Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well, blown flaps are more complicated, they needed a lot of careful maintenance (any asymmetry in the air stream will basically cause the aicraft to execute an unintended roll) they require to land with the engine at a high power setting (until touch down) and -I forgot to mention- the early revisions of the J79 had a tendency to flame out in certain situations, by coincidence, exactly the same needed to land the aircraft.Not the 1st time the designer office picked a solution A for the problem at hand, instead the solution B; at the end of the day solution B proved to be both less complicated and as good?
At the time the USAF was using the F-84 which was notorious for its 'hairy' takeoff and landings at over 300 Km/h.
From what I read losses in Europe were almost entirely down to pilot training, especially in the post war German air force. Having done away with the old LW structures and people for obvious political reasons they had also done away with many professionals who knew how to train people to fly.I've read somewhere than Johnson team didn't anticipate that it would be used outside of good weather and without very long, well paved strips: something that good Europe is lacking, and that would imply that the F-104 from the onset was designed to protect the homeland and not to be widely exported but it seems to be a too simplistic explanation
Thanks! Much appreciated!I just happen to have a copy of T.O. 1F-104A-2-4.
It wasn't a Germany only problem. Also Canada had a high loss rate. And Italy too; not even with their improved F-104S was without issues. And the Italians were the most enthusiast -and possibly knowledgeable- users of the type.From what I read losses in Europe were almost entirely down to pilot training, especially in the post war German air force. Having done away with the old LW structures and people for obvious political reasons they had also done away with many professionals who knew how to train people to fly.
Thanks! Much appreciated!
It wasn't a Germany only problem. Also Canada had a high loss rate. And Italy too; not even with their improved F-104S was without issues. And the Italians were the most enthusiast -and possibly knowledgeable- users of the type.
I'm aware that some prominent German commanders like Gunther Rann and Johannes Steinhoff (both ww2 figher aces who became top brass in the Luftwaffe and Nato post war) blamed the high loss rate on poor training, but the F-104 did have some very dangerous characteristics of its own which could be fatal also to a veteran pilot.
Wasn't German F104 training done mostly at Luke AFB by USAF instructors? We used to get the occasional visit at NAS Memphis of a TF104 in US livery with a small iron cross on the tail and one German speaking pilot and one American. Maybe those training deficiencies weren't German in origin after all.From what I read losses in Europe were almost entirely down to pilot training, especially in the post war German air force.
Something like that. They say that usually with an accident more than one thing goes wrong, with the F-104 there were a lot of things going wrong or conspiring to make things worse. I think it was in the link that the normal load out in Germany was with 4 fuel tanks and it was used at low level. That is a scientific discussion, from the very start when a flight of 4 flew into the ground there was also the mystical discussion about the plane being cursed, like a metal Bermuda Triangle.Wasn't German F104 training done mostly at Luke AFB by USAF instructors? We used to get the occasional visit at NAS Memphis of a TF104 in US livery with a small iron cross on the tail and one German speaking pilot and one American. Maybe those training deficiencies weren't German in origin after all.
IIRC, USAF configured and trained F104 as interceptor only, whereas Germans used it as a tactical fighter bomber and nuclear striker. You suppose there may be a bit of a disconnect here?
It WAS cursed! The skunks at Lockheed borrowed from the future and put '59 Cadillac tail fins on it in lieu of wings, then it sprouted gadgets galore and wound up tail heavy and overweight. American military aircraft development in a nutshell.there was also the mystical discussion about the plane being cursed, like a metal Bermuda Triangle.
You can see it just by looking at it, few planes "look" faster than an F-104 with a missile on its wing tips, pics of it loaded up with pylons for all sorts of stuff just look wrong, like a Ferrari towing a trailer full of scrap iron.It WAS cursed! The skunks at Lockheed borrowed from the future and put '59 Cadillac tail fins on it in lieu of wings, then it sprouted gadgets galore and wound up tail heavy and overweight. American military aircraft development in a nutshell.
The aircraft was intended to have the J79 but the engine wasn't ready yet.I'm starting to build the beautiful 1:32 kit from Italeri of the F-104S and I reviewed a bit the story of the plane and its technical design.
One odd choice struck me. The F-104 was one of the first planes with blown flaps designed to reduce the landing speed. That would seem a most logical choice considering that when Johnson switched from the J65 engine to the more powerful J79, the plane grew in size and weight (over 1m longer and over one ton heavier) but the wing shape and area remained the same.
I wouldn't say that was a major problem because the F-104 was quite overpowered. When it came to the matter of extra thrust or extra lift, it appeared that more lift came out of the blown flap system on top.So, in the end, you have blown flaps but that overgrown engine behind the pilot's ass is generating a lot of thrust because the compressor must be kept spinning at high revs to give enough air to the flaps. In addition to this, the pilot is also restricted in its angle of attack (both to increase the lift and use the induced drag to slow the airplane) because the T tail design must be kept clear of the wings wash, especially at low speeds, to avoid an hard tail stall.
As far as I understand it: The aircraft started out to be a light-weight high performance fighter that was inspired by negative experience with the MiG-15 over Korea.Once airborne the F-104 was said to be a very good airplane to fly; certainly not a dogfighter, but it was a good interceptor and probably was also very good for quick dashes into enemy airpsace at low altitudes (the small, thin wings would certainly be less subject to turbulence than other designs of the period). But it earned the moniker of 'widow maker' with many accidents happening during landings.
I've read somewhere than Johnson team didn't anticipate that it would be used outside of good weather and without very long, well paved strips: something that good Europe is lacking, and that would imply that the F-104 from the onset was designed to protect the homeland and not to be widely exported but it seems to be a too simplistic explanation
My Systems Phase instructor at mech school (a retired USAF fighter pilot) said making an approach in a 104 to anything less than a two mile runway was "like driving your Hemi 'Cuda down a residential street and into your driveway with the two aux barrels of your four barrel carb stuck wide open. Whoa, Nellie!" If you reduced power, your BLC quit abruptly and you fell out of the sky. Not good with a downward ejection seat. If you wanted to keep the BLC working, you had a hard time getting the dang thing to go down AND slow down. He said the speed brakes and the drogue chute were both inadequate to the job. He called the plane "a bucket of gotchas". He also said that during his tour at SAGE they were a PITA to work on GCI, as they were severely range limited and had a very short range radar set. Pretty much a base defense interceptor. You had to wait their scramble until bogies were definitely targeted on their area, then "Buster!" them to altitude to make the intercept, burning up most of their fuel and requiring a PDQ RTB.I wouldn't say that was a major problem because the F-104 was quite overpowered. When it came to the matter of extra thrust or extra lift, it appeared that more lift came out of the blown flap system on top.
From the link I posted it details various "errors" it doesn't detail how easy it was for a pilot to get out of what was said in the manual which then becomes a pilot or other operational "error".My Systems Phase instructor at mech school (a retired USAF fighter pilot) said making an approach in a 104 to anything less than a two mile runway was "like driving your Hemi 'Cuda down a residential street and into your driveway with the two aux barrels of your four barrel carb stuck wide open. Whoa, Nellie!" If you reduced power, your BLC quit abruptly and you fell out of the sky. Not good with a downward ejection seat. If you wanted to keep the BLC working, you had a hard time getting the dang thing to go down AND slow down. He said the speed brakes and the drogue chute were both inadequate to the job. He called the plane "a bucket of gotchas". He also said that during his tour at SAGE they were a PITA to work on GCI, as they were severely range limited and had a very short range radar set. Pretty much a base defense interceptor. You had to wait their scramble until bogies were definitely targeted on their area, then "Buster!" them to altitude to make the intercept, burning up most of their fuel and requiring a PDQ RTB.
I remember seeing a clip from some Monty Python or King Arthur movie where Lancelot has to duck and dodge his way through a gauntlet of swinging pendulums and other infernal devices while balancing on a narrow beam. Flying an F104 without committing any "operational errors" must be something like that.From the link I posted it details various "errors" it doesn't detail how easy it was for a pilot to get out of what was said in the manual which then becomes a pilot or other operational "error".