Would the air force have any better off in Vietnam if they'd used the F-104 for air to air instead of the F-4?

Scott Ferrin wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
wrote:

Tex Houston wrote:

5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
getting paid.


According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
deliver with the F-104.

So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
maneuverability?

They probably figured they had adequate maneuverability. They should
have made sure they said they wanted to keep it AND get more speed
instead of trading one for the other.

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?
--

-Gord.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:07:44 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:51:48 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:32:54 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Overall, the 104 performance in SEA was less than stellar.

Thanks. This month's Airpower/Wings sure talked the thing's
performance over Vietnam up. I'd read long ago that it didn't do all
that well over ther so I thought I'd come here for the lowdown :-)

Airpower usually is pretty well researched. Can't imagine a positive
review of F-104 SEA performance.

My mistake. It was "Combat Aircraft". I'd been reading them both and
got them mixed up. BTW Airpower has an article on the XF-103. Pretty
interesting.

For Scott Ferrin

Scott,

Ran across this additional information on f-104 deployment to SEA while
looking for something else.

http://web.tiscali.it/no-redirect-ti...ighter/Zip.htm

Tex Houston

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:19:51 -0700, "Tex Houston"
wrote:

For Scott Ferrin

Scott,

Ran across this additional information on f-104 deployment to SEA while
looking for something else.

http://web.tiscali.it/no-redirect-ti...ighter/Zip.htm

Tex Houston



Thanks for the link. It sounds like they could have been valuable but
circumstances conspired against them.

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
wrote:

Tex Houston wrote:

5 Air to ground, 9 CAP so again the answer is no. From my two years in an
F-104 outfit the general pilot take was that it was a good interceptor, a
mediocre dog fighter and so much fun to fly they wondered why they were
getting paid.


According to the "Kellys' Way" video from the Flight Test Historical
Association, in 1951 Kelly Johnson visited AF units in Korea to find
out what the pilot's wanted. The answer is described as higher speed,
greater altitude, and less complexity. And that's what he tried to
deliver with the F-104.

So what went wrong? Why didn't he hear a request for greater
maneuverability?

They probably figured they had adequate maneuverability. They should
have made sure they said they wanted to keep it AND get more speed
instead of trading one for the other.

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?

No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
too stable, laterally.

In all fairness, it really ought to be pointed out that the F-104 was
only unmaneuverable at low EAS. (FOr values of low 500 kts or so)
If you kept the speed up, it would maneuver with anything else. After
all, when maximum lift isn't the limiting factor, all that wing
loading stuff isn't as important. (Note - I'm not saying it isn't
important, but low wing loading favors the slower airplane) IIRC, it
was a lot easier for a well-flown F-104 to keep its energy up than any
of its competitors. The drawback, is, though, that in order to go fas
& stay fast, you've got to be in afterburner all the time, and that
limits your endurance. (And also makes it a bit hard to escort
anything - There's no point if your F-104 strike escort flies to hanoi
& back in 25 minutes, sweeping all i front of it, if the F-105s with
the bombs are still chugging along at 550-600 kts. )

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) writes:

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?

No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
too stable, laterally.


Ok, thanks Peter...most fighters don't seem to have near the
amount of anhedral of the 104. Like the 'teens, most seem to be
pretty flat, what made the 104 so laterally stable as to require
it reduced so much?...or is that parameter (in a fighter) not as
effective as it would be in a heavier a/c? (I'd think that the
heavier an a/c was then the more a certain amount of anhedral
would destabilize it?)


--

-Gord.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:58:30 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
wrote:

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?

No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
too stable, laterally.

Well, it was common for all high performance aircraft of the period to
have stability augmentation. Some had single axis while others had
full three-axis stab aug. It wasn't as fully in-the-loop as todays FBW
systems, but definitely added control inputs to reduce pilot workload
on inherently unstable systems.

The F-104G (and probably a number of the other Euro variants) carried
the same multi-mode autopilot system that the F-105D had with altitude
hold, attitude hold, mach hold, nav-track, autoss (nuclear
over-the-shoulder) and autoILS.


In all fairness, it really ought to be pointed out that the F-104 was
only unmaneuverable at low EAS. (FOr values of low 500 kts or so)
If you kept the speed up, it would maneuver with anything else. After
all, when maximum lift isn't the limiting factor, all that wing
loading stuff isn't as important. (Note - I'm not saying it isn't
important, but low wing loading favors the slower airplane) IIRC, it
was a lot easier for a well-flown F-104 to keep its energy up than any
of its competitors. The drawback, is, though, that in order to go fas
& stay fast, you've got to be in afterburner all the time, and that
limits your endurance. (And also makes it a bit hard to escort
anything - There's no point if your F-104 strike escort flies to hanoi
& back in 25 minutes, sweeping all i front of it, if the F-105s with
the bombs are still chugging along at 550-600 kts. )

Actually, at low altitude and high-Q, the 104 would begin to get inlet
overtemps when trying to escort F-105s. The losses of the two escort
F-104s weren't associated with bomb dropper escort, but with Wild
Weasel escort. They might have been more successful in the counter-air
role if flown as CAP sorties with GCI to run them toward the threat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:33:47 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:58:30 -0500, (Peter Stickney)
wrote:

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
Scott Ferrin wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003 20:44:43 -0800, (Paul A. Suhler)
wrote:

They certainly *looked* like they'd be very maneuverable with all
that anhedral...did they have some sort of computer controlled
autopilot to handle all the unstability that the high anhedral
would have given them?

No computers. The anhedral was there to reduce the stability of the
airplane. If They'd built it with a flat wing, it would have ended up
too stable, laterally.

Feedback control systems vastly predate computers. They even predate
using electricity for augmentation. Lawrence Sperry's wing leveler
used a pendulum, being a mechanical system.

The anhedral was there because of the t-tail. Without anhedral, the
tail would have caused too much weathercocking, so the anhedral was
added to stabilize the airplane in yaw. It doesn't reduce the
stability, it increases it. Pretty much all fighters have anhedral,
because they have big verticals, although the amount of anhedral
varies depending on whether the fuselage, particularly the forebody,
helps with the weathercocking.

Well, it was common for all high performance aircraft of the period to
have stability augmentation. Some had single axis while others had
full three-axis stab aug. It wasn't as fully in-the-loop as todays FBW
systems, but definitely added control inputs to reduce pilot workload
on inherently unstable systems.

The F-104 and F-4 had dampers in roll and yaw. Maybe in pitch, too,
(I don't have a Dash-1 around), but I know when I flew in the F-104 we
turned the roll and yaw dampers off for a little while. We also shut
down the dampers in the F-4E when I flew in it almost two decades
later.

Anyway, I think the dampers were all there was in the F-104 for
stability augmentation, because the airplane was pretty good except
for not being highly damped. Not that it was deadbeat, even with the
dampers, but it was a lot better.

The F-104G (and probably a number of the other Euro variants) carried
the same multi-mode autopilot system that the F-105D had with altitude
hold, attitude hold, mach hold, nav-track, autoss (nuclear
over-the-shoulder) and autoILS.

I believe the F-104N had this same system, since it was an F-104G
without the weapons suite.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 08:13:04 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 16:33:47 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Well, it was common for all high performance aircraft of the period to
have stability augmentation. Some had single axis while others had
full three-axis stab aug. It wasn't as fully in-the-loop as todays FBW
systems, but definitely added control inputs to reduce pilot workload
on inherently unstable systems.

The F-104 and F-4 had dampers in roll and yaw. Maybe in pitch, too,
(I don't have a Dash-1 around), but I know when I flew in the F-104 we
turned the roll and yaw dampers off for a little while. We also shut
down the dampers in the F-4E when I flew in it almost two decades
later.

The F-4 had three axis stab aug; pitch, roll and yaw. It was standard
procedure to turn the roll aug off before any high G manuevering such
as combat or ACM training. The roll aug caused very jerky movements
during rolls because of the aileron/rudder interplay. Rather than a
roll, you flew a multi-sided polygon. ;-)



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

The F-4 had three axis stab aug; pitch, roll and yaw. It was standard
procedure to turn the roll aug off before any high G manuevering such
as combat or ACM training. The roll aug caused very jerky movements
during rolls because of the aileron/rudder interplay. Rather than a
roll, you flew a multi-sided polygon. ;-)

Being **very** careful who was in the pit; while flying route
formation I would ask the GIB if he wanted to fly. One bud was a CFII
and had competed at IAC (International Aerobatic Club) events.

Route formation was no challenge for him (nor was refueling), but
whiet mashing down the Master Caution reset I'd turn the roll Aug
off...no sweat. After a short interval (still holding the reset
button) I'd turn off the Pitch Aug...yeehaa, ride 'em cowboy.

He'd get flustered, I'd calmly turn the Pitch Aug back on as I
announced, "I got the jet" and stirred the stick. Back in position I
asked him if he wanted to try again.

Rinse-lather-repeat...rinse-lather-repeat.

By the third time I couldn't keep from laughing and fessed up. And to
think I got paid to do that. Life is good!

Juvat