F-104 Starfighter.....

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

Makes it even more understandable, and I guess it was a ILS approach. Thanks again, it's answered a question that I've pondered for over 40 years!
 
Hi Stitch,

>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 what I've read, the bleed air supply breaks down abruptly if you go below a certain rpm threshold, causing abrupt loss of lift and a roll to one side, so too much jockeying would be bad, too.

A friend of mine flew F-104 with the Luftwaffe, and despite the public perception of the Starfighter as widow-maker the F-104 seems to have been extremely popular both with pilots and groundcrew of the Luftwaffe.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Hi Graeme,

>Who was Riccioni and what exactly was the "double attack system?"

The Double Attack System was a doctrinal break with the old "welded wing" tactical system that had been based on having one shooter and one defensive wingman, and which had been codified during the Korean War by Fredereck "Blesse" Boots in his tactical manual "No Guts, No Glory".

"No Guts, No Glory" had been written for the specific conditions of the Korean War, with low-powered jets without afterburners operating high up in the stratosphere where manoeuvrability was marginal so that it was imperative to hold a pretty tight formation at all times, and where little tactical flexiblity was possible. However, the influence of Blesse's manual was so great that "welded wing" became standard doctrine for all situations - my Luftwaffe F-104 pilot friend's tactics were completely based on an extended version of "No Guts, No Glory".

Boyd's "Aerial Attack Study" made the first steps towards developing an energy combat theory, and since the Double Attack System is attributed to Boyd's friend Riccioni in your illustration, it seems it came from the same line of thinking. Note that the high yo-yo is an energy combat tactic. (The cross-over during the turn is tactical standard procedure to avoid different turn radii for leader and wingman.)

Here is a short description of "Double Attack" from Shaw's "Fighter Combat":

"Double attack, also known by many other names, is a system by which each aircraft of a pair of fighters can support the other without remaining in the rigid structure prescribed by fighting ["welded"] wing. This doctrine permits the section to split, allowing for coordinated, sequential attacks. There is still a leader and a wingman in this method, but the relationship can change back and forth during an engagment."

(Followed by 15 pages of text and diagrams

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
HoHun said:
A friend of mine flew F-104 with the Luftwaffe, and despite the public perception of the Starfighter as widow-maker the F-104 seems to have been extremely popular both with pilots and groundcrew of the Luftwaffe.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
Click to expand...

I haven't spoken to any F-104 pilots (I'm not THAT close to military aviation, unfortunately, just civilian aviation), but from what I've read, those pilots who knew how to utilize the F-104 preferred it to any other air-superiority fighter (except perhaps an F-15 or F-16); Colonel Don Kutyna, who has flown over 25 different aircraft types in his long career with the Air Force (including a combat tour in Vietnam in F-105's flying My Karma), has this to say about the F-104: "To this day, excepting the F-15 and the F-16, many of the pros would still take the 104 (particularly with the -19 engine) as a pure clean air mass visual fighting machine over any other fighter in the inventory."
 
here is an interesting item on German and Canadian losses
"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239 delivered - a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest-flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of retirement, average airframe times were in the order of 6000 hours as compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe. "
I believe 6000 hours is a fairly high amount of hpours on a fighter airframe , I also never met a 104 pilot that didn't like it
 
Here's a reference to Glen "Snake" Reaves and Tony LeVier in Bashow's "Starfighter". Two CF-104 pilots picked up Reaves and LeVier at Palmsdale in a couple of duals to bring them to the ten-year CF-104 reunion at Cold Lake in '72. The narrator is Ray Dunsdon.

"Al French and I flew two duals to Palmsdale, and brought back Snake Reaves and Tony LeVier. Tony hadn't flown a CF-104 for over seven years; Snake only flew to put on his five-minute demo. At any rate, Snake and Tony did all the flying back to Cold Lake. The formation takeoffs, etc. were terrifying, and when we arrived at Cold Lake, Tony and Al landed. I advised Snake that he was cleared to do his show. He started the display 20 feet above the end of the runway, 420 knots, 10-20 degrees nose up, and then performed an 8-point roll. I was sure we were dead, but I couldn't bail out inverted that low. He completed a perfect 8-point roll and levelled out at 420 knots, 20 feet above the runway. As the time was close to 6:00pm. most people had moved to the Mess. I pointed out its location and Snake flew by at about 20 feet. I was happily waving at friends on the front balcony when he started a series of snap rolls; about four, I think. Then for his landing, he was into stick-shaker all the way around final turn, pulled the 'chute 20 feet in the air, landed and turned off the runway in less than 1000 feet, as smooth as silk!"

I guess Snake had some confidence in the 'Aluminum Death Tube' ;o)

JL
 
Graeme said:
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?
Click to expand...


Graeme, the cross-over is necessary to keep your E up. Think of it as a large rolling loop that allows for the -104 to maintain high speed, maximize an altitude advantage, and roll-out with a tail (minimal deflection) chase.

At least that's the theory.
 
An interesting video of 1966 showing a german parliament member flying the F-104:



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ZzRHdch7Q

For those who dont speak german some translation of the dialogue between the anchor and the Paliament member:

P- "Has been a great working society" ( in relation wich the european society of construction of the F-104)

P "- I must say that I had no fear at all , nor for one minute"

I -"Do you have the impression that the Starfighter pilots are excessive workloaded? "

P- "The pilot of such a machine is, I would say, it does not make excessive demands of but only particular with takeoff and landing nevertheless so far tensely that one can say, they are demanded by in that seconds."

I- " Would you endorse the purchase of Starfighters after your current experiences and with your current knowledge again? "

P -" I am convinced that the acquisition of the Starfighter was absolutely correct (Pk- yea, sure) and we could no made better decision even today.
We should to put all the effort in improve the Starfighters to the highest stardars.

I- " Do you think that or you think we going to continue having accidents of Starfighter in this manner in the future?

P- " The measures are partially already met or almost complete. I hope that that they will contribute to the fact we will no longer have so much Starfighter accidents.

This video showed 2 things, ugly and corrupt politicians you can found them everywhere.
 
Hi Matt,

>Graeme, the cross-over is necessary to keep your E up. Think of it as a large rolling loop that allows for the -104 to maintain high speed, maximize an altitude advantage, and roll-out with a tail (minimal deflection) chase.

Oh, so I probably misunderstood Graeme's question - my reply answered the question why the two F-104s' flight paths crossed, while Graeme probably asked for the crossing with the bandits' flight path, which you answered

One addition though: Due to the characteristics of the contemporary gunsights, Boyd in his "Aerial Attack Study" advises not to let the aircraft slide into a minimal deflection tailchase, as the resulting low-and-decreasing Gs would cause the gunsight pipper to float away from the proper aimpoint and react erratically to the slightest disturbance.

Instead, a slight crossing attack with some constant (or increasing) Gs was recommended as this would stabilize the pipper and give a true aimpoint.

Against bombers, Boyd actually advises to use a technique of decreased deflection, setting up the gunsight for a speed markedly less than that of the intercepted bomber, and aiming at a "virtual" target flying at a lower speed than the real target. Properly done, this would result in the fighter's fire running along the full length of the bomber's fuselage before the additional speed that can be kept in such a "semi-tracking" attack would be used to break away and set up another attack.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Yeah, they're great aren't they I'd only seen 4 or 5 of them before I stumbled on to this site.

Here's a site with a nice study guide on the specs, systems, and flying qualities/procedures of the Zipper.

Lockheed F-104

BTW, I don't know where the extra 's' in 'Palmdale' came from.

JL
 
The San Andreas Fault goes right through the middle (and look how a resivour "Lake Palmdale" is built right on top of it). Palmdale is just to the right, a couple of miles away.

Since this city is built on old alluvial plains and unconsolidated sediments, if the quake happens in the late afternoon in the summer ..... there will be a new meaning for "shake and bake".

Not to mention Highways 14 and 58 will be shutdown due to damage/destruction, so this city will be on its own.
 

Attachments

  • PIA02733a.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 116

I didn't even notice that!!! Good catch. Now I don't know what Graeme was asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Phantom Menace, Should The F-104 Starfighter Have Been The USAF's Air Superiority Fighter?
Replies
0
Views
510
Lucky13
M
Fixing an F-80 Problem
Replies
2
Views
472
SaparotRob
A
Why was F-104 considered suitable for strike roles?
Replies
4
Views
1K
PStickney
P
F-5 Freedom Fighter Jet. Northrop Supersonic Light Warbird | Documentary
Replies
2
Views
445
Gnomey
F-86H Sabre Restoration
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Sabrejet
Menu
Log in
Register