The F-104 would do nothing but pull large sweeping high speed turn.

Without a doubt, the most common misconception about the F-104 is its alleged lack of turn capability. Understandable since most laypersons come to that judgment based only on the size of the F-104 wing…but uninformed nevertheless.

I’m more skeptical of the F-104’s tiny trapezoid wing configuration. For starters, it’s never been repeated elsewhere.

Why skeptical? The wing planform for the Lightning and Draken weren’t repeated elsewhere either.

Also, looking at the alternatives, was performance in air-to-air really superior?

For when it was designed and given the design criteria…yes.

Looking just at the platform, IMHO the following platforms seem to have been just as effective in air-to-air as the F-104:

– the F11F-1F
– Mirage IIIO
– Draken

F-11-F…did not go into production.
Mirage III 0…did not use an Avon engine.
Draken…excellent interceptor design, much as was the F-104

So was the F-104 anything special? Any data on climb / acceleration / turn rates would be welcome.

For its time and given the design objectives…yes. But it had its limits, as those of us who have actually flown the aircraft are all too aware.

I believe I have read that the F-104 fared rather poorly against other fighters – I think the score was 0:6 against MiG-21FLs?

Depends on what you read, I suppose.

Google this and what seems to come up is a number of sources that show the number of PAF F-104 losses in air combat as only two.

I believe I have read that the F-104 fared rather poorly against other fighters – I think the score was 0:6 against MiG-21FLs?

You may have also read that when the F-104s were flying escort in the Vietnam War the NV air force kept their fighters on the ground.

So what’s your point?

…So do you agree that it was a mistake to ever use the F-104 as a fighter…

No…and there are enough threads and posts here to point out the errors in your thinking.

Try looking them up…and then see if you still feel the same way.

In WW2, Pilots would often wobble the Rudder a tad to ensure a good strafing pattern of the target.

Watching modern footage from gun cameras (US and British) there seems to be a very wide (20 feet) circle of impact zone, all around and including the target. Is this intentional..ie by software for the Gun…is it from platform vibration?

WW2 gun camera film exists that shows the pilot using the rudder to spray his rounds around.

Depends on target type, but that is a very low payback technique. What was a relatively wide impact area becomes even larger…bullet density drops and kill potential does as well. In general, the idea is more BS and bar talk than it is a credible firing technique.

Also, the gunsight is no longer a predictable aiming reference when the aircraft is yawed.

Aircraft bullet density is described by an area that is defined in terms of a small angle off the nose, often less than one degree. The longer the firing range, the larger the pattern area. The pattern is depicted as a circle with the diameter being a function of that angle and distance. A 20′ circle for a typical modern fighter would occur at distances of 2000-3000 feet or more…relatively long for traditional strafing.

This pattern is known as ‘dispersion’ and typically is the result of gun mount instability. Built in guns typically have a smaller dispersion than guns mounted externally. There is no software input.

What are they trying to achieve and for what purpose ?
As I said before , I see a stealth long range multirole fighter .

When I asked this question earlier, you seemed to take issue with it. Why then are you asking it again?

Its Chinese cruise missiles that are the true threat to F22 operations in east Asia-pac.

By this point, it seems that the moderation is unwilling to stifle political posts, so…

Just exactly what does anyone think the Chinese need with a ‘stealth fighter’? Where and what is the threat?