Feather Duster I and II programs

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
Juvat wrote:
Minor correction - The 435th/479thTFW was at George AFB. However us
Zipper pilots at Homestead read the same books. Mainly, Boyd, Riccione
and Rutowsky - I was squadron weapons officer 1964-1966 and got
'double attack' adopted. The way I sold it was describing it as 'fluid
four' with no wingmen. We normallly flew in pairs anyway. Since we had
28 F104As looking at 125 MiG 21s down in Cuba, pairs maximized
flexibility. We also had a comprehensive combat crew training program
to get new pilots up to flight lead as soon as possible. This of
course made 'double attack/loose deuce' eminently practical. FWIW a
program similar to 'Featherduster' was flown in 1968 with the Dash 19
104As as players. I had gone over to the 'dark side' by then (F4s) but
two of my very good friends went out to Edwards and flew against the
MiGs. No contest; the Dash 19 was unattackable in high cruise by the
MiG 17 (M 0.95) and the MiG 21 couldn't sustain energy in maneuvering.
FWIW using takeoff/maneuvering flaps (limit 550/1.8M) the 104A could
out-turn the F4. Corner velocity was around 425 IAS.
FWIW I was a 104 flight examiner and IP/maintenance test pilot in the
F4.
Walt BJ

Walt

Did the A model have a 550/1.8M limit on the takeoff flap position? The G
model limit was 450/.85M.

In the G, we were competitive with the F-4, but if the F-4 was clean, it had
a higher max G limit at CV that we could not match (although at those
parameters, individual aircraft capability was nowhere as important as was
individual pilot capability).
"Walt BJ" wrote in message
om...
Ed Rasimus wrote in message
. ..
Juvat wrote:
Minor correction - The 435th/479thTFW was at George AFB. However us
Zipper pilots at Homestead read the same books. Mainly, Boyd, Riccione
and Rutowsky - I was squadron weapons officer 1964-1966 and got
'double attack' adopted. The way I sold it was describing it as 'fluid
four' with no wingmen. We normallly flew in pairs anyway. Since we had
28 F104As looking at 125 MiG 21s down in Cuba, pairs maximized
flexibility. We also had a comprehensive combat crew training program
to get new pilots up to flight lead as soon as possible. This of
course made 'double attack/loose deuce' eminently practical. FWIW a
program similar to 'Featherduster' was flown in 1968 with the Dash 19
104As as players. I had gone over to the 'dark side' by then (F4s) but
two of my very good friends went out to Edwards and flew against the
MiGs. No contest; the Dash 19 was unattackable in high cruise by the
MiG 17 (M 0.95) and the MiG 21 couldn't sustain energy in maneuvering.
FWIW using takeoff/maneuvering flaps (limit 550/1.8M) the 104A could
out-turn the F4. Corner velocity was around 425 IAS.
FWIW I was a 104 flight examiner and IP/maintenance test pilot in the
F4.
Walt BJ

Andy Bush wrote:

Walt

Did the A model have a 550/1.8M limit on the takeoff flap position? The G
model limit was 450/.85M.

I think Walt's memory is in error here. The F-104A-D Dash -1 (dated 1 June 1968
says the limits are 450/0.80M, with no Mach restriction if = 330 kts. BTW, did
you guys keep the tip tanks on in a hassle? ISTR that the G wings were strong
enough to do so, and the tanks improved the turn capability.

In the G, we were competitive with the F-4, but if the F-4 was clean, it had
a higher max G limit at CV that we could not match (although at those
parameters, individual aircraft capability was nowhere as important as was
individual pilot capability).

Max. G for the F-104A was +7.33, but with tip AIM-9s or launchers it's only 5.6
(symmetrical) with less than 4,000 lb. fuel. The F-104C is slightly higher with
the same fuel, 6.0 with tip launchers, 5.3 with missiles, symmetrical and clean
wing. I imagine both were exceeded as needed.

As far as G capability of the various versions, Tom Delashaw said that his least
favorite version for A/A was the G, owing to it being heavier and more nose
heavy than the USAF versions, with no more thrust than the C. He also didn't
think the big tail was necessary for A/A, although when loaded with max. tanks
and stores I imagine it was needed for stability. He felt that the A or C model
could sustain more G than an F-4, as long as you were over 500 KCAS, while the
F-4 had an instantaneous G advantage. The F-104A w/-19 that Walt flew should
blow the doors off any F-4 except in turn radius, even the F-4F.

Guy