pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
I believe only the early USAF 104's fired downwards but i could be wrong . Nato forces flew the G's and I would think they all fired up.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I believe only the early USAF 104's fired downwards but i could be wrong . Nato forces flew the G's and I would think they all fired up.From Bill Gunston's 'Fighters of the Fifties' re F-104;
"There was, however, one large drawback on the whole programme. Largely because pilots and ground crews were generally inexperienced, the Luftwaffe suffered unacceptable loss-rates, the figure in 1962 being 139 per 100,000 hours. Even in the mid-1960s a Starfighter crashed roughly every ten days, and in many cases the pilot was killed. There followed a political battle to fit the British Martin-Baker ejection seat. American (Lockheed/USAF) pressure prevented it until 1967 (by which time the Danes had quietly had British seats already fitted) when, with no publicity by the British company, they fitted the reliable GQ-7 seat to the Italian and then the German Starfighters".
Originally the seats fired downwards. Which way did the Canadian version 'fire'?
The thing was fast at 940k you'd probably have about 5 minutes fuel I believe it held the lo level speed record at around 1200knots.
The RCAF selected the 104 no kickbacks involved and it was not as an interceptor it was purchased as tacticle nuclear strike weapon . The Lightning was a good aircraft but had as one pilot put it "room for your ass and a gallon of gas" or if you bailed out you were always a $5 cab ride awy from your base
Canada was supplied nukes by the US up until the late 70's the cf101 also used nukes in the Genie missleCanada officially doesn't have nukes so buying the F-104 as a nuclear bomber seems a bit rum.
Where did the nukes come from and did Canada have control once they had them?
Jane's mentions that Greenamyer's F-104 was "subsequently destroyed"
Do you know what happened?
he went up to altitude and punched out.
If he was low and in 'trouble' could he have quickly inverted the plane and ejected? Or am I not comprehending how difficult that manoeuvre would be?
I worked for the savage company that picked up the wreckage. There were rumours the aircraft was worth more destroyed than it was being operated.Greenamyer was said to have a landing gear problem and rather than belly in (He had a downward ejection seat) he went up to altitude and punched out.
The "offical" story....The reason he didn't attempt to belly-land was not because of the ejection seat, but because the main fuel lines ran along the bottom of the aircraft in between the main wheel wells, and they didn't want to risk a belly landing and a potential catastrophe; it was safer for Greenamyer to punch out at altitude rather than to try land.
The "offical" story....
Oh . . . I suppose we'll never know the "truth".
Canada was supplied nukes by the US up until the late 70's the cf101 also used nukes in the Genie missle
Hi everyone,
Thanks for the great discussion!Though inevitably, some posts didn't even mention the TSR-2, I think they're on topic just the same as the capabilities of contemporary designs are important for an evaluation, too!
So it seems that no one here really thinks that there were any insurmountable problems with the TSR-2, regardless of whether it was the right design for the role. I'd say that from your comments, the level of mismanagement and the margin of the cost overrun of the TSR-2 seems to have been nothing special compared to that of other contemporary projects, especially the F-111 which was designed in the USA for the same role.
Does that sound like a reasonable summary?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)