F-104 Accidents
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,613
Received 477 Likes
on
251 Posts
That began with the introduction of female fighter pilots. Those G-stressed bras can apparently be very uncomfortable.... 
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luftwaffe F 104s
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"
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,613
Received 477 Likes
on
251 Posts
I hope they never try to make it turn a corner at speed!
Has no-one told them about the Reliant Robin?
Has no-one told them about the Reliant Robin?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,613
Received 477 Likes
on
251 Posts
Nah, when it tips over, the pilot will need that!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyome else remember Captain Lockheed, heard it once but never bought a copy?
http://www.starfarer.net/captlock.html
regards
retard
http://www.starfarer.net/captlock.html
regards
retard
TheVillagePhotographer.co.uk
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cotswolds UK
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Really must go, afore ye all set up a lynch squad.
Conan
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
If at the same time you roll very quickly the aircraft rotates about its long axis and turns the AoA into sideslip like this
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
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
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.
If at the same time you roll very quickly the aircraft rotates about its long axis and turns the AoA into sideslip like this
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
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!"
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!"
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.
There were some 109 Lightnings lost out of 339 built.