SchorschThis is the first A340 to be scrapped which is now in Arizona, 9Y-JIL, ex D-AEIL, G-VSKY.:(
Airfleets.net says G-VSKY and F-WWJH as previous registrations. D-AEIL would imply use with Lufthansa, but I think it isn’t a former Lufthansa machine.
See:
http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Lufthansa-history-a340.htm
SchorschThe RAF Lightnings from Gütersloh tried their luck several times, when the F-104G had to follow low level corridors.
The slatted F-4s were formidable performers too.
No doubt about it. But a better comparison would be F-4D against F-104G, and F-4D is unslatted and without no canon (for those who don’t know already).
SchorschNone disputed that in a war in the 60s the MiG-21 was no real threat for the F-104G. Just a BAe Lightning near by could be one temporary for a single try. Bad luck by running into the enemy at lower speed and not aware of that aside.
In that arena radar becomes virtually useless, unless somebody has a impuls-doppler radar. Guidance is also of limited use as air defence stations have attacking aircraft not on their screen, potentially only sporadic contacts. With limited loiter time over critical targets the fighters have a difficult task. The F-4 was never suited for that, built as a typical MDD for high and medium altitude combat.
At altitudes below 3000ft, I would suppose a camounflaged F-104G is nearly impossible to identify, especially with European mix of forrest and little sun (no shadow!).
SchorschThe speed thing is bothering me.
The maximum speed of the -104 is about Mach 2.2, depending on the variant.
The maximum speed of a slatted F-4 is about the same, around Mach 2.2.
The earlier hard-winged models such as the F-4B and F-4C though are capable of speeds up to around Mach 2.4.
The F-4 is also quite fast down on the deck at about Mach 1.2. The F-104 is roughly the same, so I’m not really understanding why the F-104 is considered to be so much faster.
I many situations, since the F-104 cannot carry nearly as big a payload, I can understand why the Starfighter’s TWR could be better (thus better acceleration, something the F-4 isn’t known for), but all in all the maximum speed of both aircraft is roughly the same.
I’m not saying an F-104 would be an easy kill for a Phantom, if flown properly, but to say that it’s just so much faster than the F-4 just isn’t true.
Actual top speeds of F-4F with weapons (4 AIM-9) are about M1.9, so who cares about it? Same for the Starfighter. But does the top speed matter? The Starfighter has less drag (also with external stores), traded for worse low speed performance and worse maneuvering.
Many here a somehow mislead by the size of the aircraft. It does not matter. The actual size is the Phantom’s biggest disadvantage. Its fat radar dish might be useful for BVR against bombers, but in a fight against a Starfighter it is useless weight and drag flown through the air.
SchorschIts what you do with the contemporary technology that matters a lot. This is a factor of design.
Just because the Phantom is more capable than the Starfighter does not make the Phantom generationally ahead. What it does say is that the Phantom is overall, a better design.
Just compare!
F-104G:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter#Specifications_.28F-104G.29
F-4D:
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/mcdodoug/f-4d.htm
Phantom has double the empty weight, double the crew, still no gun, only 4 SR-AAM (like the Starfighter).
When it comes to range, the Phantom carries 7400l of fuel, while the Starfighter carries 3400l, so fuel fraction of the F-4 is slightly better, but far away from the huge advantage some people assume.
SchorschMaybe one should be fair and include cost considerations. A Starfighter costs about half of a Phantom. With the similar money one can buy 20 Phantom F-4 with AIM-7 and AIM-9 weapons, or one can buy 30 to 40 Starfighters, just AIM-9 and 20mm ammunition.
Strange nobody pointed out the advantage of the F-104: a cannon. If we think of a duel of F-4D against F-104G (both produced at the same time), the best tactic would be for the Starfighters to run like hell towards the Phantoms. The F-4D can acquire and shot one at a time, so each Phantom scores at best one hit before the AIM-7 become useless, taken the experience from Vietnam possibly less.
In WVR the Phantom scores with better maneuverability, but loses due to size (visual ID!) and lack of a gun.
If we think of a duel F-104G on attack mission against F-4D as defender, the low-level capability and speed of the F-104 makes it a tricky task. I think an airspace defended by Phantoms, attacked by Starfighters of same USD value would see a good survival rate of the F-104, if they attack low and fast.
SchorschCome one Schorsch.. stop being so defensive and pedantic.
I’m surprised the article got the model of aircraft right!
Sometimes papers will come out with statements such as “Boeing A320 makes emergency landing” etc.Just take it all with a pinch of salt and have a laugh about the innacuracies.
That’s true. When it comes to aviation or technology in general, average media gets its wrong just too often.
SchorschDid it fall off then ??? :rolleyes:
The article is pretty much lowest class of journalism.
It uses
– extreme exagerations (“drama”), although it was a normal issue (engine failure in flight)
– the statement that passengers were not at risk is given as airline statement (the airline “instsisted”), giving that the statement is dubious character; own claims are not given as “statements” but facts
– several adjectives indicate wrong conclusions: factory-new indicates that an engine failure within the first few hundred hours is totally unlikely
– and finally (as big Airbus fanboy): the manufacturer is blamed several times, while the engine type is not even mentioned.
SchorschTake one incident and sweep the issue under the rug.
Going for Leahy’s job?
Another pathetic post free of any real will to discuss or increase knowledge.
Actually quick googling could provide you with huge amounts of data about the accident, which is (like most accidents in Western Europe and USA) well documented. But you rather choose to stick to your ready-made conclusions, which are unfortunately incomplete. The pilot did several wrong decisions, most notably did he approach much too fast and did not go-around after he failed to touch down after about 700m.
John Leahy does – as far as I know – not comment accidents of Airbus or Boeing aircraft.
SchorschSchorsch, you ought to be used to that sort of this, what with your employer re-hashing “news” over and over.
First: You don’t know what my employer is and your assumption is actually wrong. It is also not your business (I neither speculate above yours).
Second: I am not responsible for news of any company, only if I make them or own the company.
Third: I can held accountable inside this community for things I post, and now I wish you best luck in finding any post from me quoting an Airbus’ press release.
Conclusion: Please refrain from making comments about me, especially if they so utterly wrong.
SchorschWell the pilots flew an aircraft full of passenger’s 30 feet above the runway at slow speed low power and nose high, I think banging on full power at the last moment to save themselves from disaster is asking a bit much of any aeroplane.
Removing some safety systems via fuse and violating the minimum altitude is also something not supposed to happen with Paxe on board.
SchorschThe thrust reverses account for about 30% of an aircrafts braking capability. The other 70% is in the wheel brakes.
I’m not saying this has anything to do with it – Not at All.
Just wanted to point it out
Adam
Nope. Normally 10% reduction in landing distance is given for T/R. In practical application this might be more when pilots are encouraged to use less brake and more T/R.
SchorschI think you might be thinking of one of the three overruns known to be caused by the FBW systems not permiting thrust reverse.
This happened on at least 3 seperate occasions with brand new A32X (or nearly new, 9 months at the oldest I think) aircraft with Lufthansa, Air France and Philippine Airlines. All three of which were write offs, with varying degrees of unjuries and/or deaths. But neither as deadly as this TAM crash.Airbus are supposed to have fixed it and sure enough there’s not been another incident since.. but, who knows.
Blaming the EFCS for those accidents is way short of the real reason. The Lufthansa accident for example was a classic overrun irregardless of the EFCS. If you land with 170kts groundspeed 700m behind the runway treshhold on a 2400m runway, your chances of having just another landing are low. Make more Go-Around!
It seems to be an automatic reflex: if something in Airbus goes wrong, it must be the EFCS to a varying degree. It came so far that even for the S7 crash EFCS was blamed, although the A310 doesn’t have one.
SchorschA tad pedantic don’t you think
Not exactly. I was interested because I thought it was news, then I recongnized it wasn’t. So basic message of the article was wrong, which I consider not pedantic.
SchorschIt’s not often you hear of a schedule involving the A380 being brought forward and not pushed back 😮 😉
It’s because the last “update” on A380 programme was done using conservative planning, another “first” in A380 programme.
Sign In
