Alfakilo,

What was the AOA limit on the 104? 22 degrees?

What was the AOA on final?

Interestingly, if the 104 has a lesser gross weight or combat weight, the wing loading would have decreased.

Do you know of a balance or “ratio” of some sort that would define an aircraft for a particular role? I am asking for an answer to a hard to ask question here. For example, if the 104 had a wing loading of around 80 but kept its dimensions and wing shape, etc…, would its “turn performance” – the characteristic that typically defines a dogfighting aircraft – improve?

I understand that wing loading does not solely define the dogfighting capability of an aircraft as low speed AOA and many other factors all play a role.

Do you understand what I am attempting to find an answer to?

If the 104 weighted 7,000 lbs less with all other factoring remaining the same, would the turn radius decrease and the turn rate increase both sustained and instantaneous? This still wouldn’t hide the fact of the 104 being prone to pitch up due to the t-tail.

Was the Crusader designed primarily as an air superiority platform? Did you ever fly DACT against it?

Wing-size is drag. So every designer is looking for the smallest possible wing related to the mission demands. 😉

Not sure why you quoted me on that. I made no reference on drag of any wing size.

Are you confirming at that F-22’s vertical tail is the same size of the 104’s wing?

Alfakilo,

I am unsure of the details of these shoot downs and of your knowledge of the war and perhaps this is unfair to ask but what would have you done differently if you had flown the 104 under the same circumstances knowing what you know now?

You mentioned TOPGUN notes of maintaining an advantage in a rolling scissor and of course the surprising sustained 7G, 420 KIAS below 15,000 ft turn capability, amongst other qualities of the Zipper. These of course were with the G model with a more powerful engine than the A yet the A was lighter.

Were these engagements 1 vs. 1? What would have been your approach? Boom and Zoom or bleed the 21 with a scissor starting at corner?

Would there have been any way to out range the 21? For example, my father flew the RF-4C out of Shaw from 72-74. He commented that a possible strategy to defeat the MIGs, regardless of the current tactics, was to use the F-4’s range/tremendous fuel load to an advantage. He said to “drag the MIGs out to sea” and when they had to RTB being low on fuel, to jettison the tanks and pursue them.

Could this advantage work in the 104 against the 21 – superior range? I would think fuselage AIM-9’s would be the key along with underwing and tip tanks.

Any disadvantages in engagements with the tip tanks (empty)?

I don’t think the F-22s wing is best described as tiny.
In fact, low wing loading was one of the design goals. Can’t really say the same about the F-104 😉

Where did I make reference to the F-22’s wing as tiny? And where did I make reference to wing loading or design goals?

My reply was in reference to the trapezoid shape of the F-22’s wing being similar to the 104’s wing.

If you are going to quote what I have posted or another’s, keep it on topic.

Do we know the real world thrust numbers for the 135 dry and wet for use in the F-35?

Is wet thrust near the 52,000 lbs mark?

Regarding your above post Sens and the lower thrust of a fighter engine at low speeds;

During Red Flag launches, Flankers did not use burner but Eagles did and the Eagles had a centerline or 2 wing tanks.

Does this difference have to do with more dry thrust of the Flanker or perhaps superior aerodynamics at lower speeds or, the weight of the Flanker in a clean configuration is less than that of the Eagle in the above mention loadout?

What altitude did you top out at?

The TF was 600 lbs of fuel lighter?

750 KIAS was with tip tanks?

Agreed. It was this article that really opened my eyes to the engineering of this little jet. WAY ahead of its time.

I read a book about the Starfighter written by a CAF pilot that really opened up the factual story (the essence) of the Zipper and what it could do and how effect it was low level and the performance of its J79.

FL730, burning 100 lbs a minute, bellying up at 60,000 ft boom n’ zooming… talk about kinematics. Puts the F-22 in its place.

Funny, after I read Walt’s article, the F-22 lost is shine when I learned of its operating parameters i.e. M2.0 @ 60,000 ft. Didn’t seem so spectacular.

I read a post by F-22 pilot “Dozer” saying a 570 Kt pull into the vertical after take off saw M0.99 at 30,000 ft in the pure vertical in full combat configuration.

Do you have any experience performing a similar 600 kt pull in the Zipper? If so, what were the results?

Put together the FL730 story along with your Eagle DACT account, and then top it off with the takeoff demonstration of the Eagle’s 90 degree, 250 kt slow climb and the 104’s 400 kt, 60 degree climb out (was that you again?) with AF Brass looking on, and the non-believer becomes a disciple.

With these kinds of basic performance numbers, it is a wonder the Zipper isn’t flying somewhere in the world even for a non-military application.

Care to comment on the performance increase if a modern engine such as the 26,500 lbs thrust F414-EDE (similar size) were installed?