L" should be "U if P > U". Thanks @MatthijsvanDuin (I'm really mad I got that one wrong!)
10:00 - Lateral Axis, not longitudinal axis. So, the aircraft is pitch stable. Thanks @UnitSe7en
45:00 - The hardware prototype ran at the same speed as the final product.
And yes, I know higher aspect ratio doesn't equal more drag (it's the opposite for subsonic flight). I was trying to simplify and probably simplified a bit too much...I said I always screw up supersonic flight discussions.
[ retired Engineer ]
Caught out on a technicality...
When I bit-banged on 4004,8008/80/88 and 6502 a microprocessor _was_ a single chip, not a collection of six.
One of the Engineers that worked on it wrote a book that was published in 2017!
PS I'll still give the vid a thumb though, you made a half decent vid.
I don't think you can call something a compiler if it just translates from ASM to machine code. I'd call that an assembler.
The F-14 could engage 6 targets simultaneously but it could track many more. The F-14 could track 24 targets and fire on any 6 with the half dozen Phoenix missiles it carried.
Very interesting video I really enjoyed it and recommended it to a few friends.
An assembler IS a compiler, albeit for _Assembly Language._ EG - MASM, TASM, WASM.
- ex game programmer
@@hamesparde9888It's still a compiler, just for a lower level language. I wrote compilers for 3 years (hard stuff!)
The old chip designers were crazy. No simulations, no HDL, no DRC/LVS. They would cut photomasks by hand. Imagine seeing some bug in silicon and coming up with the concept of setup and hold time to explain it.
The old stuff that gets me is magnetic core memory. Making those by hand is just nuts.
@@whyjnot420 its why memory used to be the most expensive part of any system.
@@mrrolandlawrence Yeah and if you do the math, having todays amount of memory done that way would bankrupt many a nation for a single computer.
There's a great amount of info and real world experience in "Commodore: A Company on the Edge" detailing the process they used to design the 6502, hand cutting rubylith to form the masks for the different chip layers. Absolutely mind boggling how hardcore chip designers were back in the day. Even more impressive when they then go on to explain how their chips "mostly worked" or in some cases "worked 100%" on the first batch with those old processes.
@@mrrolandlawrenceactualy it still is. Registers and caches take up a significant area on any chip that uses them, jacking up the price.
I remember it could perform 100k operations per second, which was unbelievable. I believe it could track 9 bogies and shoot at 6 simultaneously. Pretty crazy stuff back then.
do not be confused, the CADC is the flight computer, the ability to track and shoot 6 at the same time was due to another immensely complex part of the plane, the AN/AWG-9 radar.
@@Galf506 You are correct. I was assuming that they used the same computer. Like I said it was a long time ago! lol!
high aspect ratio doesn't create more drag, it actually creates less at subsonic speeds, which is why gliders have high AR. At supersonic speeds you have shocks and delta becomes favorable
I really liked the video though, keep up the good work!
please upvote pilot channel's explanation. I was about to write the same thing.
I think there's some subtlety to this. High aspect ratio wings *do* create more drag overall, as a simple matter of increasing the frontal area of the aircraft. What they excel at is improving the lift:drag ratio. All other things being equal, a subsonic aircraft with shorter wings will experience less drag, but it will *also* be less efficient and have less endurance than the same aircraft with much longer wings. If we imagine that we change nothing about the aircraft aside from the length of the wings (i.e. we keep the same engine, propeller, fuel, etc.), then the aircraft with shorter wings will be able to achieve a higher top speed, but the aircraft with longer wings will be more fuel-efficient and have a higher service ceiling.
Compare the Lockheed U-2 and the Corvair F-106. They both use the same engine, a Pratt & Whitney J75, and they have comparable gross weights. The most obvious difference is that the F-106 employs a delta wing, and the U-2 employs a high-aspect wing. The F-106 has a top speed of 1325kt, while the U-2 has a top speed of 412kt. The F-106 has a L:D ratio of 12.1 at subsonic speeds, while the U-2 has a L:D ratio of 25.6. The F-106 has a service ceiling of 57,000 feet, while the U-2 has a service ceiling which is still classified but is *at least* 80,000 feet. The F-106 has a range of 500nm, while the U-2 has a range of over 6,000nm, a difference which cannot be adequately explained by the fact that the U-2 can carry ~10,000 more pounds of fuel.
@@tissuepaper9962 frontal area alone is misleading, especially at lower airspeeds. And you can massively increase Aspect Ratio of a given design, without changing the Frontal area at all, or even reduce the frontal area at the same time.
@@tissuepaper9962 in aircraft aerodynamics, we typically consider the projected or wetted surface area, not the frontal area. You can keep this area the same while increasing aspect ratio to reduce your drag.
@@tissuepaper9962 High aspect ratio wings only create more drag overall supersonic (and very high transonic). The reduction in induced drag when subsonic *more* than makes up for the increased frontal area, and thus a high aspect wing is lower drag when subsonic.
Consider: a modern airliner at basically all phases of flight always is making lift equal to weight, so lift is fundamentally fixed. If you improve the lift to drag ratio, you aren't making more lift, because your lift still has to equal weight, so what are you doing? Decreasing drag. During cruise, there's fundamentally no difference between "improving lift to drag ratio" and "reducing drag", because lift is unchanging.
I was in the Army and was a mechanic for the 1980's light tank and I was impressed by the components, open one up and it was filled with multiple universal cards, so we could essentially lose a few cards(around 4 if I remember correctly) before the whole box needed replacing.
They started teaching computer architecture in A school in the 80s. They had Altair looking computers where you would actually hand enter opcodes by hitting switches (they were Octal - so base 8) and pressing a button to enter the value into a register or memory. You had to basically hand enter the program one opcode after another. The press another button to execute the program and you crossed your fingers it would end up in the correct configuration after running your program :D. I, of course, had already taught myself Assembler using DOS 3.2 and the DEBUG program when I was 14, so that unit was a breeze for me. A lot of people struggled with that unit, but I was lucky. Ironically I taught myself Assembler because I wanted to get closer to the "metal". When I discovered PCs I was in an electronics phase, so for me it was the EE part that was interesting. I eventually became a full time programmer / software engineer :D
14:00 an FPGA is not a microprocessor - it's a collection of logic that can be configured for different arbitary logic functions, possibly including one or more microprocessors
Oh look! RUclips electronics royalty spotted!
I think he was pointing out how loose the term was back and any sort of chip that could do arbitrary logic whether that be in hardware or software could have been considered a micro processor by old parlance
It is not inherently, But an FPGA can be, and often is a microprocessor. /pedant.
But you can make it into one
The Swedish AJ37 Viggen had a computer CK37. Viggen entered service 1971, 3 years before F-14.
Computer was built with ICs, but those parts might not qualify as a microprocessor.
Great video! I really wish we would have a program today that could be used to verify that every transistor in the system is actually working correctly. Even if running that program once took a whole day, it would still be highly valuable to verify the hardware that you have, either to verify it after building a new system or to diagnose unstable system. Currently the state of art seems to be "randomly swap parts until it starts working again for the programs that you actually use daily".
Programs can be written and the trick is to be able to prove that a "single failure" is picked up. Overall its a simple concept. If a * b = c and if c is the incorrect answer then you have a problem. How many a * b or a/b do you have to do to catch all single failures. Now multiple failures are a different story. Ray Holt
@@firstmicro The problem is that you cannot know by definition which part of the hardware is potentially broken. If you *compare* any numbers to each other, what if the comparision operation in the CPU is broken? Modern CPUs have multiple execution units per core so even if you successfully execute 5 comparisions correctly with known values, you cannot know if the 6th execution would actually work correctly or not. And since the actual execution units are selected by proprieatry algorithms inside the CPU, you cannot assume you have a safe way to run any kind of test code on all units.
We would need some hardware support to be able to test all the transistors in the CPU. For exaple, ability to select which execution units are in use (basically disable everything but one) is needed to check if those units work correctly.
And to make things harder, the L1 or L2 cache could be broken and there you have the problem that e.g. 16-way associate cache can have the cached value in different locations in the cache and any random execution of the code may or may use the part of the cache that's broken.
It's turtles all the way down and at best you can give some kind of statistical estimate how correctly the hardware is working.
Great video, brought back memories. I graduated with a computer science degree in 1978, and in 1979-1981 I worked for Marconi Avionics, Rochester, Kent. I worked on the first computer based air data systems for Altitude and 2 dimensional speed for helicopters. There were still a team of watchmakers who serviced the mechanical computers for the Vulcan bombers.
That 10 year period of advancement from the 60s to 70s is just mind blowing
Thanks for this, I had no idea a chip in the 1970's had features decades ahead of its time. Makes you wonder what all they're working on now.
I’d definitely count the MP944 as a microprocessor, and a pretty sophisticated one at that.
don't forget about positive and negative zero - ah, the good old days.
It actually changes stability around the _lateral_ axis. 10:00 The longitudinal axis runs longitudinally ie: the roll axis. Roll stability is also affected, but I think you were talking about pitch stability, hence, you are talking about the lateral axis.
You are absolutely correct - I’ll add it to the pinned comment.
Started watching the channel since your oceangate video, all videos have been fascinating and well delivered, i must say this is easily your best yet. Not only in terms of explanation and research, but the clarity of the video and application of 3d rendering of the aircraft etc just shows how well youre improving. Loved this and cant wait for the next video
Thanks. It’s interesting, I expected this video to be far less popular and to be a bit of a ‘stop gap’ between the elite one and another I have planned for a few months time.
It’s proven far more popular than I expected.
I came for cool f14 facts, I left with a bachelor’s degree
Heh, even going simple, well... I hate to tell ya... xD
(In all seriousness, great video! The polish and production quality is amazing, and this channel is going places I would think!)
Now back to the hopefully informative, uh... information.
I loved the F-14, it has always been my favorite jet. I loved it before I even knew what Top Gun was.
Like you I have usually heard of things I learn about. Not this. So fascinating. Thank you!
The picture you used of the f-14 doing the knife edge pass by the carrier has been the background on my phone for years. RIP Dale "Snort" Snodgrass.
17:32 When defining a microprocessor, you need to compare to what came before, not what came after. Compared to discreet logic, the 4004 is absolutely a microprocessor.
Its because of the soundtrack
Harold Faltermeyer is a genius.
So is Moroder.
Brilliant video. I'd like to know more about how that target tracking radar worked as well.
Fun fact, the Iranian air force still keeps the glove vanes working on its F-14s! There's pictures of them out there
Really!? I wasn’t expecting that!
All F14A's needed the glove vanes to go to Mach 2.
Hey! You're back.
"Fighter aircraft are certainly not designed to look good." Sir, the F-22 Raptor would like to have a word with you.
That the little children you refer to were more interested in the prop plane than a Tornado baffles me.
At a young age the military jet would be all I care about.
A serious deep dive. Very interesting.
Interesting history For reference, here are release dates of the earliest home computers and the processors they used
Altair 8800, released January 1975, used the 8080 processor
Imsai 8080, released ~November 1975, used 8080 processor
Apple 1, released April 1976, used 6502 processor
TRS-80, released August 1977, used Z-80 processor (I bought one in 1977)
Heathkit H11: released late 1977/ early 1978, processor was a mix of the KA11 plus other chips (would have bought one, but previous poor experience with their kits nixed that)
Initiation of mass market): IBM PC, released August 1981 (I bought one in 1981)
Maaaate! 👌Possibly the best video I ever could of hoped to find on this... I first heard about this when I was about 12 when Sony was black listing PS2 exports as it could potentially be used for guided missile development but did not know enough to appreciate either back then. I later joined military, became a mechanic and in civy world specialized in vehicle management systems while being a PC and physics nerd the whole way. Looking back at it now its defiantly crazy to think what may have been...... What you said at the end I agree pretty well and had similar experience with many things. Why spend on War, F1, Soccer and Olympics when cost of living and healthcare is high but now I appreciate all of those things in some way. All I know for sure is hindsight is never truly 20:20 and I'm grateful to have lived life I have had and no longer wish to alter past and just do best I can to learn from it so as to not waste time with needless repetition.
Now, it's funny you mention the whole PS2 export concern issue. Because I'm thinking of doing a video on that exact topic! It's a difficult one to research and would require me to do a lot of Linux faff but it's very much on my 'probable video for 2024' list.
@@Alexander-the-ok Smashed that bell out the back of my screen just in case 👍 been waiting for a proper enthusiast dive into that since the day it all became public news here in Australia. I know most of the little pieces but a mini docco on it to share and review with mates would be bloody ripper and I know thousands of console bros that would be keen as to see it.
Awesome, I'm on it. Will probably be a few months for that particular video....but I'll get there!
I'm currently in the US Air Force in F-15 Maintenance, but I also did 8 years in the US Army. The first fighter jet I ever sat in was an RAF Tornado in Kuwait in 2000. XD
I just wonder about tech advances that we cannot know or are classified today but will become public in 50 years! - I hope to be alive to see them...
Top Gun was terrific ❤
Somewhere a nerd will now be trying to get Doom to run on the thing.
The specifications state fixed-point calculations so depending on how many bits were used of exponent and how many for mantissa, VERY large numbers can be stored in just 20 bits. IEEE 16-bit fixed-point gives some idea of the ranges possible. The simple concept is to keep the most SIGNIFICANT bits of a value. Yes, that inherently means a loss of accuracy but not a SIGNIFICANT loss of accuracy.
I guess someone who compares things to a 6502 might not be aware that fixed-point is a VERY old technique. We all had to start somewhere. That said, 3D games for 6502-based computers most certainly used fixed-point. Multiplication and division achieved simply by using Log and Antilog tables. I would presume the F14 would use this approach as a lookup table is WAY simpler than a multiplier and divider unit.
Of course, it all depends on the cost of ROM..
Seems odd to think the 4004 having to fetch an instruction in two memory-fetches being odd since the 6502 has 2 and 3 byte instructions, so that does exactly the same thing.
In fact even RISC chips often have instructions that require multiple reads. Literal pools being the most obvious example. Put simply, if you want to place a 32-bit value into a 32-bit register, obviously it has to read the instruction and then the data.
I believe that modern x86 & x64 processors actually convert the CISC instructions into 'triads' of RISC instructions and use a VLIW approach.
I'm pretty sure their were other custom MOS processors designed for specific purposes. ICBMs, SLBMs but to create the mask to produce just a few thousand examples would make them very costly indeed.
It's when one can set up a large scale fabrication facility potentially producing billions of general purpose processors that the costs become reasonable.
RISC was one of the key technologies in making faster processors that were physically smaller. In fact, the size stayed the same but the performance went up hugely - look at the CRAY computers. The clock speed wasn't THAT high but they could complete a 64-bit floating-point operation every cycle because the instructions were pipelined.
Although officially 8-bit RISC processors are quite new,, even the 6502 had a 1 instruction pipeline. Longer wouldn't help because with so few registers, it was unlikely that their wouldn't be collisions but if one were to employ a RISC design with even 8 registers (which has been done) then it's possible for an 8-bit CPU to approach 1 MIP/MHz
Swng wings is a very good effect for viewers, see for example in the 1980 film The Final Countdown. In reality it makes no sense to seep the wings in the situations shown in the movie.
Swing wing designs were expensive to manufacture and maintain. The extra mechanics adds weight and points of failure. Advances in aerodynamics and aircraft design methods reduced the appeal of swing wing designs. And in the modern days they're hard to make stealth. That's why the list of swing-wing designs in active use is pretty short: F-14 (limited use in Iran), Tornado (slowly being retired), Tu-22M, TU-160, B-1B, MiG-23, Su-17, Su-24 Many of these platforms are being retired, none is recent and no new swing wing designs are known to be on the drawing board.
The beat drop in this video made my day 🤣🧠📈
Interesting, I had heard that it was the Commodore 64 or something similar that ended up in a lot of these planes. Thanks for the info.
@5:06 I got you, dont worry! if we are talking the pretty looking thing on the left next too big, scary, pointy, imo not very pretty F-14 on the right, I am picking the left one. But switch out the Tomcat for a Flanker, or Eagle, or Viper, or Gripen...I'm going with those, thx.
What is known about the the Saab 37 Viggen? First flight 2/8/1967 and introduction 6/21/1971. The Wikipedia entry refers to electronic digital computer.
Yes, it was highly advanced for the time. It consisted of many individual ICs, so didn't fall into the class of 'microprocessor' (a bit like the Apollo Guidance Computer but not quite as capable)
As far as I know, yes, the Intel 4004 was just the first widely commercially available consumer microprocessor. Just before and at the same time half a dozen other microprocessors were in development, some hit the market, some didn't. And I think there was even a clone (!) of the 4004.
Are you interested in having a more detailed overview of the aerodynamics and flight dynamics? I'd be happy to lend a hand.
8:30 the f111 doesn't have any bad behaviour during the swin of the wing. the plane simply ask for "changing the wing angle" like a car ask for an higher gear.
@5:54 I think it have a different aspect too, especially the way of a kid thinking: they love the fighter jets, but those planes are too serious, they heard always about how hard the pilot training and how hard to be a fighter pilot, these things build a "keep distance ambience", then herein this environment the kid see a plane that looks like a toy compared with the fighter jets. The first thing they thought probably it's an opportunity to sit in an aircraft, therefore they just lurking around it more. Maybe (probably) I'm wrong, but I wonder if the reaction is the same eg on a sport airfield where these lightweights are common.
One, but The Most Beautiful Airplane Ever Created
love the pencil museum, used to go every year as a kid
I was desperate to go for years (because of course I was). Finally got to live out the dream a few weeks ago. Was not disappointed.
Meanwhile, the Soviets were still fitting Vaccuum tube based computers on MIG-25 Interceptors even well into the late 1970s.
‘Vacuum tubes are immune to an EMP from a nuclear detonation’ was an actual argument presented to me by a tankie in the past.
Great video! You might consider a pop filter for your microphone. Better quality voiceover audio would go a long way.
Thanks. I do use one - I’ll try to speak less harshly and try some additional post-processing in that case.
Calling fighter planes ugly sounds like fighting words to me.
Great explainer, fascinating for sure. And why is it ive never heard of those little "glove vanes"?? (Did i get that right, glove, had to check captions, not that those arw always accurate haha.)
Astonishingly good video!
Re the Bendix CADC you may want to talk with Curiousmarc and that team, they have one working
IMO for semantic purposes, anything that isn't pure logic handling. i.e. 8 and gates on an IC, and can perform actual abstracted computational things. It counts as a micro processor (granted that it's all on one package)
Why. A processor has a specific job and isnt too hard to define
because processors are quite varied and the structured definition of something like an x86 processor varies widely from that of an arm architecture, or risc-v for example.
This just blankets anything into "pure logic IC" and everything that "isn't pure logic IC" i.e. the latter half being things intended to do a specific type of more complex, abstract processing. As opposed to just being a gate structure which handles specific rule sets.@@ravener96
@@ravener96 Ok, define it then.
@@nobodynoone2500 the minimum is that the system can perform instructions necessary to define a touring complete machine. basically if it can execute transformations on input data and do conditional operations you have a processor. i dont really care about the IO restrictions used in this video, if the chip can be fed data and do transformations and conditional operations it's a processor
Having flown the F-14A "Tomcat/Turkey" and then going on after my time in the Navy to work in the computer world... I can't count the number of times I had to bite my lip during conversations about CPUs and sit and wonder "when" until the Osborne, XT, Kaypro and Compaqs came online. We knew the processor was there however we really didn't get into in any depth. We were just dumb Aviators... NFOs. Coming from the A-4 "Skyhawk/Scooter", my initial instincts were to turn it off and control sweep manually. But, I came to trust it and in ACM school learned when to turn it off so as to fool the adversary as to your airspeed, turn it back on to get into position to get a splash. The real beauty of Bob Kress' overall designed was that he used this computer control and the airframe design to do something completely new... it didn't roll at the nose, but at the HUD. So when engaged in ACM, the plane rolled at your eyes, not your feet - Evolutionary. I never met Ray, but I did get to meet Bob in the mid-80s in Bethpage, NY.
Was that a Data General Nova in your video (yellow/brown switches)? Worked on those too. I watched this with great interest.
Awesome insight
It does kind of piss me off that bits and pieces of this architecture were not released to Intel, DEC, etc to jumpstart the microcomputing industry. They could have done that without revealing the specifics that made this so powerful in this application.
What a comment!
Does the F/A-18C do the same as in rolling at the eye level?
I always wondered why it felt strange when playing it in DCS and rolling, and this would explain that if it does.
@@mikedavis7065 DEC already had processor kits consisting of several ICs at the time, at least PDP-8. Also, you don't need 20-bit CPU to perform 20-bit calculations, it's misconception.
The F-14 was the equivalent of the US Navy's current NGAD (next generation air dominance) program for 6th generation fighters. It was large, expensive, and had computing capabilities that people didn't realize were possible.
That makes me think of the F-35, aside from the large part.
I admit I'm pretty ignorant of recent military computing, but I don't see how NGAD would be using leading edge computing technology as significantly as the F-14 was. At best they're probably using some Intel FPGA's in impressive ways. I'm not sure they have the hardware volume to create an ASIC on a leading edge node like Intel 4 (7nm)
@@1funnygame High volume isn't necessary if you accept very high unit cost and military applications are notorious for accepting them.
@@1funnygameMy understanding is that the biggest advances in modern military computing are on the software and integration side rather than the hardware, which tends to be a few generations behind.
While mainframes at the time and later military microcomputers had capabilities, I'd be surprised if this system even had an MMU. I suspect the first integrated capability system remains the 601.
I worked on the 4004 back in the day for Intel. It was not a stand alone chip either It required a clock chip and a couple level translators. It was a PMOS chip and did not work with standard logic. The IC's required were the 4001, 4002 and 4024 as I recall.
Even processors of the 2000s required a northbridge and southbridge to handle I/O.
@@tankermottindI used to be into building desktops back in the day, and I remember needing to keep an eye on northbridge and southbridge temps when overclocking. Have we really made those obsolete in the 15 years since I last looked?
@@mrb692the northbridge is mostly integrated into the CPU nowadays, although the most recent innovation is having it be a separate chiplet in the package on a lower density manufacturing node (more nanometers) compared to the CPU cores. The memory interface part of it was integrated in Athlon 64/Opteron days and was one reason they dominated over their Intel contemporaries.
The Southbridge mostly still exists, except the expansion cards and mass storage (which used to run PCI and IDE/SATA through the Southbridge) now connect direct to CPU PCI-Express lanes (optionally through discrete PCI-E switches to distribute that resource between occupied slots). Southbridge (or "chipset controller", "platform controller hub", usually connected over PCI-E instead of a dedicated bus) handles slower stuff, like networking, SATA, slower USB (the bit rates of USB 3.2 and 4 have reached the point that CPUs have started to integrate some USB controllers for lower latency access). Mind you, 4 lanes of PCIe 4.0 to the Southbridge is still close to 64 Gb/s, so it's no slouch... But USB 4 is hitting 40 and 80 Gb/s now.
@@mrb692 yeah its pretty much all integrated on the cpu now. Even memory controllers sit on the cpu die now. Its neccessary since data moves so fast now, cutting the "middle men" on the motherboard was a huge leap forward in modern computing.
@@wizzalien7796 Whoa, that’s pretty sweet!
Professor Frank: "I predict that in 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.”
Watching this on my Apple Watch
lmao 5 richest kings in europe arent even the 5 richest dudes in europe
Prof. Frink
"It was in TopGun. You know, the film about volleyball" 😅 So true
Having re-watched that scene, I think I may now understand why the film was popular.
@Alexander-the-ok "playin with them boys".. weren't even trying to hide it, lol
@@Alexander-the-ok the flying scenes were the real deal in real Tomcats, which is the only good thing about the movie. Otherwise, basic Hollywood 🧀
Yep, that’s when the movie went full gay
@@thomaswilliam630 the other thing was the "hot" chick might be the most manly ugly hot chick of any big budget movie either. No wonder they cut her from the remake, it looks like she's been on testosterone for the last 40 years.
I grew up around that airplane. It was the topic of conversation for decades because my old man was a test pilot who flew f-4's then moved to f-14s. He retired as the director of flight systems.
For his masters he wrote a program that let them load and analyze flight data beyond the memory capacity of the old mainframes. Nasa was building the x-29 at the time and everyone in flight test needed more capabilities to analyze flight data.
how were they storing flight data in those days , by tape ??
@@cardboardboxificationeither tape or maybe floppy disks.
But harddrives were available at that time too
@@cardboardboxification There's a humunculus in the plane that scratches it into a stone tablet.
I'd say the F14 was the most intimidating looking fighter for its era. The F22 with 'symbiote' skin is more mean looking imho.
How do you make a jet harder to detect…. Make it chrome
It would be scary if they could get it to spend more than 5 minutes in the sky per 100 hours maint
@@meangreengoblin1besides heat signature and radar
@@keithsimpson2150it’s well worth the money and if you think that’s a problem how do you think the NGAD will be Lmao?
@@keithsimpson2150there was a proposal called st-21 super tomcat. Basically modern tomcat on steroids.
I entered the USAF in 1978 and was a aircraft mechanic on C5’S they had a top secret (or at minimum secret) system called “ MADAR” (Malfunction - Data - And - Recording) it basically diagnosed the plane in real time and when called up the mechanic on board could figure out what he needed to repair the aircraft it also could be downloaded to put in the aircraft records for future use. Pretty cool stuff for that day!
This is a Lockheed feature in general; it was also available in Civilian aircraft like the L-1011 Tristar. The milspec one was probably fancier but Lockheed was ahead of its time in this regard.
My dad was a flight engineer on the C-5 and I remember him talking about MADAR all the time.
I wonder if that eventually evolved into the self-diagnosing FBW computers that are used today on commercial airliners (probably not, I expect they were developed independantly but it's a fun thought).
@@Alexander-the-ok MADAR itself didn't, but Lockheed was about 20 years ahead of the competition with it. The systems that came about in the late 80s/early 90s brought similar functionality to other manufacturers' aircraft. I don't know how much lineage current Lockheed aircraft systems have to MADAR but it wouldn't surprise me if there's still some DNA.
MADAR that was a hell of a system, until you have to reload the program from tape with the engines running and flight crew staring at you. Bubble memory lives!
Top Gun was popular because it was the first movie where the air to air scenes didn’t look like tacked on scenes filmed in the wrong aspect ratio. Everything flowed together, and it was a good yarn of a story.
for real, i cant think of any other film off hand that was remotely as seamless. if you were a fighter jet fan nothing else compared. the original was a bit homoerotic though, ive not seen the new one lmao
Note on the glove vanes. They were designed to preserve agility at high supersonic speeds and would have had little effect at lower speeds. It was later found there was almost never a need for dogfighting at supersonic velocities; combat quickly became subsonic where the glove vanes gave no advantage As a result, glove vanes were disabled and/or deleted from later production runs to save weight and maintenance.
Imagine this is the exact field my undergraduate education was happened to be in, and they failed to give us the proper prospect of what we were actually learning over there breaks my heart, imagine a one hour presentation equal to this could have turned my entire understanding of my field around, and then... it was heartwarming to see even after 20 years of shelving my education i still fully understood all of this... thank you for the effort, both thorough research and admirable presentation... you sir, are a wonderful teacher...
Computer architecture and design?
@@_________________404 at our place computer science was divided into two undergraduate branches, hardware and software... i was a Hardware student about the end of last ice age...
@@sohrabroozbahani4700
why not pick up where you left off.
its never too late to learn new things.
The intel 4004 was mostly limited by the requirement that the CPU had to use that package, limiting the pin count.
A 4 bit CPU is pretty limiting and that was the only thing they were getting in that package in 1971. They were mostly used in scientific calculators where they performed with mediocrity. But when my dad was doing his master's, those calculators kept him from having to go over to the mainframe and futz around with punch cards so much.
This content is much appreciated , this officially pushes my level of F-14 geek to that next level that my old ride or die will never surpass . Cheers M8t!!!
Iphones are inferior to 70s cgi
What's so interesting to me is how the forefront of so many technologies came together in military applications in the cold war, and not just in the US. In Sweden Ericsson (of later cellphone fame) cut their teeth on the Saab Viggen's onboard computer.
It's been so long since Saab Gripen came out, I wonder what they are developing now.
SAAB is an acronym, and the correct correct way to spell it is with all caps.
Our government doesn't significantly invest in non-military technology sadly. A whole breakthrough in technology that could benefit society left to rot in secret in a useless fighter jet.
@@hueyiroquois3839 I just went to their website to check, and on the main splash page it's spelled twice, once as SAAB, then again as Saab. So clearly they don't care, and neither should you
I tought DATASAAB was a part of Saab before going independent and them at some point being swallowed by Ericsson when they wanted to grow from telecom into computers.
Anyway. Data Saab. CK37. First flight computer with ICs. Very early 60’s. Also a 20-bit computer. Already a veteran by the time the F14 came out. Also lasted into the 2000s on the Viggen. Not microprocessor, but several years before, and in a small european country. Heck. The Brits make movies about how they discovered a way to crack the Enigma code, in Sweden, some guy broke it 2 years previously while riding his bike to work.
Worth noting that when transitioning to supersonic flight, the center of pressure moves back on every aircraft. This is not only due to the F-14's swing wings but the interaction of pressure with supersonic shocks.
Something that the Concorde had to deal with by pumping fuel from it's wing tanks to the very back of the plane as ballast.
@@JPkerVideoThey couldn't very well stick trim tabs on her, she barely had enough fuel to get to New York as it was 😅
I love small RUclipsrs who put in the effort and research. I know the work it takes when doing it alone. Great video, Alex! You now have another sub.
Thanks! Yep it’s a lot of work but I really enjoy making these videos.
Fascinating! In the early 80s, I worked in Garret Airesearch's environmental test lab. I received my first Confidential clearance so that I could work on the SCADC program. I can't remember the F-14 system ever being mentioned back then, but that could be just due to oldish age. The SCADC was a standardized air data computer that was intended to replace older units on A-6, A-7, and A-4 aircraft . The same electronics components but packaged to fit in the existing electronics bays of older aircraft. There were four total configurations, the fourth being sort of universal fit. Seeing this video, I can see the similarities. Environmental testing was to MIL-STD-510...vibration, temperature, altitude, humidity, etc. Fun time for me working with centrifuge, explosive shock testing, acoustic shock, explosive atmosphere. I left GA shortly after completion of these tests, going on to work at McDonnel Douglas on C-17 (FCSS and Flight Test and Escape Systems (ACES II Advanced Recovery Sequencer, a compact digital computer itself).
Which facility did you work?
@@firstmicro Garrett-Airesearch, 190th St Torrance and LAX.
How long lasts confidential clearance?
@@orangelion03 Torrance is where I developed the CADC. I left in 1971 after the CADC went into production.
Hi! Still watching the video for the first time, wanted to thank you for your conscientiousness in using real captions instead of the auto-generated ones. That said, there's a few typos, maybe have someone read it over? Thanks!
Right, they should be in better shape now. Sorry about that.
Another fascinating and terrifically researched piece. Great video. Thank you!
17:50: As I recall, there are a number of "microprocessors" that are an aggregate of several chips. The 8080 "microprocessor" being one that comes to mind. Intel quite clearly refers to it as a "microprocessor" on their datasheets, but requires 8224 and 8228 to build a system around. Nomenclature wars anyone?
Generally, a microprocessor contains the ALU, registers, and the control logic to fetch instructions and send data along the correct path.
I/O is usually included on modern microprocessors too, but generally interrupt controllers and such are not. A microcontroller is designed to be an all in one system containing ROM and RAM, along with all I/O. By putting these in one chip you can put computers in smaller devices at the cost of versatility of the system. There can be large debate as to which extensions would be required, such as floating point and multiplication for a microprocessor. The 8086 up to I think the 80286 required separate floating point co processors or FPUs such as the 8087. And x86 processors are what we still use today in most desktops. There were versions of the 386 I believe with and without the x87 floating point extensions.
To say that we went from assembling computers transistor by transistor to microprocessors is very misleading as stated in the video. Computers before microprocessors were assembled by logic gates, as the 7400 series chips were released in the '60s. Then computers were assembled with more complex chips containing ROM, RAM, control, registers, and full ALUs in single chips. Just how we don't see the reason to combine our CPUs with SSDs and RAM now in our computers it wasn't very worth it to do it with the mainframe computers at the time. The technology jump from having separate control, registers, and ALU chips to one chip is smaller than most people make it out to be. There were much bigger jumps such as when the original 7400 chip was released, putting multiple transistors in one chip. There were also large technology leaps such as the PLA and other predecessors to the FPGA, allowing us to "program" a chip to behave like any logic chip we want to.
You are pretty much correct there. Actually, you could build simple microcomputer systems without the 8228 System Controller, though you lose easy access to certain signals such as whether you're accessing memory or I/O address space. (That removes a useful but not necessary feature: you can always use memory mapped I/O.) But yes, without the 8224 Clock Generator, you'd need other equivalent external circuitry to generate the unusual asymmetric ϕ1 and ϕ2 clocks that the 8080 requires.
Excellent video. I've greatly enjoyed these long-form deep dives into engineering relating to aerospace.
As an aside, 2024 is supposedly the last year for the F-14. Iran is retiring them in favour of Su-35s (or a similar Flanker; I forget exactly).
Oh that's interesting. It amazes me they managed to keep them flying for so long.
Before maverick steals one.
How are they going to get SU-35s when Russia only has a few dozen?
@@lazerusmfhMy thoughts exactly.
@lazerusmfh they're probably never gonna get them
Top gun:
A big part of its popularity was how well they meshed the music with the flight sequences
It was a music video with story cobbled in... who cares, Danger Zone!
Yeah.. There were parts of that movie that were cringe.
The flight nerds loved it because of the air action with the music. Every guy identified with going up to 30k feet with his homeboy and kicking that smug prick Iceman and his RIO's ass.
- That's two "O"s in Goose, boys.
The music was also what made the Iron Eagle franchise palatable enough for multiple sequels
Just takes a sharp editor with some music skills. But it was a lot more time consuming back in those days.
@@TheMDHoover Recruitment film really
In 1975 I was trying to work on the f-111, as a result I also did work on f-14s that came into the air base their systems are much alike because Grumman was a partner in the building of the f-111. You might be surprised to know that the F4 was originally designated the f-110 .
As a result I did work on several f-14s and was familiar with their systems. Because it had to integrate a lot of mechanically driven actuators and control systems, it did require a lot and I do mean a lot of Maintenance time to keep it in the air. We complain today about the F-22 never being deployed with more than five planes at a time, and you are generally lucky if you can keep 50% of the F-22 flying at any given time. Much was the same about the f-14. It was an extremely difficult plane to keep flying. Especially in its first iteration.
Iran was extremely short-sighted attempting to use that as their primary fighter. I'm sure that some mechanism of the are data computers were reduced in function for their application. However, I also worked with many Iranians. They were extremely good at understanding Electronics to the highest degree of the day.
After having worked on a few of the f-14s I understand exactly why. When Carter cut our nation's throat and increase the instability in the Middle East by forcing the Shah out of Iran. It quickly rendered the vast majority of the Iranian Air Force, notably the f-14s out of existence until they can figure out how to get parts for them. They quickly learned how to build their own parts for those aircraft. That's why they still had several of them flying as of just a few years ago, I don't know if any are flying today. The earliest iteration of the F-14 was nothing to behold except when it was brand spanking new and everything worked on it properly. That was not always the case, as a matter of fact, it was rarely the case.
I do not know if your remark about the f11 being difficult to fly while changing its wing sweep is true, it was never true on the f-111f model that I was tasked with.
I also never had a problem flying the F-111 simulator, as I was the first one that the simulator Commander had ever seen fly it for the first time and not cause it to crash. I am not certain that we had chipsets in any of our flight data computers. We may have had them in the nav computer because even though it took the old school tape to load Mission parameters. The F model could be tasked with running a alternate routes to and from the bombing point, and never exceed 400 ft off the deck while doing so. You rarely would do a mission and approach a Target in excess of Mach 1 because you would leave a clear Sonic Trail. However you could do so quite easily.
I never got into an F-14 simulator during my time in the Air Force because we didn't have any. But as an avionics Tech I was able to show them how to do things like engage terrain following radar while in articulated Terrain. That procedure leads me to the concept that we may have had some sort of microprocessor in the F-111. I cannot be certain, but it is possible. I also have a good feeling that given the restrictions that you had to mechanically put into your movement of the wing at times and other clues, that there was no chip on the flight data system, except in regards to navigation. I did see several iterations of the navigation computer in other devices, some still in the 1970s as a matter of fact.
The last iteration of the F-14 was the most capable and had they upgraded it 2 a more powerful set of engines, something closer to what the f11f model, which had the same engines as the early F-16 and f-15, it may have been a much better aircraft. The unique issue with the high bypass turbofan hybrid engines, was that if you pulled back power on it too far and weren't paying close attention, you would scrub off speed at 50 knots per second. That is slowing down at a really fast rate and will you would get yourself in trouble, perhaps that's why you made the claim that the F-111 was hard to fly in transition. I never found such to be the case. You just had to remember to always run with a little bit more throttle than you thought was necessary. It was easy to adjust the speed of the f11 merely by sweeping the wings forward. With five stages of afterburner, you didn't even want to be on stage 1 while actually performing a mission. The f11 I would contend still to this day would be impervious to even the most modern anti-aircraft systems. There just isn't enough time to see it recognize it and shoot at it before it's already past you. Being able to Chase and shoot it down would be a Fool's errand. Especially if you were in any kind of articulated terrain, the ability to actually stay with it would be difficult in the extreme. Aircraft of North Vietnam even found the a model impossible to follow. That was however a much earlier time frame.
I don't know what happened there, ,and how. But the Soviet Union took possession of the F-111 back in the days of the Vietnam War. There is a story on this topic.
I have a good lady friend who was a mechanic on the F-111 and stationed in New Mexico. She was fond of her plane.
@goddoesnotexist5688 You can fly a jet in a sandstorm?! If I saw that in a movie I would be certain that was made up. I vaguely remember hearing about an airliner that had its engines fail because of a volcano spewing ash: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009#
Apparently there was another such incident: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLM_Flight_867
Not sure if volcanic ash is worse than sand though.
This was a great comment, thanks for sharing!
One thing on F-14 there is absolutely no plausible way for Iran to fabricate are the wing-box forgings.
If USA had to remake those wingboxes it would be doable but take some time. They were forged on what was, & possibly still is, the largest forging press by size in existence.
Simple drop-forging vs the complexity of hydraulic forging, its a multi storey forging press in Ohio that is one of a kind in the world, it is still used for extremely large & specialized forging applications.
Majority of Soviet Unions heavy forging was done in Ukraine where all it's military shipbuilding & largest aircraft were designed & built.
I would like to see drawings of the wing-box assembly,
perhaps its pivot-pins used high-shock bushings & pins of forging-die alloys like A2 D2 O3 & Inconell, these are all very challenging to cut & press concentric into a forging without inducing stresses that could lead to "egging" or contact galling,
bushings might delay the inevitable but everything gets work-hardened & microcracks over use time including a forged wingbox,
I cannot imagine these Iranian F-14 wingboxes are still functional unless they are never flown, flown like a Piper Cub with no stresses on the wing-box, or possibly modified or replacements retrofitted as 1 piece to operate only in a fixed position
Some friendly corrections: (may border on the seriously pedantic, your call)
5:03 It has been known since the 1950's that the most highly manuverable craft are often somewhat inherently unstable. Nothing controversial to anyone knowlegable there.
7:38 Variable wing geometry is still in active development and is not obsolete. Swing wings are obsolete. There is a distinction with a difference.
10:18 IIRC, The computer controlled the reaction of the rest of the flight control surfaces to the extension and retraction more than the speed of actuation of the swingwings and vanes. It was required to control these so that the compensation worked correctly, as you noted earlier where manual actuation was still CADC controlled.
17:45 The stance that a "rEaL" microprocessor must have onboard rom, ram, IO, is farsical. My 6-month old top of the line pc has seperate IO chips, Ram chips, Rom chip, and a co-processor cars with all 4 onboard. So only SoC would count, which is not in the same realm. I think you just wasted time here. Just muddled the whole topic here, although explaing the rom etc was nice.
23:45 Not a correction, just think you should do a video on the "Four Phase" as I have never heard of it and can find little info. There are already many great and exhaustive videos on the 4004.
30:22 I don't get why that would be harder to program for, and you made no justification for this statement.
40:33 Machine code translates to binary with no real compilation, it's not a 'language' per se, but a 1:1 human readable formatting of binary commands. Which is to say they totally wrote it in assembly and that was just typed in as binary. Your image at 48:00 shows that in the context of the 4004.
45:30 Punch cards, and even magnetic tape were available then, but tape was the most common interchange format. At the time, data interchange between dissimalr systems was quite rare.
52:40 I know where there are more about in the USA, but for security reasons, I'll leave it at that. An enterprising hobbiest might be able to get their hands on at least a partial set. If I find some i'd invite der8auer to the states to see them and make a video (export restrictions invariably exist). I'm confident the iranians have already just used an FPGA to copy them, as most countries do with stolen digital tech (see: Russia and China using FPGA copies of us missle guidance computers, there are videos on this).
54:22 There were more. Some are still classified, which should make obvious their purpose. Others were just corporate dead-ends, although not all technologically so.
All that said, you did an excelent job for a non-subject matter expert. Big respect. Got my sub.
Thanks, yes as you may have gathered by my tone, I do indeed think defining a microprocessor as essentially a SOC is indeed farcical: unfortunately there seem to be many that take that stance (for some reason). I didn't really enjoy having to be pedantic there but I was trying to make clear that 'if the 4004 is a microprocessor, then the MP944 is too'.
Anything I say about coding in assembly/machine code should probably come with a disclaimer that I am about 40 years removed from that world.
Btw, it was me saying supersonic aircraft are 'ugly' rather than 'unstable' which (rightly) made people mad!
The F-14 is not a inherently unstable aircraft, in fact, quite the opposite. Maybe if you compare it to something like a Cessna 172. The F-14 is especially stable to the point that even the famous flat spin is difficult to actually achieve and enter. Less than 10 airframes were lost in them. The F-14 actually is designed for stability because it lacks fly by wire or computer control over the primary maneuvering surfaces. As the wings sweep back, the center of lift moves aft, increasing the distance between the CG and the CoL. This was actually the reason for the glove vanes on the early F-14A's. They kept the CoL further forward, reduced mach tuck drag, and allowed for 7.5G maneuvering at any speed the F-14 could achieve.
I'd argue that modern wing geometry hasn't made variable swept wings obsolete, but certainly has bridged the gap between them. A true delta will always have less drag than the hybrid delta of something like the F-22. A true straight wing will always have better leverage against the CG for maneuvering and provide more lift than a hybrid delta. The variable wing sweep allows for a greater optimization across the entire flight envelop. Aircraft like the F-14 had an impressive turn radius, turn rate, and speed relative to the thrust. I say that because the TF-30 equipped F-14A weighed significantly more than the F-15 did and had less thrust, and yet the top speed difference between them is not that great.
The question is whether or not the weight and complexity or a variable wing sweep justify the performance gained over a hybrid delta, and that is where a variable wing sweep tends to fall behind. The other aspect is the difficulty in stealth. No one has made a modern variable wing sweep aircraft using modern low observability or composite technology. It may very well still present enough advantages, for the right aircraft, to justify its weight... but no one has really done it.
@@Whiskey11Gamingwrt swing wing, I think the real reason the Navy and Air Force don't use it anymore is because they can acheive "good enough" without having to maintain a swing wing system. Plus it adds weight, reducing fuel consumption. I think they found it just isn't worth the cost.
Formally, it's not wrong to refer to an assembler as a compiler. The definition of a compiler is basically just a translator for programs. An assembler qualifies, even if it's a lot simpler than we usually think of. As long as we're being pedantic. :)
@@Noisy_Cricket I concur, basically today they can beat the aerodynamic limitations with the force of sufficiently powerful contemporary engines to achieve acceptable results.
0:01 no it's actually 2024 I think you are confused.
Naruto-Style? I personally prefer term Dorito-Mode😂
One of your rare woman viewers. 🤭
We out here
dozens of us
Yeah, honestly I'm not one of _y'all_ but I *_definitely_* was expecting more, lmao.
28:04 that Horner scheme rearrangement actually increases calculation precision and significantly decreases the number of multiplications required. It is still valid and truly useful algorithm till today. Can be even used to make manually evaluating polynomials much easier.
"You couldn't for example build a practical desktop computer with a 4 bit processor". I can't see why not. The "4 bit" in the 4004 was the ALU and data path width between the four chips. The memory addresses were actually 12 bits and that's the far more important number. It's still a bit small, but all the "8 bit" microprocessors had 16 bit memory addresses and people did quite a lot with 8080/z80 CP/M machines, the Apple ][, the C64, the Atari 400/800. Those had 2^16 memory locations each of which was 8 bits in size, while the 4004's 4096 memory locations were only 4 bits in size. But a 4 bit computer with 17 or 18 or 20 bit addresses would be just fine, as long as it ran at sufficiently high MHz. Note also that the z80 has a 4 bit ALU, two 4 bit buses, and separate latches for the hi and lo 4 bit ALU results, which are produced in different clock cycles.
What surprises me about the 4004, looking back, is how many registers it has. There are 16 of them! So you can do quite a lot of calculations without hitting RAM at all. This is quite a stark contrast to for example the 6800 and 6502 which had three registers each for program variables (plus PC, stack pointer, and flags). Altogether the 4004 had 17 4-bit registers, 4 12-bit registers (PC plus 3 return stack levels), and a carry flag, for a total of 117 bits. The 6502 has 5 8-bit registers (A, X, Y, S, P) and a 16 bit PC, for a total of 56 bits, less than half as many register bits as the 4004!
You say addressing width is far more important, but bus width bring speed of operation. I'd say they're just different, except that when it comes to powerful computing like GPUs, it's often this data bus width that is the limiting factor of the architecture.
"You say addressing width is far more important, but bus width bring speed of operation." Yes, that's exactly what I said. Addressing width is fundamental. It determines the complexity of programs you can run. BUs width is merely speed, which can be compensated in any number of ways. “There is only one mistake that can be made in computer design that is difficult to recover from-not having enough address bits for memory addressing and memory management.” Bell and Strecker, 1976. @@VndNvwYvvSvv
It had good amount of registers but it was needed for addressing, fetching, arithmethic operations and narrow bus. The CPU lacked logical instructions and when I researched it it seemed it's hard to write more complex programs due to these limitations. It was really calculator on a chip designed for decadic calculations. Even the 4002 RAM chips were designed to store mantissa and exponent with sign in separate locations and you had to use different instructions to access them.
You really should send this video to Ward Carroll, former F14 Rio. He would be interested in seeing this, and might even do a crossover video.
While in the US Navy for 20 years, 1970 to 1990, one of my main jobs, was to work on F-14 flight control actuators. One thing I was taught to do at a special instruction course was the wing sweep actuators and glove vane maint.. I could check and test the sweep actuators but was not allowed to go into them. They had to be sent to the Depot in Norfolk , Virginia for a complete overhaul. I was asked to do it several times, but I was smart enough to refuse. If the ship was in port ( USS Nimitz) I could get the paper work and hand carry to the depot that was a couple of miles down the road. I would want to see what the technicians there would find, particularly if we had a run of bad ones. Some times it would be bad aircraft wiring, a bad cannon plug or even that ADC, and not the actuator. It made for some good arguments. I spent 10 years in Squadrons, and 10 years in Aircraft Intermediate Maintenance Departments (AIMD) I also spent 5 years after I retired doing F-14 structural repair at the Norfolk , Virginia Naval Aviation Depot, and I've just retired from 20 years at the Coast Guard Depot at Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
By the 80's all the CADC's would have been shipped to Grumman and most likely supported there. Ray Holt
I found this entire video fascinating. Your explanations of definitions, concepts and use cases were excellent. My degree is in Digital Microprocessor and Telecommunications Technology, and included not just the basics of all electronics and simple digital circuits, but also integration into larger and larger I.Cs. Really took me back to those days of writing out machine code with pencil and paper, then hand-coding and old 6502 (8-bit) microprocessor in hexadecimal. And to think, they were handling 20 bits, 20 years earlier than that. Awesome stuff!
Well, they were handing many more bits even earlier than that, just not with microprocessors. The mid-60s CDC 6000 series were 60-bit machines. And the IBM 701, released in 1952, used 36-bit words.
Great video. In the past I have been involved in two small processor designs.. a silly one where I had an evaluation copy of a system level design tool and a 150 cell CPLD and an EPROM.. and another that sold in the millions , the de emphasis digital audio filter in a Philips CD player chip. It had to do several multiplications and some additions all in 24 clock cycles. It was bit serial and used modified Booths algorithm multiplication .. two bits per clock cycle on 18 bit data.. 18 bits because it began life in a Digital Compact Cassette player..
The internet is a small place! Hi Mike!
High, can you point me in the right direction to develop a chip for a small drone? It will be the basis for AI for the Ukrainian military
@@martinwhitaker5096 it sure is!
I tested it with two girl child and one wife. All three printed at F14
What? Please explain this my curiosity of wth your trying to say.. a girl is a child... ?
He's saying everyone thinks the f14 is better looking I think
@@markrix5:03
Intimidating, but definitely better looking
Top gun was popular because it was Brad Pit.
@6:26 Being from that era and from the US, I can speak to why it was so popular: it was so well received because, in addition to being just a spectacularly performed/shot/edited/etc. movie, it also served as a desperately needed reassurance 5 very long years before the Soviet Union would collapse.
Every single day that the USSR was in existence came the renewed threat of nuclear annihilation. Many people very reasonably assumed that the only way we'd know the winner of WWIII would be for it to play out, which of course meant that very few of us would be alive to witness it, and many of those would find it very difficult to want to go on. Imagine the threat of being forced to live the IRL version of a Fallout game, where all the enemies are invisible, and the majority of them eat you by slowly and torturously melting you from the inside out.
That was our day-to-day. Every day we knew that the sirens might come up, and we'd have very little time to say our goodbyes let alone make sure we could all be together with our loved ones at the end.
Top Gun showed another way. It showed that we could fight the war in miniature, and if the USSR wanted anything worth conquering, it would have to take it the old fashioned way.
And this was not without its merits. You can't grow crops on irradiated soil, and when Top Gun came out, only a month or so prior, Chernobyl had given the world but especially the Soviets a hard look at what the consequences of a full scale conflict would be.
And Completely unbeknownst to all of us, the military technological capabilities of the Soviet union had been dropping behind that of the US for several years, and the USSR had been working very hard to hide that fact.
When that very brave Russian officer defected with his aircraft on September 6, 1976 to the Western allies, the United States was able to dissect the MiG and learn its weaknesses. From that came the F14, and as far as I know, by the time top gun came out, the Russians knew that the movie represented no idle threat.
Where the communists had kicked our asses in Vietnam and Korea due to our lack of dog fighting skills, the F14 was specifically designed to be able to get to conflict very quickly using the minimal amount of fuel, and then have the aerodynamic capability to outperform and outturn it's opponents in a dogfight, with more fuel to work with in an engagement.
And that's not all. Not too long after the F14 came out, the United States brought out the F-16, and then the F-18. The Russians simply couldn't keep up, and they realized that these aircraft and the force stacking capability they represented made an impenetrable wall against their conventional military tactical ideas.
That's what top gun showed the American public: that the Russians could be beat, and that maybe we might all live to see the coming millennium.
VERY excellent video, and please believe me I don't blame you for not understanding why it was so popular. I'm really glad that you (likely) never had to live with that daily dread.
See, here is the thing though... I was born in 1988 and I saw this movie in 1994-1995 at a babysitter... I DISTINCTLY remember the movie and it began what has been a nearly 30 year obsession with the F-14 Tomcat. I was extremely disappointed that when I graduated from High School, the F-14 had been retired. There were no threats of nuclear annihilation in the post Soviet era when I saw the movie, and yet, I still love the movie today because it, and The Final Countdown, are two movies just chock full of F-14 porn... this super sexy high speed extra lethal display of US Military Might. I only began to really appreciate the things the F-14 accomplished as an adult... the F-14 was the F-35 of the 1970's... it defined what it meant to be a fourth generation fighter, and for nearly two decades it was the only fighter in US service which could fire multiple radar guided missiles at different targets and have it hit.
Or because this RUclipsr is tone deaf and missed out on the jingoistic and nationalism dripping out of Top Gun during the Reagan era and its unique concept and cinematography. Everybody wants to think they’re the good guys. Just look at us justifying several generations of ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
"When that very brave Russian officer defected with his aircraft on September 6, 1976 to the Western allies, the United States was able to dissect the MiG and learn its weaknesses. From that came the F14.... "
Uh,.... Tomcats flew CAP over the evacuation of Saigon in 1975. Their development started long before Belenko flew his Mig-25 to Japan.
@@thatguy6054if anything, the Foxbat was one of the reasons the USAF got spooked and spurred them to make the F-15
The Belenko incident basically washed away all notion that the MiG-25 was a very capable aircraft, where infact it was a VERY, VERY chunky interceptor that was powered by engines that were derived from a cruise missile.
I have to know, did you plan this video’s release date with CuriousMarc finishing his series on a mechanical air data computer or was it just luck?
One thing, I think, you missed that was controlled by the flight computer were the variable ducted engine intakes that changed their profiles as the engines went from subsonic flight into mach speeds. I seem to remember one of the F14 WSO/RIOs talking about this...and in the early engine mods could cause a flameout under the right conditions.
Yeam, he implied al lthe computer controlled was the wings and vanes which was far from factual, although I don't think he meant to.
The CADC didn’t control the engine intake ducts - they were managed by a separate In dependant system called the AICS (Air Inlet Control System)
Those were controlled by a different computer. Probably because the engines have a different manufacturer than the airframe, and existed independent of the F-14. So, use existing means to control the ramps, or add more cost and complication to a CADC.
@@pgtmr2713 The F-14's air intake geometry is built into the engine nacelles and air intakes... the control of the actual variable intake geometry was a Grumman design specifically to allow the TF30's to operate in the designed speed regimes. When the GE F110 was installed in the F-14B and F-14D, the scheduling of the intake ramps was changed to optimize performance in the transonic region. The end result was the TF30 actually produced more thrust at low altitude and at high mach (not necessarily both). Air stacking in the intake allowed the TF30 F-14A to go to Mach 2.34, the GE F110's were capped at 1.88.
You are thinking of the F15. The F14's version of this was entirely through discrete logic. The F15 was what brought it digital.
What is a microprocessor? In reality it really does not matter, however, companies and marketing people love to label what they have. When I started the design of the F14 CADC the implementation of the “processor” was unknown. As we tended towards the new “integrated circuit (IC)” technology names such as IC processor or LSI (large scale integration) was used. Micro was also in there somewhere as the computer design evolution progressed from large, to mini, to micro. It was not a big issue to anyone. Ultimately, as the CADC project was completed and I wrote my paper I chose the name “microprocessor”. There was no focus on single-chip, multi-chip, program counter location, etc. In fact, even Turing was set aside as the main focus was to do the job irrespective of # of chips and what function was where, and even how data was transferred. The selection of any cleaver design techniques (pipelining, co-processing, in-flight self-test, dual redundancy), algorithms, and package selections we made to reach the speed and accuracy necessary to fly the F-14 as needed. It was unfortunate (for me and history) that the 1970 presentation of my paper and any patents were strongly refused by the US Navy thus 30 years of silence started. Around three years later the Intel marketing group started labeling their work. First came the World’s first microprocessor, then the World’s first commercial microprocessor, then Intel’s first microprocessor, then Intel’s single-chip microprocessor …. Today, everybody wants their design to be a microprocessor, otherwise, how are they going to out market Intel?
In 1973, Hank Smith, Microprocessor Marketing Manager, Intel Corp made this statement at the IEEE 1973 WESCON Professional Program Session 11. “A CPU uses P-channel MOS and is contained in 1,2,3 or4 LSI standard dual-in-line packages from 16-42 pins per package”. Even at this time the word CPU was sometimes used for the entire processor and not microprocessor.
After this, history started dissection the word CPU, microprocessor, single chip, etc to fit the functionality, design, and packaging of each product. Thus, here we are in 2024 (54 years later) still trying to make it all fit into convenient definitions. Ray Holt
Is this actually Ray Holt?
@@joc575 It's me.
For someone who doesn’t like Top Gun, you sure picked an interesting font 😅
This video is great! This topic just came up during a family dinner. My brother and I were huge nerds for the F-14 and other aircraft of that era.
Thank you for this!
You spotted the font easter egg! Congratulations!
Another reason for a nerd like me to love the Tomcat. What a fantastic video. Thank you!
Great video. A couple of niggles (I know you love them): iirc the program which converts assembly language into machine code is called an assembler and not a compiler. I’m sure I’m like the 100th pedant to point this out. And between the 4004 and 6502/Z80 were the 9900 (no registers, first consumer “16-bit” chip), the 6800 (inspired the 6502) and the 8080, among others.
Oh good spot! Why did I say ‘compiler’!?
Ah yes I just mentioned the 6502/z80 as they will be more familiar to viewers
Also the 8008.
The glove veins were not even built on versions of the f14 past 1980s. The reason was they did not have any large effect on maneuverability for the cost, so they stopped making them.
You did an excellent job describing this fascinating element of the F-14 I have never seen investigated in detail like this.
I was a little kid when the top gun movie came out and was absolutely enthralled with the F-14 because of that film. Approaching 50 now and I completely forget at times how far the hardware for computing has changed and how revolutionary an aircraft with chips like these were.
I started in college with electrical engineering but changed to a degree in information systems, but your talk about this brought flash backs of my coming to the conclusion I was never going to be an electrical engineer 😂. Really nice video on an interesting subject.
It is sad that history often becomes corrupted into fiction. Important developments are forgotten and trivial things are elevated to legendary status. The F-14's multi-chip microprocessor is one of those important developments that has largely been forgotten. Thanks for posting this valuable piece of history.
I cant remember the last time I watched something this long, understanding next to nothing, still being captivated to the very end, even rewinding to rewatch parts I understood a little of. I absolutely loved this content! Instant subscriber. There is very little content on yt that deals with aeroplanes on this technical level. I would love to see what this channel would do with the subject of ”Centralkalkylator 37” the flightcomputer in the Saab Viggen.
Big thanks!
A few viewers have asked about the Viggen computer. I’ll add it to my ‘potential videos’ list!
This is very interesting. I was a structural design engineer on the F-14 program for a few years in the early 1980s. Even as I contributed my small part, it felt like i was chipping rocks compared to the stuff the guys in other parts of our building, and in other buildings, were doing.
Still, it's a long way from actually chipping rocks! That's what civil engineers do. (Mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets.)