Of course that F-104 is fine aircraft, with its limits.
It was a fine aircraft, but it did have its limits…and pilots who used turning concepts from older aircraft (such as the F-86 or F-84) flew the jet poorly. Probably more erroneous opinion has been written about the F-104 than any other fighter
At transonic speeds (above say Mach 0.8) every airframe experience some shock buffet that is heaver with higher lift (or alpha, G).
I have no idea what you are trying to say with that statement. If you are suggesting that the F-104 would buffet at transonic speeds when pulling g, you are misinformed.
The Starfighter turns fine at low altitude, above 450 kt speed. But limitations are instantaneous turns, speed loss in turns at lower CAS (that is even at higher speed at medium to high altitudes) and handling, especially because unfavorable pitch/yaw to roll inertia ratios, not to mention high tailplane effects.
At low altitude (5000′), average weight, two missiles, full burner…the F-104G will sustain about 6gs at about 420KIAS. For example…
But before I address the rest of that, let me ask you this…
Have you ever flown the F-104G?
On a more entertaining note, here is some EM info for the A-10!!
About the F4 it is obvious that the aircraft was flown to its limits by test-pilots beeing aware about the related riscs when doing so ( the blue envelope) and the official allowed envelope (the black envelope) for the front-line pilots. Their handbooks and graphics will show the allowed values only. By that a F-4 does not go faster than Mach 2,25 f.e.
A choose the example of the F-104G, when graphic showed a vertical limit at Mach 2, when a graphic about real behavior will show a right hand cone with a single peak similar the F-4. So not a real flight limit but an allowed one only. All publications using that will claim, that a F-104G can not go faster than Mach 2 f.e. What does not matter really, because in day-time operations they will not even come close Mach 2 most of the time with some external loads.
I flew the F-4 C, D, and E models…Vietnam and Europe…and the F-104G at Luke AFB training GAF pilots. We didn’t give a hoot about what either aircraft could do at high altitude…the war wasn’t going to be fought at high altitude.
But we did care a great deal about low altitude speed, particularly in a combat configuration…both aircraft were very fast on the deck…and by “fast”, I mean 800KIAS…been there , done that. Only the Flogger could match that speed…and he had to have the GCI control to put him there and the balls to go there in the first place.
When a fighter does change direction it has to take some AoA and does generate the related buffeting from that.
Bull****. Turning, unless at or near stall AOA, doesn’t include buffeting. We were quite adept at max performing the jet at max AOA without worrying about buffet. In fact, we taught that buffet meant that you were pushing the jet too hard…and it was time to back off…btw…there was no buffet in the F-104G, only the F-4.
[quote] To keep the pilots within controlled flight, the AoA is limited and by that the turning capability is limited in the handbooks, when not fighthened enough by the buffeting alone. Just experienced and well trained pilots will reach the real limits, when “walking the red line”.[/quote[]
Bull****. The only limit we had was on what was on the g meter when we landed. We didn’t fly to AOA limits…I don’t know who put that idea in your head, but it’s nothing but hooey.
In the meanwhile it is common believe, that for most typical manouvers no fighter pilot has to pull more than 7 Gs or 20 AoA most of the time and be still successful.
You do what you have to do, friend.
Me…I personally developed, proposed, and test flew the turning match up between the F-104G and a notional MiG-21 (F-5E)…low altitude, high g turning contest based on EM Ps predictions. Let’s just say I didn’t buy the beer that night at the bar. For those that say the F-104 couldn’t turn…well, in the context of the 1960s and 70s…they don’t have a clue.
If you want to contest anything I have said, please bring into the discussion any GAF F-104 pilot who went through the Weapons School at Luke from 1977 to 1980. Here’s a gunfilm picture of a Weapons School student who boasted that he couldn’t be found on a low level ingress…or, if found, couldn’t be caught, or if caught, couldn’t be gunned. 600KIAS, 200′ AGL…I was doing 700KIAS+.
My gun film. You decide.
Thank you for your efforts. Little education is welcomed. Nice graphs, but only Spit’s is somewhat official. Others are hypothetical and fiction. It is hard to find Eastern graphs in Western format like that of “MiG-21”.
The first picture is just a non-specific example of an energy chart. The second chart (MiG-21) is not “hypothetical” nor is it “fiction”. The third chart is meant to only show the overlay of two sets of data…it comes from a computer game, but accurately represents how a ‘differences diagram’ looks.
I think Colonel Boyd put these graphs in most readable format, like that in last ‘michael82’ reply. Is it true ?
That chart is a notional example of a “H-M diagram”…a chart that plots energy levels as a function of altitude (H) and speed(M). The outer boundary represents where the aircraft, for the conditions given (weight, configuration, power setting) is neither accelerating or decelerating (what is known as “zero specific power”, or “zero Ps”). All points inside this boundary represent conditions of acceleration (in the USAF, usually feet per second per second).
These charts only show zero to positive Ps…differences diagrams typically show negative Ps values as well and in doing so illustrate a more complete flight envelope…and one that is more informative about comparative maneuvering capability.
Colonel Boyd indeed is the father of EM in the USAF fighter world.
Here is the MiG-21 chart again with added info:
Interesting thread!
First, some background info. Is there a book somewhere that has EM comparison data? Yes, but you aren’t likely to see it as it’s probably still buried in some fighter squadron’s weapons and tactics office safe. This data was used quite a bit back in the day (in reference to the older fighters)…and is probably still classified and therefore unavailable. I have no doubt that something like it can be found today in those same squadron safes!
Was this data used? You bet it was…particularly in the fighter weapons schools. In the every day business of a typical fighter squadron? Probably not as it was a bit academic.
Was this data useful? You bet it was. It came in a number of types, but the two most often used were what we called “EM diagrams” and “differences diagrams”….EM diagrams were charts for a single aircraft and plotted turn rate, g, angle of attack, and thrust (power) measurements. You may be familiar with the term “doghouse plot”…this is a type of EM diagram that plots altitude versus speed and looks like this:
More useful to us were the “differences diagrams”…these were charts that presented data for two aircraft so that the aircraft could be compared side by side. Typically the plots were speed versus turn rate and included additional data for how much thrust the aircraft would have under the given conditions (either positive or negative). When comparing a Soviet aircraft such as the MiG-21 against the USAF F-4, it was readily apparent which part of the flight envelope that each aircraft might be superior in. Here is an example of this type of chart for a MiG-21…note that exact parameters of altitude, gross weight, external configuration, and thrust setting was specified.
When overlayed with another fighter, we saw something like this:
Energy charts are not something new…here’s a chart from 1940 showing Spitfire data:
Now, please understand…EM data never won a dogfight! But the info in this data often provided the pilot with excellent info on where best to fly his jet and where the enemy had the advantage.
Sign In
