CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
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.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The most impressive part of that video, CB, was that the little stubby winged F-104 could actually achieve 54,000ft altitude
It also did a 103000 in NASA and the RCAF was in the high 90's
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.
Please explain....very unstable. hard to fly. killed a many good pilot. called the widow maker
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,
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
I remember the Argus - I built the first 18 CP-140s that replaced it.I'm glad someone remembers the old Argus
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.
Tony died in 1998, Fish died in 1980.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.
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.
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.
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.