F-104 & Supersonic Penetration

[rickshaw]

I've just remembered a Mirage went "accidently" supersonic during an airshow at RAAF Edinburgh in the early 1980s.   It caused considerable damage to the glass houses near the airbase (which is situated near the major market garden area for Adelaide).  Over a million dollars damage IIRC.   Thousands of panes broken.

A3-2





19? The aircraft was acquired by the RAAF and allocated the serial number A3-2.

1965 The aircraft was allocated to the Aircraft Research & Development Unit (ARDU).

197? The aircraft was painted up in a yellow and dark green colour scheme.

19? The aircraft was painted up in an orange and white colour scheme.

19? Whilst flying with an F-18 during an airshow at RAAF Edinburgh, the aircraft accidentally broke the sound barrier. This resulted in a large number of windows being broken in glass houses that the aircraft were flying over at the time.

Nov1990 The aircraft was acquired by the Pakistani Air Force and re-serialed as 90-502.

[Source]

[NARSES2]

It certainly could!! I witnessed just such an event at Fairford in   (I think ) 1985. A pair of Lutwaffe F104s were doing a joint display. One came in low with everything hanging. The second came in even lower, very fast & pulled up ahead of the first F104.  The pilot went supersonic as he climbed. At that low altitude, the shockwave and sonic boom were most impressive!!

I'm sure he got a serious talking to after he landed!!

I also remember talking to a Luftwaffe F-104 pilot at Fairford and he more or less comfirmed what you said. The acceleration for what was a relatively light aircraft was exceptional. He also confirmed that the 104 was extremely fast and steady at low level

Allan

Saw something like that at Greenham Common. The pair did a low, very high speed pass with smoke on over the Greenham Women's Peace Campaigners tent site. They'd had a right go at the crowd on entry. When we left they were still trying to find their tents and washing  Ah happy days 

[pyro-manic]

http://youtu.be/8124lhm6d7o

Smash!

[Hobbes]

and, being that the aircraft often carried streamlined drop-tanks, added additional fuel to the equation

The gate guard at Soesterberg is an F-104 with 4 fuel tanks. Of course, that means there's only the centerline pylon left for weapons.

[PR19_Kit]

IIRC the 'size' of the boom, and therefore the potential damage, depends on the size of the aircraft, so an XB-70 boom would be far more damaging than an F-14 sized one. That makes some sense as the boom is a pressure wave and that'll depend on the amount of air moved oit of the way and the in turn that would depend on the size of the wings of the aircraft.

In the 50s, when British R&D aircraft and the RAF, were still exploring supersonic flight, window and greenhouse damage was quite common. I can remember a case in the papers were some guy who owned a monster greenhouse complex claimed a small fortune for all his broken glass and lost revenue because of claimed booms over his place.

[KJ_Lesnick]

deathjester

According to the Rowland White book Phoenix Squadron, the F-104's used by the Luftwaffe were blisteringly fast at low level, but entirely unable to manouvere, due to their not being stressed for it !!

I thought the F-104 was stressed for the same g-loads as most other fighters?


wagnersm

"In August 1959, a U.S. Air Force Lockheed F-104 Starfighter performed a low fly-by of the airport during celebration of the opening of a new terminal in Ottawa and accidentally went supersonic over the airport, causing windows and parts of the walls of the new terminal to shatter.

Did the plane slip through Mach 1 on dry power or on AB?  I have heard of cases where they did it on dry power though I'm not sure if they were in level or in a dive.


K.J.
Read my sig

[deathjester]

deathjester

According to the Rowland White book Phoenix Squadron, the F-104's used by the Luftwaffe were blisteringly fast at low level, but entirely unable to manouvere, due to their not being stressed for it !!

I thought the F-104 was stressed for the same g-loads as most other fighters?


wagnersm

"In August 1959, a U.S. Air Force Lockheed F-104 Starfighter performed a low fly-by of the airport during celebration of the opening of a new terminal in Ottawa and accidentally went supersonic over the airport, causing windows and parts of the walls of the new terminal to shatter.

Did the plane slip through Mach 1 on dry power or on AB?  I have heard of cases where they did it on dry power though I'm not sure if they were in level or in a dive.


K.J.
Read my sig

Stressed the same as other medium - high altitude interceptors.  Not stressed for anything at all, compared to the Buccaneer it was tail chasing!

When it comes to exceeding Mach 1 on dry power?  I can well believe it, but it depends upon such things as altitude, air density, and external stores:  at over 15,00 above sea level, no problem.  Low down, over, say, a desert, not too difficult.  In Europe, low down? - better light that 'burner!

[KJ_Lesnick]

deathjester

Stressed the same as other medium - high altitude interceptors.

I'm pretty sure it could do 7.33g at least...

When it comes to exceeding Mach 1 on dry power?  I can well believe it, but it depends upon such things as altitude, air density, and external stores:  at over 15,00 above sea level, no problem.

How much could it accelerate to after breaching the sound-barrier?  Could it get to 1.8 or so like the English Electric Lightning, or did it need burner to get up that fast?

Low down, over, say, a desert, not too difficult.  In Europe, low down? - better light that 'burner!

I thought colder air produced more thrust and hotter air less...


KJ

[pyro-manic]

You get more thrust from cold air because it is more dense than hot air. But more density means that you get more drag. That's why going supersonic at low level is much more difficult than at medium/high altitude. The forces generated on the aircraft are much greater, requiring it to be built much more ruggedly - as in the Buccaneer. If you tried to throw a Starfighter around the same way, it wouldn't last very long at all.

[deathjester]

Yes, just what I was going to say - cheers!

[deathjester]

You get more thrust from cold air because it is more dense than hot air. But more density means that you get more drag. That's why going supersonic at low level is much more difficult than at medium/high altitude. The forces generated on the aircraft are much greater, requiring it to be built much more ruggedly - as in the Buccaneer. If you tried to throw a Starfighter around the same way, it wouldn't last very long at all.

That is, in fact, just what happened to the Starfighters in the book  I have - a few low down strike mission exercises over British ranges, then off with the tip tanks, and heigh - ho back to Germany to be fatigue tested / rebuilt!

Starfighters were NEVER designed for the low level strike role, far too lightly built - in its Wikipedia entry, it is even expressly explained about how lightly the plane was built!

[Hobbes]

I'm pretty sure it could do 7.33g at least...

but that doesn't tell the whole story. The plane needs to be stressed for aerodynamic loads as well - and these increase the lower you get.

Also IIRC the F-104 wasn't very maneuverable, it had a huge turning circle. That means it won't be very good at terrain following.

[KJ_Lesnick]

pyro-manic

You get more thrust from cold air because it is more dense than hot air. But more density means that you get more drag.

Yup, but you factor ram-compression in and AFAIK, a plane will go faster at low-altitude when the air's cold than when it's hot.  Still, it's better to go supersonic up high.


Hobbes

but that doesn't tell the whole story. The plane needs to be stressed for aerodynamic loads as well - and these increase the lower you get.

Also IIRC the F-104 wasn't very maneuverable, it had a huge turning circle. That means it won't be very good at terrain following.

Yes, but g-load is a function of the rate of change in direction and the speed you're traveling at.  I don't know what airspeed you'd need to get 7.33g on an F-104, but I assume it would have to be able to pull it.  Regardless, I assume it was designed to pull all these loads at combat weights where some of the fuel is already burned off and no bombs are carried.


Everybody

Could the F-104 carry 4 AIM-9 or just 2?

[rickshaw]

Some non-US F-104s could carry up to four Sidewinders.   Some had two underfuselage pylons, in front of and to the side of the centreline pylons.  I've seen Italian and Japanese ones with that configuration.  With the two wingtip that could be as many as four.  I'm also sure I've seen a twin pylon carried on the centreline somewhere - German, perhaps?

[KJ_Lesnick]

rickshaw

But no US F-104's could carry an AIM-9 on each tip, and one under each pylon?