And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Tuesday, March 1, 2022
Canadair CF-104 Starfighter 417th squadron in flight over cold lake, Alberta, winter 1976.
Performance was so marginal that Lockheed sold a lot of them by employing bribery. The German Air Force lost the highest scoring pilot when he got tossed for raising hell about an inappropriate aircraft for service. That aircraft killed a LOT of Luftwaffe fighter pilots trying to fly it in conditions it wasn't designed for.
Talked to a Canadian F-104 pilot at an airshow ~1980. He loved flying it, but he detailed the severe limitations of the flight envelope. Easy to encounter a high speed stall trying to dogfight. You could stall at nearly any speed, simply by pulling too hard. It took about 13k feet to recover. SOP was to punch out if you stalled it below 15k ft. If you touched the brakes above 100mph they would be toast instantly. You had to rely on the drag 'chute to slow you below that speed first. Landing was around 165mph. Really hard on tires.
Might have been the first aircraft to exceed mach 1 while climbing. I recall seeing film of one setting a climb record. Brake release, pull the wheels off, retract the gear without lifting, build some speed, and then pull it vertical at the end of the runway. You could hear the sonic boom before it got too small. Impressive, but I don't know if that beat the English Electric Lightning in time to climb.
The German Air Force lost a lot more pilots when they crashed. Beautiful plane, but not much for air to ground. I think they also took out Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka. Via bribery, not a crash. The only one I ever saw was when the JSDF brought one to Iwakuni for "Friendship Day." OK, it was really Armed Forces Day, but what good are euphemisms if we don't use them?
the original lightweight fighter. put longer wings and a J-57 in it and you basically have a U-2. the spaces for the air data computer and radar black boxes was as big as the cockpit. vacuum tubes, ya know. It was the best example of limiting a design to the minimum required equipment to do a specific task at the fastest speed manageable by a human pilot. Col. Boyd did an analysis of the aircraft, said it was the perfect point defense interceptor and anyone using it for ground attack or dogfighting was an idiot. that was the guy who told general dynamics the F-16 needed another thirty square feet of wing to be the perfect dogfighter. then, GD bid on the strike fighter to replace the F-111 and did guess what? GD gave it thirty square feet more wing. lost to the F-15e. the fix was in. aircraft are only as good as the pilots who fly them. the only thing combat pilots need to do is fly, learn and train. they do not need to be squatting behind some desk in a back room punching a ticket for promotion to staff officer pukeness. that is the quickest way to become a casualty.
Will, you are attributing its failures to roles it was never intended to do. It was a supersonic interceptor. Period. Its performance was in no way marginal for its intended role. The proof of that is in its time-to-climb record. It was not meant to be an air superiority fighter nor was is meant to fulfill an Air-to-Ground mission. It was superlative as an Interceptor.
To generate sufficient lift at low speed, the aircraft used "Boundary Layer Control" which requires landing under power. Hence the landing speeds. Virtually all the crashes - especially the German ones - were attributable to mismanagement of this system. In other words, poor training.
When I was a teenager (1977), I spent a summer at CFB Trenton (cadets). One day, a group of us were outdoors, and we could hear something doing runups at the airfield across the highway. Then after a couple of those we heard an afterburner kick in. We all stopped to watch, whatever it was.
Something white rotated above the hangers, and departed at what was at least a 60 degree climb angle, punching thru a couple of sparse cloud decks, and was gone, out of sight, beyond hearing range, leaving only a contrail.
It seemed like maybe 3-4 second between the burner kicking in and the vanishing point. We were gobsmacked. One of the Reg force guys later confirmed it was a visiting 104, working on practice interceptions over northern Canada.
Stuart, the Luftwaffe pilots trained here in the US, out west. That environment in no way matched conditions the Germans were forced to fly in. My point was the plane wasn't intended for the weather and flying requirements they had to deal with in the middle of Europe. That they tossed Erich Hartmann was clearly a political move, and should have brought public scrutiny, but it didn't.
To my eye, one of the most graceful and beautiful aircraft ever made. I would give much for an hour of stick time.
ReplyDeleteJust don’t honk the horn, please. JT will be upset.
ReplyDeleteWe can do better than that... make him piss himself!
DeletePerformance was so marginal that Lockheed sold a lot of them by employing bribery. The German Air Force lost the highest scoring pilot when he got tossed for raising hell about an inappropriate aircraft for service. That aircraft killed a LOT of Luftwaffe fighter pilots trying to fly it in conditions it wasn't designed for.
ReplyDeleteTalked to a Canadian F-104 pilot at an airshow ~1980. He loved flying it, but he detailed the severe limitations of the flight envelope. Easy to encounter a high speed stall trying to dogfight. You could stall at nearly any speed, simply by pulling too hard. It took about 13k feet to recover. SOP was to punch out if you stalled it below 15k ft. If you touched the brakes above 100mph they would be toast instantly. You had to rely on the drag 'chute to slow you below that speed first. Landing was around 165mph. Really hard on tires.
Might have been the first aircraft to exceed mach 1 while climbing. I recall seeing film of one setting a climb record. Brake release, pull the wheels off, retract the gear without lifting, build some speed, and then pull it vertical at the end of the runway. You could hear the sonic boom before it got too small. Impressive, but I don't know if that beat the English Electric Lightning in time to climb.
The German Air Force lost a lot more pilots when they crashed. Beautiful plane, but not much for air to ground. I think they also took out Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka. Via bribery, not a crash. The only one I ever saw was when the JSDF brought one to Iwakuni for "Friendship Day." OK, it was really Armed Forces Day, but what good are euphemisms if we don't use them?
Deletethe original lightweight fighter. put longer wings and a J-57 in it and you basically have a U-2. the spaces for the air data computer and radar black boxes was as big as the cockpit. vacuum tubes, ya know. It was the best example of limiting a design to the minimum required equipment to do a specific task at the fastest speed manageable by a human pilot.
DeleteCol. Boyd did an analysis of the aircraft, said it was the perfect point defense interceptor and anyone using it for ground attack or dogfighting was an idiot. that was the guy who told general dynamics the F-16 needed another thirty square feet of wing to be the perfect dogfighter. then, GD bid on the strike fighter to replace the F-111 and did guess what? GD gave it thirty square feet more wing. lost to the F-15e. the fix was in.
aircraft are only as good as the pilots who fly them. the only thing combat pilots need to do is fly, learn and train. they do not need to be squatting behind some desk in a back room punching a ticket for promotion to staff officer pukeness. that is the quickest way to become a casualty.
Will, you are attributing its failures to roles it was never intended to do. It was a supersonic interceptor. Period. Its performance was in no way marginal for its intended role. The proof of that is in its time-to-climb record.
ReplyDeleteIt was not meant to be an air superiority fighter nor was is meant to fulfill an Air-to-Ground mission. It was superlative as an Interceptor.
To generate sufficient lift at low speed, the aircraft used "Boundary Layer Control" which requires landing under power. Hence the landing speeds. Virtually all the crashes - especially the German ones - were attributable to mismanagement of this system. In other words, poor training.
You beat me to it. The 104 was a purpose built Cold War interceptor.
DeleteWhen I was a teenager (1977), I spent a summer at CFB Trenton (cadets). One day, a group of us were outdoors, and we could hear something doing runups at the airfield across the highway. Then after a couple of those we heard an afterburner kick in. We all stopped to watch, whatever it was.
DeleteSomething white rotated above the hangers, and departed at what was at least a 60 degree climb angle, punching thru a couple of sparse cloud decks, and was gone, out of sight, beyond hearing range, leaving only a contrail.
It seemed like maybe 3-4 second between the burner kicking in and the vanishing point. We were gobsmacked. One of the Reg force guys later
confirmed it was a visiting 104, working on practice interceptions over northern Canada.
I've never seem anything that fast since.
Spent some time at CFB Trenton a few years back setting up logistics support for the CAF C-130J's. In February. It was cold. Very very cold.
DeleteStuart,
Deletethe Luftwaffe pilots trained here in the US, out west. That environment in no way matched conditions the Germans were forced to fly in. My point was the plane wasn't intended for the weather and flying requirements they had to deal with in the middle of Europe. That they tossed Erich Hartmann was clearly a political move, and should have brought public scrutiny, but it didn't.