Widowmakers
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: newark
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widow makers
Regarding the F104 Starfighter.Is it true that in an emergency the pilot ejected downwards instead of the usual way? If this is so then its "widow maker" tag is perhaps understandable.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about Indian Mig 21s? Haven't they lost a few of these? Google says 150 in 10 years. That is quite a few though I believe that age and maintenance are an issue.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a third category which includes aircraft having a generally sound flight envelope but which have a specific design flaw. Examples are the Meteor dive and Barracuda loss of elevator control. Neither stopped the aircraft going into service and it was education that stopped attrition rather than elimination of the problem.
From Wiki
"A more serious problem was "compressibility stall," the tendency of the controls to simply lock up in a high-speed dive, leaving the pilot no option but to bail out. The tail structure also had a nasty tendency to fall apart under such circumstances, and in fact this problem killed a YP-38 test pilot, Ralph Virden, in November 1940."
Last edited by Mercenary Pilot; 6th Oct 2006 at 20:52. Reason: To add some information
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
I suggest you look at the Avro Manchester - a lot of losses due to engine fires and very little active service. Of course we all know what the 4-engined version became!
Another aircraft that started badly but ended up a goodun was the Hawker Typhoon - again, engine problems and an initial propensity to dispense with its tail assembly!
The Germans produced the Me210 which was a brute of a machine, although as relatively few were produced (around 100) it may not have had the opportunity to reap a grim harvest!
The Consolidated B24 Liberator was operated with some trepidation in icing conditions, as its Davis laminar wing lost lift dramatically - several aircraft were lost as a result.
Interestingly, the transport version of the Liberator (C-87 Express) was far more disliked than its bomber sibling - I'm not quite sure how or why it gained this dislike.
Also, any Japanese aircraft flying from 1944 onwards, irrespective of type! By that stage the vast majority of fighters and all bombers had become totally obsolete in comparison to the new US Navy fighters (Hellcat, Corsair) and were literally sitting ducks - viz "The Great Marianas Turkeyshoot".
SD
Another aircraft that started badly but ended up a goodun was the Hawker Typhoon - again, engine problems and an initial propensity to dispense with its tail assembly!
The Germans produced the Me210 which was a brute of a machine, although as relatively few were produced (around 100) it may not have had the opportunity to reap a grim harvest!
The Consolidated B24 Liberator was operated with some trepidation in icing conditions, as its Davis laminar wing lost lift dramatically - several aircraft were lost as a result.
Interestingly, the transport version of the Liberator (C-87 Express) was far more disliked than its bomber sibling - I'm not quite sure how or why it gained this dislike.
Also, any Japanese aircraft flying from 1944 onwards, irrespective of type! By that stage the vast majority of fighters and all bombers had become totally obsolete in comparison to the new US Navy fighters (Hellcat, Corsair) and were literally sitting ducks - viz "The Great Marianas Turkeyshoot".
SD
Last edited by Saab Dastard; 6th Oct 2006 at 20:51. Reason: And another thing!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have often meant to ask about the Mustang and high speed dives. The pater flew one once and he called them flying coffins saying that they would become uncontrollable at some speeds. He was not the most aproachable chap so I never really got to ask him. Does anyone have any knowledge.
Guest
Posts: n/a
P-51 suffered from compressibility in high speed dives, as did the other high performance fighters of the era.
Also, don't know what model you Dad flew, but the fuel tank located under/behind the pilot, added to increase range, seriously affected the center of gravity and could lead to serious controllability problems if not burned off.
All this is via books, I hope someone with hands-on time can illuminate?
Also, don't know what model you Dad flew, but the fuel tank located under/behind the pilot, added to increase range, seriously affected the center of gravity and could lead to serious controllability problems if not burned off.
All this is via books, I hope someone with hands-on time can illuminate?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, don't know what model you Dad flew, but the fuel tank located under/behind the pilot, added to increase range, seriously affected the center of gravity and could lead to serious controllability problems if not burned off.
All this is via books, I hope someone with hands-on time can illuminate?
All this is via books, I hope someone with hands-on time can illuminate?
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Just thought of another - the USMC AV-8 Harriers. They've lost a whole bunch of them in accidents. I think it has an accident rate 3 or 4 times greater than any other Navy aircraft.
SD
SD
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USMC did tend to push them a bit further so this may not be a Harrier problem so much. I remember a Marine pilot saying that he wondered what would happen if pushed the thrust direction forward when at full tilt. The spams weren't quite so funds restricted as us so they could afford to lose a couple mucking around.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was the original plan but only the XF-104s were so fitted (I think )
http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm
)http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are looking at civil types as well, the Mitsubishi MU-2 has had a bad rep. Also maybe the Piper Malibu?
Again perhaps complexity versus pilot experience / training.
pb
Again perhaps complexity versus pilot experience / training.
pb
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Beleive the German F-104G's were equipped with downward-firing seats.
F-104G ejector seat
See here for details of the history of the F-104 seats: Ejection Seats of the F-104
Last edited by ORAC; 7th Oct 2006 at 07:31.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally, completely and utterly off thread
Keep it up ORAC. Some of us here appreciate your educative imput even if others dont.
henry - pedant answer - 3 crashes, 6 lives RIP, ? widows.
Keep it up ORAC. Some of us here appreciate your educative imput even if others dont.
henry - pedant answer - 3 crashes, 6 lives RIP, ? widows.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
The Consolidated B24 Liberator was operated with some trepidation in icing conditions, as its Davis laminar wing lost lift dramatically - several aircraft were lost as a result.
Interestingly, the transport version of the Liberator (C-87 Express) was far more disliked than its bomber sibling - I'm not quite sure how or why it gained this dislike.
...
SD
The Consolidated B24 Liberator was operated with some trepidation in icing conditions, as its Davis laminar wing lost lift dramatically - several aircraft were lost as a result.
Interestingly, the transport version of the Liberator (C-87 Express) was far more disliked than its bomber sibling - I'm not quite sure how or why it gained this dislike.
...
SD
What was the first aircraft to be called "Widowmaker"? In the US I believe it was the Martin B-26 - also called "Flying Prostitute" because of its short wing ("no visible means of support").
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worked with a guy who flew the XF4D for systems development work. He confirmed its unstable nature - you didn't want to do anything in a hurry, and had to fly it 100% of the time. He later flew F-104's and found that ship very much to his liking - although it too demanded respect.
And - Before the F-104's downward ejection seat, the B-47 radar-bombardier-navigator seat in the nose was a downward design.
Last edited by barit1; 7th Oct 2006 at 14:28.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were six different versions of the C-87 that were built which incorporated a number of specific changes. Some had turbos, some not, some had electric props and some had hydromatic.
The C-87 suffered from a poor reputation amongst its crews. Complaints centered around the clumsy flight control layout, frequent engine problems, and the numerous often-leaking fuel lines which crisscrossed the crew compartment, creating a fire hazard and frequently threatening to overcome the flight crews with noxious gasoline fumes. Several C-87's experienced fuel fires inside the crew area during flight. The craft also had dangerously tricky flight characteristics in the event of in-flight airframe icing.
The airplane could also be difficult to fly if its center of gravity was located in the wrong place due to improper cargo loading. This problem could be traced to the design's roots as a bomber. The bomb racks of the B-24 were located in a fixed position, making it almost impossible to load the craft incorrectly, so the airplane was not designed to be tolerant of improper loading. The B-24 could not take battle damage like the -17 and was not an aircraft to land gear up as she used to break her back with a not so good outcome for the crew.
The C-87 suffered from a poor reputation amongst its crews. Complaints centered around the clumsy flight control layout, frequent engine problems, and the numerous often-leaking fuel lines which crisscrossed the crew compartment, creating a fire hazard and frequently threatening to overcome the flight crews with noxious gasoline fumes. Several C-87's experienced fuel fires inside the crew area during flight. The craft also had dangerously tricky flight characteristics in the event of in-flight airframe icing.
The airplane could also be difficult to fly if its center of gravity was located in the wrong place due to improper cargo loading. This problem could be traced to the design's roots as a bomber. The bomb racks of the B-24 were located in a fixed position, making it almost impossible to load the craft incorrectly, so the airplane was not designed to be tolerant of improper loading. The B-24 could not take battle damage like the -17 and was not an aircraft to land gear up as she used to break her back with a not so good outcome for the crew.