F-104 Starfighter.....

[CharlesBronson]

The most impressive part of that video, CB, was that the little stubby winged F-104 could actually achieve 54,000ft altitude

Using the calculator that gives me 16459 meters, yes, it is amazing for such loaded tiny aircraft, even a F-104 detractor like me had to recognize that. Pure engine power I guess.

 

[Matt308]

It also did a 103000 in NASA and the RCAF was in the high 90's

Yeah but that's just a zoom to altitude, not sustained flight. 54,000ft with those little wings is most impressive. I bet at that altitude that Vs and Vmo are REAL damn close.

 

[batcocan]

The 104 is one of the most beautiful aircraft to grace the skies-I remember as a kid watching them fly at the Trenton Ontario Airshows back in the day. Here are some picture I saw on the web of some RCAF machines-so is anyone going to post the 104 sequence form "The Right Stuff"?
Cheers,
Matthew

 

[Butters]

Batcocan,

I like the picture of the Argus on your siggy. I lived near CFB Greenwood, NS in the mid-'70's, and the roar of those huge radials thundering overhead at a couple hundred feet was pretty impressive. Not easy to sleep thru, tho...

JL

 

[butcher bird]

f-104 is more beautifull than f-14 or any other fighter, interceptor, bomber, spaceship... whatever... f-104 is the best design ever made.
very unstable aircraft. killed many a good pilot
in second on my rank i put the mirage III

3° f-4 phanton
4° mig 25 foxbat
5° f-14 tomcat
6° f-106 delta dart
7° mig 21
8° f-100 super sabre
9° mig 23 flogger
10° tornado

anyway, starfighter, the best of the best designs. i also like that "chromed" looking of ancient usaf jets. its very pretty, like a silver bullet.

very unstable. hard to fly. killed a many good pilot. called the widow maker

 

[FLYBOYJ]

very unstable. hard to fly. killed a many good pilot. called the widow maker

Please explain....

Unstable? In what flight regime? Landing? Takeoff? Low Level? By the 1980s the F-104 has a better attrition rate than most of the other fighters serving NATO. The Spanish AF never lost one and the Italians built the last ones up till 1989, so tell us how you come up with this summation?

 

[Stitch]

Yeah but that's just a zoom to altitude, not sustained flight. 54,000ft with those little wings is most impressive. I bet at that altitude that Vs and Vmo are REAL damn close.

Yes, it was; I know that computer flight simulators aren't the real thing, but whenever I've been that high in a simulated F-104, you REALLY didn't want to do any kind of manuevering at altitude, or that tiny wing would stall out on you. And, with the -104, you usually wouldn't recover for 10,000 or 15,000 feet.

 

[Butters]

Everything I've read stresses the superb stability of the '104, esp during hi-speed low level flight. It was however, very unforgiving when pushed beyond its handling limits.

JL

 

[batcocan]

Starfighter Sequence from The Right Stuff

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlsWD1-fmIk

Batcocan,

I like the picture of the Argus on your siggy. I lived near CFB Greenwood, NS in the mid-'70's, and the roar of those huge radials thundering overhead at a couple hundred feet was pretty impressive. Not easy to sleep thru, tho...

JL

Thanks Butters! I'm glad someone remembers the old Argus
I wish I was out in NS-much better than the Greater Toronto area where I am!
Cheers,
Matthew

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm glad someone remembers the old Argus

I remember the Argus - I built the first 18 CP-140s that replaced it.

 

[Matt308]

Yes, it was; I know that computer flight simulators aren't the real thing, but whenever I've been that high in a simulated F-104, you REALLY didn't want to do any kind of manuevering at altitude, or that tiny wing would stall out on you. And, with the -104, you usually wouldn't recover for 10,000 or 15,000 feet.

Stitch you know that I have to comment on your "simulator" reference. Personally I would refrain from making references based upon games. I understand that game designers attempt to simulate aircraft performance, but that simulation is most often compromised for game playability. Therefore, game simulators are a very poor reference for real world comparisons.

 

[Stitch]

Matt, I would have been disappointed in you if you HADN'T said something about my reference to a "simulator". Yes, I know simulators are a long way from the real thing, and I will try and refrain myself from referring to "simulators" again.

 

[Z06vette]

"Snake" Reaves lived just behind me in Palmdale in the late 50's and 60's and I babysat his daughters Glenda and Toni several times. He was a super guy, hard to get to know but he was a tremendous pilot, I saw him fly many times. I have these huge pictures of with the F-104. He had me come to toe flight line one night when he was teaching the Germans pilots the F-104 and I was able to enjoy all the moments of his flight that night. he Germans did not do so well with this A/C had many accidents due to overconfidence in an A/C that is very unforgiving.. I was at a test pilots dinner in Lancaster CA back in I am guessing 2001 or so and I asked I think it was Tony LeVier or "Fish" Salmon what happened to Glen and I was told the unfortunate thing that he died of a heart attack selling bibles door to door. I was so sad. I often wonder what Glenda and Toni are doing. Wish I had contact.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was at a test pilots dinner in Lancaster CA back in I am guessing 2001 or so and I asked I think it was Tony LeVier or "Fish" Salmon what happened to Glen and I was told the unfortunate thing that he died of a heart attack selling bibles door to door.

Tony died in 1998, Fish died in 1980.

 

[razor1uk]

IIRC...
Eric Hartman retired in protest from the Bundeswaffe (my incorrect term for the post WW2 Luftwaffe) because he as then General/Head of Fighters, he was opposed the 104 being accepted for German service;
From his combat experiences and his personal evaluation/perception of its restricted combat maneovering envelope and he noted how it possessed some dangerous handling traits, in particular when landing, which would, when in WW3 combat, could lead to a wastage... of pilots, training, fuel, aircraft overal, money; due to wartime operational exigences leading to lesser trained/houred pilots to make up the numbers.

I suppose, it seemed to him from my point of view, to mix the combat/tactical landing loss risks limitations of the Me262, along with a small combat range ala 163 style verses other available NATO A/C designs.

Some of which was borne out by increased suseptability to tip vorticies effecting its stability lift - which caused IIRC, at the least, the loss of a chase pilot and an XB-70's and its test crew in the US, let alone other losses.

This led to some incidents and many laundry bills (for those whom survived) when landing in close formation, bad weather conditions and/or within too short an spacing interval for the trailing tip vortices to dissapate in the viscinity of the runway - leading to a sudden drop lift and dutch roll problems.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

IIRC...
Eric Hartman retired in protest from the Bundeswaffe (my incorrect term for the post WW2 Luftwaffe) because he as then General/Head of Fighters, he was opposed the 104 being accepted for German service;
From his combat experiences and his personal evaluation/perception of its restricted combat maneovering envelope and he noted how it possessed some dangerous handling traits, in particular when landing, which would, when in WW3 combat, could lead to a wastage... of pilots, training, fuel, aircraft overal, money; due to wartime operational exigences leading to lesser trained/houred pilots to make up the numbers.

I suppose, it seemed to him from my point of view, to mix the combat/tactical landing loss risks limitations of the Me262, along with a small combat range ala 163 style verses other available NATO A/C designs.

Some of which was borne out by increased suseptability to tip vorticies effecting its stability lift - which caused IIRC, at the least, the loss of a chase pilot and an XB-70's and its test crew in the US, let alone other losses.

This led to some incidents and many laundry bills (for those whom survived) when landing in close formation, bad weather conditions and/or within too short an spacing interval for the trailing tip vortices to dissapate in the viscinity of the runway - leading to a sudden drop lift and dutch roll problems.

When the F-104 entered service in Europe, it was placed in a position to become a multi role fighter, something it was never designed for. Outside of the mis-guided political aspects of its procurements and eventual deployment the aircraft eventually served well but was very unforgiving. Training was the key factor for its ultimate success and I know many pilots who flew the -104 and just loved it. From an earlier post on this thread...

"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 percent, if you factor in Greece and Turkey it raises to 2.14 - Now how about Japan? Their attrition rate average .068 throughout their 20 year operational history!!!

Compare these numbers with other aircraft. I think NATO operators of F-100s had over a 4% attrition rate."

As far as the F-104s flight characteristics being a cause of the XB-70 crash? Total nonsense.


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

No one could fully explain why Walker "tucked" under the XB-70 but I can tell you no "tip vortices effecting its stability lift" at least from the -104 caused that crash. According from what I read the actual accident report says that the F-104 was caught up in the 'compression lift' from the XB-70s wings. Any of those aircraft flying in that formation that day could have been in that mis hap, it had nothing to do with the F-104 or its flight characteristics.

 

[razor1uk]

Ok, I'll go with that.
I'm not intending to slate this aircraft nor contradict all those whom enjoyed it; I mean the great Clarence Johnson did design it very well for its intended role as a interceptor.
And much rocketry testing of profiles, strutures along with more regular development testing done for this aircraft set the standard to follow for aerial R&D of the time.
But I'm sure too that I have read somewhere, (or more likely gathered/interpreted from reading) that due to its short span wings, that it could suffer from greater than normaly accepted vortex disturbance to its own tip votices; which when normal, assisted its controllabilty lift - akin to using the vortecies in way to trap the main part of the airflow lift over the roots and the wing instead of a using a boundary/'defector' plate(s) which were also aided by its blown flaps tailplane systems.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Features/2008/XB-70.html
Similarly related - 4/5th's down for some ideas of large A/C affecting smaller A/C's
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-14-DFRC.html

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ok, I'll go with that.
I'm not intending to slate this aircraft nor contradict all those whom enjoyed it; I mean the great Clarence Johnson did design it very well for its intended role as a interceptor.
And much rocketry testing of profiles, strutures along with more regular development testing done for this aircraft set the standard to follow for aerial R&D of the time.
But I'm sure too that I have read somewhere, (or more likely gathered/interpreted from reading) that due to its short span wings, that it could suffer from greater than normaly accepted vortex disturbance to its own tip votices; which when normal, assisted its controllabilty lift - akin to using the vortecies in way to trap the main part of the airflow lift over the roots and the wing instead of a using a boundary/'defector' plate(s) which were also aided by its blown flaps tailplane systems.

With or without wing tanks or missile rails? At what speeds? Vortices and vortex disturbance varies with speed and wing tip configuration. The -104 had no band aid assistance like fences or boundary layer tools so you had to fly the aircraft precise. Once that was figured out the aircraft performed well.

 

[razor1uk]

I stand corrected - thought it had flaps and tail blown at low/landing speeds - not that that if it did, that they'd be active during normal flight - a slight wastage of engine power.

 

[CharlesBronson]

IIRC...
Eric Hartman retired in protest from the Bundeswaffe (my incorrect term for the post WW2 Luftwaffe) because he as then General/Head of Fighters, he was opposed the 104 being accepted for German service;
From his combat experiences and his personal evaluation/perception of its restricted combat maneovering envelope and he noted how it possessed some dangerous handling traits, in particular when landing, which would, when in WW3 combat, could lead to a wastage... of pilots, training, fuel, aircraft overal, money; due to wartime operational exigences leading to lesser trained/houred pilots to make up the numbers.

I suppose, it seemed to him from my point of view, to mix the combat/tactical landing loss risks limitations of the Me262, along with a small combat range ala 163 style verses other available NATO A/C designs.

Some of which was borne out by increased suseptability to tip vorticies effecting its stability lift - which caused IIRC, at the least, the loss of a chase pilot and an XB-70's and its test crew in the US, let alone other losses.

This led to some incidents and many laundry bills (for those whom survived) when landing in close formation, bad weather conditions and/or within too short an spacing interval for the trailing tip vortices to dissapate in the viscinity of the runway - leading to a sudden drop lift and dutch roll problems.

Here we can see Hartmann...the look on his face tell us that he was less than convinced about that aircraft.