request for fighter pilot statistic

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Gregg
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

On 11 Nov 2005 18:40:35 -0800, wrote:

Fatalities per hour
F102: 75 /2606799=2.9e-5
F16D: 32 /710960=4.5e-5
23 of the F-16D fatalities listed there were on a C-141 that got hit
on the ground by an F-16D after it's pilots ejected, following a
midair with a C-130 at Pope AFB in March, 1994. Take those away and
you get 9/710960=1.3e-5.

I'd take the F-16D destroyed aircraft rate of 3.8 per 100,000 hours
versus the F-102 of 9.9 as well.
--Rolf

gregg wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Somewhere I've read a quote from Boyd (probably; otherwise, one of the other
members of the LWF Mafia) in a paper discussing energy maneuverability, in
which it is stated that there had been no increase in fighter Ps (in fact, a
decrease) since the F-104. The period of the report in question must have
been the late '60s or early '70s. Walt BJ flew the hottest F-104, the A model
retrofitted with the same J79-19 engine as in the Sparrow-armed F-104S, but
without all the avionics associated with the RHM capability. As Walt can tell
you, that bird was awesome. About the only fighter that was in the same
ballpark in that era performance-wise was the Lightning, but that had a pretty
poor weapon system for air combat (though better for interception than the
F-104A or C).

A now deceased friend of a friend flew virtually all models of the F-104,
including the G (he flew the C in combat), and liked the G the least. IIRC
(this is via my fading memory of what my friend said his friend had told him
whilediscussing the a/c), he said that it was relatively heavy and the Cg was
more forward (presumably owing to the more powerful radar and more complete
avionics), and he also didn't care for the bigger tail. Now, please note that
he was assessing it as a pure air superiority fighter, as opposed to the
multi-role fighter (nuke and conventional strike/recon/limited all-weather
interception/maritime strike) missions that the F-104G was required to
perform, where all the extra weight of avionics (and airframe beef-up) was
necessary.

Oh, one correction to a point Ed made in a post; the 104 usually had its
greatest Ps advantage fast and low, not fast and high. About the only time
F-8s (any other US fighter of the period was a grape against a smartly-flown
Zipper) could give them problems was at high altitude and low Mach, where
the104's skimpy wing was very unhappy.

Guy

miso

Duce didn't have a bad reputation. Only down for the A/C was that in
Squadrons it was not supersonic in level flight. J-57 was a good
reliable engine. Bird had a gear that was restricted to a 20mph cross
wind on landing so you had to watch that but how often do you have to
land in a cross wind component that high?

Follow on delta was the 106 which had the coke bottle fuselage drag
reduction and bigger engine (J-75) and was supersonic in level flight.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````

On 11 Nov 2005 18:34:15 -0800, wrote:

I got the number wrong. However, I do recall comments about what Shrub
flew not being particularly safe.

Jase Vanover wrote:
I've always heard that the F-104 was a superb aircraft for what it was
designed for (high speed, high altitude intercept), but by the time it was
operational the needs had changed, and the attempts to adapt it to the needs
of the time played to it's weaknesses.

It was freakin' fast (first plane capable of sustained Mach 2+), and held
records of the day for altitude and time to climb. I've seen a parked one
at the museum in Ottawa, Canada. Smallish in nature, but hot lines... a
looker and real "sports car."

The "missle with the man in it" is indeed an interesting, if not
particularly successful aircraft.

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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:18:36 GMT, "gatt"
wrote in
::

Anybody have any leads to reputable information about fighter pilot
fatality
statistics?

For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying
a
fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)

Context: Can a Coward Become a Fighter Pilot? (Yeah, I know. That's
so
2000.)

I'll bet lots of folks who frequent rec.aviation.military can respond
to your inquiry. I'll crosspost this followup there for you.

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

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.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

"Nobody killed anybody with PsubS." Not sure who to attribute that too, but
it seems to be lurking in my old memories of a Top Gun lecture.

R / John

james cho wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than
flying a fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)


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.

You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack

I'm curious to know how the F-100 compared to the 104. I assume the
planes had different missions but being from the same era I lump them
together. I've heard/read about the Super Sabre being a handful but
comparing the wing on it to the 104's lack thereof you'd think it would
be tame by comparison. I figure any of the first-gen jets could be a
handful for a hamfisted pilot as high speed aerodynamics was a new
science then and quite unforgiving.

Would like to hear input from those who've "been there".

Wooly

Well, I've flown neither the F-100 nor the 104. But, I've flown with a
lot of guys who've flown them. My experience was F-105 and F-4.

The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
flips over to the right. The issue is that the down aileron creates
much more drag than the up one--i.e. yaw away from the roll direction.
When that happens, suddenly the high wing gets a lot of blanking from
the yawed fuselage and the low wing is placed in a better lift
producing situation and you go the wrong way.

Throw in that the -100A model had no flaps and hence very high landing
speeds and a slow responding, relatively low power engine. That, of
course leads to the potential for the "Sabre Dance" where you get
behind the power curve, extremely nose high and the only way out is to
lose altitude which might not be available.

The F-104 really was only a problem because of high landing and
take-off speeds. (WaltBJ will undoubtedly offer greater insights into
the Zipper at this point.)

The F-105 had very few bad flying characteristics except for the high
wing loading and high TO/Landing speeds.

The "hard wing" F-4 (before leading edge slats were added to E-models)
had very similar adverse yaw characteristics as the F-100, but a lot
better thrust/weight and engine responsiveness. Boundary layer control
(blowing) reduced landing speeds as well.

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
flips over to the right.

Only a problem at high angles of attack. But then why fly a fighter if
you are not going to pull g and turn? Rudder was our very best friend.


Jack

Ain't no doubt about it. But, for folks who had grown up flying more
docile aircraft, the traditional application of flight controls--stick
to turn and rudder only to coordinate a bit--the serious adverse yaw
was a killer. The first generation of F-100 drivers were having a
difficult time and suffering a number of crashes until North American
started a serious training program to visit the various bases and demo
the airplane as well as provide details about how to control
it--particularly in the final turn. Can't remember right now whether it
was Chuck Yeager or Bob Hoover that was the star of the show.

Even when I went through F-4 checkout, there were a lot of IPs at Luke
who seemed very reluctant to get max performance out of the airplane.
The initial impression was of a not very agile platform. Flown
properly, however, with little or no aileron input any time there was
back-stick, the airplane was very competitive. As you say, rudder was
our very best--and most dependable--friend.