What was so bad about the Luftwaffe Starfighters?
Rob Arndt
main argument or complaint?
I know the Luftwaffe lost 69 a/c in the first 4 years of operation
earning it the widowmaker nickname but that IMO is unjustified. The
accident rate for all operators was of the time period was roughly the
same, so why single the Germans out?
Even so, the accident rate was lower for the Starfighter than its
contemporaries...
Rob
Friedrich Ostertag
> Apart from schemes like the ZELL zero-length launchers, what is the
> main argument or complaint?
There was never a single reason identified (and consequently none could be
eliminated to solve the problem). It all comes down to the plane not being
suited to the task given to it. The starfighter was designed as an
interceptor: Fast and light, yet slippery. The Luftwaffe turned it into an
allweather bomber weapons platform. The plane (which already had a high wing
loading and high stall speed without the heavy weaponry) was overloaded
physically, and the pilot had to perform the tasks normally given to a crew
of two (like e.g. in the F4).
> I know the Luftwaffe lost 69 a/c in the first 4 years of operation
> earning it the widowmaker nickname but that IMO is unjustified. The
> accident rate for all operators was of the time period was roughly the
> same, so why single the Germans out?
That's not what I heard, other forces didn't have that high accident rate,
yet they used it in a different role.
> Even so, the accident rate was lower for the Starfighter than its
> contemporaries...
not in Germany, which also empoyed F4s at the time at a much lower accident
rate.
regards,
Friedrich
Ed Rasimus
<newsos...@entfernenonlinehome.de> wrote:
>Rob Arndt wrote:
>> Apart from schemes like the ZELL zero-length launchers, what is the
>> main argument or complaint?
I don't know that anyone ever tried ZEL with the F-104. It was done
successfully with the F-100--my good friend, Bob Titus, flew the
tests.
>
>There was never a single reason identified (and consequently none could be
>eliminated to solve the problem). It all comes down to the plane not being
>suited to the task given to it. The starfighter was designed as an
>interceptor: Fast and light, yet slippery. The Luftwaffe turned it into an
>allweather bomber weapons platform. The plane (which already had a high wing
>loading and high stall speed without the heavy weaponry) was overloaded
>physically, and the pilot had to perform the tasks normally given to a crew
>of two (like e.g. in the F4).
The German build was a much different aircraft than the F-104A that
the USAF flew. It incorporated virtually the same radar, nav,
auto-pilot, and nuke bombing avionics that the F-105D had.
The tasks necessary to fly the single ship strike mission were handled
quite well by one man in the F-100 and F-105 which were
contemporaneous with the first years of Luftwaffe experience.
>
>> I know the Luftwaffe lost 69 a/c in the first 4 years of operation
>> earning it the widowmaker nickname but that IMO is unjustified. The
>> accident rate for all operators was of the time period was roughly the
>> same, so why single the Germans out?
The other operators generally took delivery several years after the
Luftwaffe's growing pains.
>
>That's not what I heard, other forces didn't have that high accident rate,
>yet they used it in a different role.
The other users almost all employed the F-104 in the nuclear alert
role. That would include Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy,
Greece and Turkey.
The Nationalist Chinese used it for air defense and in later years the
Italians developed the F-104S which incorporated the AIM-7E Sparrow
for air defense.
>
>> Even so, the accident rate was lower for the Starfighter than its
>> contemporaries...
>
>not in Germany, which also empoyed F4s at the time at a much lower accident
>rate.
Germany didn't adopt the F-4 until a couple of decades later. They
weren't operated simultanously in the '60s, '70s or until the
mid-'80s.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Benjamin Gawert
> Apart from schemes like the ZELL zero-length launchers, what is the
> main argument or complaint?
>
> I know the Luftwaffe lost 69 a/c in the first 4 years of operation
> earning it the widowmaker nickname but that IMO is unjustified. The
> accident rate for all operators was of the time period was roughly the
> same, so why single the Germans out?
For two reasons: lack of training/experience and abusing the aircraft.
The F-104G was built in license by MBB in Germany. The whole project
however was plagued by delays and problems (for example quality issues
with US supplied parts). So it wasn't rare that pilots were trained and
after that passed on a desk job for one or two years until their
aircrafts arrived. Then there were lackings in the training program.
Such things are especially bad with an aircraft unvorgiving like the F-104.
Another problem was that the Starfighter was bought not because it
fitted the GAF needs best but because of bribing. The GAF tried to make
the Starfighter an all-weather multirole combat aircraft with primary
bomber role which just didn't work out. There also were issues with
maintenance problems and quality control which lead to accidents.
> Even so, the accident rate was lower for the Starfighter than its
> contemporaries...
The GAF had similar fatalities when the F-4 was intruced but that didn't
make it into the press like it did with the Starfighter. With the
introduction of the Tornado the whole training and maintenance thing has
been reworked (incl. the one for the F-4) which resulted in a much
lowered accident rate.
Benjamin
Rob Arndt
German Starfighter book from Motorbooks:
http://www.ecampus.com/map/1857801245
Thanks for the info. I am going to buy this book. Should be an
interesting read.
Also, here is another view of the accident rate:
In Luftwaffe service, the F-104G got a bad reputation because of the
large number of accidents, many of them resulting in fatalities.
Intensive flying operations with the Starfighter did not start in
Germany until 1961, when only two crashes took place. There were seven
crashes in 1962, 12 in 1964, and 28 in 1965, or more than two a month.
By mid-1966, 61 German Starfighters had crashed, with a loss of 35
pilots. At the height of the crisis, the Starfighter accident rate
peaked at 139 per 100,000 flying hours. As a result, the German press
went into a feeding frenzy and the F-104G was given derogatory
nicknames such as the "Flying Coffin" or the "Widowmaker", which
brings to mind all of the flak that surrounded the Martin B-26
Marauder during World War 2. One running joke at the time was that if
you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would
have a Starfighter crash onto it. The press left many people with the
impression that there was something intrinsically wrong with the
F-104G, that it was just too difficult an airplane to fly for the new
and relatively inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots. The high loss rate
generated a flurry of criticism of the Bonn government, some critics
claiming that the entire Starfighter program had been politically-
motivated and should be cancelled outright.
During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270
German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of
the total force. About 110 pilots were killed. However, the attrition
rate in German service was not all that much greater than that of the
F-104 in service with several other air forces, including the United
States Air Force. Canada had the unenviable record of losing over 50
percent of its 200 single-seat CF-104s in flying accidents. The loss
rate of Luftwaffe Starfighters was not all that extraordinary, since
the Luftwaffe had suffered a 36 percent attrition rate with the
Republic F-84F Thunderstreak, the Starfighter's immediate predecessor.
There was nothing intrinsically dangerous about the Starfighter, since
the Royal Norwegian Air Force operating identical F-104Gs suffered
only six losses in 56,000 flying hours, and the Spanish Air Force lost
not a single one of its Starfighters to accidents.
Nevertheless, some of the Luftwaffe crashes could indeed be traced to
technical problems with the F-104G itself. Engine problems, including
difficulties with the J79's variable afterburner nozzle, and
contamination of the Starfighter's liquid oxygen system causing loss
of consciousness of the pilot were listed as contributing factors in
some of the accidents. There were also problems with the automatic
pitch-up limiter during high-speed low-altitude flying and in tight
turns, resulting in its temporary removal, with accompanying
restrictions on the maneuverability.
Rob
WaltBJ
all of which had to do with the airplane per se.
1) LW pilots were trained at Luke AFB, which has marvelously clear
weatehr quite unlike Europe.
2) Luke has nice long runways, generally about 3000 feet longer than
most European runways.
3) Training was generally done at lighter weights, carrying at the
most 2 external tanks.
4) LW ground crew were generally first-termers, as the majority left
after completing their initial enlistment since German industry,
especially the auto industry, was expanding rapidly and paid better
wages, besides being a civilian environment. This obviously had an
effect on maintenace reliability.
5) Despite training in the plane at Luke, flying a fully loaded G-
model off an 8000 foot runway was never a trivial matter. An emergency
on takeoff required a split-second response. The Lockheed C2A ejection
seat did not have a zero-zero capability and a delayed decision to
abort takeoff leading to an overrun and subsequent ejection was
generally non-survivable. Consider that at lift-off a 4-tanked G-model
is doing about 250 mph - say 370 feet per second - and about 2500-3000
feet of runway is left in front of the pilot - only a successful
barrier engagement will save the day.
6) Yes, the LW had experienced leaders, but the vast majority of their
104s were single-seat - and flown by second lieutenants. The
Starfighter was a very high performance aircraft and ideally should
have been limited to pilots with at least 1000 hours minimum in single-
engine jets.
7) As for aircraft and engine design problems, they were mostly weeded
out by USAF experience with the F1-04A.
I cite a few:
a. Inlet guide vane control box failures leading to wide open IGVS and
stall below 95% rpm.
b. That miserable downward seat - oddly enough an attempt to eject
downwards at low altitude after IGV failure led to the correct
emergency action. One of our pilots encountered a major compressor
stall at low altitude, jerked the throttle to idle, rolled to get an
seat upward trajectory, simultaneously slamming the throttle forward
from idle and Lo! the engine responded , accelerating to 100%. He got
some altitude, cautiously retarded the throttle, found it would stall
down around 90% every time. So he went home fast and dirtied up the
airplane and S-turned on final to keep the speed down below gear/flap
limits until he had the runway made then pulled power to idle and
greased the bird onto the ground. Well done, indeed! The procedure
went out to all 104 operators as an emergency TCTO.
c. Nozzle failure wide open due to engine oil leaks. GE fixed that
problem after a number of A-models were lost
d. Engine failures for the same reason.
e. AB light-off failure leading to adoption of the torch igniter.
f. Auto pitch control failures leading to stall-spin when encountered
by a ham-handed pilot. Note - APC failure usually doesn't show up at
high indicated airspeed because reaching that AOA at say 500 IAS will
seriously over-G the aircraft.
I pitched up twice due to APC failure but with 2500 hours in fighters
recovery was instantaneous. (Stick full forward instantly!) Note:
handled gently the airplane can be flown and maintained in 'reverse
command' where the stick must be moved forward to prevent pitch up.
This maneuver has very little tactical use.
g. Oxygen problems. Miscellaneous causes; contamination of LOX seems
odd to me. The early mask hose to ship's hose connector could
disconnect or never ever get hooked up and the pilot had no indication
he wasn't getting O2 unless he checked the blinker. General result,
unless his leader/wingman noticed he wasn't functioning properly - a
slow wingover into a vertical dive and no attempt to pull out. We lost
two pilots in the 319th to suspected hypoxia; with no idea as to the
cause, since the tell-tale fitting was incorporated prior to these
events. (There is a device in the connector that inhibits breathing
unless the mask hose is plugged in.)
---Regardless, I really enjoyed flying the airplane - and so do most
of its pilots, whatever model they flew.
Walt BJ
dump...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:25:42 +0100, "Friedrich Ostertag"
>
> >Rob Arndt wrote:
> The German build was a much different aircraft than the F-104A that
> the USAF flew. It incorporated virtually the same radar, nav,
> auto-pilot, and nuke bombing avionics that the F-105D had.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> www.thunderchief.org
> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
Would the Germans have been better off if they'd just bought
the F-105?
tomcervo
> Would the Germans have been better off if they'd just bought
> the F-105?
I believe Erich Hartmann asserted that the F-100 would have been a
better choice, to the point that it cost him his career--it wasn't the
insistance so much as being right that did him in.
Gordon Beaman
<walt...@mindspring.com> wrote:
snip
>events. (There is a device in the connector that inhibits breathing
>unless the mask hose is plugged in.)
>---Regardless, I really enjoyed flying the airplane - and so do most
>of its pilots, whatever model they flew.
>Walt BJ
Isn't it odd that such a small detail can ring a bell in someone's
memory?...I remember that little trick being installed in such lowly
aircraft oxy systems as the RCAF C119 back in 1956...two little metal
pins sticking out through slots in the 'plug-in fitting'...if the plug
wasn't inserted fully then the pins wouldn't lift the internal seal
from the hose and you couldn't draw air into the mask...quite
effective...
--
-Gord.
(use gordon in email)
"Perhaps my memory isn't what it
used to be - if it ever was"
.
Benjamin Gawert
> 6) Yes, the LW had experienced leaders, but the vast majority of their
> 104s were single-seat - and flown by second lieutenants.
At these days it wasn't necessary in the GAF to be a officer rank for
being a pilot. The majority of F-104Gs were piloted by enlisted
("Hauptgefreiter", "Stabsgefreiter", "Oberstabsgefreiter") or
sub-officer ranks ("Unteroffizier", "Stabsunteroffizier", sometimes also
"Feldwebel" ranks).
> ---Regardless, I really enjoyed flying the airplane - and so do most
> of its pilots, whatever model they flew.
Right. Most GAF pilots that flew the Starfighter get wet eyes when
talking about this aircraft. A general statement was that the Tornado
equals to a Mercedes and the Starfighter to a Porsche ;-)
Benjamin
Paul J. Adam
<3a6f196e-ac14-4cfc...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
WaltBJ <walt...@mindspring.com> writes
>---Regardless, I really enjoyed flying the airplane - and so do most
>of its pilots, whatever model they flew.
One of the enormous benefits of a forum like this is getting away from
the rehashed prejudices like "Starfighter = Widowmaker!" and learning
that it was actually a capable aircraft and popular with its crew.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
Rob Arndt
Sounds like the British pilots lamenting the loss of the Lightning-
THEIR Lightning.
Rob
Eunometic
> * Rob Arndt:
>
> > Apart from schemes like the ZELL zero-length launchers, what is the
> > main argument or complaint?
> Another problem was that the Starfighter was bought not because it
> fitted the GAF needs best but because of bribing.
I personally think the Luftwaffe would have been better of with its
first choice;
the British Saunders Roe SR.177 LOL
It is true however that US equipement was often chosen for economic
and political reasons, the Luftwaffe really needed a VTOL aircraft
such as the Harrier given the predicament of the country in the
frontline.
The Amaurotean Capitalist
<walt...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>There were several reasons for the LW's trouble with the F104G, not
>all of which had to do with the airplane per se.
[snip]
>4) LW ground crew were generally first-termers, as the majority left
>after completing their initial enlistment since German industry,
>especially the auto industry, was expanding rapidly and paid better
>wages, besides being a civilian environment. This obviously had an
>effect on maintenace reliability.
To add some second-hand anecdotal evidence to this FWIW, I was told
more than once by ex-RAF Erks that Luftwaffe F-104's would sometimes
land at Guttersloh or Wildenrath for minor maintainence checks for
precisely this reason. I was dubious that they would be in a position
to do anything substantive, but apparently there were basic hydraulic
and pneumatic systems checks that weren't being performed consistently
by the LW. The Erks in question blamed a small number of LW conscript
technicians at one base rather than any larger systematic failure.
Gavin Bailey
--
"To get a college degree, you must run a gauntlet of communist
professors." - Stuart Grey
Ed Rasimus
Rhetorical question. You can't buy what's not for sale.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>* WaltBJ:
>
>> 6) Yes, the LW had experienced leaders, but the vast majority of their
>> 104s were single-seat - and flown by second lieutenants.
>
>At these days it wasn't necessary in the GAF to be a officer rank for
>being a pilot. The majority of F-104Gs were piloted by enlisted
>("Hauptgefreiter", "Stabsgefreiter", "Oberstabsgefreiter") or
>sub-officer ranks ("Unteroffizier", "Stabsunteroffizier", sometimes also
> "Feldwebel" ranks).
You'd have to explain what "these days" period you're talking about
is.
The initial cadre when the aircraft was adopted in 1962 was upgrade of
experienced pilots from the F-84 units with a few from G-91s.
The training program that was then established had pilot candidates
from both Luftwaffe and German Navy attend undergraduate pilot
training at Williams AFB AZ and upon completion move across town to
Luke for F-104G operational training.
In 1964 when I went through UPT at Williams, one-third of every class
(that's around 15 out of 45-50 students starting every six weeks for
eight classes per year) was German. Of these there were a very small
number of enlisted pilot candidates--certainly far from the majority.
A major issue was the fact that every German who completed
undergraduate pilot training was guaranteed an F-104G assignment.
Conversely, among the USAF students, the assignments were competitive
and only the top five to ten percent of graduates earned single-seat
fighter slots. Typically two or three out of fifty students would get
a single-seat job.
The spread of talent for Germans was very similar to the talent of the
Americans--there were naturals, strong students, adequate performers,
and "just-barely" qualified folks. Putting some of these guys in
Zippers was a mistake.
>
>> ---Regardless, I really enjoyed flying the airplane - and so do most
>> of its pilots, whatever model they flew.
>
>Right. Most GAF pilots that flew the Starfighter get wet eyes when
>talking about this aircraft. A general statement was that the Tornado
>equals to a Mercedes and the Starfighter to a Porsche ;-)
Few would disagree with that!
Rob Arndt
The Luftwaffe and the a/c manufacturers DID have a wide range of V/
STOL a/c and rotorcraft of every kind to select from post-WW2 and yet
they either were not funded by the W German Govt; joint projects with
the the US and others failed; or the US simply offered cheaper off the
shelf military a/c than the more expensive German V/STOL R & D
efforts.
Due to being bombed more than anyone else in WW2, including Japan with
its two atomic bombs, W German designs were largely V/STOL types- I
think more than any other single nation in the world, including the US
as a percentage of overall a/c design. Even civil airliners proposed
were V/STOL. The Int. V/STOL Society records 94 designs plus more
subvariants postwar by W Germany by 13 manufacturers for V/STOL a/c
and rotorcraft.
One could question the German usage of the F-104; but then again, what
if they had just gotten funding for their own VTOL interceptor/fighter/
strike a/c?
Rob
Rob Arndt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sub-question on the German F-104s... any major difference between the
Marineflieger F-104s and the Luftwaffe's?
Rob
Benjamin Gawert
>> At these days it wasn't necessary in the GAF to be a officer rank for
>> being a pilot. The majority of F-104Gs were piloted by enlisted
>> ("Hauptgefreiter", "Stabsgefreiter", "Oberstabsgefreiter") or
>> sub-officer ranks ("Unteroffizier", "Stabsunteroffizier", sometimes also
>> "Feldwebel" ranks).
>
> You'd have to explain what "these days" period you're talking about
> is.
Primarily the period before 1982 when the Tornado was introduced in the GAF.
> A major issue was the fact that every German who completed
> undergraduate pilot training was guaranteed an F-104G assignment.
> Conversely, among the USAF students, the assignments were competitive
> and only the top five to ten percent of graduates earned single-seat
> fighter slots. Typically two or three out of fifty students would get
> a single-seat job.
>
> The spread of talent for Germans was very similar to the talent of the
> Americans--there were naturals, strong students, adequate performers,
> and "just-barely" qualified folks. Putting some of these guys in
> Zippers was a mistake.
Indeed it was, as time has shown. But at least we learned from our mistakes.
Benjamin
Mr.Smartypants
Wasn't it the F-104 that had to be rolled very slowly?
putting the brute into too fast a roll rate meant it couldn't be
recovered as it would just continue rolling.
tomcervo
> Right. Most GAF pilots that flew the Starfighter get wet eyes when
> talking about this aircraft. A general statement was that the Tornado
> equals to a Mercedes and the Starfighter to a Porsche ;-)
The Mercedes is the US is deemed as some super perfect luxury car--a
German Lexus--but in Germany I believe they are regarded as hightoned
Buicks--something you drive when you can't handle a REAL car.
Gordon Beaman
<rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:13:51 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Dec 1, 7:10 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:25:42 +0100, "Friedrich Ostertag"
>>>
>>> <newsoster...@entfernenonlinehome.de> wrote:
>>> >Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>>> The German build was a much different aircraft than the F-104A that
>>> the USAF flew. It incorporated virtually the same radar, nav,
>>> auto-pilot, and nuke bombing avionics that the F-105D had.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>> www.thunderchief.org
>>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>>Would the Germans have been better off if they'd just bought
>>the F-105?
>
>Rhetorical question. You can't buy what's not for sale.
>Ed Rasimus
Is it true what that chap stated about it's roll problem?...I'd think
that it'd be hell on wheels in the roll department what with that
excessive amount of anhedral...
WaltBJ
> Is it true what that chap stated about it's roll problem?...I'd think
> that it'd be hell on wheels in the roll department what with that
> excessive amount of anhedral...
SNIP:
The F104A-1 Flight Manual says the 104A is limited to one (1) may
deflection aileron roll. This, of course, is because of roll-yaw
coupling; ie, you'll start going sideways because of the longitudinal
moment of interia on all long skinny airplanes.
FWIW the max roll rate is about 420 degrees per second. AFIK only the
T38/F5 of all the USAF aircraft can roll faster.
>>>Also FWIW there's no tactical reason for more that 180, 270 of you want to roll under to reverse course fancifully..
Also more FWIW - to do a max rate roll and stop wings level you have
to first grip the canopy rail with the free hand to keep your upper
body from being slammed against the canopy rail by inertia and your
flying hand probably taking some stick out of the roll thus slowing it
down. Then, to stop wings-level, you must take out the ailerons about
90 degrees from wings level. To get such rates you of course must be
going fast, like 450 IAS. The rudder was pure mechanical but it did
help start and stop rolls, like in scissoring. Took brute force,
though.
Multiple rolls can be done safely at around 180 degrees per second.
For air shows we used to hang dummy missiles and insert smoke grenades
with electric squibs set off using the missile launch circuitry. Great
for a vertical rolling climb from .95 on the deck on up to 30+
leaving spiral smoke trails all the way up. A slower rate of roll left
a more graceful pattern in the sky. .
And before nanny-ism took over a supersonic pass at say 10 feet across
a big patch of flour or dry cement would leave kind of a tunnel of
dust hanging behind you. Being real low dampened the shock wave and
spared windows.
Dang, I miss that airplane and that kind of flying!
Walt BJ
WaltBJ
> > Another problem was that the Starfighter was bought not because it
> > fitted the GAF needs best but because of bribing.
>
> I personally think the Luftwaffe would have been better of with its
> first choice;
>
WaltBJ
>
>
The Saunders-Roe 177 would have been one hell of a performer but - HTP
is scary. And it was an interceptor. The F104G was, lets' face it, a
tactical nuke bomber. As such with 4 tanks used and dropped when empty
it could carry and deliver a nuke low-low-low considerably farther
than the F4 on the same profile. How about 440 TAS at 50 feet AGL for
400 miles out and 400 back . . .not too shabby!
>>
Who didn't bribe back then? At least Lockheed got their hand slapped
for it. And it is not like bribery has disappeared; it's just got
cuter.
>>
As for VTOL, look how long it took to make the Harrier into a half-way
decent airplane. Something potent was needed back in the 1960s, not 30
years later. And all those multi-jet designs using thrust and lift
jets would have been maintenance and supply nightmare, not to mention
cost. Even little jet engines cost a lot. The designs with the lift
jets on the wingtips were especially scary to a confirmed pessimist.
Which would you rather fly, a 104 or a Yak 38?
>>
One last comment on the Zipper - it was the only fighter I ever flew
where even the "squadron pig" would easily exceed every performance
red line. Oh yes, we also got every payday afternoon off since all the
birds were in commission except for AOCP - Aircraft Out of Comission
for Parts. And we had to wait on supply for that.
Walt BJ
Peter Stickney
It might be worth taking a look at the other candidates for the NATO slot
that got filled by the F-104G:
The requirement is for an airplane capable to performing Area Intercepts in
European weather, and Nuclear Strike and Recce.
The interceport mission requires a fast climb to altitude, cruise out under
GCI, fast acceleration, An Air/Air radar, and a couple of shot's worth of
missiles. (Figure early AAMs as being fired in pairs in order to give a
reasonable Pk.
The Strike/Recce mission requires high sped at low altitude, carrying a
single bomb or recon pod. It's needs Terrain Avoidance Radar, a no
external reference Nav system - INS or Doppler, and good efficiency in
high-mach cruise.
The candidates were -
EE Lighning F.1 - Great for acceleration & climb, marginally acceptable
Air/Air radar, adn 2 1st genration AAMS. No range to speak of.
No Air/Ground capability. Great for defending the end of its runway.
Dassault Mirage III - Everything in a Lightning and less - less
acceleration, primitive radar, and a single early R.530 missile - teh
missile that make an AIM-4 look like a No-Escape Killer. No attack ability
at all.
SR.177 - Amazing performance, with its HTP/Kerosene rocket, but otherwise,
the same as th e Lightning.
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger - the one with the J79. Good acceleration,
pretty good radar, 4 AIM-9s, 4 wing pylons. Carriage trials - hanging bombs
& missile on & flying them around have been completed, but separation
trials haven't.
Lockheed F-104G - Good acceleration & climb - holds time-to-climb records.
4 AIM-9s, NASAAR radar with Air/Air and Mapping/Terrain avoidance modes.
INS. 7 pylons, counting the wings. Has demonstrated Air/Air and Air/Ground
weapons delivery. With it s high wing loading (Low gust response) and low
drag, it could pretty much run anybody trying to intercept it on a strike
mission out of gas.
The only 2 airplanes that had a chance if fitting the spec were the F11F-1F
and the F-104G. The F11F had better handling and was a more forgiving
airplane, the F-104G was further along in its development cycle, and,
perhaps more important, the U.S. Navy wasn't too happy about Grumman
diverting effort from its Navy commitments.
The other possible candidates- the F-105D and F4H-1 Phantom, weren't
offerend for the competition.
So - bribery aside, it looks like, if you were a NATO Operations Planner,
the system that you'd push for is the F-104.
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion
Stephen Bierce
>pretty good radar, 4 AIM-9s, 4 wing pylons. Carriage trials - hanging bombs
>& missile on & flying them around have been completed, but separation
>trials haven't.
>
>and the F-104G. The F11F had better handling and was a more forgiving
>airplane, the F-104G was further along in its development cycle, and,
>perhaps more important, the U.S. Navy wasn't too happy about Grumman
>diverting effort from its Navy commitments.
>
>Without data, all you have is an opinion
The problem with Super Tiger was the fact that it had next to nothing in
the way of range. Precious little internal tankage; limited to only two
fuel pod pylons; dependent on in-flight refuelling; the J79 being a much
thirstier engine than the Sapphire it replaced.
Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}
Henry J Cobb
> I'm curious, was the F-104 an inexpensive plane for its time? Just
> wondering because of how widely it was used despite well known
> shortcomings.
Whose money?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-104g.htm
> F 104G components, paid for by MAP, would also be manufactured in the
> United States to support allied F-104 production.
...
> The F-104G had a Flyaway Cost Per Production Aircraft of $1.42
> million-airframe (including electronics, ordnance, and armament),
> $1,251,000; engine (installed), $169,000.
Dividing through by 0.182 we get $7.8 million today or 25 to the F-22.
-HJC
Leadfoot
"Ed Rasimus" <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ehi5l39ie0qbm37nh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:13:51 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Dec 1, 7:10 am, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:25:42 +0100, "Friedrich Ostertag"
>>>
>>> <newsoster...@entfernenonlinehome.de> wrote:
>>> >Rob Arndt wrote:
>>
>>> The German build was a much different aircraft than the F-104A that
>>> the USAF flew. It incorporated virtually the same radar, nav,
>>> auto-pilot, and nuke bombing avionics that the F-105D had.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ed Rasimus
>>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>>> www.thunderchief.org
>>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>>
>>Would the Germans have been better off if they'd just bought
>>the F-105?
>
> Rhetorical question. You can't buy what's not for sale.
Why was it not for sale?
Ed Rasimus
<go...@islandtelecom.com> wrote:
>Is it true what that chap stated about it's roll problem?...I'd think
>that it'd be hell on wheels in the roll department what with that
>excessive amount of anhedral...
You'll have to ask WaltBJ. I never got a ride in one.
The aircraft was built in the era of three-axis stab-augmentation
systems, so I'll assume it was about as stable as the other Century
Series types--if the system was working!
Ed Rasimus
<spamme...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>"Ed Rasimus" <rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:ehi5l39ie0qbm37nh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 18:13:51 -0800 (PST), dump...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> The German build was a much different aircraft than the F-104A that
>>>> the USAF flew. It incorporated virtually the same radar, nav,
>>>> auto-pilot, and nuke bombing avionics that the F-105D had.
>>>>
>>>> Ed Rasimus
>>>
>>>Would the Germans have been better off if they'd just bought
>>>the F-105?
>>
>> Rhetorical question. You can't buy what's not for sale.
>
>Why was it not for sale?
Pure conjecture, but I'd estimate first that it wasn't offered
initially because during that period US first line aircraft seldom
were offered. Typically the FMS market was dedicated to
end-of-production run types like the F-84, F-86, F-102 and F-100.
In 1958 when the initial production of the D model started (the
operational standard aircraft), the systems were very much
state-of-the-art and classified.
The initial growing pains of the F-105 and the high failure rates
(both aircraft accidents and avionics failures to perform) probably
made it less than attractive to a potential buyer.
When the MBB co-production agreement was reached, the technology of
the weapons control system had matured, the USAF had determined that
the F-104A and C were generally of only limited suitability for the
multi-mission role, and the F-105 wasn't in great favor.
USAF had gotten into production of the F-4, but with two engines and
two crew-members, a lot of European nations would be reluctant to opt
for the greater expenses involved.
Besides, given the choice of any jet of the period, what airplane had
more panache? When you can go from border to border in your country in
less than 30 minutes in a Zipper, who needs a bigger truck?
Benjamin Gawert
> The Mercedes is the US is deemed as some super perfect luxury car--a
> German Lexus--but in Germany I believe they are regarded as hightoned
> Buicks--something you drive when you can't handle a REAL car.
Well, at *that* time, yes. Mercedes basically was a Granppa car, with
the Mercedes star as target device. Probably something what a German
equivalent of Matlock would drive ;-)
As a side note, in this regard the comparison wasn't good. The Tornado
probably has much more "luxury" items (i.e. gizmos) that the F-104
didn't have but it definitely isn't an aircraft that someone flies who
can't handle a REAL aircraft. It's a good and reliable aircraft, but
definitely not easy to fly.
Benjamin
Douglas Eagleson
> Apart from schemes like the ZELL zero-length launchers, what is the
> main argument or complaint?
>
> I know the Luftwaffe lost 69 a/c in the first 4 years of operation
> earning it the widowmaker nickname but that IMO is unjustified. The
> accident rate for all operators was of the time period was roughly the
> same, so why single the Germans out?
>
> Even so, the accident rate was lower for the Starfighter than its
> contemporaries...
>
> Rob
A basic attempt at absolute aircraft design appears to make it in a
class of its own. I went through the design, visually, and found
little wrong, but it was always a small winged aircraft. As a power
to lift ratio it was a large one. A large engine for the small
lift.
Normally it demanded only high speed operation. As the aircraft
enters the landing area a speed well above the normal was to be
required. A descent rate was a common trial by fire event. Landing
speed was lower and always alright stall wise. But in mid flight it
was given a common decent rate. And THIS was a crisis, remember as an
amatuer fan of jets way back.
Mid speed descent rates were always off. A certain hard to fathom
design effect was the airflow over small wings. A litteral vertical
stall was not allowed. A basic stall was disallowed. And so the sole
thing missing was the front wing slats.
All those people would still be alive if the wing was researched a
little longer. I was trying to buy one a few years ago. They ran
$35,000 if you could find them. With slats added ALL stalls would
automatically recover.
One lousey little design change and its goes from a bad aircraft to
maybe the perfect one.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Rob Arndt
In a way, it reminds me of a manned rocket- sorta like a US refined
jet-version of the EMW A-6.
Perhaps trying to make it into a multirole a/c was the only fatal
mistake overall...
Rob
Ed Rasimus
<eagleso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>A basic attempt at absolute aircraft design appears to make it in a
>class of its own. I went through the design, visually, and found
>little wrong, but it was always a small winged aircraft. As a power
>to lift ratio it was a large one. A large engine for the small
>lift.
Thrust counters weight, lift counters drag. Those are the balances of
aircraft design. Small wing means low drag, it doesn't really care
about thrust.
>
>Normally it demanded only high speed operation. As the aircraft
>enters the landing area a speed well above the normal was to be
>required. A descent rate was a common trial by fire event.
What the hell does that mean? Descent means you reduce thrust below
that required for level flight. Maintain the recommended descent rate,
depending upon whether you want max range, or max endurance. Typically
for that class of aircraft, about 300 KIAS (or 250 KIAS when air
traffic required), and not really an issue.
> Landing
>speed was lower and always alright stall wise.
Huh? Landing speed is slower than cruise descent in all aircraft. And,
landing speed is typically 1.3 X stall speed for the configuration.
That's the same for all aircraft as well.
> But in mid flight it
>was given a common decent rate. And THIS was a crisis, remember as an
>amatuer fan of jets way back.
Whether you were an amateur fan of jets way back or not, it ain't no
crisis.
>
>Mid speed descent rates were always off.
Huh? What does that mean?
> A certain hard to fathom
>design effect was the airflow over small wings. A litteral vertical
>stall was not allowed. A basic stall was disallowed. And so the sole
>thing missing was the front wing slats.
WTFO? Vertical stalls are often prohibited because of the stress of
the pitchdown, not because of anything aerodynamic. Basic stalls are
seldom "disallowed"--they are an area of flight in which drag rises
faster than lift for an incremental increase in AOA. Nothing more than
that. Typically in swept wing aircraft, the stall is not accompanied
by a pitch down, but simply by rapidly increasing buffet and sink
rate. Leading edge slats don't have much to do with it.
>
>All those people would still be alive if the wing was researched a
>little longer. I was trying to buy one a few years ago. They ran
>$35,000 if you could find them. With slats added ALL stalls would
>automatically recover.
Slats are simply a means of changing an airfoil shape. It increases
camber and changes the AOA at which stall occurs. Nothing more,
nothing less.
>
>One lousey little design change and its goes from a bad aircraft to
>maybe the perfect one.
Might I be excused for gagging a bit?
>
>Douglas Eagleson
>Gaithersburg, MD USA
Ian MacLure
news:5rdhfeF...@mid.individual.net:
[snip]
> Another problem was that the Starfighter was bought not because it
> fitted the GAF needs best but because of bribing. The GAF tried to make
> the Starfighter an all-weather multirole combat aircraft with primary
> bomber role which just didn't work out. There also were issues with
> maintenance problems and quality control which lead to accidents.
So how come the Canadians who also used the F-104 in an
all-weather strike role for a while didn't have similar
problems.
IBM
Andrew Chaplin
news:Xns99FFDC14A5...@216.196.97.131...
ISTR that we did, although not as severe.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Charlie Springer
(in article <Xns99FFDC14A5...@216.196.97.131>):
> So how come the Canadians who also used the F-104 in an
> all-weather strike role for a while didn't have similar
> problems.
Mostly, the Canadians have more room to turn.
-- Charlie Springer
Peter Skelton
The Canadian F - 104's were in Europe.
Peter Skelton
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
Lahr and Bad Solingen, if I recall correctly.
I remember sitting in the waiting room outside CINCUSAFE's office,
scheduled to present a briefing. It was Flugtag weekend and a flight
of four CF-104s announed their arrival with a diamond pass which
appeared to this experienced aviator's eyes to be right at window
level of the third floor office!
Andrew Chaplin
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 07:50:15 -0500, Peter Skelton <skelt...@cogeco.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:56:21 -0800, Charlie Springer
> ><R...@regnirps.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 21:38:05 -0800, Ian MacLure wrote
>
> >>> So how come the Canadians who also used the F-104 in an
> >>> all-weather strike role for a while didn't have similar
> >>> problems.
>
> >>Mostly, the Canadians have more room to turn.
>
> >The Canadian F - 104's were in Europe.
>
> >Peter Skelton
>
> Lahr and Bad Solingen, if I recall correctly.
>
> I remember sitting in the waiting room outside CINCUSAFE's office,
> scheduled to present a briefing. It was Flugtag weekend and a flight
> of four CF-104s announed their arrival with a diamond pass which
> appeared to this experienced aviator's eyes to be right at window
> level of the third floor office!
Yepper, that's them. :^) When I had callsign 12 in 129 Airfield Air
Defence Battery at Lahr back in '75, the boys from Baden would do so
many low passes and touch-and-goes that the air was constantly
redolent with the smell of half-burnt JP-4. We saw more of the "Flying
Meatball" (FIAT G-91) and Phantom, but the CF Lawn Darts were the most
memorable for their style and execution.