F-101 vs F-104

[KJ_Lesnick]

I know I've posted stuff about the F-104 before... I'm wondering in what ways were the F-101 worse than the F-104?

[maxmwill]

Worse in what way?

Because the Voodoo is a little less maneuverable than its later relative the F4(you can see a family resemblance in the two)?

Because it is saddled with two engines of older vintage?

Because it wasn't designed by Kelly Johnson?

Because it is closer in design parameters to the F105?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but trying to decide which is worse than the other without and delineations is almost like comparing apples to oranges, like asking which was the superior bomber of WW2, the worst aircraft design in history, or even the best fighter ever design.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Max M. Will[/quote]

Worse in what way?

Okay, I'd be better off to frame it like this

1. Which could turn tighter without using flaps?

2. Which had worse stall/spin characteristics (violence of pitch up, degree of gyrations, tendency to enter a spin)?

3. Which could better recover from a a stall/spin?

4. Which had a better roll-rate?

5. Which could climb-better?
[/list]

[kerick]

As I recall, the F-104 had a terrible pitch up problem. When comparing the two, the mission they were designed for has to be considered. F-101 was designed to be an escort fighter. Other factors were probably compromised to achieve the long range for that mission. It ended up a ADC interceptor so maneuverability wasn't the biggest mission requirement, long range again would have been more important. Can't shoot down a Bear bomber if you can't get to it. I don't believe the F-104 ever had that sort of mission of intercepting bombers over northern Canada. So I would say the F-101 was better at long range escort/interceptor missions. Now in a fighter to fighter encounter the F-104 would probably be better. And of course, it depends on how well trained the pilot is and does he know how to take advantage of all his aircrafts characteristics. Two very different aircraft for very different missions.

[Captain Canada]

In Canadian parlance, the Voodoo was way cooler because it had a lightning stripe, whereas the Starfighter did not.

Voodoos were way cooler to see at an airshow as well.

[sandiego89]

And the Voodoo had a cooler name....should count for something.

And nothing says Cold War better than pointing towards a hoard of inbound soviet bombers and squeezing a Genie off! 

[kerick]

And the Voodoo had a cooler name....should count for something.

And nothing says Cold War better than pointing towards a hoard of inbound soviet bombers and squeezing a Genie off! 

And then turning 180 degrees as hard as you can!

[famvburg]

I bet the Voodoo could shut down 1 engine and keep on flying...

[Captain Canada]

And the Voodoo had a cooler name....should count for something.

And nothing says Cold War better than pointing towards a hoard of inbound soviet bombers and squeezing a Genie off! 

Exactly !

That's it....I think I might have to go buy that Kinetic Voodoo kit 

[AS.12]

My impression from memoirs and anecdotes is that an experienced pilot could master the F-104 and 'tame' it, learning its idiosyncrasies and avoiding or accommodating them.

The F-101, though, was just vicious and was as likely to kill a pilot in his 1,000th hour on type as in his first.  They lived in fear of that unpredictable pitch-up which was never totally eliminated.

The USAF and ROCAF pilots who flew the RF-101 in combat were multi-thousand-hour top-shots but even several of them were bitten by it.

[KJ_Lesnick]

My impression from memoirs and anecdotes is that an experienced pilot could master the F-104 and 'tame' it, learning its idiosyncrasies and avoiding or accommodating them.

The F-101, though, was just vicious and was as likely to kill a pilot in his 1,000th hour on type as in his first.

So the F-104 was less unpredictable?

[AS.12]

So the F-104 was less unpredictable?

I believe so ( though of course it would require a pilot to tell us the full story ).

The F-104 seems to have had simple aerodynamics that made it perform  and fail consistently.  Once pilots knew the dangerous aspects they could avoid them, so long as the engine kept running. 

The F-101 killed many experienced pilots because of its complicated aerodynmics;  there were all sorts of pitch and G-limits for combinations of regime, and something like an unexpected crosswind on landing could make the aircraft uncontrollable.

[Alvis 3.14159]

Said to me by a former 101 pilot (who had wanted to fly 104s)
A navigator always ruins your amazing story in the bar afterwards, chiming in at the moment of greatest amazement: "We never did that".   
And the navigator was the greatest cause of lethal danger, by saying "Bet you can't do that again". This came from the guy who most likely flew a Voodoo between the projection shack and the screen at the Comox Drive-In one night....

I was surprised to read during 1967, the RCAF flew a 101/104 duo across Canada to various cities and towns for Centennial Airshows, and the 104 led the way. Yup, the 101, with navigator and being tied into the NORAD navigation system was not as accurate in navigation as the single seated CF-104, which boasted an INS system, capable of finding places not listed by NORAD (ie some smaller communities). I guess making the CF-104 a long range bomber in Europe necessitated a more advanced navigation system designed to work without feed from ground stations.

Alvis Pi

[KJ_Lesnick]

I believe so ( though of course it would require a pilot to tell us the full story ).

The F-104 seems to have had simple aerodynamics that made it perform and fail consistently.  Once pilots knew the dangerous aspects they could avoid them, so long as the engine kept running.

Actually the aerodynamics weren't that simple on the zipper -- I guess they were merely more predictable (even when they were bad, you knew what would happen and how to avoid it).

The F-101 killed many experienced pilots because of its complicated aerodynmics;  there were all sorts of pitch and G-limits for combinations of regime

I'm not sure what I understand by pitch limits (if I take it literally, it means you can only point the nose up or down so much), unless you mean pitch rate limits.  Is that the case, and if so does that mean that

• It's too twitchy at certain speed meaning it could exceed it's structural limit too easily
  
• The structure isn't stressed for high g-load at high airspeed
  
• G-load limits are substantially different when supersonic
  
• Some combination
  

.

something like an unexpected crosswind on landing could make the aircraft uncontrollable.

Do you know why?