alfakiloApparently the example I chose wasn’t ridiculous enough to make clear that it was a joke.
It might be tough for some to appreciate the humor…after all, just looking at the Foxbat, it looks like it should be a real turn and burner, doesn’t it??!!
alfakiloGreat. Thanks you.
Same figures for the underwing tanks?
Pretty incredible being cleared for Mach 2.0. Shows you the engineering direction of Kelly. The 104 was a performance bird.
Not sure if you flew them out to that speed but would you say there were “draggy”? Large performance difference to clean?
Were the drop (wing) tanks on the F-4 more draggy than the tip tanks for pylon tanks on the 104?
Pylon tank limits were 500KIAS/.9M (max and jettison).
Drag discussion can be tough to put in simple words. Here’s a rough idea of tip tank drag…if the basic airplane (no external stores) had a drag index of zero, two AIM-9s in the wing tips would be about 6, with tip tanks the index would be 10, tip tanks plus pylon bombs would be about 30 or so (depends on bomb type), and four tanks plus a centerline bomb would be about 70.
Not sure I can give you a comparison of drag values for the F-104 and F-4…drag indexes may not be a common number between airplanes.
alfakiloWhat is the speed rating for the tip tanks?
Were these tanks jettisonable?
if so, what was the max speed to jettison them?
750KEAS/2.0M, yes, .9M
alfakiloI don’t recall any jet since early models of the F-86 (or MiG-17 ?) that didn’t have all moving tailplanes.
Certainly no fighters designed for air combat.
The poster got mightily confused when trying to say something about this…he seems to have dropped the subject.
alfakiloAlfakilo,
What was the AOA limit on the 104? 22 degrees?
What was the AOA on final?
I don’t know.
The F-104 pilot did not fly AOA in the way a F-4 pilot did. For example, when landing, the F-104 pilot flew an indicated airspeed based on landing weight and flap setting…typically this was around 180KIAS. The F-4 pilot flew landing speed as a function of AOA, not speed. We may have calculated the final approach speed in the F-4, but we controlled airspeed on final by controlling our pitch attitude using an AOA indicator on the front canopy frame area.
The F-104 had a “AOA” indicator as well, but I don’t think anyone used it in normal flying. It was basically a reference to when the automatic pitch compensator (the “kicker”) would function at high AOA. The units on that instrument were not in degrees of AOA.
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?
Wing loading is a somewhat overused term when it comes to maneuvering. Since it is simply a ratio of gross weight and wing area, the number itself has limited utility. Other factors are just as important if not more important when it comes to maneuvering…things such as installed thrust, wing flap setting, g limits, etc. Wing loading tells part of the story but not all of it.
A simplistic way to look at this subject would be to define “dogfighting” as the ability to reach relative high g loads at slow speeds. Since turn rate and radius vary only with true airspeed and g, the aircraft that can pull the most g at the slowest speed would be the “most maneuverable”…but this is amateurish approach to a far more complex subject.
Some refer to a fighter as being an “angles” or “energy” aircraft…remember that these comparisons are specific to the aircraft in question. A fighter can be an angles fighter against one opponent and an energy fighter against another.
Do you understand what I am attempting to find an answer to?
I do but the subject tends to defy simple answers. Let’s just leave it at this…low wing loading, all other things being equal, is a good thing.
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?
Yes, because max g would be reached at a slower speed and therefore rate and radius would be better.
This still wouldn’t hide the fact of the 104 being prone to pitch up due to the t-tail.
Correct. Pitch up was a function of AOA and could happen just as easily in the landing pattern as it could in hard maneuvering.
Was the Crusader designed primarily as an air superiority platform? Did you ever fly DACT against it?
The original spec called for a day fighter proposal…not at all unusual for fighter specs at the time. And then, as was often the case, the jet morphed into any manner of things as requirements changed over time.
Never did that I can remember. Good airplane, I wouldn’t have taken it for granted.
alfakilo…when the F-104 first came out, some USAF crewmen (ie not F-104) like to tell the tale that the main wing of the F-104 was sharp and had to have covers put on the leading edge to keep the aircraft crews from being harmed. Serious! And to this day it is still printed as fact. And when I am asked, I just state I don’t know.
True fact. The leading edge of the wing was very different from that of other fighters. It had a fine edge to it, I’ve always described it as being similar to a butter knife. We had felt strips that were fitted on to the leading edge to keep people from hurting themselves if they bumped into it…since the jet sat so low, it was common for folks to be working under the jet.
Everyone wonders if Lockheed had ever offered a naval version of the F-104.
Google “navalized F-104”
alfakiloDear Alfakilo,
You have defended your aircraft pretty well. The USAF should had you as the Chief PAO on the F-104. But there is one thing that puzzles me. Why did the USAF basically move the F-104s to NG units or out right retire them. Compared to the aircraft it was suppose to replace (the F-86 and F-100) it was not ordered by the USAF in that great a numbers. Less than 300. There has to be some reason?????Jack E. Hammond
Because the F-4 was more capable and had better growth potential.
And, just to show my personal biases, the fuddy-duddy WW2 bomber generals who were running the USAF at the time simply couldn’t understand the jet.
🙂
alfakiloThe wing loading of the F-104 is obviously a huge factor in its flight characteristics. Im not trying to imply that its always a deciding factor, jets with both high and low wing loadings both are equally viable and capable. But never the less I think the wing loading is excessively high on the F-104, and that works against it when you compare it with other jets in its class.
Nobody has tried to say that the F-104 wing loading was low…please don’t change the subject. You were making statements about low speed handling and tailplane design that you haven’t been able to back up.
So there is no hard and fast way of measuring the superiority of one a/c against another.
Yet you seem to have do difficulty in doing just that.
Enthusiasts do come here for discussion and information. Discussion has little value when it is based on conjecture and outright fallacies. The information being posted here is no better than the source. Some people pass on info from personal experiences, some only pass on what they remember from old magazine articles that may or may not have been entirely factual to begin with. Let the reader beware.
I guess you didnt notice an earlier post on this thread that I made of a youtube link showing a Draken doing a cobra maneuver…I dont see how you can deny that is quite uncommon for a non-FBW delta wing jet to be able to maneuver like that.
I did see that. I didn’t comment upon it because I don’t know the circumstances of what we were seeing. Personally, I don’t consider that a ‘cobra’ maneuver in the sense of how we use that term today. Instead, what I see is a high AOA pitch up that seems to be flown as an academic maneuver. Back in the day, we referred to this as ‘flatplating’ a jet…the BFM defensive maneuver known as a High G Roll (Over the Top) uses a similar concept. Some fighters could do this well, some could not.
Having said all of that, IMO, using this maneuver as the basis for declaring the Draken “much superior” to the Viggen is a bit of a stretch.
alfakiloThat was a semantic typo, I was hoping no one would notice that. What I said was:
“its main fault being lack of non-moving horizontal tail surfaces that made it very difficult to control ”I meant to say:
“its main fault being a non-moving horizontal tail surfaces that made it very difficult to control
Sorry…but that makes even less sense than your first post. Here is your first post corrected based on your last post…
..”All in all the F-104 wasnt a bad design, its main fault being a non-moving horizontal tail surfaces that made it very difficult to control and low speed and high AoA”.
For starters, the F-104 stabilizer was a one piece all-moving design. What makes you think this design made slow speed and high AOA control difficult?
I was guessing that the non-moving tailplane of the F-104 was the main factor in its lack of low speed handling, but now with the wing loading specs you provide I think that is the main factor.
The main factor of what? Something you have yet to substantiate?
Please don’t try to compare slow speed handling to wing loading…that’s like comparing apples to oranges.
Well the wing loading is much higher than I would have guessed, I was just going by appearance, the size of the wing compared to the size of the aircraft with the Mirage F1. But now I see now the wing loading is much higher thanks to the specs you provide.
Are you admitting that you are trying to appear knowledgeable by posting what seems to be facts that are based only on what you think you see?
Let me help you out here.
Let Google be your friend.
Again I will admit I could be wrong here, there are plenty of jets with fixed tailsurfaces that have excellent high AoA handling.
Can I assume that you are referring to ‘high AOA handling’ as we presently think of the term? If so, name them.
Well this would require another thread to be started to debate the merrits of the Viggens aerodynamic configuration.
No…it only requires that you back up your original statement about the Draken being “much superior” to the Viggen.
alfakiloAll in all the F-104 wasnt a bad design, its main fault being lack of non-moving horizontal tail surfaces that made it very difficult to control and low speed and high AoA. If it had fully rotating tail surfaces than it would have been a jet very comparable to the Mirage F-1.
You seem confused. First you say the problem was that the F-104 lacked a
“non-moving horizontal tail surface”. Then you say that it would have been comparable to the F-1 if it had “fully rotating tail surfaces”.
Which is it?
Now, as for low speed/high AOA control, just what exactly does the F-104 tailplane lack? I’ve flown the jet at slow speeds and high AOA quite a bit and never noticed this problem. In your many hours of F-104 time, what problems did you notice?
Also the F-8 had a very high wing loading much like the F-104. I think its advantage was that it had all-moving tail surfaces, making it much more controllable at low speed. But then it had to use a hinged wing that would rotate the wing AoA to around 30deg so the pilot could see the ship on a carrier approach.
You are entitled to your opinions…but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.
And the fact is that the F-8 had a wing loading in the high 70s, while the F-104 wing loading was up around 105 or so, depending on what weight is used. The F-4 had a wing loading around 80, the Mirage F-1 a little higher at 90 or so. The F-8 wing loading is much closer to the F-4 and F-1 than it is the F-104.
You seem to be hung up on tail plane design and low speed control. Why?
The Draken was a jet that was way ahead of its time, much superior to the Viggen even, capable of extreme AoA maneuvers similar to todays FBW fighers.
Much superior to the Viggen?
Why did the Swedes bother building the Viggen then?
alfakiloThe early K-13s has several problems to begin with, most obvious were excessive homing times (twice as long as of AIM-9), issues with counter-interference, as well as premature explosions due to poor quality of optical fuses used.. Kill probability was around 10-12%.
Your terms are not clear. What is “homing time”? “Counter-interference”?
alfakiloIt’s true. I believe the F-104 pilot never saw what hit him.
The depth of information around here just amazes me!
How did you come to this fascinating piece of info?
alfakiloThe pilots that know the truth about the F-5s real ability are in Iran..
Really? Iranians?
I’ll put my money on the USN TOPGUN pilots as well as the USAF F-5 Fighter Weapons School and Aggressor pilots that flew the jet. I’ve flown with all three groups and don’t recall anyone making such comments.
alfakiloDidn’t the Soviet copy of the AIM-9B have a serious fuzing problem that saved a many USN/USMC/USAF pilots life over North Vietnam???
The early models of the AIM-9 and its Soviet copies had significant limitations in a turning engagement.
What fuzing ‘problem’ are you referring to?
alfakiloThere was an article in the last six months in either Air Force Monthly or Air International in which Harrier pilots were on training missions in Italy and they came up against the Italian F-104S and they stated the same that the F-104 was not going to do good if it engaged in turning engagements. They stated the best the Italians could do were to come in fast, try and get a shot off and get out fast.
So what?
Against the Harrier and its unique flying capabilities, everyone used hit and extend tactics.
Also, there is the question of the location of the horizontal tail and its problems during high maneuvers (ie where the aircraft has to pitch up) which Lockheed attempted to answer with their Lancer project.
It’s not unusual for aircraft to have aerodynamic characteristics that the pilot had to understand and deal with. If the F-104 pilot pushed the jet past a certain angle of attack, he risked entering a pitch up. The jet had a warning system for this that would alert the pilot to ease off the controls.
In the F-4, we had to be careful about not using aileron past a certain angle of attack, otherwise bad things could happen.
What’s your point?
BTW> Why did the USAF refuse to send the F-104s it sent to South Vietnam north of the DMZ where the Mig-17s were as it seems that would have been the aircraft for the mission????
Why don’t you show where this is in fact the case and then I can respond to it. Until then, you might dig into those books and study up on the use of the F-104 in MIGCAP missions.
Sign In
