request for fighter pilot statistic

Well, troops, I flew both the F102A (1500 hours) and the F104A (730
hours). Both could hack the mission. The USAF brass didn't like the
F104 because it couldn't work in thick clouds. (Thin clouds, okay). The
104 was stationed at Homestead Florida because of Cuba's 125 MiG 21s
down there. As for the two birds being 'safe', that's a relative term.
I lost one (1) friend in the 102 in 6 years and I lost 5 in the 3 1/2
years i was in the 319th FIS flying the 104. Like Ed, I have lost many
more friends than those mentioned since I spent most of my 22 years
flying fighters in fighter squadrons. Some of the guys were lost in
peacetime, others in Vietnam. Now as far as GWB goes the 102 was an
honest airplane, having only one weird kink - it could develop a
hellacious rate of sink slow and nose-high that could only be
alleviated by diving for speed since even full afterburner could be
insufficient to break the rate of descent. Do this under say 2000 AGL
and you were in deep serious. I flew the Deuce while at Kansas city and
at Thule. We lost one guy at KC. On rotation his flashlight slid off
teh glareshiekld and fell into the stick well forward of the stick.
(The well mantling was missing.) He couldn't get the stick forward and
the bird nosed up, losing speed rapidly. He ejected but the Deuce never
ever had a zerozero seat and he hit the ground with a partially
deployed chute and was killed by impact. I know of one guy the TANG
lost in a Deuce back in the early 70s, ISTR. Weird accident. He was
flying with the lap belt loose (a lot of guys did this so they could
look around better) and hit jet wash coming up initial. He was bounced
up, the stick moved sharply, the survival kit he was sitting upon
popped out and jammed the stick forward and that was all she wrote. The
Zipper, OTH, was also an honest airplane; it told you what was going
on. You had to know its good and bad points and be ready to act now now
now. You also had to know when to quit trying to save the bird; I lost
two friends at once because they tried to dead-stick a two seater heavy
on fuel and hit hard and broke up. One friend died because his canopy
came open on takeoff and the pubs, etc, lunched the engine. One died
because his fuel gauge was reading 600 pounds too high and the engine
quit on short final. The resuklting fire was about 2 feet in diameter.
Another, we think, was an oxygen problem. He went in, without a word
about trouble, from 48,000 and 1.7M. Another had a split flap on
downwind and went right in upside down. Lost a friend in an F4 when the
outer wing panel broke off doing a max performance reversal. Yet
another backseater I'd flown combat with when the aft canopy came off
during an ACM go and he was yanked out of his seat at .95M when his
chute bloomed in the airstream. Lost a very close friend in a 105 at
McConnell on a low-level bomb pass when the fins came off lead's
hi-drag and hit his airplane at speed. I worked with the DCANG in the
late 70s; they lost a pilot when his 105 lost a wing in the pitch-out.
Two more (separate accidents) went into the water off Okinawa at night.
Another pressed his dive bomb pass and hit the ground right after his
bombs, again at night. SAMs and flak got a couple dozen. Not too much
flak or missiles on the Interstate, are there . . . Of course, we all
faced the same problem driving - high spirits, booze and idiots sharing
the road. The guy I flew one of my most memorable missions with was
erased by a French semi wiping out his VW van; killed him and his wife.
The old USAF joke is in my favor - I logged about 5000 hours in
fighters with 150 'counter' missions and lived to collect my retainer
pay. I could take some time out, starting with the guy killed in a T33
in AvCadets (Homer Hess) and list all the names I can recall - but just
read 'The Right Stuff' and see what Tom Wolfe found out. And Ed's right
- cowards can and have flown fighters - but they're not fighter pilots
and never will be. There were a couple of these guys during Vietnam -
just couldn't bring themselves to go over there and get shot at 'with
intent'. The one I couldn't understand at all was the Buff pilot who
was ready to nuke a couple million people but had strong reservations
about bombing the North Vietnamese with iron bombs. Guess he privately
felt he was never going to have to do his 'deterrent' mission and was
happy with the peacetime routine. So - why did we do it? Hard to
explain. You'd have to ride in one to see why, and maybe even then you
wouldn't understand it, unless you enjoy fast horses, fast bikes, fast
cars and fast women more than playing it safe.
Walt BJ

The USAF brass didn't like the
F104 because it couldn't work in thick clouds. (Thin clouds, okay).

Why couldn't it work in thick clouds?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
The USAF brass didn't like the
F104 because it couldn't work in thick clouds. (Thin clouds, okay).


Why couldn't it work in thick clouds?

No all-weather capability, targets had to be acquired visually - the
F104 was an Kelly Johnson's "lightweight fighter". The later F-104G and
F-104S were all-weather, but not flown by the USAF.

wrote in message
oups.com...
You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
per hour.

http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
You probably want this page
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...aft_stats.html

This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.

Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.

SNIP

As stated elsewhere, the Pres flew deuces, not zippers.

I don't think any of the century series or their Navy contemporaries could
be considered a deathtrap. Perhaps the most notorious jet of the 50's -
60's was the F-7 Cutlass which combined peculiar flying qualities with
unreliable systems (electrical and hydraulic).

The Navy had a particularly tough time with operational accidents when they
flew relatively underpowered jets off straight deck carriers (more mishap
than combat losses in Korea). Angled decks and the next generation of
aircraft helped there, although the F-8 was particularly unforgiving around
the blunt end of the boat and had the distinction of the highest mishap rate
of any aircraft in the angled deck era.

As to the issue of timidity or cowardice, it can be found in any avocation
or profession. Frequently the individual is unaware of his/her (it's a coed
world these days) shortcoming until the pressure is on. As an example,
while Duke Cunningham was doing his thing on May 10, 1972 another squadron
aircraft was making a beeline for feet wet.

R / John

james cho wrote:


What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.
james

And whether or not there was a war going on.

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments,
Restoration of my 1919 Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat, and
Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html

wrote in message
oups.com...
I got the number wrong. However, I do recall comments about what Shrub
flew not being particularly safe.

And intercept missions, due to the profiles at the time (late 60's) were
essentially suicide missions.

Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
oups.com...
Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

Not disagreeing with you, but I have a hard time (my own limitation)
imagining the F-104 as a dogfighter.

The F-104 was a very competent dogfighter. The key, with any aircraft,
is to get the adversary to your best operating envelope rather than for
you to visit his. Flown at high speed and preferably at high altitude,
the Zipper could do a very good job. When enhanced by modern element
tactics, the airplane got very competitive.

Similarly, the F-105D could be a pretty reasonable dogfighter if you
were careful to keep your energy high and your altitude low. Venturing
into the vertical was a recipe for disaster.

MiG-17 was a great dogfighter...unless you forced him to come up to the
400 KIAS++ region where he couldn't maintain closure and couldn't
overcome the high stick forces.

All of matter of fighting your own best fight.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
oups.com...
The F-104 was a very competent dogfighter. The key, with any aircraft,
is to get the adversary to your best operating envelope rather than for
you to visit his. Flown at high speed and preferably at high altitude,
the Zipper could do a very good job. When enhanced by modern element
tactics, the airplane got very competitive.

Similarly, the F-105D could be a pretty reasonable dogfighter if you
were careful to keep your energy high and your altitude low. Venturing
into the vertical was a recipe for disaster.

MiG-17 was a great dogfighter...unless you forced him to come up to the
400 KIAS++ region where he couldn't maintain closure and couldn't
overcome the high stick forces.

All of matter of fighting your own best fight.

Thanks for the info!!!