F-104 Early Crashes; Blown Flaps
Karl Hecks
pilots during its early development phase. Many crashes came from flame-outs
of the (at that time) supersensitive J79, just after take-off or on
approach. The use of downward ejection did not help. The tiny, thin wings of
the F-104 had been made acceptable for take-off and landing by the adoption
of flap blowing using compressor bleed air. With such a system operating
with only one engine, loss of that engine gives loss of flap blowing as
well, and – at low altitude - the aircraft stalls to oblivion. Eventually
the F-104 came good with the J79 sorted and flap blowing available. But
AFAIK, those early F-104s may not have had the flap blowing, then very new.
Without blowing, at least the aircraft would not stall immediately the
engine died, but then we are perhaps talking about a much higher landing
speed, which in turn gave the pilot little chance of surviving a belly
landing short of (or beyond) the runway. Does this sound about right ?
Further on the subject of flap blowing, the F-4 had twin engines providing
bleed air. Can anyone confirm that it had some common reservoir or plenum,
which would provide blowing equally to both wings if one engine failed ?.
Karl
5644
Karl Hecks wrote:
> AFAIK, those early F-104s may not have had the flap blowing, then very new.
> Without blowing, at least the aircraft would not stall immediately the
> engine died, but then we are perhaps talking about a much higher landing
> speed, which in turn gave the pilot little chance of surviving a belly
> landing short of (or beyond) the runway. Does this sound about right ?
Don't know for sure. I seem to recall that my dad said that 180 knots
was either the stall speed or a typical landing speed, and also that he
was highly encouraged to eject the one time he had a non-restartable
flameout. He was deathly afraid of ejection, so brought it in anyway, on
the dry lakebed. Tony LaVere had brought in one of the prototypes with no
engine, so he knew that it could be done. I'm guessing that there was an
emergency gear blowdown system. Dad was one of the phase I test pilots,
and did much of the initial stability testing.
The '104 was a pretty neat jet, but gliding was not one of it's strong
points. One phrase commonly heard was that it had "the glide ratio of
an anvil strapped to a manhole cover" :)
wal...@oneimage.com
>1) Don't know about 20 TEST pilots getting killed by the early 104
but a lot were lost due to engine problems involving either the
IGV (inlet variable guide vanes - plus stators) screwing up or
engine oil leaks. I had a friend in the 83 FIS - one of the first
USAF 104A squadrons - who ejected 3 times the first year. He still
loved the airplane and was flying it later on with me in the 319th
in 1964.
2) F4 EP's say if you lose an engine with land flaps (blown) selected
immediately select afterburner on the good engine and raise the flaps
to takeoff position (no blowing). It would not remain airborne on one
engine with the flaps blowing. BTW the F4 also blew the slats on the leading
edge. 'Fence' speed was reduced about 22 knots by blowing.
Walt Bj ftr plt ret
Bob Irwin
CHEERS!
Bob Irwin
MBenShar
Are you the Mr. Irwin who ejected?
Thanks for reading this.
Mike Bennett
(Project: Get Out and Walk)
Tom Straub
engines and was known as the Boundary Layer Control System. One engine did
provide bleed air ducting to both wings but BLC only functioned when the flaps
were down. Tom Straub 2000+ hrs in F-4s.
Karl Hecks wrote:
> It seems the F-104 was initially a killer, accounting for 20-plus test
> pilots during its early development phase. Many crashes came from flame-outs
> of the (at that time) supersensitive J79, just after take-off or on
> approach. The use of downward ejection did not help. The tiny, thin wings of
> the F-104 had been made acceptable for take-off and landing by the adoption
> of flap blowing using compressor bleed air. With such a system operating
> with only one engine, loss of that engine gives loss of flap blowing as
> well, and – at low altitude - the aircraft stalls to oblivion. Eventually
> the F-104 came good with the J79 sorted and flap blowing available. But
> AFAIK, those early F-104s may not have had the flap blowing, then very new.
> Without blowing, at least the aircraft would not stall immediately the
> engine died, but then we are perhaps talking about a much higher landing
> speed, which in turn gave the pilot little chance of surviving a belly
> landing short of (or beyond) the runway. Does this sound about right ?
>
Ian Mac Lure
: Walt, Could this 3X Egress person be J. Nevers ?
Not <blench> Jim Nevers.
Canadian test pilot?
Tall guy given to wearing cowboy boots and talking loudly?
IBM
--
*******************************************************************
***** Ian B MacLure ***** Sunnyvale, CA ***** Engineer/Archer *****
* No Times Like The Maritimes *************************************
*******************************************************************
* Opinions Expressed Here Are Mine. That's Mine , Mine, MINE ******
*******************************************************************
Bob Irwin
F-104 pilot.
Bob
wal
>Bob Irwin <rir...@cchat.com> wrote:>: Walt, Could this 3X Egress
person be J. Nevers?
Smoky Joe Nevers, now living down in Miami? Nope, although I know
>real well - he's a short little guy.
The pilot I was talking about is Rev Alexander who was one of the
original pilots in the 83FIS at Hamilton AFB when they had the 104A.
A life support type at Tyndall AFB made a critical remark about him
having two-star flares taped to his Gsuit - "They'll come off when
you eject!" Rev replied quietly "They didn't the first 3 times . . "
Walt BJ ftr plt ret