Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

When RAF Pilots Flew the F-104

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

When RAF Pilots Flew the F-104

Old 9th Aug 2011, 10:54
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 59
Posts: 539
GK121

Irrespective of the model and the fuel each was able to carry, a close relation (Wg Cdr Dickie Martin) who was a TP and in a long and distinguished career (the F-104 was one of over 120 types he had flown) told me that it was the only ac he could remember actually seeing the fuel guage unwinding when in reheat .

He said it was as though he had a massive fuel leak; which I suppose was true!

MB
Madbob is offline  
Old 9th Aug 2011, 12:03
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
You could certainly watch the fuel gauge decreasing in an F-4. At low level and full reheat, the quoted fuel consumption is 2000 lbs/minute, which is roughly equivalent to 4 (imperial) gallons/second, say 4.5 US gallons/second!

On another note and in keeping with this thread, I was lucky enough to bag a ride in a German Navy F-104 out of Eggebek in April 83. We did a low level jaunt around the altic and flew close enough to Peenemunde to be able to see the MiGs on the airfield. I had expected the 104 to be twitchy in roll, but it was rock-steady and terrific for close formation. On the other hand, I seem to remember final approach speed on the day (2 wing-tip tanks) was 195 kts! To aid the discussion on endurance, my logbook shows a sortie length of 1 hr 20 mins, all at low level.
meadowbank is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 04:36
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
meadowbank

To aid the discussion on endurance, my logbook shows a sortie length of 1 hr 20 mins, all at low level.
And you were probably flying at least Mach 0.90 at that altitude I would assume?


R.C.
That being said, I'd like to remind everybody in a manner reminiscent of the SNL bit on Julian Assange, that no matter how I die: It was murder (even if there was a suicide note or a video of me peacefully dying in my sleep), and should I be arrested or framed for a criminal offense, or disappear entirely -- I think we all know why it happened, and who to blame for it…

Last edited by Jane-DoH; 21st Aug 2011 at 21:29.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 06:56
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 80
Posts: 1,510
ISTR recall hearing the early Jaguar engine's reheat described as "A fuel dump with flames in it".
A2QFI is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 08:01
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 35
In Oct 87 I flew in the back of a Two Seater 104 (TF 2777) on a Taceval Chase Sortie out of Norvenich chasing 4 Tornados Lo Lo to 4 ATAF and back; we flew for 1.40 - I was a bit worried on the final approach in poorish viz when the Bingo light came on. (The chase pilot who was from Memmingham was not familiar with Norvenich!) It was a good sortie!
45-25-25 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 09:04
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 491
See 45-25-25, without a nav, you were starting to worry.....
BBadanov is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 10:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 257
But with a nav, he might have been approaching the wrong airfield..........
BomberH is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 10:08
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: lincolnshire
Posts: 96
Jane-DoH

You could fly the RF104G comfortably for 1hr 40min plus at low level, cruising most of the way at 450kt, with the occasional push-up to 0.9 Mach (approx 600kts) for a target run. This would be with 4 external tanks. A/B only used for T/O. I can recall regularly seeing 360 miles plus on the RBI range to home base, all flown on a LO-LO profile. Always felt like a long way from home after my time on the Harrier!
Though I never tried it, I was told that with no tanks at all you could cruise for an hour at 600 kts at Max Dry, landing with 1000lb.

A2QFI

A scurrilous Jaguar rumour within the Harrier Force was that the runway controller had to go out to each a/c before rolling to check that both reheats had lit - by sticking his hand behind the jet pipe!

I'll get my hat and coat...
exMudmover is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2011, 12:13
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 59
Posts: 539
X MM

At Laarbruch in 1979, the II (AC) Sqn Jags with recce pod, 2 x 1200 litre drop tanks and empty outer pylons (pre Boz/Phimat and no CBLS) used every inch of Laarbruch's 9,000 ft runway to get airborne on a summer's day.

If the upwind barrier had been raised 9 out of 10 aircraft would NOT have cleared it.

Things got better with later Adours, but not enough to really transform the jet into a high performance FJ. Although the small wing and high loading did help to smooth out the ride at LL.

MB
Madbob is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 00:19
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Ajeets vs Gnats

The Ajeets came much later (post 1971) - they were supposed to be close air support ground attack airplanes. Basically a wet winged Gnat F MK 1 with an upgraded Hobson tailplane actuator and a Martin Baker seat.

The Gnat F MK 1 fought all the wars for the IAF. It was point air defence optimized, but could carry RPs. They did do a fair bit of ground attack with rockets, bombs and 30mm cannon in the 1971 Bangladesh war.
Worf is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2011, 03:01
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
GreenKnight121

Just out of curiosity, being that the wingtip tanks were smaller than the underwing tanks, what was the capacity of each particular tank?

Last edited by Jane-DoH; 21st Aug 2011 at 21:29.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2011, 08:41
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,540
Ummm... I gave the numbers earlier in this thread, in post #38.
http://www.pprune.org/6628487-post38.html

Source: Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2011, 18:38
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 402
wonder where 'shorty' Bauman is these days...
RHINO is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2011, 21:30
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
GreenKnight121

You listed the total number of gallons externally carried; you didn't specify how much the wingtip tanks carried; and how much the underwing tanks carried.

Regardless, I checked your site, and I did some math and some research of my own. The wingtip tanks could be either 170 gallons or 200 gallons (converting imperial gallons to US gallons); the underwing tanks were 195 US gallons.

I assume when carrying just tip-tanks the plane carried either a 170 or a 200 gallon tank; when carrying all four tanks, the tip-tank was a 170 gallon tank, and the underwing was a 195 gallon tank?
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2011, 00:15
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,540
Originally Posted by Jane-DoH
You listed the total number of gallons externally carried; you didn't specify how much the wingtip tanks carried; and how much the underwing tanks carried.


Sigh... no I didn't!

In two cases (-A & -G), I listed internal tankage and total tankage, in the other two (-C & -S) I listed total tankage, internal tankage, and the capacities of each external tank!

Since the total fuel minus internal fuel for the F-104A and the F-104G gives the same total (730 gallons) for the 4 external tanks as you get adding up the capacities shown for the -C and -S models, logic will show that the wingtip and underwing tanks would be the same, since there would be no reason for the USAF to develop new tanks with differing capacities for each model, right?

Originally Posted by GK121 post #38
F-104A: J79-GE-3A/3B; Normal range 730 miles*. Maximum range with external drop tanks 1400 miles.
Originally Posted by GK121 post #38
Fuel: Internal fuel capacity was 897 US gallons, and maximum fuel capacity with two wingtip tanks and two underwing tanks was 1627 US gallons.

F-104B: as above, except internal fuel capacity was 752 US gallons.

F-104C:J79-GE-7; Normal range 850 miles*. Maximum range with four drop tanks was 1500 miles.
Fuel: Internal fuel capacity was 897 US gallons, and maximum fuel capacity with two wingtip tanks and two underwing tanks was 1627 US gallons. A 195 US gallon drop tank could be carried on each of the underwing pylons, plus a 170 US gallon drop tank at each wingtip.

F-104G: J79-GE-11A; Normal range 1080 miles**. Maximum range with four drop tanks was 1630 miles.
Fuel: Internal fuel capacity was 1,054 US gallons, and maximum fuel capacity with two wingtip tanks and two underwing tanks was 1784 US gallons.

F-104S: J79-GE-19; Normal range was 1550 miles***, and maximum range with four drop tanks was 1815 miles.
Fuel: Standard internal fuel capacity 896 US gallons, which can be supplemented by one 225 US gallon centerline tank, two 195-US gallon underwing tanks and two 170-US gallon wingtip tanks. In addition, 121 US gallons could be carried in an auxiliary tank in the ammunition bay.



* "normal" was with no external tanks.

** "normal" was with no external tanks, but external tank capacity was increased.

*** "normal" was with the centerline tank and the wingtip tanks.
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2011, 01:59
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
GreenKnight121

Sorry about that
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2011, 03:16
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
What was the L/D ratio of the F-104 when it was cruising subsonic at altitude without it's external tanks, and with it's external tanks?


R.C.
Jane-DoH is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2011, 08:43
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,550
F104 @ EGOV 1975

Jindabyne:
Far right, visiting old mates at RAF Valley in his F-104 during the station Open Day 1975(I think).

I have a nice photo of that aircraft, I'll dig it out over the weekend. Your video link is not working.
airpolice is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2011, 10:41
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 1,513
Sorry airpolice, my finger-trouble

Piccy re-instated, with another one of the man at Post 23
jindabyne is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2011, 00:42
  #60 (permalink)  
ktk
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 17
I also was lucky enough to fly both the Harrier and the 104 (CF).
LD ratio of 104 = no lift and not much more drag!!

We had one with no pylons and painted in black and white gloss paint would go super in mil power I know I did it one day as the Baron at fairly low level.

Longest trip low level Baden to Valley at 480/450 kts with enough fuel to divert to Heyford as the wind was out of limits at Valley.

Oh happy days.
ktk is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.