By: Levsha - 6th February 2011 at 22:53
Some hard statisics on German F-104s from a man who used to fly them:
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_winglosses.htm
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes_Luke.htm
By: bazv - 6th February 2011 at 09:57
The USAF F104 accident rate was approx twice that of the accident rate with the F100 I believe !Most military high performance a/c of that time had challenging ‘characteristics’.
Alpha Kilo on the modern military forum used to be an instructor on F104’s and has posted some interesting stuff…
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39447&highlight=F-104&page=10
By: PeeDee - 6th February 2011 at 02:56
I seem to recall that the F104 was also called the widow maker because, in a tight turn, it simply went out of control for no reason.and crashed.
Lincoln. 7
I think it was only the German Air Force version that was truly called the Widowmaker.
IIRC they tried loading it too much, with Stores or Fuel pods…….can’t really remember. The USAF didn’t suffer the same problem, again IIRC.
By: Lincoln 7 - 6th February 2011 at 00:20
Off hand I have no figures but I do know the Luftwaffe lost quite a few. We always used to say that if you wanted a Starfighter all you had to do was buy a field in Germany and wait.
I know it was quite a few, and would just out of curiosities sake like to know
just how many.
Lincoln .7
By: mike currill - 5th February 2011 at 20:46
Off hand I have no figures but I do know the Luftwaffe lost quite a few. We always used to say that if you wanted a Starfighter all you had to do was buy a field in Germany and wait.
By: Lincoln 7 - 5th February 2011 at 20:07
Nice to know I do actually talk sense once in a while. It was often described as a missile with a man in it and I reckon that was not far from the truth.
Anyone know the total number of pilots that were actualy killed by flying, or rather, trying to fly these aircraft?.
Lincoln. 7
By: mike currill - 5th February 2011 at 19:39
Mike. Its slowly coming back, yep thats what it was, it was stalling in the tight turn. Although reading what some pilots said about them, they were the dogs B******s 😀
Lincoln. 7
Nice to know I do actually talk sense once in a while. It was often described as a missile with a man in it and I reckon that was not far from the truth.
By: Lincoln 7 - 5th February 2011 at 13:11
Hi Baz. Good example of the Posting, thanks. I wouldn’t mind watching ALL that film.
Were not the chase aircraft the widow makers, it looked like one, in one of the shots.
Lincoln. 7
🙂
By: bazv - 5th February 2011 at 12:44
Woderful footage from an old movie – B47 downward ejection
By: Lincoln 7 - 4th February 2011 at 19:01
I guess the small wing area for the weight of the aircraft was the cause of that. Possibly a shock stall?
Mike. Its slowly coming back, yep thats what it was, it was stalling in the tight turn. Although reading what some pilots said about them, they were the dogs B******s 😀
Lincoln. 7
By: mike currill - 4th February 2011 at 18:30
I guess the small wing area for the weight of the aircraft was the cause of that. Possibly a shock stall?
By: Lincoln 7 - 4th February 2011 at 18:28
Really? I hadn’t heard that, mind you I am not an expert on the -104 or any other type.
Hi Mike, I too am far from being an expert on the aviation forum, it’s just that it sticks in my mind.
Lincoln. 7
By: mike currill - 4th February 2011 at 18:16
Really? I hadn’t heard that, mind you I am not an expert on the -104 or any other type.
By: Lincoln 7 - 4th February 2011 at 17:50
Correct and one of the reasons it got called a widow maker. How true it is I don’t know but I’ve heard tell that the Luftwaffe had as many pilot losses after the F-104 was fitted with upward ejection seats because their crews had become conditioned to the idea of downward ejection seats that if they got into difficulties they were rolling inverted and firing themselves into the ground as before.
I seem to recall that the F104 was also called the widow maker because, in a tight turn, it simply went out of control for no reason.and crashed.
Lincoln. 7
By: Creaking Door - 4th February 2011 at 17:10
Yes, I was going to say that the undercarriage design is clearly all-about the wing angle-of-attack. In the first of the photographs you’ve just posted the whole aircraft looks even more ‘balanced’ over the front wheels especially if the front fuselage is (I’m guessing) mainly fuel tanks. I’m sure it was carefully designed but the undercarriage still looks delicate to me, especially the outriggers.
Was the front bogie designed to ‘jack’ itself up on two wheels during take off?
Great photographs and a very impressive aircraft; I’m very glad that it has survived in such good condition.
By: Flanker_man - 4th February 2011 at 16:13
…I don’t suppose it survives does it?
Yes – at the Russian Air Force Museum at Monino……
Should that rather delicate looking undercarriage collapse
The front bogie of that ‘delicate looking undercarriage’ was designed to pivot about the front strut during the takeoff run – leaving only the rear wheels (of the front four) touching the ground.
It increased the aircrafts angle-of-attack during takeoff. 😮
Ken
By: mike currill - 3rd February 2011 at 10:45
Early F104 starfighters had them too.
Correct and one of the reasons it got called a widow maker. How true it is I don’t know but I’ve heard tell that the Luftwaffe had as many pilot losses after the F-104 was fitted with upward ejection seats because their crews had become conditioned to the idea of downward ejection seats that if they got into difficulties they were rolling inverted and firing themselves into the ground as before.
By: Creaking Door - 2nd February 2011 at 23:10
Early upward-firing ejection seats wouldn’t have been any better during takeoff and landing as they couldn’t have fired the seat high enough for the parachute to deploy properly – they only worked within a narrow band of airspeed and altitude.
The downward firing seat would have been just as good as an upward firing seat at altitude – that’s where they were both designed to operate.
Good point about the lack of zero-zero seats but I’d still say that an upward-firing seat would give the crew a better chance of escape during much of the landing and take-off phase at low (not zero) speed and low (not zero) altitude (if the seats could clear the tail that is). The problem is then, as you say, that upward-firing seats probably wouldn’t have coped with clearing the tail at the high-speed that the aircraft was designed to operate at and for which it would spend much more of its time (and all of its combat time). It’s a toss-up as to which would give the crew a better chance or which would give them more confidence in the aircraft.
Anyway it’s a great looking aircraft (if a tad ugly) and very reminiscent of a B-58 Hustler (or is that no accident)…
…I don’t suppose it survives does it?
By: bazv - 2nd February 2011 at 19:14
The reason for downwards ejection seats was that they didn’t have a rocket motor powerful enough to clear the tail in most cases / they had to save weight.
In the case of the B52 I doubt the older models had rocket seats anyway,I would imagine with the B52 it was to keep the dimension of the crew compartment to a reasonable length…The 2 Pilots,EWO + Gunner all had upward firing seats (top deck).
With a non rocket upward seat it is the forward airspeed/trajectory of the seat that gives a successful ejection – you would be more likely to hit the fin at low speed !The tragic death of the Tornado Nav a couple of years ago (seat fell out of a/c whilst inverted) illustrates that in extremis !
By: Flanker_man - 2nd February 2011 at 19:02
Blimey, that thing looks like it was designed by Gerry Anderson! 😀 Did it ever get into service?
No, only one was produced – and it fell victim to Kruschevs ‘missile only’ doctrine.
It was meant to be a long-range supersonic bomber but never went supersonic – being let down by its engines.
I wrote this for the model article accompanying the model build…
On 16 September a speed of 1,090 km/h (677mph) was achieved – which according to the flight data, corresponded to a speed of Mach 1.01, although subsequent recalculations by engineers at LII (the Flight Test Institute) reduced this to Mach 0.99.
The flight crew, however, were convinced that they had ‘gone supersonic’ – pointing out the physical phenomena experienced – such as the disappearance of jolting and lagging of the engine noise.
I suppose you’d have to balance the odds of an upward-firing seat not clearing the tail at high speed against the danger of a downward-firing seat being useless during the take-off and landing phase of a flight and with the gear extended? Should that rather delicate looking undercarriage collapse I trust there was an escape-hatch above the crew.
Early upward-firing ejection seats wouldn’t have been any better during takeoff and landing as they couldn’t have fired the seat high enough for the parachute to deploy properly – they only worked within a narrow band of airspeed and altitude.
The downward firing seat would have been just as good as an upward firing seat at altitude – that’s where they were both designed to operate.
It is only in recent years that aircrew have had zero-zero ejection seats – able to provide safe ejection from a plane standing still on the runway.
Is it your model?
Yes – build photos here
Ken
Sign In
May 25, 2007 at 9:09 pm