F-104 Accidents

[Brian Abraham]

Reading the threads on the Meteor and Canberra accident history prompts the question. Were they a result of role, unreliable engine, a particular handling quirk, or what? Certainly earned itself a reputation.
Thanks in advance.

[Conan the Librarian]

For me, I would do a quick goggle at Google for North American Eagle, which allegedly is an attempt to snatch back the World land speed record. And Yes - it still has a bang seat, though I only hope that it is up rather than down.

I somehow don't feel very happy about this one...

Conan

[Baron rouge]

If I recall well, this aircraft was a bit touchy to handle and the rate of attrition and killed pilots was particulatily high in the German Luftwaffe due to a combination of factors:

-F104 Initial ejection seat had pretty poor perfomances
-F104 in the luftwaffe was primarily used as a groud attack A/C (more risky)
-many of the F104 killed pilots were young inexperienced pilots (less prone to react quickly in the case of serious trouble)

Completely different from the problems of the F105 in Vietnam were the loss incured mainly due to the architecture of the hydraulic circuit.

[ShyTorque]

Spoke to a Belgian friend who flew the 104 out of Kleine Brogel in the early 1980s. He told me that it was dangerous to operate them below 300 kts at low level because of the relatively poor control response. I also recall him speaking of the strong roll/yaw couple because of the adverse B/A ratio (long fuselage/very short wings).

Best beat up I ever saw was by a departing 104 going past the ATC tower at Gutersloh after the 1982 Tiger Meet, below roof level and at what must have been very close to Mach 1. The aircraft went straight over the Ops block (the tower was part of the same building) - I was standing a few feet away, on the roof and nearly got blown off!

[ARINC]

I saw that beat up too

from HSF pan !!

[galaxy flyer]

The old joke was that the definition of an optimist was a Luftwaffe F-104 pilot who quit smoking!

GF

[Wholigan]

Just to settle the downward ejection seat topic first, the initial F104As were fitted with downward-firing ejector seats because it was thought that at high speeds the seat would probably be unable to clear the tall fin and tailplane. Hmmmm – nice thinking Bloggs! I wonder where most accidents happen historically? Is it perhaps during take-offs and landings and at low level? Just imagine: “ Bugga – here I am on short finals and the bleedin’ donk’s just lost loadsa power. Oh well – no snags – I’ll just pull up with all my excess energy, roll upside down and eject through the bottom of the aircraft. No worries.” Common sense very soon prevailed and the more conventional form of exiting through the roof was installed. Some 20-odd pilots were killed in the early stages as a direct result of the downward firing seat.

The early J79 engines also caused some rather exciting problems, not least of which was the tendency of the afterburner nozzles to remain stuck in the fully-open (burners lit) position, when the burner was deselected. As I’m sure you can imagine, with the nozzles stuck open and the burners not lit, you would get more thrust out of the back by farting than you were getting from the engine. This caused a distinct tendency for pilots to leave the aircraft to its own devices while they tried to steer the parachute towards a pub car park.

So much for the early aircraft problems. For the overall picture, the basic design led to some interesting flying characteristics. (I apologise to people like John Farley and Lomcevak if my memory of aerodynamics is somewhat rusty, but it has been a while since I had to think too much about that topic very deeply.) The first was the relatively huge length of the aircraft when compared with the tiny 22 foot wingspan, leading to some attention-grabbing, undemanded manoeuvres when playing around with rolling and pulling at the same time (B over A rules OK). This would have been particularly true if you were one of those nutters who believed that the best way of ridge-crossing was to roll upside down as you approached the ridge and pull down over it, then roll the right way up as you entered the next valley. Incidentally, this basically flawed technique also killed several Jaguar pilots.

The next fascinating design feature was the fact that at high angles of attack, the high-set tailplane tended to stall in the downwash from the wing. When this happened the aircraft would almost certainly “swap ends” and would then be quite likely to end up in a distinctly senses-stimulating flat spin. Because of the somewhat exhilarating nature of this possible result of too high an angle of attack, the aircraft had a “stick-shaker/kicker” installed. As you reached an angle of attack that was approaching the possibility of you enjoying a free Alton Towers experience, the stick would start to shake in your hands. If you ignored the shaker, or hit the override paddle on the stick (which disenabled the system) or if you had applied the angle of attack at a very rapid rate, the stick would then be forcibly “kicked” forwards to prevent you causing the aircraft to depart. Now then, the 104 was latterly used in the mud-moving role. So – imagine the scenario: on a range in peacetime sliding gently down the strafe pattern pointing at the target and determined to beat old Fred’s last good score. “Not quite on --- that’s better --- squeeze that trigger --- yesssss --- oh jeez that ground’s a bit close – heave ------“ …… KICK ….. “Bleedin’ ‘ell --- ground’s even closer now!” Choices? Pull harder and get kicker again and hit ground? Hit the override paddle and pull harder and swap ends and then eventually hit the ground after a stirring low level aerobatic display?

As far as losses are concerned, there were nearly 2600 aircraft built in total, and the average percentage loss rate over all the countries that used the Starfighter was probably around 30% to 35%. The early losses could almost certainly be blamed as much on inadequate and insufficient training for the change from the preceding aircraft, and also on low experience levels of maintenance crews and aircrew, as they could be blamed on inherent faults with the aircraft. That sentence is purely my own opinion but – for example – if you buy 916 aircraft (Germany), then service this relatively complex aircraft (when compared with what they replaced) using conscripts, then fly them using inexperienced aircrew then --- as they say --- “you’re bound to lose a few”.

A partial breakdown is: Germany = 32% (although it is worthy of note that their loss rate on the F84/RF84 was rather worse than that); Holland = 31%; Belgium = 37%; Italy = 37%; Canada = 45%; and Japan = 15%. I’m sorry but I couldn’t find an overall loss percentage for the USA. This overall percentage loss statistic is perhaps a bit too broad a figure to be of much use other than to say (“Blooming heck – they lost a lot didn’t they”), as it does not indicate a rate per year of operating the aircraft. I suspect (but haven’t even started to look at proving) that the percentage loss rate per year in the early days of the Gnat, Lightning and Harrier may have been comparable with the equivalent statistics for the 104s. I’m sure that John Farley will be able to either confirm this or raise the “bull****” flag on this statement. Even then, percentage loss rate per year is not nearly as useful as a breakdown of percentage loss rate per flying hour broken down by roles. But that's far too difficult and time-consuming for Boxing Day!

One statistic that I am not even sure is totally correct (but I love to quote it anyway ‘cos it sounds great!) is that it was more dangerous for an American pilot to do an exchange tour with the RAF in the 60s and 70s than it was for him to do 3 whole tours in Vietnam!!

Not sure if any of that helps with the original question, but I enjoyed writing it.

[soddim]

There are many people who are convinced that the main reason for the high F104 loss rate in the Luftwaffe was the rapid expansion of that air force. If overnight one tries to grow too quickly one ends up with a relatively inexperienced cadre of air and groundcrew. Add an aircraft much more advanced than they had before in large numbers and with some distinctly dangerous handling characteristics and you can sit back and count the losses.

In the USAF Luftwaffe training programme there were also losses - several in the mid-70s due to flap problems. However, the RCAF operated the aircraft with great success and a low loss rate.

[ehwatezedoing]

As the 45% lost rate might sound high, I just want to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest flying time of any country operating the Starfighter.
At the time of retirement, average airframe times were of the order of 6000 hours as compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe.

[brickhistory]

quote:
...that it was more dangerous for an American pilot to do an exchange tour with the RAF in the 60s and 70s than it was for him to do 3 whole tours in Vietnam!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not disputing or agreeing with the line or stats, but as an interesting aside, I've interviewd US exchange pilots/navs who flew Lightnings, Jaguars and Buccaneers and each says his turn with the RAF was the highlight of his military career.

Not necessarily the jet involved (each gave me his pro/cons regarding the particular RAF jet), but for sheer flying and squadron fun, each gave his experience a big :ok:

Any ppruners have comments? I can see this thread turning to a 'banter' type if so......

[jumpseater]

Why is this so dangerous? I can see the pulling inverted too hard being a problem, was this the sole reason? or is there something I'm missing?

[Art Field]

Fortunately the Tanker exchange programme with the USAF through the seventies and eighties did not lose any participants but it was very noticeable how hard the guys, with one outstanding exception, found it to work to our style of operating. They were obviously controlled far more tightly from some form of central organisation and took some time to feel free to make their own decisions. The different styles of the two air forces were most noticeable when operating together, with RAF tankers almost always the preferred choice.

[Wholigan]

Inverted Crossing of Ridges

Firstly, the supposed reason for “ridge rolling” was to stay out of sight of enemy radars. I know that – personally – I can stay much closer to the ground when upright crossing a ridge than I ever could when inverted and pulling. That alone should make the inverted method less effective, considering that you can ease up to almost level with the crest (staying out of radar coverage) just before the ridge, and then push down into the valley. Of course, you don’t want to be rolling much while you are pushing either. Remember that this tactic was proposed in the 60s to 80s, with relatively ineffective ground radar cover and zero airborne radar cover. If you are flying an aircraft with some dodgy characteristics when simultaneously rolling and pulling, and if you envisage just a slight overcooking of the inverted pull down into the valley, the chances of “building a box” get quite high. Both the 104 and the Jaguar had a rather disadvantageous B over A ratio and – furthermore – the design of the Jaguar meant that you actually had to destroy lift on one wing in order to roll the aircraft. Having flown both types and having tried both methods and having seen the findings of several boards of inquiry into Jaguar losses, before I “saw the light”, I merely know which method I prefer.

I also agree with ehwatezedoing that the Canadian statistics do not tell the whole story. As I said before, the bald overall percentage loss rates are pretty meaningless.

[jimgriff]

This will give you all the gen on the CF-104 losses!!!

CF-104 losses (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/Canadian_CF-104.htm)

[Baron rouge]

Not disputing or agreeing with the line or stats, but as an interesting aside, I've interviewd US exchange pilots/navs who flew Lightnings, Jaguars and Buccaneers and each says his turn with the RAF was the highlight of his military career.

I totaly agree with that comment,

I was lucky enough to fly the Hawk for three years at Valley and Chivenor as a French exchange officer, and these were definitely the best years of my air force time... :ok:

[M609]

List of all 104s in RNoAF service, and their fate...

http://starfighter.no/web/liste-e.html

[rigpiggy]

As I understood it most german accidents were on final due to asymmetric blown flaps"the blowing itself not the flaps' a great loss of lift on one side while low and slow.

[Krystal n chips]

For what's worth, it had it's little "quirks" on the ground as well. Having done the X servicing course at Memmigen I was introduced to the "7 finger check" as I recall--could have been 5 though, can't remember now----anyway, one of these I DO recall, the one where you had to slowly move the A.o.A vein throughout the range of travel---said vein is, of course heated and the driver is supposed to pull the CB and then reset afterwards. The vein itself was located on the right hand side and a bit too close to the intake as I recall. Obviously, on the course all was fine. Then came the day one lobbed into sunny Bruggen for a "day or two" and I was tasked with handling it along with a couple of others. Come the first start up--go to the vein and "ooops" from inside the cockpit as he er, "read my lips". CB hastily pulled and back to the checks.

I declined to sue the West German Gov't as I was bought off by several bottles of alcohol that evening from said driver :ok:

[ShyTorque]

In the early 1980s, after an overnight stop at a GAF base, I was waiting to depart to Gutersloh in my Puma, after waiting for the F-104 "weathership" to land. ATC had heard him call finals but he didn't appear on the runway or go around. After a short time it was announced that he had "landed" short of the runway, in decreasing visibility turning to very shallow fog. We were asked to get airborne and search the approach path to the threshold to see if we could find the pilot as the fire trucks hadn't yet arrived on the scene; he was outside the airfield perimeter.

I climbed to about 400 or 500 feet and we could see straight down through the fog, it was very shallow. We found the aircraft straight away.

Unfortunately, it was immediately obvious that he had hit the substantial wooden approach light poles at a very shallow angle, the aircraft was in very small pieces and his remains were still in the cockpit. The fog was very shallow and it appeared to us that he had begun a visual approach, but become disorientated in the poor vis about a mile out as he entered the fog. He then got too low, hit a pole and it was all over for him. The weather was gin clear except for that small area of shallow fog on the aproach. Shame he didn't land in the other direction; the wind was very light.

The annoying thing is, I do recall the airfield was south of the RAF "Clutch" stations but just can't remember the name of it. I do remember that at the other (western) end of the runway, there was a very steep drop where the naturally falling ground had been infilled to extend the original runway length.

Anyone help with that one? :confused:

[jimme747]

Wasn't there a lot of incidents due to wire chafing??

[ShyTorque]

That began with the introduction of female fighter pilots. Those G-stressed bras can apparently be very uncomfortable.... :p

[GeeRam]

There are many people who are convinced that the main reason for the high F104 loss rate in the Luftwaffe was the rapid expansion of that air force. If overnight one tries to grow too quickly one ends up with a relatively inexperienced cadre of air and groundcrew. Add an aircraft much more advanced than they had before in large numbers and with some distinctly dangerous handling characteristics and you can sit back and count the losses.

Indeed exactly as predicted by Erich Hartmann long BEFORE the introduction of the '104 into GAF service.......politics however rendering as next to useless the experience and wisdom of the worlds leading 'ace'.........:rolleyes: :*

[RileyDove]

Luftwaffe boss at TTTE when asked which he preferred
Tornado or F-104 replied 'Starfighter but don't tell anyone!'

[A2QFI]

The Luftwaffe did have over 700 F 104s SFAIK and even though they lost a lot it did not amount to much of a percentage of the fleet. When I was in Germany there was a joking question as to why the Germans did not have air shows? The answer was that any German who wanted to see a Luftwaffe aircraft bought a large field and then waited! I am thus reminded of an air display at Wildenrath which had to have the advertising changed after it was billed as "The biggest display of Allied air power in Germany since WW 2"

[Conan the Librarian]

I referred to this project in an earlier post, but seeing that I now have Photobucket behaving again, here is a picture of same.

Do YOU think it can hit the hoped for 800MPH and do you think the jockey will stop in just the one piece? With what has been written about the stability issues, my fiver says "No" though I of course wish them good luck...

Conan

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y192/zorbathegeek/sundries/NAEF104resize.jpg

[ShyTorque]

I hope they never try to make it turn a corner at speed!

Has no-one told them about the Reliant Robin? ;)

[Onan the Clumsy]

It's not going to go very fast with that big parachute behind it :rolleyes:





I see they left the wings unchanged though :ooh:

[GeeRam]

As they're utillising the fuselage of an early A model '104, I hope they deactivated the downward firing ejector seat.....:E

[ShyTorque]

Nah, when it tips over, the pilot will need that!

[engineer(retard)]

Anyome else remember Captain Lockheed, heard it once but never bought a copy?

http://www.starfarer.net/captlock.html

regards

retard

[BEagle]

F-104G? G for Germany. Zis I am liking....

Catch a falling Starfighter....

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

I have zis album in my attic, is it worth anything?

http://www.starfarer.net/galleryc/captlock.jpg

Wasn't one of these musicians in Hawkwind or Motorhead?

[GeeRam]

Wasn't one of these musicians in Hawkwind or Motorhead?

One of my Uncle's used to be the manager of Hawkwind back in the late 70's.....

I'll get me coat...:rolleyes:

[Conan the Librarian]

They shouldn't have painted that 104 go kart red. They could maybe have left it as a "Silver Machinnnneee"


Really must go, afore ye all set up a lynch squad.

Conan

[Pontius Navigator]

The F104 was not the only jet with a downwards ejector seat. Story I heard was it was to reduce back injuries which did not need to be sustained during high altitude ejections.

I think the B47 and the B52 may have had downwards firing at one time.

The other aircraft was the TU22 Blinder. This rather limited its low level flight abandonment to 1000 feet or more.

[Buitenzorg]

The Dutch RNlAF certainly considered the 104 the safest airplane they’d operated until the (twin-engine, lower-performance) NF-5. The 31% loss rate seems high but remember that this was accrued over the type’s operational service lasting close to 30 years – by comparison the Dutch lost close to 50% of their Meteors in rather less than 10 years!

One of the main reasons the 104 never got a bad reputation in Dutch service is that at the time of its introduction the RNlAF was and had been for years at its largest size ever with close to 500 fast jets, and had a very large number of experienced FJ pilots and engineers to initially crew them. As an example, during their introduction to squadron service the requirement for pilots was 3,000 FJ hours. This was constantly lowered as operational experience was gained until most replacement pilots were “nuggets” on their first squadron tour.

The type gained its notoriety in Germany during a brief period in the 60s, when introduction of a very advanced type met air force expansion including brand-new pilots and engineers in a head-on collision. During these few years accident ratios were indeed enormous, and older Dutch engineers tell stories of begging German pilots to stay over for a few days while they’d fix the most awful of the numerous German maintenance blunders. Just a few years later the Germans had learned the lessons and became safe and enthusiastic 104 operators – but the aircraft’s bad reputation remained firmly stuck in the public’s mind.

[John Farley]

Sorry to come to this a bit late chaps.

Wholigan

I would not raise any bull**** flag in respect of your comments. I just don't have the hard numbers available. Loss rates are (as you and others have said) pretty meaningless without knowing a lot more info. I remember a Lightning Sqn Eng Off (yes before JENGOS and SENGOS!) telling me that the RAF lost a greater percentage of its Lightning fleet than the GAF did 104s (he mentioned approx 50%) but that the press had not started counting/twigged.

jumpseater

Rolling under g is a real problem with any aircraft that has a lot of its weight in a long fuse and not much in its wings. The way it makes such aircraft depart is a very complex subject to cover properly but the following notion is one way of starting to get your head round what is happening

First you fly fast and level

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/T2sidezero.jpg

Then you yank hard (or push ugh), this results in a lot of AoA being applied like this - when momentarily the aircraft is still travelling virtually horizontal and not climbing like the pic might suggest.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/T2side20.jpg

If at the same time you roll very quickly the aircraft rotates about its long axis and turns the AoA into sideslip like this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/johnfarley/T2plan20.jpg


Naturally the normal aerodynamic stability will mitigate the effect a tad, but probably leave plenty to get you into trouble.

If you keep rolling though a couple of 360s say then a very nasty full blown inertia cross coupling induced yaw divergence can result.

It is to avoid all this that modern FBW types are made to roll round the direction they are travelling, not the one they are pointing in. Looks awful and squirrely but is actually very safe

JF

[BEagle]

JF - the Boss of 892 also told me that the Sea Vixen loss rate was way above the Luftwaffe's F-104G loss rate.

As for roll-coupling, in the Buccaneer the rule of thumb was something like "Above 400 KIAS and +4G, no more than 1/2 aileron or it'll depart and break up".

As witnessed by a formation of Hunters merrily tranisitng Viet-Taff land back in the 1970s. Allegedly the call went something like "Tally, Left, 10 o'clock, one Buccaneer pulling away....and f*ck me, it's got bits coming off....and 2 chutes!"

[GeeRam]

I remember a Lightning Sqn Eng Off (yes before JENGOS and SENGOS!) telling me that the RAF lost a greater percentage of its Lightning fleet than the GAF did 104s (he mentioned approx 50%) but that the press had not started counting/twigged.

RAF Lightning loss rate probably was slightly higher than German 104 loss, the Germans lost over 250 104's out of some 700+, but it wasn't anywhere near a 50% loss rate, more like in the region of a 30-35% loss rate.

There were some 109 Lightnings lost out of 339 built.

[widgeon]

Surpising in the CAF list the number of pilots who ejected more than once . In the UK are there many like that ?.

[TimL]

ShyTorque
The annoying thing is, I do recall the airfield was south of the RAF "Clutch" stations but just can't remember the name of it. I do remember that at the other (western) end of the runway, there was a very steep drop where the naturally falling ground had been infilled to extend the original runway length.

Anyone help with that one? I think the airfield you're refering to is Nörvenich. I diverted there in a Buccaneer in about 1973. The jeep that took us back out to our aircraft to fly home also had to drop off an F104 pilot on the way. The driver approached the 104 pan at about 40 mph, jammed on the brakes, and skidded to a halt with the 104's pitot head inches from the windscreen of the jeep. I guess they probably wrote a few off on the ground as well!

[LOMCEVAK]

BEags,

Hate to ruin a good story but just to add a little........The rolling g limit in the Bucc was due to structural loads on the wings. Just think of the twist that the huge ailerons were applying to an already loaded wing. Departure was not the issue here. The one which "fell apart" in Wales was actually due to a very rapid pull on the stick to avoid the Hunter formation, and I believe that the tailplane came off; nothing to do with rolling. However, it is worth noting that this was the only Bucc that 208 Sqn lost when in the overland role (1974 - 1983). It was a VERY hard-flying outfit so maybe this proves a point about training hard improving safety or, to reverse engineer the arguement, if you don't fly and train hard and live in a risk averse culture (i.e. low experience), you will have accidents.

To follow on from Wholigan's point on ridge crossing, rolling over ridges often gave a wing glint that allowed a visual tally by the bounce whereas pushing over would not. And I have rolled and pulled over a ridge to find that the valley on the other side was not as wide and deep as I was expecting! That definitely resulted in an agressive rolling pull!

[ShyTorque]

TimL,

Yes, thankyou - that IS the airfield, I had half a mind it was; browsing my new toy "Tom Tom" and a road atlas confirms it.

Lomcevak,

I mistakenly thought that Buccaneer was a 237 OCU one, but I do know the pilot pulled 13G before the tail came off. The crew went swimming in Lake Bala.

I was holding on the OCU prior to BFTS and actually took a phone call in ops about the accident, which I passed onto Wg Cdr Parr, the CO.

"Surprising in the CAF list the number of pilots who ejected more than once. In the UK are there many like that?"

On 230 Sqn in the late 70s/ early 80s, we had one ex-Harrier pilot who banged out twice and was not allowed back on ejection seats (the late Flt Lt. Nigel Wilkinson, God rest him). He was about 5 ft 7" tall - he said he used to be 6 ft tall...... ;)

[johnfairr]

"Wot, again??"

I've put this on a thread before, but there was a guy I knew on 8 Sqn back in the mid 70s, Geoff Something or other, who had banged out on two successive trips in the mighty Sea Vixen. Once into the Firth of Forth, just after a cat launch from Eagle, coupled with engine probs. Pilot didn't make it, Geoff played ducks and drakes over the sea.

Secondly, 6 months to the day after mandatory 6 months off, from RNAS Yeovilton, engine probs on pairs take off, No 1 then directed the crash crews to the site of the ejectees, even though they were furiously erecting their SARBES . . .

Interesting log book entries, 2 t/os or launches, 0 Landings, total flight time 1:30 minutes.

Again, he looked much shorter in the flesh and his wife is/was taller than him now.

jf

[BEagle]

Lomcevak, you are no doubt correct - but that's what we were told in groundschool!

A certain chap from 12 Sqn pulled even harder during a cocked-up night medium toss recovery whilst I was at Honington back then. The flaps fell off, the probe bent but he got it back on the ground!

[charliegolf]

Shy

I remember Wilko- I always thought his apparent lack of height was due to his being so laid back he was horizontal!

Been out over 15 yrs now, and sad to hear of his passing.

A smashing bloke- OC 'C' Flt on deployments as I recall.

I must know you- was in Gut 83 to late 85, and 33 before that.

CG

[ShyTorque]

"So laid back he was horizontal".

Yes, He once surprised us all by paying for the sauna to be switched in Bad Tolz and invited us all along. He was late on parade but then appeared fully dressed, wearing a jacket and tie, smoking a cigar and carrying a glass of whiskey. He said "It's too bloody hot in here!" and promptly returned to the bar!

I predated you a little on 230 but left in Dec 83. Send me a p.m. to avoid undue thread drift :ok:

[Tempsford]

My dad was a CF104 Sim Engineer with CAE and we spent time at RCAF Grostenquin and RCAF Zweibrucken in the 1960's. I can remember going to friends houses who's fathers were pilots and who had 'banged out'. They had been presented with a CF104 control column mounted on wood along with the details of the a/c. Our school at Zweibrucken was close to the runway and the teachers stopped the lesson whilst the a/c were taking off due to the noise. There is a reunion at Grostenquin next year as although the airfield has been disused for some years now, it is still there, but due to be demolished the year after next.

Temps

[GeeRam]

On 230 Sqn in the late 70s/ early 80s, we had one ex-Harrier pilot who banged out twice and was not allowed back on ejection seats (the late Flt Lt. Nigel Wilkinson, God rest him). He was about 5 ft 7" tall - he said he used to be 6 ft tall......

There's a very frequent poster on this very forum that's had to make use of MB's best on 2 seperate occasions.......:E

[jumpseater]

Thanks for the info on ridge rolling, I vaguely remember as a youngster seeing an aircraft do it, but have never seen it done since, Wholi and JF's posts give a good lead as to why!
:ok:

[A2QFI]

There will be a good 1 hour programme about this project on Discovery Channel on 15 Feb at 2200, 16 Feb at 0200, 18 Feb at 2000 and 19 Feb at 0400 - it has already been shown but it is on again and worth setting the vid for.

[STANDTO]

I have to say, that if land speed records were that easy, then surely the Thrust 2 team would have simply sawn the wings off a Phantom, stuck it on an Ifor Williams trailer chassis and trundled off to the desert, and ho hum, probably broken mach 2.:confused:

[PARAFFIN PARROTT]

Does any one remember the F-104 crashing at a Yeovilton airday (sometime in the 70's I think) ? Was it ever known how or why it crashed? PP.

[treadigraph]

The F-104 accident at Yeovilton was August 1979 - I have an idea it stalled on approach for some reason.

[snapper41]

I was at Bodo airshow in Norway several years ago; whilst in ops the day after the show, about to depart for home, in walk the Italian F104 pair. One mate looked very apprehensive - we asked him what was up. 'Oh, I really have to get home', he said, 'it's my wife's birthday, and we are going on holiday - she'll kill me if I'm late'. Anyway, as we watched the pair line up and then roll, cue loud bang and white smoke from the engine of one - guess who? In he strode some time later, in tears and swearing (sounded so much better in Italian), reaching for the phone to call home. Made me so glad we had 2 engines!;)