Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
I worked a summer at one of our bases is Germany in the 80s when they were still flying the CF-104s. Designed as a high altitude interceptor and having a high tail, the ejection seat fired downwards. Later when they were repurposed as low level attack planes (!) the drill was, before you crash make sure you do a roll so you eject upwards....no wonder they were called the window maker.
The also had no low speed ability due to their rocket with find design and had to land at high speed. I was amazed when the first CF-18 arrived and it seemingly floated down to the runway by comparison.
|
I wrote a really vicious reply to your post yesterday when I was six cans into my mission, but I never pulled the trigger...
Probably a good thing.
I'm going to give this a shot today with a clearer head.
First off? You would have been in Baden-Soellingen, it was the sole remaining fast air establishment in CF Europe at the time.
Next? The L-2 ejection seat was never fitted to our aircraft. The only 104's that had it were the first couple of "blocks" of F-104A's built for the USAF in 1956-57.
Next?
When 104's were "repurposed" as a low level Nuclear Strike platform (1960-1968) they gave the WARPAC nightmares. Nothing could catch/touch it on the deck due to it's high
wing loading. A CF-104 could penetrate to a range of roughly 400 NM behind the IGB (inter German Border) at a TAS of 800-900 KTAS, this at an altitude of <500 AGL.
Because of the above noted wing loading it rode like a rocket on rails... in air conditions where turbulence made almost
all other aircraft of the period un-flyable at such speeds.
As with regards to your comment on landing speeds?
Yes, in this day and age, coming over the threshold @ 175 Kts is certainly not common. However...?
Look at the landing speed on the F-105B/D. The F-102/106. The F-101B. This (+20KTS for a CF-104) was not really seen as an issue.
Kelly Johnson's team actually made huge strides in reducing the landing speed to this "excessive number" through the implementation of "blown flaps". This was a "plumbing" system which pulled air from the engine's secondary compressor stages and ducted it over the top of the wing to increase lift when the aircraft was nearing critical alpha during the approach profile.
Inappropriate failure of this system
during this critical phase of flight did indeed lead to losses. So did pitch-up (again at high-alpha) where the wings would block airflow over the high mounted elevator, causing it to stall.
These were not "problems" specifically isolated to the 104. Take a look at the "Sabre Dance" and the accident rate of of the F-100 for an example of this. The F-101 also suffered pitch-up issues until the phenomena was properly understood.
Comparing the approach speed of an aircraft (CF-188) designed with the help of
25 years of aerodynamic developments is rather ridiculous IMO.
In actuality, this early period (which brought about the 104) represents a quantum leap in aerodynamic developments.
One where we went (inside of ten years) from the P-51H/P-47N/F8F (top "fighters" of 1946) to the Century Series aircraft in series production in 1956!
Wrap your head around that one...
To say that they (the engineers) were "pushing the boundaries" is a major understatement.
It's kind of like a guy showing up with a microwave oven while the Neanderthal's are cooking their meat on an open fire...
I (as you might have guessed) grew up in and among the CF-104 community.
These guys
accepted the risks associated with their mission sets.
Was the 104 perfect? No.
In the strike mission (1962-71 RCAF) it came darned close though.
In the conventional attack role it was hopeless.
See my previous post for thoughts in
this regard.