F-104 & Maneuvering Ability

[KJ_Lesnick]

The F-104 had several problems regarding it's maneuvering capabilities due to the following

1: Heavy wing-loading: Admittedly the straight wing was highly responsive to the use of flaps, but as a result of a heavy wing-loading it tended to turn well only when it was flying at very high-speeds.  
Ironically it maneuvered well even when supersonic due to the following facts

• The wing while straight (and experiencing a shift in the C/L to 50% when supersonic), chord was small relative to the length of the aircraft
  
• The distribution of mass throughout the airframe meant little pitching was produced by the aforementioned shift
  
• The pitch-control devices were quite powerful (T-tail produced good leverage and was nearly as big as the wing)
  

On the bright-side gust-response was great, it rode nice and smooth at low altitudes even at high airspeeds -- but it wasn't terribly good at high altitude though it was better when maneuvering flaps were added.

2: The T-tail made for powerful pitch-control, low trim-drag through good leverage, but it made for some seriously nasty stall characteristics including a violent pitch-up, deep-stall, and spins that could be unrecoverable: Predictably this made many pilots unwilling to push the airplane as aggressively as other fighters (say an F-86).

3: The aircraft (IIRC) had poor roll-stability.  Admittedly this made for a swift roll-rate, but it also meant the plane had to be handled with some finesse!


Now all that out of the way, the questions I have about the aircraft are as follows

Firstly: While all F-104's had leading and trailing-edge flaps to improve low-speed performance, and their effects on low-speed handing were profound, the early F-104's didn't have LED's (or trailing-edge devices) that were designed for maneuvering purposes at moderate/high airspeeds.  From what I remember the F-104G was the first to be fitted with maneuvering flaps from the outset.  Eventually these flaps were fitted to other F-104 variants (at least the F-104A, though I am unsure about the -C models) and when they were fitted it actually gave them the ability to turn inside an F-4 Phantom at certain speeds (not exactly a bragging point, but still).

My questions are basically
1: Did the maneuvering flaps fitted to the F-104G's leading-edge only (i.e. they could be used at higher speeds and g-load) or included strengthened trailing-edge flaps too?
2: Why didn't they fit maneuvering flaps to the F-104A/C from the outset (it was known the LED's alone had a profound effect on low-speed handling)?


Secondly: The NF-104 had an enlarged wing which housed the RCS thruster system and also was able to fly higher as a result.  I remember hearing that if the wing-area of the F-104 were 10% larger it would have a Ps that would have exceeded any fighter in the USAF's inventory.  The NF-104 had a wing-area that was 8.5% larger which is pretty close, the wingspan is also greater (25'9") yielding a higher aspect ratio as well.

The questions are basically
1: Would this wing-enlargement have had any significant effect on the F-104's acceleration rate, maximum top-end speed, supersonic range, and maneuverability?
2: Would the longer wing be physically strong enough to have mounted the 170 gallon drop-tanks on its tips if a full-span LED was used?
3: Would the maximum g-loads be the same subsonic/supersonic?
4: Would the maneuvering performance with the higher aspect ratio (25'9" vs 21'9") and the larger wing-area (212.8 vs 196.1 square feet)?

[trekaddict]

The F-104 can go only one way. Straight down.

[Rheged]

I recall an acquaintance  from Flensburg telling me that  there was a time when if a German boy wanted a Starfighter, all he had to do was go out into the back garden and wait for one to drop in.

[The Wooksta!]

In one of those grim ironies, the son of the German minister - who was bribed by Lockheed to get the Luftwaffe to buy the aircraft - was one of the first killed in low level crashes.

[trekaddict]

Yes, and they lost the Luftwaffe Erich Hartmann over this pos as well.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Erich Hartmann died in '93

[rickshaw]

Yes, and they lost the Luftwaffe Erich Hartmann over this pos as well.

The F-104 wasn't a "pos".  It was merely an advanced fighter which required sufficient training to be flown safely.  The Luftwaffe rushed into using the aircraft without adequately training it's pilots.  Once the correct training regime was in place, the F-104 casualty rate fell off quite quickly.   The F-104 in well-trained hands and played to it's strengths was actually quite a deadly fighter.  As a fighter-bomber it was fast, steady and accurate in delivery of it's weapons.  It was what was called a "hot ship" and challenged it's pilots.  It was not a docile plane.

[ChernayaAkula]

It wasn't just pilot training, but a host of problems, including insufficient maintenance personnel numbers and training, manufacturing problems, insufficient standardisation, insufficient facilities (most F-104s were kept outside all year round) and tactical employment, such as routinely flying with four drop tanks and a training bomb rack (practising the nuclear role) at low altitudes.
These problems (safe for the standardisation problems, maybe) would've plagued any other type they could have fielded. You often see the F-100 cited as a "shouldabeen" interim fighter. The early F-100s in USAF service were just as bad as the Starfighter. Fly them in the conditions found in early-1960's Germany and they would have been worse for sure.
If you look at other types in Bundeswehr service, the F-104 losses only stand out in terms of raw numbers - 300 lost out of 916 fielded over 30 years of service. In proportion, the F-84F fleet lost around 35% of their aircraft in mishaps over a service life of just 10 years. The F-86/Canadair Sabre fleet fared even worse in even less years. If you factor in overall flight hours, the other types look even worse.

In one of those grim ironies, the son of the German minister - who was bribed by Lockheed to get the Luftwaffe to buy the aircraft - was one of the first killed in low level crashes.

Kai-Uwe von Hassel became Minister for Defence in 1963 -  by which the Starfighter had been in Bundeswehr service for almost three years. He had nothing to do with the acquisition of the Starfighter.
Joachim von Hassel crashed in 1970. His was the 117th Starfighter to crash. He was the 57th pilot to die as a result of a Starfighter crash.

The one who was "allegedly" bribed (apparently they still can't find any evidence) was Franz Josef Strauß. While they can't find hard evidence of a bribe in this case, hardly anyone would put it past him. In case of the Starfighter purchase, there may have been two other things that influenced him more. Having them (or at least part of them) assembled in Bavaria, his home region, was one of them. More importantly, though, was Strauß' idea of "nuclear sharing". The French wouldn't have German Mirages equipped with French nuclear bombs. The Americans, it seems, were less opposed to having US nuclear bombs carried by German Starfighters. This was perhaps the biggest point in "selling" the Starfighter to Strauß and, consequently, the Bundeswehr.
What makes the Starfighter such an icon in German post-war history is the political baggage it carried. Strauß' "colourful" (to put it mildly) character played into that a lot. Scandals like the "Spiegel affair" of 1962, somewhat linked to the Starfighter (the Bundeswehr in general), for instance, where Strauß accused the political magazine "Der Spiegel" of treason and had their facilities raided by police, complete with arrests and confiscations, show just how much of a democrat he actually was.

[albeback]

Many years ago I spent a very happy 15 - 20 minutes chatting with a Luftwaffe Starfighter pilot. I haven't forgotten his comment. " This plane is just like a woman! Bad tempered, awkward, difficult to handle & unforgiving of mistakes. However, you treat her right and she will give you the best ride of your life!!"
It was obvious that I was talking to a man who loved his work!

I'm certainly no expert in aerodynamics or engineering. Neither am I a pilot. I do not therefore feel qualified to pass judgement on the aircraft. I have seen many derogatory comments ( pile of s**t) for example on this & other internet forums. On what is this based? Is it an accurate judgement based on experience or merely the opinion of armchair "experts" who get off on seeing their views on screen?

A lot of people who pour scorn on the Starfighter for one reason or another tend to overlook (or maybe even ignore) the accident rates of aircraft like the F-84 or, F-100 ( I'm sure we've all seen the horrifying film of an F-100 doing the "Sabre dance" before crashing and killing its unfortunate pilot). Our own Harrier was once described by test pilot John Farley as "an awkward, nasty little aeroplane". The Harrier's accident rate was nothing to be proud of & it has always been a bit of a handful!
Let us also not forget that almost 80 (I think) Lightnings were lost in service.
All aeroplanes surely have their good and bad points. Like anything else, you appreciate the good things & learn to live with the bad things - especially if they can kill you!! Did Kelly Johnson design a "bad" aeroplane? I suggest not.  The F-104 was designed for a specific task and, I suggest was probably a very sound, practical and functional aircraft for that task. With over 2500 built & serving with (13?) air forces, surely someone must have liked it?


Allan

[Pellson]

I note that Mr Beamont of English Electric had opinions about the early marks of F-104:

Stolen from Mr Baughers eminent pages: "In June of 1958, English Electric test pilot Roland Beaumont test flew an F-104A. He was quite critical of the Starfighter. He found the aircraft to have inadequate directional damping, evidenced by a persistent low-amplitude short-period oscillation throughout most of the flight regime. The use of a thin, highly-loaded wing had a severe adverse effect on the turning maneuverability. There were excessive break-out forces of the power-controlled ailerons. At high angles of attack, the high-set stabilator would tend to stall in the wing downwash, and a departure into a flat spin was often the result. Recovery from such a flat spin was usually possible only if there was sufficient height so that increased engine power could be applied to accelerate the aircraft back into controlled flight. Beaumont found that subsonic handling properties were unpleasant and particularly dangerous in take-off and landing configuration and were not compatible with bad weather operation. He predicted that the F-104 was likely to suffer a high accident rate in operation."

That said, methinks most of the Starfighters competition in those days suffered from similar or other as nasty quirks. I know for a fact that the Swedish SAAB Draken did.

As for your questions, I can't claim to be an expert, but I can theorize somewhat:

My questions are basically

1: Don't know. can't find anything in Baughers or Goebels writings which I usually find accurate.
2: I suspect that the need for these flaps became more evident when the a/c was used tactically rather than only as a high speed interceptor.

The questions are basically

1: Acceleration rate: not much impact, maximum top-end speed: some impact, supersonic range: some impact, and maneuverability: possibly more impact. All due to somewhat increased drag and weight but manouverability increase due to lowered wing loading. Theoretically.
2: Depends. Theoretically, as the weight of the tank isn't much further from each wings lift force center, it could work. This is NOT applicable on Kit-long wings, but should work on smaller extensions.
3: Generally, without reinforcements, I'd say no. However, there are other factors such as what the pilot can take and more importantly superstall characteristics to take into account. If you enter superstall every time you try to pull more G:s than for instance 6G, then structure resilience above that level just isn't interesting as the airframe never will see it..
4: Depends on reasoning above. If we assume that a) the wing is structurally valid at a higher G-loading and b) the superstall characteristics and pilot systems allows for more G:s to be pulled, then we can assume that in theory, tighter turns can be pulled thus in a sense increasing manouverability. However, the T-tail will limit the controllability at higher angles of attact, perhaps counteracting the gain you just had. For roll performance, a wider span will always increase the induced roll drag thus decreasing the roll rate. If you use larger ailerons to increase the roll force, then you might increase the roll rate but to a price consisteing of generally higher drag resulting in more rapid loss of airspeed.

All in all - you will always have an arse opposite to your face..

[trekaddict]

The reason why I hate it is not so much it's safety record but more what happened around it.

[Mossie]

There's a few qoutes in the about the rival F-104 and some of it's handling characteristics inb the Ginter Super Tiger volume by Corky Meyer.  They're certainly not all derogatory, although a lot of the sales pitch on the Tiger was down to it's lack of vices compared to the Starfighter.  Meyer did get to fly the F-104 and could understand why pilots would forgive it's sins for the sheer performance.

I'll dig it out and see if there's anything worth mentioning here.  While I'm not sure it'll answer any of your questions Kendra there were a few interesting comparisons of the two types which might give some insights into the F-104.

[albeback]

The reason why I hate it is not so much it's safety record but more what happened around it.

If you are referring to the bribery allegations & political manoeuverings involved then you certainly have a valid point and I tend to agree. However, may I respectfully suggest that the aeroplane itself is blameless in that context? A better ejection seat would also have saved more lives & (if I recall my history) I believe Lockheed also opposed German attempts to fit one.Not that it mattered.The Germans did it anyway and fitted the Martin Baker GQ-7 (I think) zero-zero seat. Pilot fatalities dropped accordingly.

Allan

ps - IF I'm wrong about or misunderstood the situation re the bang seat issue, I'd genuinely welcome being corrected

[trekaddict]

Taint by association, I'm afraid.

Though I will admit, the F-104 is a nice-looking plane.

[Rheged]

The reason why I hate it is not so much it's safety record but more what happened around it.

If you are referring to the bribery allegations & political manoeuverings involved then you certainly have a valid point and I tend to agree. However, may I respectfully suggest that the aeroplane itself is blameless in that context? A better ejection seat would also have saved more lives & (if I recall my history) I believe Lockheed also opposed German attempts to fit one.Not that it mattered.The Germans did it anyway and fitted the Martin Baker GQ-7 (I think) zero-zero seat. Pilot fatalities dropped accordingly.

Allan

ps - IF I'm wrong about or misunderstood the situation re the bang seat issue, I'd genuinely welcome being corrected

This data may clarify things:-

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_Type/GermanF104.htm