F104 - fundamentally flawed

[RichardIC]

I’ve been browsing Pprune for a couple of years, but this is my first post.

I’ve a long-time interest in all things military, but no military connections.

I’m a journalist by profession, but I’ve worked in PR for many years, so I possibly represent one evolutionary notch up from pondlife.

I’d like your help as I’m now getting my ass into gear and trying to write a book I’ve been tinkering with for a good while.

It’s basically about the dichotomy represented by some iconic post-war military bits of hardware that have been hugely successful despite being utterly crap.

I’m currently working on a chapter about the good old Starfighter, and I’d love any of your reminiscences. I know this site is populated mainly by RAF types, but it must have been impossible to have served in the 60s, 70s and 80s without coming across the 104 on a frequent basis. If you’ve actually flown the thing, either on exchange or serving with the RCAF or an another user, so much the better.

I’m not trying to write anything at all technically authoritative – it’s by a layman for a layman. I want the tone to be light, although I appreciate humour doesn’t quite sit easily when the subject is an airplane that killed so many of the people who flew it. I also know many of you will think there are much better examples of soaraway crapness (I’m thinking about the Harrier next). You may also think the F104 was a marvel of the age.

I also realise that its reputation may have been partly maligned by the corruption that is such a rich part of the F104 tale.

To be honest I don’t care – any contributions gratefully received.

[Pontius Navigator]

Try and establish contacts with the RCAF and German Air Force, both highly successful and large volume users.

The Belgiques were also enthusiatic operators. At the Cottesmore air show in about 1966 a Belgique staff pilot rolled the F104.

He did twinkle rolls at 20 feet and touch and go rolls at 50 feet. The latter involved a touch down at about 1500 feet, a roll at 50 feet, followed by a further touch down and a further popup roll.

Our attention was then divided between the F104, exiting stage left before a re-entry, stage left about 4 minutes later, and OC Ops doing about 90 down the peritrack to tell him to foxtrot oscar.

The response was, I believe, "Say again. Please speak slower." Rolling all the time:}

OC Ops was Wg Cdr Digman and the staish was Gp Capt, later Air Cdre, Eric Wright and later Director of Flight Safety.

[Tombstone]

I've met a few Italian pilots who flew the F104 prior to the MoD fobbing the F3 off to them and despite the annoyance of having a chap in the back talking non-stop about pasta, they were more than happy to be rid of the 'Widow Maker' and move onto an aircraft which did not go out of its way to kill you whilst in the circuit. "F3? Bella Bella!" was often the reply when asking about the F3. Desperate times, desperate measures...;)

Perhaps some of the more experienced chaps such as Beagle may be able to offer a first hand account of the F104.

Edited for crap tpying.

[Zoom]

I only had one flight in one - in the back of a RCAF CF-104 based at Bad Solingen. The captain's aim was to show off his stead, mine was to try an tap one of our own F-4s. I spotted one a couple of miles away and immediately tried to crank on a 6g starboard turn, a la proper aeroplane. At about 1.5g there was an great pile of shuddering, a good deal of stick shaker (I think) and an almighty howl from the front of 'FLAPS, YOU NEED FLAPS!!' Useless piece of rubbish. Fast, though. Very fast. And, of course, with its J-79, very smokey.

And anyone who visited Deci in the 70s when the IAF used to rev its S-models up early am, they will remember that they sounded like braying donkeys.

The German ones were restricted to not below 800' AGL during low flying because of the racket and the vociferous lobby in Germany.

They were, being very high wing-loaders, very stable during strafe and this is the only thing since 1940 that the GAF ever beat the RAF at.

[SirToppamHat]

I may be going mad, but I have recollections in the early 90s of controlling IAF F104s at Deci. I remember the symboloy on the ACMI kit and it was often pretty difficult to tell whether the tracking on the range was down or the ac were turning. Yes very fast. Yes very noisy. But air-to-air they were a one-trick beast and if they didn't get an early shot off BVR (AIM 7?) it was endex.

STH

[Archimedes]

D'you know if the originally-fitted downward-firing seat had any influence on the 800'AGL rule as well as the noise issue, Zoom?

RichardIC - good suggestions above. If you've not done so already, could I suggest looking at the book on the 104 by Martin Bowman in the Crowood series? It has several sets of recollections by a variety of chaps involved with it. There was also a piece in International Air Power Review (Volume 12) by Warren Thompson on the use of the F-104 in Vietnam which might be of interest to you as well.

[Transall]

The Belgiques were also enthusiatic operators. At the Cottesmore air show in about 1966 a Belgique staff pilot rolled the F104.

He did twinkle rolls at 20 feet and touch and go rolls at 50 feet. The latter involved a touch down at about 1500 feet, a roll at 50 feet, followed by a further touch down and a further popup roll.

Our attention was then divided between the F104, exiting stage left before a re-entry, stage left about 4 minutes later, and OC Ops doing about 90 down the peritrack to tell him to foxtrot oscar.

The response was, I believe, "Say again. Please speak slower." Rolling all the time:}

OC Ops was Wg Cdr Digman and the staish was Gp Capt, later Air Cdre, Eric Wright and later Director of Flight Safety.

Hi,

We were indeed enthusiastic operators.
That must have been the great Bill Ongena doing his routine at Cottesmore. Sadly, he later died in a car crash.
The F-104 was not more dangerous to fly than its contemparies. I believe it got its bad name in Germany from people who didn't like fast jets in the first place.

Archimedes,

The downwards-firing ejection seats were only in the early USAF models, the Germans always had upward-firing seats. Initially the Lockheed C-2 and from about 1969 Martin Baker seats were retrofitted.

Cheers, Transall.

[BEagle]

Loved the "Ahhh -WHHHOOOOO-HAH" noise it made when they did the pre-take off AB check.

The BocheMarine came over to pre-grunt Wattisham in the early 80s with their immaculate 104s - not to mention much Wobbly and Jaegermeister. Fast, but the choice of low level turning points caused local mayhem. Did some affil with them - sucker them into following you down in a steep dive to low level, then break hard whilst descending and watch them break off or become high speed tent pegs..... Then keep the turn going on to their run away heading and call a Fox 2. "Ach, Himmel!".

Once chased one from Ely to the Wattisham overhead during an exercise whilst firmly tucked in his 6 o'clock at comfy AIM-9G range with the acq round growling its little head off. Box headed mate never looked round once - and the lineys loved it when we flashed over the airfield at about 480 KIAS with the 104 very obviously complete toast.

[Pontius Navigator]

Transall, the name rings a bell.

What really worried the wheels were the 3 nuclear armed bombers at the touchdown end and the prospect of a hole in the runway.

Archimedes,

It was only the F104A with the downward seat. Good theory. High level interceptor and a downward bang would reduce back injuries and not require a large push to clear the tail.

Clearly the main limitation occurred in the recovery or departure case.

Certainly the Ruskies thought it a cracking idea which they incorporated in the Blinder. Their low level was about 1000-1200 feet!

Mind you they HAD bang seats.

[Pontius Navigator]

F4 GA Nav said they hated covering the GAF F104 strike targets. The F4 planned at about 520K but the F104 planned for 550k. The turn after release must have been interesting.

[Archimedes]

Transall/PN, thank you.

An unthinking question on my part: I knew it was the C2 that was replaced by the MB seat - only to stupidly think that the C2 was the downward firing one. And I know, if I think about it, that the C2 was a zero-zero seat...

A downward firing zero-zero seat? Doh!. :\ :uhoh: (is there a smilie for 'shakes head at early onset of dementia?)

[Evileyes]

As they are still being flown by the Starfighters Airshow Demonstration Team (a civvy org) you might want to chat with them. A google search will take you there.

[SASless]

Arch,

You did come up with an interesting concept for a bit there.....I am not sure I would like to have been around for the first test firing!

Short rocket burn but lordy what a smashing finish! The results would be measured on the Richter Scale somewhere near Burbank.:E

[rvusa]

I suggest you contact Wholigan (Jet Blast Mod) who, I know, flew the Canadian version. :ok:

[Schnowzer]

I always liked the Italian's tactics at Deci. "We go 'igh speed until the airway and then we turn around, go 'igh speed again and land" It was deemed a successful mission if they kept out of the airway and landed before ATC said the immortal words "Deci iz a Clo zed!".:8

[Jackonicko]

Well done for asking!

It might save repetition of the same tired old lies.

The accident rate in Germany, in the early years, was admittedly horrific. Though arguably less so than that of the German F-84s (which were in service for a much shorter time).

But this had much more to do with training ab initio pilots far too quickly in Arizona, to too low a standard, and then sending them into a European winter to convert to and fly hot F-104Gs in an environment they'd not encountered, and a role they hadn't adequately prepared for (low level strike) than it did with any intrinsic flaw in the -104.

Interestingly, none of the other NATO F-104 users had anything like the same problems, and some (was it Norway? Can't be arsed to go and look it up) never lost one.

Even in Germany, the type matured into a useful, popular, and effective (if narrow and inflexible) aircraft, and when the boxheads retired theirs, most were snapped up with alacrity by the Turks. By the end, the aircraft was obsolete and lacked any pretence at the multi-role capabilities that became standard with the F-16, but the pilots still loved them.

I have spoken to first tour German -104 drivers back when the aircraft was brand new - but I was wearing shorts and a rather natty toy dagger at the time, as they were showing me the cockpit at Wildenrath c.1967. I suspect that I didn't ask any interesting questions, nor did I gain much appreciation of the role or the accident stats. I have photos of me sitting/standing in/next to most of the early users' F-104s, often with the kind chap from No.14 Squadron who used to hoik me out of school and show me interesting visiting aircraft.

But I have spoken marginally more intelligently to more recent F-104 pilots, and I never found one who was less than affectionate and enthusiastic about the aircraft, and its apparent that it was never the dire and dangerous beast that the lay person would expect from reading German newspapers and magazines in the 60s, or listening to the Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters LP.

Axl Ostermeyer (a German Navy -104 and Tornado pilot) published an excellent book on the -104, and Captain Bob Wade (a Canadian -104, -18 and MiG-29 ace) is worth speaking to about the jet.

It certainly wasn't an example of 'soaraway crapness' and nor, I'd say, was the Harrier.

[BEagle]

So..... G for Germany. Zis I am liking!

I was also told that the RN's record with the Sea Vixen was actually worse than the F-104G accident rate - was this true?

For truly revealing insight into the 104's capabilities, read up on the astonishing NF-104. But which was later greatly restricted after big head Yeager screwed up comprehensively in it, had to eject and then tried to blame the jet.......

[Wader2]

Arch,

You did come up with an interesting concept for a bit there.....I am not sure I would like to have been around for the first test firing!

Short rocket burn but lordy what a smashing finish! The results would be measured on the Richter Scale somewhere near Burbank.:E

SASLess you remind me. There was a trial in Germany for an F104 zero length launch. This was the ultimate RATOG.

IRC the setup was not unlike a V1 launch rail.

[RichardIC]

Thanks for so many replies, both here and by PM.

I fully accept that the F104 may have been much maligned, and that many operators regarded it with such fondness. To be honest, that just adds to the aircraft's appeal as a subject matter. Much more interesting than a turkey with a charisma bypass.

I've got lots of quality leads already

Slightly surprised no-one has suggested I go away and write about Typhoon instead.

Keep 'em coming and thanks once again.

[parabellum]

My experience of the F104G comes from far too many 'meetings' at very low level, over northern Germany in the mid 'sixties. The safest place to fly low level in those days was on the recognised low level routes between training areas as one could rest assured that the F104Gs would not be there, they flew straight lines only at about 200'.

I flew Army helicopters in those days, we were based at a large barracks complex in Verden, a large red dot on the map in the middle of a town but that didn't stop the Starfighters going straight over the top at low level!

Had a long discussion with a Dutch Air Force officer in 1967 who was part of an investigation team into the F104G accidents.
When the GAF took on the F104G they didn't have much senior technical experience of that generation of jets and Lockheed offered to lend them some in the shape of experienced crew chiefs etc. but the Luftwaffe refused, even though their senior men had missed out on the early generation of military jets in air force service they insisted that they could hack it.
As Jacko has already pointed out, the GAF let very inexperienced pilots loose on the F104G whereas the Dutch, Danish, Norwegian air forces ensured at least one tour on the F86 or F100 before a tour on the F104.
And we should not forget that the F104G was a multi-role aircraft fitted with a lot more equipment than Lockheed ever intended which made it a lot heavier than Lockheed intended and took it a lot closer to the edges of the envelope than was originally perceived.

[forget]

Richard, Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter

More info than you'll ever need!

And here's a fantastic video of a Luftwaffe rocket launch.

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Web/Site/QT/F104Launch.html

[green granite]

Remember doing a trial with a GAF 104 to clear the use of 1000lb bomb with the retarding tail fitted, Pilot briefed to drop at 275' +/- 25', actual release hieght? 100' pilots comment was that he hadn't noticed that the surface was undulating at the release point :hmm:

And before anyone asks the height was deduced from kine data, the bomb was inert, so no real danger.

[A2QFI]

My recollection is that the Luftwaffe had over 700 F 104s. The loss rate was high but not as a %age of the fleet. I think the RAF Lightning loss rate was higher and I suspect that the early Harrier loss rate would also be higher. I heard that no RAF exchange officer returned to USA from an exchange tour on Lightnings. It was once asked why the Luftwaffe never had Open Days and flying displays? The answer was that any German who wanted to see a Luftwaffe aircraft bought a 10 hectare field and then waited!

[forget]

From Wikipedia above;

The German modified Starfighters were especially problematic, due to the modifed version's alarming accident rate. In German service alone, 292 of the 916 Starfighters crashed, claiming the lives of 115 pilots, leading to cries that the Starfighter was fundamentally unsafe and earning it the Widowmaker nickname, among others (see below). However, the non-German F-104 proved much safer and earned a better track record.

[LowObservable]

An interesting fact about the 104 emerged recently as people started talking about supersonic laminar flow (as used on the Aerion supersonic bizjet project). Turns out that a thin unswept wing is best for this means of drag reduction... which is one reason why the 104 was as fast as it was.
Personally, I also think it is one of the best-looking aircraft ever designed - and I always want to smuggle one into any exhibit of 1950s art.

[Argonautical]

One of the old Modern Combat Aircraft series featured the F-104 and had a chapter on its service with the Germans. I read it a long time ago but it did provide an insight into their losses. I can remember that the Dutch found out something about the oxygen supply that could be dangerous and told everyone but the Germans didn't listen and suffered an accident. It is worth trying to track down.

[Igloowhite]

You could also try to make contact with Capt. Knut Lande, former Chief Pilot of Helikopter Service in Stavanger, who pranged a 104 on take-off and survived.

[lightningmate]

A2QFI

I can recall only one US Pilot being killed in a Lightning accident, my memory may not be wholly correct but certainly the majority returned home safely at the end of their tours. The odd one or two did go home a little early due to 'high-spirited' flying events!

However, if the US exchange pilot accident rate across all types is reviewed, then that is a little concerning.

lm

[A2QFI]

Lightning mate. I defer to your specialised knowledge! It was probably some urban myth that I picked up on! Thank you

[Zoom]

A small Lightning digression here, but I remember one USAF exchangee who did RTB Stateside but only after he had dumped 2 of 5 Sqn's jets in the North Sea.

Back on track, the CF-104 apparently had an INS that was so inaccurate as the distance-to-go approached zero that the pilots used to add 100nm to each leg, fly in on the correct track and then turn at 100nm.

[buoy15]

The F104 was much like the Frightening - A rocket with wings as stabilisers - the Yanks nicknamed it the "Widow-maker" as it killed more pilots and spectators in peacetime, than any other ac

[DaveW]

Not often commented on, but true: the last front line US operator of the F-104 was the Puerto Rico Air National Guard...

[SASless]

Funny how the 104 had the same performance as the Lightning but went twice as far on a tank of fuel. Not bad for a single engine multi-role aircraft. The old girls could carry 7500 pounds of ordinance under the wings.

[forget]

Not with an engine out.

[SASless]

Same as in the Harrier, Hunter, Spitfire and other types.

[Wholigan]

RichardIC
May I draw your attention to this thread from December last year. There are a few interesting points in there for you, including some statistics.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203620&highlight=starfighter

I should just like to say that I loved flying it. It was awesome fun and yes it could be a severe challenge at times. It had a few rules that you really did have to obey and if you failed to do so there was a distinct tendency for the machine to bite yer ass! One specific annoying habit was for it to “swap ends” if you ignored the warnings of shaker and kicker and paddled them off for “just a bit more turn”. “I understand” :E that it would not be a particularly enjoyable experience and one that you might not necessarily get the opportunity of enjoying twice!

It was – as has been said – extremely fast for its time, being limited to 750 knots EAS, Mach 2, or the “Slow Light” (121 degrees C inlet air temperature) whichever came first. Under some conditions it was quite possible to see over 800 knots indicated, which when you are flying at low level sure makes the ground go past quickly.

No it was not a “turning machine” for sure but then you are not surprised by this statement having seen the knife-sharp 22 foot span wings. These wings are a symmetrical diamond-shape and actually produce no lift when at no angle of attack. However, at high speed and certainly when supersonic, my 7.33G was the same as anybody else’s 7.33G at the same speed. So Rule 1 was “don’t slow down”.

The beast (with me and a great Canadian mate on board 2 of them) had the pleasure of getting the first “non-US” “kills” on some F14s during Navy Miramar’s Top Gun multi-bogey “anybody who isn’t the same type as you is your enemy” phase. Of course we cheated and used sensible tactics (what we used to call Israeli tactics) and we thrashed towards the bull’s eye from about 40-odd grand doing about Mach 1.8 or so and took 2 shots each as we blew through to the far side of the furball. Zooming back up to flight level lots, we turned back in and took 2 more shots each as we then blew back through the other side. Having then run out of fuel, ideas and bravery, we went home for tea and medals. My lasting memory of that “fight” was the deep brown growling voice of the first F14 victim saying “I bet that’s that fu&^ing Zip!!”

Those who have had rides in the two-sticker and comment on the “shaking rattle-trap” qualities of the aircraft – especially in the circuit – are quite correct. However, they would have inevitably been flying the dual model with 4 fuel tanks to have enough fuel to stay and play with the single-stickers. The 104 with just tip tanks was an entirely different beast from one with 4 jugs on board, and generally handled delightfully. Even better was the clean aircraft.

It was particularly nice to fly fast at low level and it totally ignored any turbulence as those tiny, high wing-loading surfaces cut through any such trivialities as though they did not exist.

So to answer your implied question: - fundamentally flawed? - not in my opinion!

[johnfairr]

Wholi,

Got to be one of the best p***s on PPRuNe for a long time. Evocative and we were all there with you in the furball. Nice to see you back to your inimitable best.:ok: :ok:

[Transall]

From Wikipedia above;

The German modified Starfighters were especially problematic, due to the modifed version's alarming accident rate. In German service alone, 292 of the 916 Starfighters crashed, claiming the lives of 115 pilots, leading to cries that the Starfighter was fundamentally unsafe and earning it the Widowmaker nickname, among others (see below). However, the non-German F-104 proved much safer and earned a better track record.

Hi,

Not exactly.
The "German" Starfighter was the F-104G, and exactly the same aircraft was used by the Belgian, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian and Italian Air Force. Before their "S", the Italians also had "G's" .
These were, just like the F-16, built by a "European Consortium" with factories like SABCA, Fokker and FIAT building aircraft for the different air forces.
For example: SABCA built 188 F-104G's, 99 for Belgium and 89 for Germany.

The "G" was heavier, but more powerful versions of the J-79 also became available.
Possibly, a small group of USAF pilots in Florida had the most fun in the F-104. After the Cuban missile crisis, some of the light-weight F-104A's were recalled from the ANG to active USAF service, fitted with the latest version of the J-79 and stationed in Florida.
These F-104's had a T/W ratio that would not be rivalled in the USAF until the F-15 came along.

Best regards, Transall.

[Wholigan]

Did you really fly this little devil??

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/c160g-gabriel.jpg

[ACW599]

Does anyone else remember the Canadian F-104 display team (Red Indians?) at Biggin Hill c.1978 or 79? The display itself was awesome, but the commentator was wonderful as well. He had a dead-slow down-home oh-my-gosh-look-at-that style which had the crowd in stitches.

"Well, folks, if you, er, if you just, er, kind of, er, look to your right, you'll see an F-104 coming along real slow. He's got the flaps out and the gear down, nice and slow and . . . (thunderous roar as a second F-104 passes at same level but the other way at 0.999M) . . . Oh, sorry folks, I guess I forgot to mention that one".

Halcyon days.

[Wholigan]

ACW599 - "Red Indians" - quite right (good memory!) - so called as 421 Sqn's crest was:
http://www.spaads.org/images/421crest.JPG

[GeeRam]

When the GAF took on the F104G they didn't have much senior technical experience of that generation of jets and Lockheed offered to lend them some in the shape of experienced crew chiefs etc. but the Luftwaffe refused, even though their senior men had missed out on the early generation of military jets in air force service they insisted that they could hack it.
As Jacko has already pointed out, the GAF let very inexperienced pilots loose on the F104G whereas the Dutch, Danish, Norwegian air forces ensured at least one tour on the F86 or F100 before a tour on the F104.


For a inside view of the 'politics' involved with the mess the Germans got into with the 104, it worth reading Erich Hartmann's biography. Hartmann was openly critical of the too soon introduction of the 104, advocating the building up to the 104 as mentioned above, but in spite of being the world leadings ace, and the only Diamonds winner to rejoin the GAF post-war, he got sidelined for future high level promotion for his views.......history, however, proved he was right though.

[Worf]

The Pakistan Air Force also flew F-104As. They used them pretty effectively in the 1965 War - even using them as nightfighters and shooting down an Indian Air Force Canberra B(I)58 whose pilot had turned off the "Orange Putter" tail warning radar because it was making too much noise at low level and then forget to turn it on again in the zoom to height over the target!
One got shot down by a Mystere IV, and one was lost when the pilot was trying to land in a sandstorm. He survived after crashing and went on to become Chief of the Air Staff! AFAIK there were only two Pakistani F-104 crashes in 10 years of operations. (They had a squadron of 12 or 13).
In 1971 the Indian made MiG-21FLs with the India specified Gsh-23 twin barrel gun pack showed themselves to be far superior. The score was Starfighters downed 8 vs MiG-21s downed 0. The MiG-21 could turn with the birds and could overtake the F-104As/Cs at low level. A lot of the kills were gun kills of CAPs (some were Atoll kills) - which meant that they were chasing the F-104s coming in at high speeds at low level - and catching them quickly. (The MiG-21 didnt have enough fuel to chase them very far!).

[Tim McLelland]

By all accounts the Starfighter was a surprisingly reliable aircraft and statistically-speaking, it was much less "dangerous" than many other types. The A-7 for example, suffered many more accidents as did other types.

Unfortunately, the Starfighter suffered from bad publicity which all centered on Germany's unhappy experience with the type. In essence, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was Germany's ridiculous training set-up and their gung-ho attitude towards the subject (a bit like a clip from "Magnificent Men" complete with the proverbial book of instructions!) that resulted in so many crashes. Other nations enjoyed a long and successful association with the type but you know how aviation comentators/enthusisats are - once a story gets thrown-about, it sticks, especially when someone coins a few easy-to-remember catch-phrases like "widow maker" and "flying coffin" etc. Of course, the phrases were not used by the people who actually flew the aircraft, but as we know, mud sticks...

Shame really, because the Starfighter was a hugely successful aircraft.

[garp]

Probably known to most but there's still a display team in the US flying the F-104. Their site has also a link to F-104 related websites. http://www.starfighters.net/extras/links/links.html

[exMudmover]

Wholigan! Long time no see. Certain amount of tosh in these posts, don't you think?

I flew the Zip on a wonderful exchange tour with the Dutch in the late 70s. We were TACR with secondary G/A role, doing mostly long-range LL recce around Germany and France (exporting the noise!) Our LL radius of action was better than the Jag at the time (The Jag's ONLY selling point if I recall), and we could dial up Mach 2/800 knots when necessary.

I flew the heaviest version, the RF104G, with a takeoff speed of 220kts and MINIMUM landing speed of 185kts. Bit of an eyeopener after the Harrier. Flapless and fully loaded, 1g pre-stall buffet cut in at about 360kts, but we could use mid flap up to 520kt, so who cared?

The recce jet had no gun (extra fuel), so we borrowed the F models for range practice - strafing with 20mm Gatling was something else compared to Harrier/Hunter! The muzzle was about 6in from your left elbow.

We also used to practise Partial Power (similar to dead-stick) patterns; from the overhead about 12grand, glide at idle with mid flap at 300kt, aim short and pop the gear in the flare. (The gear moved VERY fast). No prob stopping: excellent brakes, a hook and a nice big drag bag.

Had a nice autopilot too. Post recce target I would engage it in Height Hold in the turn while I wrote down my target VISREP (boring recce stuff; I was a dyed-in-the-wool G/A and Air Combat man myself)

The Dutch had about 4 fatalities on type during my 3 years on the jet. However, a wonderful machine. Would rather have gone to war in it than Harrier/Hunter. The Dutch wouldn't let anyone fly it with less than 500hrs fast jet time; (done on the F5). I mean a proper fast jet, not the Hawk!

[teeteringhead]

By all accounts the Starfighter was a surprisingly reliable aircraft and statistically-speaking, it was much less "dangerous" than many other types. The A-7 for example, suffered many more accidents as did other types. ... I think we get spoiled by the reliability of aircraft these days. 'Twas not always thus, and not just with the fast and pointed (and nothing much was faster or pointier than the 104).

I was recently researching some civil air accident stats and was slightly surpised to discover that 144 Viscounts (http://aviation-safety.net/database/type/type.php?type=493) had been lost and/or written off ....... out of a production run of 445!