If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala posted:
Well, to give you the short version... As always, much obiliged. Juvat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thinking about getting my IFR rating - Written test programs???? | Grey Stone | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | July 22nd 03 01:08 AM |