Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Damned near criminal. That's a serial killer cloaked with wings.
Pakistan took the F-104 into combat and I believe they lost 2, one non-combat. Spain operated the -104 and never lost one. NATO with the exception of Greece and Turkey had a loss rate of 1.81, if you factor in Greece and Turkey it rises to 2.14 - Now how about Japan? Their attrition rate average .068 through out their 20 operational history!!!
Correct on all counts.Well, Spain used only a reduced quantity ( I think 18 ) for a short time. Probably the high atrition rate in the german Luftwaffe was caused by asking the aircraft/pilots to do task for who they were not properly designed/trained. However there is no doubt in my mind the the F-104 was quite unforgiving.
Correct on all counts.
Maybe someone can tell me about the landing characteristics of the F104? The reason I ask is, back in the mid sixties, I was at Prestwick airport, Scotland, when there was still a (then) Royal Canadian Air Force prescence, including Starfighters. One of my vivid memories is of three or four landings, by different F104's, when the engine noise can only be described as very, very similar to someone tuning an old radio receiver! The whistle went up and down the scale and, even though at the time I was fairly young, about 14, I was 'switched on' enough to realise that there was no wind-shear or strong winds to contend with on approach. I'm assuming the pilot was jockeying the throttle to maintain attitude/approach configuration, or would it have been a peculiarity of the aircraft or engine?
a good tactical strike aircraft.... can't hit what you can't see, ours were optimized for lo level nuke strike and recce in the European enviromentLove the airplane. But one must remember it was a pure interceptor.
And one that has a 10,000ft loop diameter. Straight lines, baby. Straight lines.
Interesting history Airframes, no idea precisely wich was the name of the "procedure".
From the one that I briefly worked on that was what I was told. It landed at 170 mph.Straight lines, baby. Straight lines.
From the one that I briefly worked on that was what I was told. It landed at 170 mph.
The varying of engine RPM as described by airframes might be because of different models. Earlier 104s had no flaps and landed a lot faster, perhaps the West german -104 were later models with flaps.
The flaps on the -104 were actually "blown"; i.e: high-pressure air from the compressor section of the J-79 was diverted to bleed nozzles along the top leading edge of the flaps, thereby increasing the mass flow of air over the top of the flaps and increasing lift. This was one of the many measures required to keep the -104 at a reasonable approach speed with such a small wing. I am guessing the constant "throttle jockeying" may have had to do with maintaining a constant flow of bleed air over the top of the flaps upon landing.
From the looks of the diagram, the idea of the double attack is to climb up under the enemy, take out a few a/c from below, complete the loop and attack from again from above, presumably scarpering at high speed after passing through the enemy formation for the second time. Two shots in one pass, essentially. On paper and tactically, a bloody smart idea, IMHO. It makes perfect sense when flying an aircraft that climbs like a rocket, but I'm not sure how the second phase would work out in an a/c needing 10k ft of air to complete a loop - perhaps one of our pilot members could clarify how the maneuver would actually work?
No idea who Riccioni is/was though...
As far as Riccioni? Col. Everest Riccioni - a fighter pilot legend. He did a lot of work with Col. Boyd and helped develop the F-16.
That page was from a training pamphlet put out possibly by Lockheed or the USAF in the early 1960's I believe. I've seen it before.
Thanks for that. What struck me as odd in the manoeuvre, according to the cartoon, was that the F-104s needed to cross over before returning?
Yes I found them in an article on the F-104. Lockheed produced the book (around 66-67?) which was written by test pilot 'Snake' Reeves and illustrated by Pete Trevison...
it would also depend if he was doing some sort of instrument approach using the throttle to maintain 2.5 degree glideslopeThanks Joe and SoD, the info re blown flaps etc now all makes sense, and I can understand what was actually happening. At that approach and landing speed, even a small deviation would require throttle input, hence the 'radio tuning' sound. Thanks again.
Terry.