request for fighter pilot statistic

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
oups.com...
The F-104 was a very competent dogfighter. The key, with any aircraft,
is to get the adversary to your best operating envelope rather than for
you to visit his. Flown at high speed and preferably at high altitude,
the Zipper could do a very good job. When enhanced by modern element
tactics, the airplane got very competitive.

Similarly, the F-105D could be a pretty reasonable dogfighter if you
were careful to keep your energy high and your altitude low. Venturing
into the vertical was a recipe for disaster.

MiG-17 was a great dogfighter...unless you forced him to come up to the
400 KIAS++ region where he couldn't maintain closure and couldn't
overcome the high stick forces.

All of matter of fighting your own best fight.

Thanks for the info!!!

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Gregg
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments,
Restoration of my 1919 Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat, and
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/index.html

gregg wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

Somewhere I've read a quote from Boyd (probably; otherwise, one of the other
members of the LWF Mafia) in a paper discussing energy maneuverability, in
which it is stated that there had been no increase in fighter Ps (in fact, a
decrease) since the F-104. The period of the report in question must have
been the late '60s or early '70s. Walt BJ flew the hottest F-104, the A model
retrofitted with the same J79-19 engine as in the Sparrow-armed F-104S, but
without all the avionics associated with the RHM capability. As Walt can tell
you, that bird was awesome. About the only fighter that was in the same
ballpark in that era performance-wise was the Lightning, but that had a pretty
poor weapon system for air combat (though better for interception than the
F-104A or C).

A now deceased friend of a friend flew virtually all models of the F-104,
including the G (he flew the C in combat), and liked the G the least. IIRC
(this is via my fading memory of what my friend said his friend had told him
whilediscussing the a/c), he said that it was relatively heavy and the Cg was
more forward (presumably owing to the more powerful radar and more complete
avionics), and he also didn't care for the bigger tail. Now, please note that
he was assessing it as a pure air superiority fighter, as opposed to the
multi-role fighter (nuke and conventional strike/recon/limited all-weather
interception/maritime strike) missions that the F-104G was required to
perform, where all the extra weight of avionics (and airframe beef-up) was
necessary.

Oh, one correction to a point Ed made in a post; the 104 usually had its
greatest Ps advantage fast and low, not fast and high. About the only time
F-8s (any other US fighter of the period was a grape against a smartly-flown
Zipper) could give them problems was at high altitude and low Mach, where
the104's skimpy wing was very unhappy.

Guy

"gregg" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

Partially true. The F-104A was originally a high altitude interceptor,
but in the hands of the 435th TFW/479th TFW, it was a very capable
air-to-air day fighter. They developed a lot of the modern mutual
support, split-plane maneuvering modern tactics for low-aspect
air-to-air.

The greatest production of the F-104 was the F-104G model and variants
of that version operated by allied AFs world-wide for more than 40
years. A very capable nuclear strike platform as well as a pretty
competitive A/A fighter, particularly in versions like the Italian
F-104S model that had Sparrow capability.

I'd say a very successful aircraft.

I wonder how the 104G rated in Boyd's energy maneuverability analysis, and
to what extent tactics mitigates such an analysis.

"Nobody killed anybody with PsubS." Not sure who to attribute that too, but
it seems to be lurking in my old memories of a Top Gun lecture.

R / John

wrote in message
oups.com...
You can get statistics on each individual plane in terms of accidents
per hour.

http://afsafety.af.mil/ is the main page
You probably want this page
http://afsafety.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Fl...aft_stats.html

This is the website where you file FOIAs to get crash information. Lots
of sleaze-bags on the net charge for this information.

Shrub flew the F-104. It is really an intercept aircraft, so it
wouldn't be likely to see a dog fight, especially in Alabama. In
Shrub's favor, while it would be the plane of choice to fly in the
theater if you didn't want to see action, the F-104 was a deathtrap
compared to other aircraft, strictly from an operational standpoint.

SNIP

As stated elsewhere, the Pres flew deuces, not zippers.

I don't think any of the century series or their Navy contemporaries could
be considered a deathtrap. Perhaps the most notorious jet of the 50's -
60's was the F-7 Cutlass which combined peculiar flying qualities with
unreliable systems (electrical and hydraulic).

The Navy had a particularly tough time with operational accidents when they
flew relatively underpowered jets off straight deck carriers (more mishap
than combat losses in Korea). Angled decks and the next generation of
aircraft helped there, although the F-8 was particularly unforgiving around
the blunt end of the boat and had the distinction of the highest mishap rate
of any aircraft in the angled deck era.

As to the issue of timidity or cowardice, it can be found in any avocation
or profession. Frequently the individual is unaware of his/her (it's a coed
world these days) shortcoming until the pressure is on. As an example,
while Duke Cunningham was doing his thing on May 10, 1972 another squadron
aircraft was making a beeline for feet wet.

R / John