Scott Ferrin wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
wrote:

Tex Houston wrote:

5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
getting paid.


According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
deliver with the F-104.

So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
maneuverability?

They probably figured they had adequate maneuverability. They should
have made sure they said they wanted to keep it AND get more speed
instead of trading one for the other.

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?
--

-Gord.