F-104 Starfighter.....

I stand corrected, Butters. While the Luftwaffe F-104Fs are utterly gorgeous, this CF-104 is butt-ass-ugly. How such beautiful lines can be so arbitrarily destroyed. Oh the humanity...

My goodness - it's like a flying chess board

Hi Mkloby,

>A crossover is not a part of tac turns.

Hm, when projected into a two-dimensional plane, the flight paths of the two aircraft in one section certainly cross each other in Shaw's diagrams.

However, Shaw also lists a "cross turn" in which the two aircraft turn into each other - maybe that's what you know as "crossover"?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

HoHun said:

Hi Mkloby,

>A crossover is not a part of tac turns.

Hm, when projected into a two-dimensional plane, the flight paths of the two aircraft in one section certainly cross each other in Shaw's diagrams.

However, Shaw also lists a "cross turn" in which the two aircraft turn into each other - maybe that's what you know as "crossover"?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Click to expand...

Howdy HoHun,
A crossover is simply increasing vertical separation and crossing from port to starboard side or vice versa, then decreasing that vertical separation.
This is a different maneuver from the cross turn.

Don't forget, both time, vertical, and horizontal separation factor into deconfliction.

Hi Mkloby,

>A crossover is simply increasing vertical separation and crossing from port to starboard side or vice versa, then decreasing that vertical separation.

Well, then simply read the non-formal "crossing over" where I wrote "cross-over" above. Shaw at least doesn't formally define "cross-over".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Matt308 said:

What is left out of the cartoon is the rather large loop diameter of the F-104. Assuming that the two F-104s succeed in initiating the attack at the beginning of the rolling-loop, the red airplanes will likely immediately break. As the F-104s with their poor loop performance complete their maneuver they will likely NOT end up in a zero deflection rear engagement. I'm no F-104 pilot by any stretch, but imagine the F-104 to fight similarly as the P-38. Energy management is its forte'. You wouldn't want to fight in a Luftberry with a Starfighter. But you would definitely want to fight in slashing attacks. Phonebooth tactics are sure killers to a Starfighter pilot. But cloverleafs and altitude preserve the F-104s advantage.

Click to expand...

As he did in WW2 Tony LeVier went around to various bases showing pilots how to fly the F-104.

Matt308 said:

I stand corrected, Butters. While the Luftwaffe F-104Fs are utterly gorgeous, this CF-104 is butt-ass-ugly. How such beautiful lines can be so arbitrarily destroyed. Oh the humanity...

Click to expand...

now don't these look purty 421 Red Indian Sqn, 441 the Silver Foxes in the check and 439 Sqn Sabre Tooth Tigers

Unfortunately the 104 garnered a reputation over time as a "killer" a/c and it is time this unfair reputation was put squarely in perspective
it was extremely honest aircraft as long as it was flown in the boundaries of its flight envelope and was treated with respect .

Click to expand...

Well, the same could be said about any jet fighter, some are more forgiving than the F-104.

It was utterly dependable When teh 104 entered service in the early 60's the technology afforded by the aircraft was quantum leap over over other the earlier over the earlier vintage jet a/c then in service and it took some time for the operators and maintainers to come ti grips with this new technology it made on pilot and technician alike and the The canadian accident rate is comparable to that of to other NATO member' s who operated the 104 .Although 113 of the 238 CF 104's were destroyed to In accidents during Canadian service it must remembered be remembered that this record represents 25 years continuous service In a very demanding enviroment

Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pain but the canadian loss rate was nearly 49 %, it closest worst would be the Luftwaffe 36% wich also worked during 28 years of service.

For example I can think i a more demanding enviroment the war operation, and war operations in the Soth atlanctic bad weather, Argentina lost nearly 140 aircrafts but only 4 in accidents 1 Skyhawk, 1 Mirage III and two mirage V.
And I dont think canadian pilots were dumb, so my conclusion...there is something about the F-104, something not good at all.

I found this little tongue in cheek tale in my "archives" it takes place after a little bash the previous evening
Puresome being the F8 jock
"Puresomes hop was with no less then the Canadian Skipper, who must have noticed with satisfaction that the green hue of the Yanks face almost matched the skippers flight suit. Luckily it was simple Crusader vs CF 104 capability flight involving canned set ups . With no complicated air traffic control procedures to get in the way of things the two aircraft were to take off , join up, steam directly into the operating area and get on with the program. "no tricky stuff " Puresome thought as he sucked down lots of black coffee.
"the aircraft should be ready straightaway so lets get cracking eh?" said the skipper as he finished up the briefing
"righty Oh!" Puresome responded in his best imitation of f/L Bently-Smythe off to have a go at the Hun. He hoped the combination of caffiene and 100% oxygen in the aircraft would give him the will to live and kick serious butt. Now if he could only talk the cherry picker crash crane into hooking on to his torso harness D ring and gently lifting him into his Crusader cockpit.
It was filthy work but it had to be done . Puresome was feeling better after take off as he joined on the CF104 while they both climbed to 20000ft. The first set up was for the F8 to split and gain separation from the '104. Youthly was to turn in , lock up the starfighter on his radar and call out ranges as the 2 closed .When the Canadian thought he could force an overshoot , he would turn into the F8 and the fight would be on.
Puresome lit the burneras he turned in and locked up the cf 104, dutifully calling of ranges as he bored. Finally the starfighters wing went up as he turned in the F8 , hoping to cause an overshoot . It didn't happen , Puresome didn't have to high yo-yo , lo yo or do anything other then a hard level turn straight on to the 104's 6 oclock before calling" Fox 2'
Puresome could almost see the question mark appear above the skippers canopy.
The excercise proved that the crusader turned a whole lot better then the Starfighter > Puresome wasn't used to being able to outturn dissimililar aircraft and thought this was pretty neat. Of course the 104 was designed to be a bottle rocket go fast interceptor and the Canadians used it as high speed low level strike fighter. As the early fights showed the Starfighter could not escape the crusader by zooming to the moon and half flapping over the top - the F8 would just cut across the top of the arc and catch the 104 on the way down. . In the usual air combat speed regimes the 104 didn't have aspeed advantage . But the learning curve went up quickly the canadians took advantage of their low frontal cross section to point straight at the Crusader and go invisible > they would try to blow by at the speed of heat disappear and come back in the fight from an unexpected direction. They also took advantage of their knowledge of the operating area to be as sneeky as possible . Puresomes task was to never let a 104 get head on and if he lost sight to get up into the contrail layer so the bad guy would follow and leave a track"

CharlesBronson said:

Well, the same could be said about any jet fighter, some are more forgiving than the F-104.



Sorry to be a pain but the canadian loss rate was nearly 49 %, it closest worst would be the Luftwaffe 36% wich also worked during 28 years of service.

For example I can think i a more demanding enviroment the war operation, and war operations in the Soth atlanctic bad weather, Argentina lost nearly 140 aircrafts but only 4 in accidents 1 Skyhawk, 1 Mirage III and two mirage V.
And I dont think canadian pilots were dumb, so my conclusion...there is something about the F-104, something not good at all.

Click to expand...

It was used as low level strike aircraft over ground not sea level that is different enviroment then Argentinian aircraft were used in ,

CharlesBronson said:

Sorry to be a pain but the canadian loss rate was nearly 49 %, it closest worst would be the Luftwaffe 36% wich also worked during 28 years of service.

Click to expand...

To make an accurate assessment you have to factor in flight hours. Although Canada lost almost half of their -104s, they were flying the p!ss out of them![/QUOTE]

This is from Bashow's 'Starfighter':

"Of the 110 "A" Category accidents, 21 were due to FOD (of which 14 were directly attributable to birdstrikes), 14 were due to in-flight engine failures, 6 were directly caused by faulty maintenance, and 9 were lost in mid-air collisions. A full 32 struck the ground for one reason or another while flying at low level, usually under adverse or deteriorating weather conditions"

All together, 37 pilots were killed flying the CF-104 in its 25 year operational career. This can be compared to the 112 RCAF pilots killed flying the F-86, which incurred 282 "A" Category accidents over a 12 year career in a much less demanding, single-role, high altitude environment.

Nobody calls the Sabre a 'widow-maker'...

JL

Great info Butters! I was even going to ask if anyone had info on Sabre and CF-100 ops compared to the -104.

...and for the record, Pb. Those are beauties aren't they.

Thanks for all the replies.

Some comment:

It was used as low level strike aircraft over ground not sea level that is different enviroment then Argentinian aircraft were used in ,

Click to expand...

Well actually the argentine were used in both enviroments, they had to cross the mainlad of the Falklands/Malvinas ( wich is plenty in hills) from west to east at low level to avoid detection. And take in consideration the the Mirages had no inflight refueling device so they were packed with fuel, one 1300 liters and 2 x 1700 liters and 2 x250 kg bombs. A load load exceeding 5000 kg ( the hanbook recomended a max load of 4000 kg), the wheels ball bearings only lasted two take off with their landings with that load.

To make an accurate assessment you have to factor in flight hours. Although Canada lost almost half of their -104s, they were flying the p!ss out of them!

Click to expand...

Okay, but did they flew more than Luftwaffe ?

CharlesBronson said:

Okay, but did they flew more than Luftwaffe ?

Click to expand...

the German 104's had about 2000hrs on each airframe the Canadian ones were about 6000hr and to put it in perspective thats about 6000 sorties the 104 was a very impressive strike fighter with hard to see and hard to catch , maybe the 104 with that performance would been just the ticket for the Malvinas personally I IMHO believe it would be far better at that role then the Mirage III

Those airframes were wasted !! , thanks for the info.

I would love to had Starfighters in 1960s and 1970s for quick reaction agaisnt intruder crossing the andes but honetsly I dont think the F-104 had the range or payload to be a more decent attack aircraft than the french craft. It had the electronics I give you that.

CharlesBronson said:

Those airframes were wasted !! , thanks for the info.

I would love to had Starfighters in 1960s and 1970s for quick reaction agaisnt intruder crossing the andes but honetsly I dont think the F-104 had the range or payload to be a more decent attack aircraft than the french craft. It had the electronics I give you that.

Click to expand...

Remember the German Navy used them as a maritime strike aircraft and the range should be able to get to Malvinas and depending on the crews maybe a better weapons platform due to its lo level capabilities

Here's an explanation for the unique sound of the '104. From Bashow's, "Starfighter", as usual...

"Noise was a part of the unique personality of the '104. It made distinctive sounds that manifested themselves on engine run-up and in the overhead break. On run-up, the 15,800 pound thrust General Electric J-79 engine made an unearthly shriek that was dubbed the "moose call" because it sounded exactly like a moose in rutting season, and became a cause for nervous banter during the moose-breeding season in northern Alberta where we were based. Perhaps even more distinctive was the unique, supernatural moaning sound, like the wail of a wounded banshee, made by the '104 in the overhead-break for landing. Sometimes it's a pity to let science get in the way of romanticism. Unfortunately, both the moose call on engine run-up and the moaning in the overhead break had a technical explanation. The "moose" was due to a rapid repositioning of the engine inlet guide vanes; and the "moaning", I am told, was due to disturbed airflow over the engine air bypass flaps. But to those of us who flew her and lived around her, this was just more '104 magic."

JL

Great post Butters.