If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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-ti...ighter/Zip.htm Tex Houston |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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-ti...ighter/Zip.htm Tex Houston Thanks for the link. It sounds like they could have been valuable but circumstances conspired against them. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Air Force celebrates Centennial of Flight | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 10:58 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |
Air Force announces acquisition management reorganization | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 21st 03 09:16 PM |