alfakilo…when flying heavy the F-104 might be pretty bad.
Weight doesn’t affect glide ratios…it only affects the glide speed. A heavy F-104G will hit the ground at the same place as a light one…it just gets there quicker.
alfakiloYes, but a subsonic airliner is easier as the speed range is pretty small (180-330 clean).
Subsonic? What does that have to do with glide speed?
It doesn’t matter what the speed is…a number has to be memorized and then flown. Gliding at 200KIAS is no different than gliding at 250KIAS or above…the only thing that changes is the pitch attitude.
Where can I find the section for the F-4 in the manual? I think the Luftwaffe manual is similar to the USAF one.
Look in the emergency procedure section under “glide distance”…in my manual, page 3-12A.
alfakiloThe fixed airspeed of 245 KIAS with flaps and 275 KIAS clean is probably not “best glide speed”, bot a compromise that works well.
If it was good enough to put into the flight manual that we all used, then it was good enough for me.
You cannot annoy a pilot in such situations with an airspeed table.
Correct. It was one of many things we memorized in case of emergencies. That was over 30 years ago…today, in the airline training business where I am an instructor, we have a similar speed and chart. We expect the pilots to learn the glide speed and use it when needed.[/QUOTE]
alfakiloIve seen these casualty statistics a couple of times in books but I cant find them anywhere on the net. Maybe someone here would know where to find them: losses of german WW2 pilots vs total number who served.
Your number (about 97%) seems wildly exaggerated. Most references attribute the highest wartime attrition to the U-boat crews…about 75% or so.
alfakiloI have seen data in text book. There the Starfighter does rather well (considering its seemingly inefficient lifting surfaces), the version is not mentioned though. The difference is small an might not surface in daily operations.
The numbers I gave you are straight out of my flight manuals for both aircraft (F-104G and F-4E).
alfakiloThat’s interesting. Its hard to imagine the word “German” and “minimally trained” in the same sentence but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
It is neither interesting nor correct.
I think you have a very important point there about the USAF and USN rivalry getting in the way of sense and sensibility.
The basis of his statement had to do with the Secretary of Defense’s obsession with what he thought was effective cost control. Unfortunately for McNamara, running the US military turned out to be quite a bit different from running Ford Motor Company.
For McNamara, too often he believed in the old saying of “one size fits all”…hence his attempt to make the F-111 the answer to everyone’s needs. There was some of this in the acquisition of the F-4C, but the poster’s remark that about the AF leadership “kicking and screaming like banshees” over that decision is simply so much exaggeration and hyperbole.
No doubt that there were USAF senior officers who objected to anything that had to do with the USN…that’s human nature…but the fact of the matter is that the F-4 was a clear and convincing superior aircraft for what the USAF wanted in comparison to what the alternatives were (F-105 and F-106). When it came to the mission roles of interceptor, dual role fighter-bomber (conventional and nuclear), and recce, the F-4 was the better aircraft and promised far more development promise than either of the two other aircraft.
So…while rivalry existed between the services, the “sense and sensibility” of the acquisition of the F-4 far overshadowed any such feelings.
alfakiloAlso ex-Luftwaffe personal were blamed by the public for losing the war, although only about 2000 out of 70,000 pilots survived so there were not a lot left to blame.
Do you have references for those statements?
alfakiloIn cruise the F-104 was a rather efficient machine (also thanks to the low wing area), the clean aircraft achieves better glide ratios than the F-4.
Not quite.
From 10,000ft the F-104 gliding distance was about 9nm…the F-4ES would get about 12nm for the same altitude.
I don’t have any data for the non-slatted F-4.
Neither one was going to win any gliding contests!!
alfakiloI have read that it was not so much the Starfighter design, as opposed to the unskilled and minimally trained pilots of the post WWII West German (Luftwaffe), that was the primary reason behind the Luftwaffe’s high attrition rate!!
Unfortunately, you seem to be reading the same erroneous info that others here have.
The GAF pilots were just as skilled as those of any western air force…some were really good, most were average, and some were lousy…that is typical of most military organizations. Oh…and ‘average’ in the fighter world is above average anywhere else.
There wasn’t anything wrong with their training, nor was their syllabus of training minimal in any way.
If you want to look for reasons for the GAF attrition rate with the F-104G, here are some things that made up that situation. The GAF was the first MAP service to upgrade to the F-104 and as a result bore the brunt of the steep learning curve…they went from subsonic, non-radar, non-afterburning, late 1940s technology aircraft such as the F-84 and F-86 straight into a state-of-the-art (for that time) supersonic multi-role fighter-bomber. Neither the maintenance nor operational GAF units were quite prepared for that.
Then there was the primary mission…high speed, low level interdiction and strike. Anytime one operates at those altitudes and speeds, the margin for error gets pretty slim.
Then there was the weather…combine low level, high speed ops with limited visibility and ceilings and the result is a higher exposure to accidents.
Then there was the limited airfield facilities…low tech (by today’s standards) instrument approach aids (primarily radar GCA) and a relatively short runway (8000′ NATO standard) for the 104 approach speeds. Mix in the weather problems, and getting the jet back on the ground was a challenge at times.
OK…so what are my qualifications for making these statements? I was a GAF F-104 instructor with 6 years of fighter experience flying in Europe.
alfakiloThink about that.
Thanks, but I think I’ll stick to contributing info based on my personal experiences in these aircraft…at times, that may include sticking pins in BS balloons that some folks may try to float.
alfakilo@ Alfakilo ‘are’nt you Andy Bush?’
If I told you that, I’d have to shoot you!
😉
alfakiloI 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?
I don’t know anything about the exact circumstances of these engagement…who was offensive, defensive…what roles were the two opponents flying at the time, fuel states, etc, etc.
That is why I think it inappropriate to make generalizations when so many details aren’t known.
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.
Flat scissors, not rolling scissors.
Some late model F-104As had a more powerful engine that would have made this TOPGUN maneuver even more dramatic.
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?
Yes…1v1 starting from a line abreast, 4000′ spacing. At “fight’s on”, both aircraft pulled hard to their opponent’s six.
Would there have been any way to out range the 21?
Actually, in a sense, this is what the maneuver was for…in the series of scissor reversals, the F-104 lost less energy than the MiG…in our engagement, I had to come back on the burner to keep from gaining on the F-5E. The only way the MiG could get behind the F-104 was to pull off power and slow down…once he did that, his energy disadvantage became acute.
We saw this as the MiG pulling hard to our six…the only way he could do that was to slow down.
Seeing that, now it was time to rock and roll. We went full burner and pulled hard into the vertical until we were above the other aircraft…we watched as he tried to come up with us…he couldn’t because of his lower energy state. His only recourse was to dump and run…as soon as we saw that, we pulled down hard into his six and it was all over.
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.
Not too sure what you are asking. Could the F-104 out-range the MiG? Depends on fuel tank configuration…but, yes, it could.
Any disadvantages in engagements with the tip tanks (empty)?
Yes…a lower g limit, more drag, slower acceleration.
alfakiloOn a different note and one that may be of interest to forum readers…these IAF kills are attributed to the Soviet equivalent of the AIM-9B (with the exception of the one gun kill).
The R-3S/K-13 had the very same low probability of kill that the AIM-9B had…no surprise in that it was a Soviet copy of that missile.
The max firing g was 2 (that is the equivalent of the g load needed to maintain a 60 degree bank, level turn…not exactly the stuff of dogfight lore)…and the limit on target maneuvering was 3 gs…
…the result being that an Atoll kill usually resulted from when the target did not see the attacker.
Now, ask yourself this…how does that situation in any way reflect upon the idea that such kills had anything to do with comparative performance?
alfakiloI have not lost a single word about Starfighter’s capabilities or drawbacks and I don’t give damn about its short range, small wings or anything else.
I can see the problem now…we just don’t understand your ability to communicate in English.
The next time you say something again like “_______ fared rather poorly against other fighters”, we’ll remember that you aren’t talking about capabilities or drawbacks.
alfakiloI’ve read a post ffrom Andy Bush, ex starfighter pilot on SimHQ quite some time ago, where he said the starfighter could pull something like 6G’s (if my memory serves well) and stay there at high subsonic speeds, where other fighters of the time would have to pull significantly less to maintain their speed or accept to loose speed (too much drag)….
What he pointed out was the relatively good retention of energy when flying at or close to corner velocity…which at lower altitudes (below 15000ft) was around 420KIAS or so. The MiG-21 could reach the same amount of g but a slower airspeed…and therefore would turn with a smaller turn radius and greater turn rate. The problem for the MiG was that it bled energy at a higher rate than the F-104.
TOPGUN recognized that the USN F-4 had a similar energy advantage over the MiG and used to teach a scissors maneuver where the F-4 could out-maneuver the MiG when flown properly. Two USAF F-104 Fighter Weapons School instructors were invited to fly the same maneuver to test the accuracy of the energy diagram predictions. Much to everyone’s surprise, the F-104s flew exactly as predicted. The radio transmissions were taped, and one of the TOPGUN pilots, when unable to get behind his F-104 opponent in the scissor reversals, gave everyone a laugh when he blurted out “I don’t f%^&*$#g believe it”!!
So, while you don’t want to get into a low speed dogfight when flying a F-104, you still fight effectively guns only if you keep your speed high.
I agree completely. The trick was in knowing how “high” of a speed to maintain. It was a fairly narrow envelope…too slow and energy bleed was excessive…too fast and turn rate and radius went down the drain. But, hit the sweet spot, and the Zipper was quite competitive in a turn-and-burn fight.
Sign In
