Is this what happens to surplus F-104's??

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message ...
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

http://www.landspeed.com/

No ordinary surplus F-104 that - it was one of the Edwards chase planes
during the '50s and '60s. It was scheduled to be converted to an NF-104
(with the rocket engine and reaction thrusters) but was never actually
converted due to the program's cancellation.

The guy who's shooting for the land speed record says he's tried to keep
the fuselage mods to a minimum so it can easily be returned to flying
status after they're done.

Fuselage mods to a min is one thing, but look at the work done by
Thrust SSC (current record holder) and Spirit of America (who would
like to be the current record holder) - it's one thing creating a
place that travels at M1, but quite another making the thing STAY on
the ground. Thrust SSC was overbuilt and still took a pummelling from
shock waves. A wingless Starfighter sounds like long shot to me.

But having said that good luck to them!

David

In article ,
(David McArthur) wrote:

(Marc Reeve) wrote in message
...
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

http://www.landspeed.com/

No ordinary surplus F-104 that - it was one of the Edwards chase planes
during the '50s and '60s. It was scheduled to be converted to an NF-104
(with the rocket engine and reaction thrusters) but was never actually
converted due to the program's cancellation.

The guy who's shooting for the land speed record says he's tried to keep
the fuselage mods to a minimum so it can easily be returned to flying
status after they're done.

Fuselage mods to a min is one thing, but look at the work done by
Thrust SSC (current record holder) and Spirit of America (who would
like to be the current record holder) - it's one thing creating a
place that travels at M1, but quite another making the thing STAY on
the ground. Thrust SSC was overbuilt and still took a pummelling from
shock waves. A wingless Starfighter sounds like long shot to me.

But having said that good luck to them!

I hope they are installing a zero-zero ejaction seat. IIRC the F-104
wasn't equipped with that capability.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Harry Andreas wrote:

http://www.landspeed.com/

the ground. Thrust SSC was overbuilt and still took a pummelling from
shock waves. A wingless Starfighter sounds like long shot to me.

But having said that good luck to them!

I hope they are installing a zero-zero ejection seat. IIRC the F-104
wasn't equipped with that capability.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Lord, I hope not, LSR safety crews have enough to contend with.
I know we had a hell of a time trying to catch a car on fire that went
past us at 200+mph last year , took us what seemed forever to catch it.
Would not want to attempt a rescue on a vehicle with an armed seat...

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David McArthur) wrote:


I hope they are installing a zero-zero ejaction seat. IIRC the F-104
wasn't equipped with that capability.


At least the downward firing seat saves the cost of digging a grave

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(David McArthur) wrote:


I hope they are installing a zero-zero ejaction seat. IIRC the F-104
wasn't equipped with that capability.


At least the downward firing seat saves the cost of digging a grave

Keith

From an article by Joe Baugher for those who might not know what Keith is
talking about although this one was probably among the retrofits.

Tex

The first F-104As were fitted with Lockheed-designed downward-firing ejector
seats. Lockheed engineers had feared that upward-firing ejections would not
be safe at the speeds at which the F-104 would be flying, the seat
supposedly being unable to clear the tall vertical tail at such high speeds.
Consequently, they opted for a downward-firing ejection system. The system
was the first fully-automatic downward-firing ejection system ever employed
in a production fighter. When the pilot initiated the ejection sequence by
pulling the ejection ring, an automatic sequence of events was initiated.
First, the cockpit depressurized and the flight control stick retracted. The
parachute shoulder harness then tightened and the pilot's feet were pulled
together and clamped into place. The escape hatch was then blown off the
bottom of the aircraft and the seat fired, ejecting the pilot out the bottom
of the airplane. This system proved to be unsafe in service, since it was
useless for emergencies that occurred during landings, takeoffs, or anywhere
near the ground. In order to eject safely at low altitudes, the pilot would
first have to roll his aircraft inverted and then eject upward out of the
bottom of the plane. This was of course not always feasible, and the famous
test pilot Iven C. Kincheloe was among 21 F-104 aircrew to be killed by the
deficiencies in this escape system. Consequently, the downward ejection
system was quite unpopular with F-104A pilots and was replaced in the field
by the more conventional Lockheed C-2 upward-firing ejector seat.

In article , John
wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

http://www.landspeed.com/

the ground. Thrust SSC was overbuilt and still took a pummelling from
shock waves. A wingless Starfighter sounds like long shot to me.

But having said that good luck to them!

I hope they are installing a zero-zero ejection seat. IIRC the F-104
wasn't equipped with that capability.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Lord, I hope not, LSR safety crews have enough to contend with.
I know we had a hell of a time trying to catch a car on fire that went
past us at 200+mph last year , took us what seemed forever to catch it.
Would not want to attempt a rescue on a vehicle with an armed seat...

Well the web site shows that they are using an ejection seat.
If it's not a zero altitude model, the pilot/driver might have a problem if
he needs to use it.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur