shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) (08/19/90)
From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov>
The F-104 was originally built with downward firing ejection seats.
The reason was that in the 50s, when it was designed, the ejection
seats didn't have enough acceleration to ensure that the pilot would
clear the T-tail. Leaping out of the cockpit to be struck by the
tail wasn't much of a bargain.
This same lack of thrust is why 50s aircraft didn't, as a rule, have
zero-zero seats. Of course, the capability was added as soon as
available.
Sometime in the early 60s (pilots' memories vary on the precise year)
the F-104 was converted to upward firing ejection seats. All existing
planes were modified and new ones were built with these seats, since
more powerful pyros had been developed and smacking into the tail was
no longer so probable.
Ivan Kinchloe, a test pilot's test pilot, was killed when he ejected
from his USAF F-104 on takeoff here at Edwards. The Society of
Experimental Test Pilots gives the Kinchloe award every year as sort
of a "test pilot of the year" award.
Our F-104Ns were modified at McClellan AFB, near Sacramento, CA, since
that was the F-104 depot maintainence base. The story connected with
this is about the last of ours to be modified (this plane is now
hanging in the National Air & Space Museum, BTW). The modification
was originally scheduled for early winter, but McClellan was so foggy
(the infamous tule fog) that it was closed for landings for almost
three months. 89 days to be precise. On the 90th day the plane would
have been grounded and we would have been unable to fly it without a
waiver. Everyone took this modification really seriously.
Everyone talks about the F-104 in the past tense, but we're still
flying two of them in research projects. Don't say the F-104 _had_,
say it _has_ or you'll make me nervous. :-) They're also still being
flown by a number of foreign air forces.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all"--Unknown US fighter pilotcirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) (08/23/90)
From: cirby@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) In article <1990Aug18.182728.24742@cbnews.att.com>, shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > The F-104 was originally built with downward firing ejection seats. This reminds me of a (possibly apocryphal) tale of the F-104... If you were taking off in the 104 and the engine flamed out, the preferred technique was to do a roll and punch out while inverted (so as not to fire yourself into the ground). Supposedly, this one pilot had been in 104s for years, and had bailed out more than once in this situation. He had moved to F-4 Phantoms, and was in the front seat of one when the plane lost an engine on takeoff. He coolly flipped the plane over on its back and yanked the lever to eject... -- |-| |-| Iraq owed Kuwait a lot of money, so they |-| C Irby |-| invaded and installed a new government. |-| cirby@vaxa.acs.unt.edu |-| I think that's a great idea. |-| cirby@untvax |-| Next week, I'm annexing the phone company |-| |-| and putting my friend Albert in charge.
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (08/24/90)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) In article <1990Aug18.182728.24742@cbnews.att.com> shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes: > Everyone talks about the F-104 in the past tense, but we're still > flying two of them in research projects. Don't say the F-104 _had_, > say it _has_ or you'll make me nervous. :-) They're also still being > flown by a number of foreign air forces. The "Wings" show on the Discovery channel said some really nice things about the F-104 (after 45 minutes of talking about all of the troubles that the plane had finding a customer). To paraphrase, they claimed that that most modern fighters, even the F-15, would find the F-104 very difficult to dispose with when the F-104 was flown in the right hands. Here is a bit of trivia: the magazine "Warplane" has a blurb about a rocket assisted F-104. The maximum height acheived by the plane was 113,890 feet. An attempt by Chuck Yeager to go to 140,000 feet ended in an ejection. The artical in "Warplane" goes on to mention an invasion scare in Taiwan during 1957/1958. It claims that USAF F-104 flew missions to intercept Chinese MIGs, and some of the F-104 returned without their Sidewinders. There are supposedly unconfirmed rumours that the F-104's scored several MIG kills. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!bungia!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
sxdjt@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (TABOR DEAN J) (08/28/90)
From: sxdjt@acad3.fai.alaska.edu (TABOR DEAN J) In article <1990Aug24.034122.636@cbnews.att.com>, newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) writes... >... > To paraphrase, they claimed that >that most modern fighters, even the F-15, would find the F-104 very >difficult to dispose with when the F-104 was flown in the right hands. >... For that matter, an F-86 in good hands would easilly wax an F-15 in mediocre hands... *-------(-:-S-t-a-n-d-a-r-d---D-i-s-c-l-a-i-m-e-r---A-p-p-l-i-e-s-:-)-------* |Dean J. Tabor | University of Alaska Computer Network - Operations | |SXDJT@ALASKA.bitnet | Fairbanks, Alaska USA (no, I don't live in an igloo)| |=+=+=+=+=+=-It's not how fast you go, it's how well you go fast-=+=+=+=+=+=| *---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
kjetil@ifi.uio.no (Holm-Kjetil Holmsen) (08/28/90)
From: kjetil@ifi.uio.no (Holm-Kjetil Holmsen) In article <1990Aug24.034122.636@cbnews.att.com>, newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) writes: > [stuff deleted] > that the plane had finding a customer). To paraphrase, they claimed that > that most modern fighters, even the F-15, would find the F-104 very > difficult to dispose with when the F-104 was flown in the right hands. > This gives me a chance to pass on some "gossip" from my days in the Norwegean Air Force: My CO, a german captain (I was stationed at NATO HQ AFNORTH), told us that quite often F-104's from the german navy had to be 'talked down' when landing. Even in broad daylight. Reason: The cannopy was frosted over by _sea_spray_ ! "Herr Capitain, Herr Capitain! Incomming F-104 on starboard bow.... Sir, not up there, down there, between those two fregats (sp)." Holm-Kjetil Holmsen, Comp. Sci student. email: kjetil@ifi.uio.no Dept. of Informatics University of Oslo NORWAY
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (08/29/90)
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > > The artical in "Warplane" goes on to mention an invasion scare in Taiwan > during 1957/1958. It claims that USAF F-104 flew missions to intercept > Chinese MIGs, and some of the F-104 returned without their Sidewinders. > There are supposedly unconfirmed rumours that the F-104's scored several > MIG kills. A friend of mine was in the AF, moved from [AF base just north of San Francisco] to Taiwan during this period. He was an F-104 crew chief. The pilots flying missions over the straits west of Taiwan, as far as his experience went, were ROC AF. They complained that their guns (Vulcan 20mm cannon) were jamming. They weren't. It's just that a couple seconds sustained shooting would use up all your ammunition. The solution was a circuit that would shut off the guns after about .2 seconds of firing. You then had to release the trigger and try again to throw more stuff ahead. The Chinese pilots, btw, said they liked the Sidewinder. Worked just fine. (At least, they didn't have any on board when they returned to base.) ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (08/31/90)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) Regarding the F-104's air combat maneuvering ability or lack thereof: Apollo astronaut Michael Collins, in his autobiography "Carrying the Fire," mentions some F-104 time accrued during, or on the road to, astronaut training. I quote from memory but with good confidence that it was "built to go like hell, and so it did, preferably in a straight line." --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"