request for fighter pilot statistic

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Not disagreeing with you, but I have a hard time (my own limitation)
imagining the F-104 as a dogfighter.

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

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

Whether the term of reference is "miles" or "hours", I'll only offer
that I don't personally know any daily commuters who have died in that
endeavor. I've known and flown with at least a hundred guys who died in
tactical fighters. That evidence is only anecdotal, but it works for
me.

As for "can a coward become a Fighter Pilot"? The clear answer is no. A
coward might become a pilot flying fighters, but would never be a
Fighter Pilot.

Larry Dighera wrote:
For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than flying a
fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)

What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.



james

james cho wrote:


What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.
james

And whether or not there was a war going on.

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

james cho wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:

For example, in terms of miles, is commuting more dangerous than
flying a fighter plane? (I say no, many say yes.)


What time period? The past ten years, the 1940s or since the beginning
of aviation? Your results would vary dramatically depending on the
range of events of the time, I think.

You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack

I'm curious to know how the F-100 compared to the 104. I assume the
planes had different missions but being from the same era I lump them
together. I've heard/read about the Super Sabre being a handful but
comparing the wing on it to the 104's lack thereof you'd think it would
be tame by comparison. I figure any of the first-gen jets could be a
handful for a hamfisted pilot as high speed aerodynamics was a new
science then and quite unforgiving.

Would like to hear input from those who've "been there".

Wooly

Well, I've flown neither the F-100 nor the 104. But, I've flown with a
lot of guys who've flown them. My experience was F-105 and F-4.

The F-100 was known for it's adverse yaw--the phenomenon of having the
airplane yaw away from the direction of intended turn when a lot of
aileron/stick is thrown in. Roll hard left and the airplane suddenly
flips over to the right. The issue is that the down aileron creates
much more drag than the up one--i.e. yaw away from the roll direction.
When that happens, suddenly the high wing gets a lot of blanking from
the yawed fuselage and the low wing is placed in a better lift
producing situation and you go the wrong way.

Throw in that the -100A model had no flaps and hence very high landing
speeds and a slow responding, relatively low power engine. That, of
course leads to the potential for the "Sabre Dance" where you get
behind the power curve, extremely nose high and the only way out is to
lose altitude which might not be available.

The F-104 really was only a problem because of high landing and
take-off speeds. (WaltBJ will undoubtedly offer greater insights into
the Zipper at this point.)

The F-105 had very few bad flying characteristics except for the high
wing loading and high TO/Landing speeds.

The "hard wing" F-4 (before leading edge slats were added to E-models)
had very similar adverse yaw characteristics as the F-100, but a lot
better thrust/weight and engine responsiveness. Boundary layer control
(blowing) reduced landing speeds as well.

Jack wrote:

You are right to an extent. Yes, the results would vary in that flying
fighters would be even more dangerous during war time. During peace time
it's only several orders of magnitude more dangerous than commuting.

I can echo Ed's comments to the extent that I have known more fighter
pilots who died in peacetime than I have commuters who are no longer
with us. War is a whole 'nother state beyond that. And you'll find that
the ratio was even worse in WW1 than in later wars.

Of course, if you are commuting on a motorcycle in heavy traffic, your
opportunities to match the modern peace time death rate among fighter
pilots are much improved.


Jack

Jack,

Spot on, flying combat military aircraft is considerably more dangerous
than many things. There are few of us in the business who don't have
friends that were killed in crashes. I am however constantly impressed
by the discipline, dedication and skill displayed by the aviators I fly
with. These fine Americans aren't the reckless adrenaline freaks
portrayed by Hollywood, but are top notch professionals! Its an honor
to serve and fly with them.

Michael Kelly
BUFF Flight Tester