Feather Duster I and II programs

Juvat wrote:

Zajcevi posted:

snip


Was it sole USAF test or also USN fighters were involved?

USAF and ANG it would appear.

And was also simulated by some types (possibly F-106 like on Top Gun)?

Not according to this article.

I can hear the conversation now -- "You're thinking of mentioning our
mortal enemy, the USN, and their participation in Featherduster in the
FWR? How well do you like your career?"

F-8s were the only a/c that gave the F-104s trouble, at high
altitude/subsonic where the F-8's wing loading rules. The F-8's were also
flying an early form of Loose Deuce (The 104s were flying Double Attack).

Guy

P.S. Do the articles you found describe the F-104 tactics used against the
F-86Hs? I've got that.

Guy Alcala posted:

P.S. Do the articles you found describe the F-104 tactics used against the
F-86Hs? I've got that.

I don't...I have a couple "Double Attack" articles from FWR (1971 I
think)...with editor's note at the end of each reminding readers that
Fluid Four is how to get the job done.

But I do have a few F-4 RTU manuals from 1966 the dearth of air-to-air
information is nothing short of amazing. [Kinda like the first couple
versions of the F-16 Dash 1...comic book length.] Then you contrast
that to the MCM 3-3 (an unclassified airplane specific behemoth
manual) from the 80's...amazing.

Specifically I have TACM 51-6 Aerial Combat Training, AFM 51-34 F-4
Aircrew Training (Tactical Fighter), TACM 55-4 v1 F-4 Aircrew
Operational Procedures, plus three Phase manuals from MacDill's RTU
course.

Juvat

Juvat wrote:

Guy Alcala posted:

P.S. Do the articles you found describe the F-104 tactics used against the
F-86Hs? I've got that.

I don't...I have a couple "Double Attack" articles from FWR (1971 I
think)...with editor's note at the end of each reminding readers that
Fluid Four is how to get the job done.

Snip info on pubs. Thanks

Well, to give you the short version, if the (1 v. 1) Zip started on the
defensive (420 kts)at low altitude, they'd go negative-G into ground clutter
until reaching about 1.1M, making rapid banking reversals to prevent gun/missile
shots (rare, as the F-86 pilots found it almost imposssible to reverse and get
into a gun/missile envelope owing to their low speed after the defensive break
and the negative closure on the accelerating 104s). Once out of AIM-9B/Atoll
range, they'd begin a climbing turn at about M1.0 and 2g; typically, by the time
they'd reached 180 deg. of turn the F-86s would have lost sight, and the F-104s
would go offensive. When offensive, they'd start their pass at a minimum of
500-600Kts, which would allow them to pull up to 5g sustained (more got into
buffet) and track the 86s for a gun shot, allowing speed to bleed down to no
lower than 400 knots (Note that they'd only turn with the F-86s when the latter
were fast, .7M; otherwise, they just made slashing attacks) before quarter
rolling away, and proceed as for the defensive separation above. Same basic
procedures for 2 v. 2 and 4 v. 4, except that double attack was used and the
offensive passes were usually started at 1.1M and speed wasn't allowed to go
below 500 kts.

For the high altitude combats (35kft. start), the same basic technique was used,
except that the initial dive and separation was steeper (ca. 40 deg.) until
reaching M1.4 or so @ 10kft, then proceed as before. At both high and low
altitude, once the 104s got their energy up after the initial defensive start
they were never defensive again. As far as Tom knew, there was only a single,
iffy kill called on the 104s by the 86s. One pilot started his climbing spiral
a bit early, and the 86 pilot was able to get a tone at about 2,000 ft. range
with negative closure. The range officer agreed that the shot was edge of the
envelope, but the Zipper pilot admitted that he'd made a mistake and would have
had to break if a missile had been fired.

Guy

Guy Alcala posted:


Well, to give you the short version...

As always, much obiliged.

Juvat

Guy Alcala wrote: Snip:
P.S. Do the articles you found describe the F-104 tactics used against the
F-86Hs? I've got that.
Snip:
Guy, I'd like to see that 104/86H piece, if it's not too much trouble.
BTW I tried to send you a message but 'postoffice.pacbell' refused it.
Walt BJ

Walt BJ wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote: Snip:
P.S. Do the articles you found describe the F-104 tactics used against the
F-86Hs? I've got that.
Snip:
Guy, I'd like to see that 104/86H piece, if it's not too much trouble.
BTW I tried to send you a message but 'postoffice.pacbell' refused it.

Is my reply to 'Juvat' giving the 'short' version, adequate? There was much
repetition describing the 1 v.1, 2 v.2, and 4 v. 4, so I was able to condense
quite a bit. Besides, you already know the result; the Zip kicked butt;-) Of
course, damn near any supersonic fighter with adequate fuel should be able to
control the engagement against a subsonic bird like the F-86 if they can avoid
the initial attack, although an F-100 (and I imagine the F-102) would probably
find things a lot tougher. The F-86 pilots said the 104s were the toughest
opponents they'd faced (they'd already gone up against F-100s, F-102s, F-105s,
and F-4Cs), and were quite impressed with the 104's ability to sustain high g
turns at speed. Despite their better radius, the 86s were unable to cut the
corner to take shots, because the 104s stayed fast while turning.

Guy

P.S. Losing "postoffice.", (plus the obvious Spam trap you'd already deleted)
and keeping the rest should work.