I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability,
I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort.

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability,
> I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort.

The F-104 was used in the Vietnam War. Fourteen were lost with 4 pilots
lost and 2 POW. Units included 436TFS of the 479TFW which arrived at Danang
on 20 April 1965. They proved too short range for their intended escort
role and were sometimes used for air-to-ground. The answer to your query in
the title line is no.

Tex Houston

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:56:38 -0700, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability,
>> I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort.
>
>The F-104 was used in the Vietnam War. Fourteen were lost with 4 pilots
>lost and 2 POW. Units included 436TFS of the 479TFW which arrived at Danang
>on 20 April 1965. They proved too short range for their intended escort
>role and were sometimes used for air-to-ground. The answer to your query in
>the title line is no.
>
>Tex Houston
>
>

IIRC weren't most of them lost because they tried to use them in the
air to ground role? I'm talking about strictly air to air.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:31:04 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>
>I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability,
>I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort.

A number of factors are involved. One, is the loss of scheduling
flexibility by adding another discrete system to the total package.
More supply, maintenance, avionics, engine, operations, etc. Keep in
mind that the A/A mission was very limited. While MiGs were a threat,
they operated almost exclusively in the defensive intercept role and
predominantly in Route Pack VI. Missions anywhere else had little need
for escort or CAP.

The F-104 didn't have particularly good endurance for the CAP role and
didn't have much of an A/A radar for running its own intercepts.

The probe/drogue refueling system adds additional tanker requirements
(although limited drogue tankers were flown for F-100F and B-66
support).

Low altitude engagements with the early AIM-9 (during the 65-66 time
frame when they were deployed, the version was AIM-9B) weren't very
reliable. The seeker head was virtually useless against ground clutter
and needed high altitude/blue-sky to discriminate. Gun engagements for
F-104 vs MiG-17 wouldn't be very successful as the high-wing loaded,
large turn radius 104 wouldn't match the -17's manueverability.

When F-104s were tasked as escort for F-105 Wild Weasel flights in RP
VI, a pair were lost on 1 August '66. Without RHAW, the airplane was
restricted after that to more permissive environments flying limited
interdiction missions.

Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:32:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:31:04 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm not talking about factoring in built-in air to ground capability,
>>I'm talking about strictly air to air and escort.
>
>A number of factors are involved. One, is the loss of scheduling
>flexibility by adding another discrete system to the total package.
>More supply, maintenance, avionics, engine, operations, etc. Keep in
>mind that the A/A mission was very limited. While MiGs were a threat,
>they operated almost exclusively in the defensive intercept role and
>predominantly in Route Pack VI. Missions anywhere else had little need
>for escort or CAP.
>
>The F-104 didn't have particularly good endurance for the CAP role and
>didn't have much of an A/A radar for running its own intercepts.
>
>The probe/drogue refueling system adds additional tanker requirements
>(although limited drogue tankers were flown for F-100F and B-66
>support).
>
>Low altitude engagements with the early AIM-9 (during the 65-66 time
>frame when they were deployed, the version was AIM-9B) weren't very
>reliable. The seeker head was virtually useless against ground clutter
>and needed high altitude/blue-sky to discriminate. Gun engagements for
>F-104 vs MiG-17 wouldn't be very successful as the high-wing loaded,
>large turn radius 104 wouldn't match the -17's manueverability.
>
>When F-104s were tasked as escort for F-105 Wild Weasel flights in RP
>VI, a pair were lost on 1 August '66. Without RHAW, the airplane was
>restricted after that to more permissive environments flying limited
>interdiction missions.
>
>Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar.

Thanks. This month's Airpower/Wings sure talked the thing's
performance over Vietnam up. I'd read long ago that it didn't do all
that well over ther so I thought I'd come here for the lowdown :-)

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:51:48 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:32:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote:
>>
>>Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar.
>
>Thanks. This month's Airpower/Wings sure talked the thing's
>performance over Vietnam up. I'd read long ago that it didn't do all
>that well over ther so I thought I'd come here for the lowdown :-)

Airpower usually is pretty well researched. Can't imagine a positive
review of F-104 SEA performance.

Let's be sure to note that the airplane itself had excellent
performance and the 479th Wing (435th TFS, particularly) were
instrumental in development of modern two-ship air/air tactics. Let's
also note that the airplane in NATO service for a whole flock of
countries served reliably for forty years.

In SEA, the aircraft didn't live up to its potential.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...

> IIRC weren't most of them lost because they tried to use them in the
> air to ground role? I'm talking about strictly air to air.

1965 5 losses (2 Close Air Support, 1 to MiG while CAP, two midair while
RESCAP)
1966 5 losses (3 CAS or Armed Recce, 2 to SAMs while CAP)
1967 4 losses (1 Armed Recce, 3 while CAP)

5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
getting paid.

Tex Houston

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 15:00:52 -0700, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
>> IIRC weren't most of them lost because they tried to use them in the
>> air to ground role? I'm talking about strictly air to air.
>
>1965 5 losses (2 Close Air Support, 1 to MiG while CAP, two midair while
>RESCAP)
>1966 5 losses (3 CAS or Armed Recce, 2 to SAMs while CAP)
>1967 4 losses (1 Armed Recce, 3 while CAP)
>
>5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
>F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
>mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
>getting paid.
>
>Tex Houston

I like that last comment :-)

Tex Houston > wrote:
>
>5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
>F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
>mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
>getting paid.
>

According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
deliver with the F-104.

So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
maneuverability?

On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
wrote:

>Tex Houston > wrote:
>>
>>5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
>>F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
>>mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
>>getting paid.
>>
>
>According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
>Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
>out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
>greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
>deliver with the F-104.
>
>So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
>maneuverability?

They probably figured they had adequate maneuverability. They should
have made sure they said they wanted to keep it AND get more speed
instead of trading one for the other.

Scott Ferrin > wrote:

>On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
>wrote:
>
>>Tex Houston > wrote:
>>>
>>>5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
>>>F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
>>>mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
>>>getting paid.
>>>
>>
>>According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
>>Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
>>out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
>>greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
>>deliver with the F-104.
>>
>>So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
>>maneuverability?
>
>They probably figured they had adequate maneuverability. They should
>have made sure they said they wanted to keep it AND get more speed
>instead of trading one for the other.

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?
--

-Gord.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:07:44 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:51:48 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:32:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar.
>>
>>Thanks. This month's Airpower/Wings sure talked the thing's
>>performance over Vietnam up. I'd read long ago that it didn't do all
>>that well over ther so I thought I'd come here for the lowdown :-)
>
>Airpower usually is pretty well researched. Can't imagine a positive
>review of F-104 SEA performance.

My mistake. It was "Combat Aircraft". I'd been reading them both and
got them mixed up. BTW Airpower has an article on the XF-103. Pretty
interesting.

For Scott Ferrin

Scott,

Ran across this additional information on f-104 deployment to SEA while
looking for something else.

http://web.tiscali.it/no-redirect-tiscali/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm

Tex Houston

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:19:51 -0700, "Tex Houston"
> wrote:

>For Scott Ferrin
>
>Scott,
>
>Ran across this additional information on f-104 deployment to SEA while
>looking for something else.
>
>http://web.tiscali.it/no-redirect-tiscali/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm
>
>Tex Houston
>


Thanks for the link. It sounds like they could have been valuable but
circumstances conspired against them.

In article >,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>>On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Tex Houston > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
>>>>F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
>>>>mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
>>>>getting paid.
>>>>
>>>
>>>According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
>>>Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
>>>out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
>>>greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
>>>deliver with the F-104.
>>>
>>>So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
>>>maneuverability?
>>
>>They probably figured they had adequate maneuverability. They should
>>have made sure they said they wanted to keep it AND get more speed
>>instead of trading one for the other.
>
> They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
> that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
> autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
> would have given them?

No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
too stable, laterally.

In all fairness, it really ought to be pointed out that the F-104 was
only unmaneuverable at low EAS. (FOr values of low < 500 kts or so)
If you kept the speed up, it would maneuver with anything else. After
all, when maximum lift isn't the limiting factor, all that wing
loading stuff isn't as important. (Note - I'm not saying it isn't
important, but low wing loading favors the slower airplane) IIRC, it
was a lot easier for a well-flown F-104 to keep its energy up than any
of its competitors. The drawback, is, though, that in order to go fas
& stay fast, you've got to be in afterburner all the time, and that
limits your endurance. (And also makes it a bit hard to escort
anything - There's no point if your F-104 strike escort flies to hanoi
& back in 25 minutes, sweeping all i front of it, if the F-105s with
the bombs are still chugging along at 550-600 kts. :) )

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:

>> They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
>> that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
>> autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
>> would have given them?
>
>No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
>airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
>too stable, laterally.
>

Ok, thanks Peter...most fighters don't seem to have near the
amount of anhedral of the 104. Like the 'teens, most seem to be
pretty flat, what made the 104 so laterally stable as to require
it reduced so much?...or is that parameter (in a fighter) not as
effective as it would be in a heavier a/c? (I'd think that the
heavier an a/c was then the more a certain amount of anhedral
would destabilize it?)


--

-Gord.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:58:30 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
>> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
>>>wrote:
>>
>> They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
>> that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
>> autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
>> would have given them?
>
>No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
>airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
>too stable, laterally.

Well, it was common for all high performance aircraft of the period to
have stability augmentation. Some had single axis while others had
full three-axis stab aug. It wasn't as fully in-the-loop as todays FBW
systems, but definitely added control inputs to reduce pilot workload
on inherently unstable systems.

The F-104G (and probably a number of the other Euro variants) carried
the same multi-mode autopilot system that the F-105D had with altitude
hold, attitude hold, mach hold, nav-track, autoss (nuclear
over-the-shoulder) and autoILS.

>
>In all fairness, it really ought to be pointed out that the F-104 was
>only unmaneuverable at low EAS. (FOr values of low < 500 kts or so)
>If you kept the speed up, it would maneuver with anything else. After
>all, when maximum lift isn't the limiting factor, all that wing
>loading stuff isn't as important. (Note - I'm not saying it isn't
>important, but low wing loading favors the slower airplane) IIRC, it
>was a lot easier for a well-flown F-104 to keep its energy up than any
>of its competitors. The drawback, is, though, that in order to go fas
>& stay fast, you've got to be in afterburner all the time, and that
>limits your endurance. (And also makes it a bit hard to escort
>anything - There's no point if your F-104 strike escort flies to hanoi
>& back in 25 minutes, sweeping all i front of it, if the F-105s with
>the bombs are still chugging along at 550-600 kts. :) )

Actually, at low altitude and high-Q, the 104 would begin to get inlet
overtemps when trying to escort F-105s. The losses of the two escort
F-104s weren't associated with bomb dropper escort, but with Wild
Weasel escort. They might have been more successful in the counter-air
role if flown as CAP sorties with GCI to run them toward the threat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:33:47 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:58:30 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Gord Beaman" ) writes:
> >> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
> >>>wrote:
> >>
> >> They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
> >> that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
> >> autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
> >> would have given them?
> >
> >No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
> >airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
> >too stable, laterally.

Feedback control systems vastly predate computers. They even predate
using electricity for augmentation. Lawrence Sperry's wing leveler
used a pendulum, being a mechanical system.

The anhedral was there because of the t-tail. Without anhedral, the
tail would have caused too much weathercocking, so the anhedral was
added to stabilize the airplane in yaw. It doesn't reduce the
stability, it increases it. Pretty much all fighters have anhedral,
because they have big verticals, although the amount of anhedral
varies depending on whether the fuselage, particularly the forebody,
helps with the weathercocking.

> Well, it was common for all high performance aircraft of the period to
> have stability augmentation. Some had single axis while others had
> full three-axis stab aug. It wasn't as fully in-the-loop as todays FBW
> systems, but definitely added control inputs to reduce pilot workload
> on inherently unstable systems.

The F-104 and F-4 had dampers in roll and yaw. Maybe in pitch, too,
(I don't have a Dash-1 around), but I know when I flew in the F-104 we
turned the roll and yaw dampers off for a little while. We also shut
down the dampers in the F-4E when I flew in it almost two decades
later.

Anyway, I think the dampers were all there was in the F-104 for
stability augmentation, because the airplane was pretty good except
for not being highly damped. Not that it was deadbeat, even with the
dampers, but it was a lot better.

> The F-104G (and probably a number of the other Euro variants) carried
> the same multi-mode autopilot system that the F-105D had with altitude
> hold, attitude hold, mach hold, nav-track, autoss (nuclear
> over-the-shoulder) and autoILS.

I believe the F-104N had this same system, since it was an F-104G
without the weapons suite.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:13:04 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:33:47 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote:
>
>> Well, it was common for all high performance aircraft of the period to
>> have stability augmentation. Some had single axis while others had
>> full three-axis stab aug. It wasn't as fully in-the-loop as todays FBW
>> systems, but definitely added control inputs to reduce pilot workload
>> on inherently unstable systems.
>
>The F-104 and F-4 had dampers in roll and yaw. Maybe in pitch, too,
>(I don't have a Dash-1 around), but I know when I flew in the F-104 we
>turned the roll and yaw dampers off for a little while. We also shut
>down the dampers in the F-4E when I flew in it almost two decades
>later.

The F-4 had three axis stab aug; pitch, roll and yaw. It was standard
procedure to turn the roll aug off before any high G manuevering such
as combat or ACM training. The roll aug caused very jerky movements
during rolls because of the aileron/rudder interplay. Rather than a
roll, you flew a multi-sided polygon. ;-)



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

>The F-4 had three axis stab aug; pitch, roll and yaw. It was standard
>procedure to turn the roll aug off before any high G manuevering such
>as combat or ACM training. The roll aug caused very jerky movements
>during rolls because of the aileron/rudder interplay. Rather than a
>roll, you flew a multi-sided polygon. ;-)

Being **very** careful who was in the pit; while flying route
formation I would ask the GIB if he wanted to fly. One bud was a CFII
and had competed at IAC (International Aerobatic Club) events.

Route formation was no challenge for him (nor was refueling), but
whiet mashing down the Master Caution reset I'd turn the roll Aug
off...no sweat. After a short interval (still holding the reset
button) I'd turn off the Pitch Aug...yeehaa, ride 'em cowboy.

He'd get flustered, I'd calmly turn the Pitch Aug back on as I
announced, "I got the jet" and stirred the stick. Back in position I
asked him if he wanted to try again.

Rinse-lather-repeat...rinse-lather-repeat.

By the third time I couldn't keep from laughing and fessed up. And to
think I got paid to do that. Life is good!

Juvat

>Being **very** careful who was in the pit; while flying route
>formation I would ask the GIB if he wanted to fly. One bud was a CFII
>and had competed at IAC (International Aerobatic Club) events.
>
>Route formation was no challenge for him (nor was refueling), but
>whiet mashing down the Master Caution reset I'd turn the roll Aug
>off...no sweat. After a short interval (still holding the reset
>button) I'd turn off the Pitch Aug...yeehaa, ride 'em cowboy.
>
>He'd get flustered, I'd calmly turn the Pitch Aug back on as I
>announced, "I got the jet" and stirred the stick. Back in position I
>asked him if he wanted to try again.
>
>Rinse-lather-repeat...rinse-lather-repeat.
>
>By the third time I couldn't keep from laughing and fessed up. And to
>think I got paid to do that. Life is good!
>
>Juvat
>

Picked up an overhauled F-4D at the IRAN repairl facility at Tainan, Taiwan and
was planning to ferry it back to Kunsan. Had tailwinds all the way so we
decided to fly direct overwater from their to Korea instad of taking the more
prudent route of two hopping to Kadena, Okinawa then to the Kun. It flight
planned out close but with a legal reserve. Also passed within 50 miles of the
Chinese mainland.

just about at the point of no return, the plane had a generator failure. No
biggy as the bus tie and remaing generator piocked up the load as it was
designed.

Then the stability augmentation system quit. The plane was hard enough to
handle with roll and pitch aug off but losing yaw as well made it a real trick.
Sort of like standing on a 2 x 12 board balenced on a bowling ball. Took two
of us to fly the the remaining 1.3 hours back to the Kun and we both were
exhausted, soaked in sweat, and still shaking an hour after we got home. Don't
know whether it was the work involved or being in range of MiGs 50 miles away
over a very cold ocean with a very sick jet!

Shortly thereafter, the management forbade anyone to take a freshly overhauled
plane on that route, period. Most of the time, those "overhauled" planes took
months to sort out after they got back to home station anyway..