SchorschHigh speed ability
Typhoon
Rafale
F-16
F-15Low altitude
Probably F-16High altitude
Typhoon
Rafale
When it comes to high speed, high AoA fun stuff doesn’t count any more. It is mostly thrust-to-weight (and please: don’t mix static thrust with the actual at 35.000ft/M1.3), drag and control. Maximum lift is only an issue for low speed (
SchorschF-16A and MiG-29A set the benchmark. New newer design exceeds this benchmark significantly. Some newer designs (EF2000) have I guess better performance in supersonic region.
After all, it is pointsless. With the performance of the MiG-29A/F-16A you have everything you ever need. I think the F-15A was already OK. The battle is finaly decided by the missile at hand.
SchorschActually, taking the pure thrust you could think of an A380 with three engines.
3x GE90-115 make even a little bit more thrust than the 4x RR Trent 900. But I guess adding a GE90 in the fuselage might be a little difficult.
Four engines have structural advantages for large flexible aircaft. Guess why Boeing started hanging engines under the wing.
SchorschThen your memory is letting you down 😮
Age and heavy drinking taking their toll.
SchorschThe aspect ratio looks lower than most aircraft but the MiG-21. I don’t see much efficient high lift devices with it, other than forward and rear flaps which tend to be standard with most wings anyway.
Not in the 1950s. No Soviet fighter had leading edge devices, the F-4 had LE devices but was a carrier aircraft. The approach speed of the MiG-21 and the Mirage III was also very high. The later MiG-21 models got blown flaps. The Starfighter has blown flaps. These devices were unreliable in the early days causing some accidents.
And partly has to do with political corruption. Starfighter related scandals rocked both Japanese and German governments. General Erich Hartmann (yes that German WWII ace) certainly criticized it and that led to his dismissal and demotion.
The alternatives weren’t that attractive, either. Think: The English wanted to sell us the Lightning (a 12-ton empty twin-jet with 2 external hardpoints), the Americans offered F-106 and F-105. All these designs were double the weight with similar payload-range. Mirage III was an alternative, but too much focussed on the day-fighter role. The SAAB Draken would have been my favorite because it was the technically most advanced, but the Starfighter was a reasonable solution. It offered performance and numbers.
I would consider it quite dangerous. Adding load to an aircraft that already has a very high wing loading is going to have very long take offs, very fast landings and a very high stall speed. Chuck Yeager nearly got killed in one too.
Juri Gagarin was killed in a MiG-21. The safety record of the F-104 was much better in other air force. The Luftwaffe lost many of their Phantoms in the beginning, too. The airframe was more prone to accidents, but the real cause was the way the Luftwaffe used and maintained its Starfighters. Accident rates dropped after a few years of service.
SchorschThe only military aircraft with 3 engines was in my memory the Martin B-51.
http://aerofiles.com/martin-b51.jpg
There are basically three reasons to build 3-engine aircraft:
SchorschI think the ‘Zipper’ is always unfairly compared to its peers as regards its maneuverability or lack of it. If you look at the many fighters with successful combat careers such as the Mirage III in Israel or the F-4 Phantom in Israeli, Iranian, or US service, it becomes clear that outright maneuverability was not the most important factor
Interesting you should mention the MiG-23. How does the F-104 compare to this MiG, which is also better known for its straight line performance at the expense of turning performance. The MiG probably had better field performance, but I’m pretty sure the F-104 cost a lot less to run per flying hour though!
The concept of the MiG-23 is very similar to that of the Starfighter with two major differences:
– as you mentioned the field performance
– the handling qualities of the Zipper are worse
The Starfighter had 40% lower empty weight than the Flogger but similar range and payload.
SchorschAnd you think that’s what really counts?
Why don’t you measure the total wing area? Why don’t you check the camber? Why don’t you get the aspect ratio?
The wing is meant to reduce drag but that’s about it. Lift wasn’t the consideration, the plane was a rocket.
That’s crap. Let’s look at the numbers:
F-4:
Aspect Ratio: 2.77
Wing Loading: 383kg/m²
Zero-Lift Drag: 0.0224
Specs
F-105:
Aspect Ratio: 3.16
Wing Loading: 452kg/m²
Zero-Lift Drag: 0.0173
Specs
F-104:
Aspect Ratio: 2.45
Wing Loading: 514kg/m²
Zero-Lift Drag: 0.0172
Specs
MiG-21:
Aspect Ratio: 2.22
Wing Loading: 378kg/m²
Zero-Lift Drag: unknown
Specs
Su-7:
Aspect Ratio: 3.14
Wing Loading: 435kg/m²
Zero-Lift Drag: unknown
Specs
The F-104 has the highest wing loading (while some aircraft have more), but compensates that with the most efficient high-lift devices of all contenders. Aspect ratio is in line with other aircraft.
The fact that Europeans bought over 2,000 models of the Starfighter at least confirms that some people did believe in the Starfighter. Today’s opinion is driven by the number of accidents (which wasn’t excessive, comparable to other aircraft). The F-104 is no dogfighter, but was never intended to be.
The Zipper was the first to fly, after the MiG-21 the lightest, lowest drag, and has comparable fuel fraction.
SchorschThe thing about the Starfighter, payload and fuel range, isn’t exactly tops, which is why the USAF look at other fighter bombers mostly for low level penetrator missions. As such there was a whole other host of US and European fighters acting as low level interdictors the Russians have to worry about.
On the other hand it was fairly cheap and could be purchased in larger numbers. What was the standard attack aircraft in the time range 1958 to 1970? I think they used
– F-4 Phantoms,
– A-7 Corsairs,
– F-105 Thunderchiefs,
– F-100 Super Sabres,
– A-1 Skyraiders.
None of the above has the same low-level capability. Payload-Range of A-7 and F-4 is better, but the A-7 is a pure bomb-truck. It wasn’t introduced in the Air Force before 1970. The Phantoms are at least double as expensive. I don’t know about the useful range of the F-105, was it wasn’t exceptional. The range of the Starfighter wasn’t that bad, either.
I think like with the F-5 the USAF was not attracted by a small fighter with limited capability. I think that they feared budget cuts.
SchorschIt is another urban myth. The USAF did not want the F-104. A limited number was procured to secure exports. A fighter rejected by the own AF was not a good marketing argument. To make use from that Zipper at hand, they were send to Vietnam in the 60s, when F-104As were donated. It does not matter how the F-104 will perform, the USAF has made up its mind before and the F-4 selected. The growing numbers of new F-4C had to show their capabilities in Vietnam and not the F-104.
GAF pilots claimed, that till the F-15/16 showed up, they had to fear the Lightning only at low level, when surprised. Even those had to be close to get a chance.
Is there a special reason why the USAF rejected the Starfighter? I recall that they considered not heavy enough for the fighter-bomber secondary role.
Not really sure about that, considering the incidents of F-104s shot down by MiGs, including a reconnaissance version shot down by a J-6. But then a J-6 just happens to have tremendous acceleration in its own right. Maybe against MiG-17s, you can run away, but against Farmers and Fishbeds it may not be that easy.
When you catch somebody by surprise (which happened quite often over Vietnam), chances are fairly bad. When a MiG-21 or MiG-19 attacks from high 6-o’clock position not even a Eurofighter would help much.
But a Starfighter can (if alarmed in time) always trade altitude for speed and get out of any combat in high-speed low level flight. Even the MiG-21F-13 was limited to subsonic speeds below 10.000ft.
The Russians had headaches because in the late 1960s there was no way how they could intercept a low-level intruder like the Starfighter. So the MiG-23 got (simple) look-down shot-down capability.
SchorschUSAF did use the F-104C as a fighter-bomber as well as for CAP. The turn radius was not an advantage on the F-104 so it would probably not have done well against e.g. a MiG-17.
Given the speed and acceleration of the Starfighter, the MiGs shouldn’t get a chance if the F104s are not surprised. Of course, a dogfight is the complete wrong thing for a Starfighter. As fighter in general I think it is better than often anticipated.
SchorschStarfighters in Vietnam
A question:
The Starfighter was used in Vietnam for a short period. I read in a book that it was taken out of action due to
– limited bomb carrying capability
– no RWR equipment
– lack of range
When reading the accounts here I see that at least the last issue is wrong, especially when compared to other short-rangers like the F-105.
Is it possibly an urban myth?
The version in question is the F-104C. It is a fighter more than a fighter-bomber.
Was the F-104 in Vietnam used as fighter-bomber?
If yes, what was a typical load-out?
I would like to get some additional infos on the Starfighter use in the USAF. Because it looks strange that USAF bought horribly expensive F-111 and F-4 for missions that could be flown with F-104G. I have the impression that USAF just didn’t want something so small and primitive. But we can discuss that later.
SchorschBy the way, changes in direction are indeed predictable, and that’s why the FBW knows how to counter them. With a type of aircraft like the J-10, you are countering the tendency for the plane to pitch up, or negative stability. And no, its not smaller surfaces, the FBW has to control those canards.
The headache for the designers is a direct function of the negative stability margin. Here too we can expect that the Chinese are working towards better flight controls and increasing the negative stability margin. Small instability does not suffice inevitably full computer control as the basic pitch stability is still given.
SchorschSens, why did you qoute my post before going on with yours? You’re not saying anything that’s not in accordance with what my post said. You were just going over the basics of flight. I’m sure some of the less informed members had some use for it, good job.
Now to get back on topic, the way i understood the issue you and crobato had is that you said drag is a huge factor while we said that thrust to mass ratio is a bigger factor in acceleration of planes in dogfight like flying. Somehow, out of that you included loss of lift into equation, which is just completely beside the point. Unless the plane is doing its run at 200 kts at low altitude or doing its run at very high altitudes, lift should never even be problematic. Especially with computer assistance, which doesn’t even let you do anything stupid that’d make the plane stall.
So once we’re beyond that… we can get to drag/thrust versus mass/thrust. You cited gripen versus mig29 as an example. Sure, yeah, gripen’s small size and arguably better management of various draggy control surfaces does add up to less drag than mig29. no one refutes that. But that advantage is relatively small when compared to advantage of mass/thrust that a plane may have, especially when we’re discussing dogfight speeds.
gripen can match mig29 cause its so damn lighter than mig29. Roughly half the mass of mig29, with roughly half the thrust. (illustration purpose only, no need to use exact figures) So its same thing. IF it had same kind of mass, for half the thrust, it would accelerate exactly at half the rate. (in vacuum) Yes, there’s drag too, but for that to make the same kind of effect – half the acceleration rate – itd have to be high supersonic speeds.
As Sens says, there are many factors contributing to performance and some are constantly ignored.
Besides the thrust over Mach and thrust over altitude characteristic of the engine, you also have the inlet, which might behave stupid in some Mach regions.
Overall, the thrust/weight ratio is very important but the figures published are as useful as guessing. It is uninstalled thrust, installed penalty at speed, height and may vary and make all comparisons doubtful. Add the margin between demonstrated maximum performance (which is published), the maximum war-time performance (often unknown) and the peace-time performane.
Drag is a very important issue and cannot be assessed from the distance.
FBW is not only for pitch stability, it is for keeping best config al the time. That is very important because aircraft get to their lift limit easily. Especially can this system change the config in a way that drag at similar lift drops, making the aircraft able to sustain tighter turns. But this flight control stuff is a really tough business and most delays in fighter programs were caused by it.
SchorschMissiles will shortly be obsolete.
When aircraft carry lasers capable of melting the sensors on a missile, the whole thing will change again.
The future [as regards initial DEW usage] will probably revolve around large aircraft with multiple laser arrays. Something like a modified C-17 or C-130.
And the “wonder-weapon” will carry unlimited energy to fuel its laser. The missile will be easily detectable. Or not?
Then I think missiles will not be obsolete. The next thing after the stealth fighter is the “stealth missile”, a missile, that does not show up on fighter’s RWR.
A vehicle capable of 30g? Please remember that it needs structural strength, lift/control capability and most of all energy. The “30g-UAV” will evade the first missile and be a sitting duck for the second. At least the third.
Sign In
