Best "Western World" post WWII Bomber

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

cheddar cheese said:
You wouldnt think something like that could happen...what with radar and things...
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the radar only tells you where things are, doesn't necessarily help avoid unfortunate things like this. Radar is much better today and I would think they could build a collision avoidance system.
 
I don't know that it exactly, hit the XB-70 Valkyrie, as such according to the video, until after it had already hit trouble in the wake. Looking at the NASA video, I would say it looks like the pilot somehow got into the wake, and then torn, impacted with the Valkyrie in such a way as to bring both planes down. The way I interpret the crash video is, the F-104 Starfighter Pilot has hit the slipstream of the Valkyrie, he is fighting for control of his aircraft as it is slowly getting torn to shreds, as he is fighting for control to get away from the Valkyrie, in his struggle he ends up clipping the Valkyrie and bringing both planes down.
 
There is no real way to tell how far the wake would extend on a real aircraft of such a radical design. Therefore unfortunately this is a disaster that could happen again in the future. The F-104 looks to be very shaky and unstable before it hits the Valkyrie. Hard to see since it is Quicktime, but I think there is a noticeable shake. The F-104 pilot unwittingly strayed into the slipstream of the XB-70 and both paid the ultimate price for that one mistake.
 
I would think wind-tunnel tests could give a pretty good idea of where the slipstream was for safety briefings. But then again, at high speed, it only takes a fraction of a second for things to go terribly wrong.
 
Even windtunnel testing is only a guide to whether an aircraft warrants further work and its capabilites. That is why there are still service tests. If windtunnel tests were good then we could in theory go straight from drawing board to windtunnel to service, without the service testing. Nature is very changable, the wind in a windtunnel isn't exactly turned in every direction that well to see how the aircraft reacts. Therefore wind-tunnel tests are a guide- not a definitive fact. Especially when dealing with such exotic aircraft as the XB-70 Valikyrie.
 
Agreed, I was just saying that the wind tunnel, using smoke, can determine where the slipstream and turbulence behind the aircraft are. This would give the chase pilots a basic guideline for safe distances. That will never factor for pilot judegement though.
 
Medvedya said:
I heard those things were real death-traps.
Click to expand...

The F-104 was a death trap, it had such nicknames as "widowmaker" "flying coffin". I personally think the B-52 is the best, long service, realiable (like all boeings), and can carry practically any payload, be it prescison or flatten everything underneath you!
 
I think the Vulcan is over rated, it was only ever used once in a "combat" situation, and as I recall it didn't even hit what it was supposed to. Where as the B-52 is tried and tested, maybe a bit long in the tooth these days but like the old saying goes, If it ain't broke don't fix it. Although I must admit the Vulcan certainly looked impressive, better looking than the lumbering Stratofortress anyway.
 

NO WAY! - The 104 was a great aircraft, the problem was there was no good transition training aircraft available during its initial implementation and of course the German press had a field day when the losses first started to occur. It was a new breed of aircraft as you had many European operators going from say an F-86 right into this aircraft. As different mission requirements were added to the aircraft, it airframe accepted those changes well. The Italians built the 104 into the late 80s and still operates a few.

Some facts - although there were numerous losses with the 104, it actually had a loss rate lower than the F-100 and F-102 and once the operators of this aircraft enhanced their training, the loss rates really dropped significantly. The West German aircraft had an F-104 attrition rate of 30%, when they operated the F-84 their attrition rate was 36%. Eventually they got their attrition rate into the low teens! The Spanish Air Force operated the 104 for a number of years and never lost one! Understand the Spaniards were operating their F-104s as a fair weather fighter, the Germans, Canadians, Italians, etc. operated their as a strike aircraft, flew the thing in very adverse weather, way more than other operators. See these links about the F-104s ability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F-104_Starfighter
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf1043.html
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_17.html

The F-104 "Widowmaker" title was a myth - its reputation was cast by overzealous news media who knew little or nothing about aviation or the 104s operational environment! When retired its attrition rate was actually close to modern combat aircraft!
 
The B-52 cannot be denied its place, I think the B-1Bs reputation will develop considering the initial bad press, it droped the majority of the heavy ordnance in Afghanistan from what I understand.

My father in law flew both aircraft, he loved the B-1 and always felt its full potential will never be accepted. His attachment to the plane lies in the fact he set and still holds several world speed and altitude records in the B1B. Here's the link for the FAI, his last name is Chamberlain.

http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=369
 

The 104 was not a great aircraft, from speaking to several pilots it was widely known that it was unstable, underpowered, difficult to fly and was called by several of them by the moniker "widowmaker" after they had finished flying them. It is not a myth, slightly over exaggerated maybe. None of the links you have given have been written by "experts" and even if they had be I'd be dubious if they tried to call the 104 a good aircraft. As many "experts" in the past have been wrong about several aircraft. Further evidence points to the fact that Starfighters didn't serve very long in any country as a front line fighter.
 

And I can tell you quite the opposite. I lived in the community where the aircraft was developed and manufactured, have spoken to several dozen pilots who flew this aircraft (including Canadian, German, Italian and Norwegian pilots) and they hardly had anything bad to say about the aircraft except that it was tricky to fly and required a good transistion background (T-38 time) to become proficient. Being underpowered, that's the first time I heard that!?! (Maybe compared to a Tornado or Phantom!) I helped crew Darryl Greenamyer before he crashed his 104 (for reasons I can not say) and I could assure you it was far from being underpowered! I had the opportunity to work on this aircraft briefly as a maintainer and crewchief and although no technical expert on the aircraft, I could tell you the only thing that passed it by was technology, its concept was already outdated by the time it came into full maturity. By that time the F-15, 16 and Tornado were being developed. And that wasn't the fault of the aircraft, but by the changing roles placed upon it by its operators.

As far as not serving long, the Canadians and Germans operated them for close to 20 years, the Italians continued to build them into the late 1980s. The aircraft basically served 3 generations, maybe not front line, but its longevity is quite evident!
 
So there was no problems with the engines then? or pitch limiter? or pilot's oxygen tanks? to name but a few. Just like the Tornado, it may have been "ahead" of its time, but it was still a nasty aircraft. I have spoken to pilots that flew it too, and they did refer to it as "widowmaker".

"During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270 German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of the total force. About 110 pilots were killed. However, the attrition rate in German service was not all that much greater than that of the F-104 in service with several other air forces, including the United States Air Force. Canada had the unenviable record of losing over 50 percent of its 200 single-seat CF-104s in flying accidents."

Yes, a remarkable aircraft. Plus the Italians got rid of theirs last year.
We have had the Tornado for a long time also, but it is still a bag of spanners.
 
superunknown said:
So there was no problems with the engines then? or pitch limiter? or pilot's oxygen tanks? to name but a few.
Click to expand...

Nope - We had ground aborts for the generator going off line, avionic problems and locking brakes, from what I could remember. Although the two we had weren't flown as hard as the military, we carried a bunch of research gear on them and they were heavily modified, so a lot of electronic things could go wrong.

superunknown said:
Just like the Tornado, it may have been "ahead" of its time, but it was still a nasty aircraft. I have spoken to pilots that flew it too, and they did refer to it as "widowmaker".
Click to expand...

And again, not from the pilots I met, these guys had "Mega" T-38, F-104 and F-4 time as well. Once you knew the aircraft, it was superior in some cases to the next generation of fighters that replaced it. I met guys from Germany that flew in squadrons where their 104s were replaced with the F-4 and this was very upsetting to them. (Personally I prefer the F-4)


Yep - because the Germans and Canadians and other nations were operating them at low level, in poor weather through mountainous terrain. I don't know if you ever flew in an aircraft under instrument conditions, but its one of the most difficult things you're ever going to do, let alone at mach .99 at 10 feet AGL. And this was done using the old INU which by to days standards is like navigating to Mars with a pocket compass.

In addition, many of those accidents were due to training. Go from an F-86 into an F-104 without proper training and you will die very quickly! Go from an F-86 into an F-4 and you'll have the same results!

Yes it had a high attrition rate, but that rate diminished when the operators figured out how to train their pilots to properly operate them. It was the first mach 2 fighter with several additional roles thrown at it. For its time it served well and I could speak from hands-on experience it operated great!
 
I agree with you in many aspects, but I know for a fact the german's 104's were terrible. My dad served with the RAF as an aircraft technician and said that they were commonly refered to as "widowmakers". At one point 2 kreigsmarine 104's visited his base and both the pilots and groundcrew said that they were less than happy with them, the groundcrew listing various common faults with it and after looking around the Lightning's that my dad worked on described the 104's as poor.

The F-4 was a Phantastic (sorry) aircraft, we should never have got rid of ours. It was the last decent fighter the RAF had.

But anyway, it's a silly argument to get into. We agree to disagree, after all this is a bomber thread. Whats your favourite post WW2 bomber?
 
superunknown said:
But anyway, it's a silly argument to get into. We agree to disagree, after all this is a bomber thread. Whats your favourite post WW2 bomber?
Click to expand...

Agree - I got to go with the B-52 and B1B. See my post above. The B1B is a family icon (see my post above). When my father in law is around one thing we don't talk about is the B-2! He calls it a "fag bomber" (American Fag definition)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best post-MiG 21 single engined Soviet/Russian fighter or bomber?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
bf109xxl
A
Best straight wing jet fighter?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
Convair NX-2 Camal, The Story Of The Secret Post WW2 Atomic Powered Bomber Plane
Replies
1
Views
832
SaparotRob
A
Best plan for Argentina in Falklands War
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
X-Planes episodes: from WWII Nazi rockets to Cold War era supersonic Darts
Replies
1
Views
195
Gnomey
Menu
Log in
Register