F-104 Starfighter

[DKTanker]

 

Perhaps of intrest.

May a good proportion of losses be do to high number of aircraft in use and high number of flying hours ?

 

 

http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm

A of the accidents were due to inexperienced pilots in hot, advanced aircraft.

Training techniques have advanced considerably...

 

Probably didn't help that there wasn't a two seat version for training.

[Dawes]

Wasn't the F-104D a two seater?

[bojan]

Think that a part of the problem was that people transited from a very tame trainers of that time, commonly T-33 and ended in something totally different. That was a problem with MiG-21 locally, pilot transited from either T-33 or a local G-2 trainer, real joy to fly to a MiG-21 that was anything but a joy.

Edited April 15, 2020 by bojan

[DKTanker]

Wasn't the F-104D a two seater?

I stand corrected, it would have been more accurate to say that initially there were no two seaters for training.

[Allan W]

 

Wasn't the F-104D a two seater?

I stand corrected, it would have been more accurate to say that initially there were no two seaters for training.

 

I though the downward firing ejection seat in earlier models was more of a problem.

[RETAC21]

 

Wasn't the F-104D a two seater?

I stand corrected, it would have been more accurate to say that initially there were no two seaters for training.

 

 

That is not so, the TF-104B was provided to the units at the same time as the F-104A

 

 

First to get the F-104A was the 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron at Hamilton AFB in California, which became operational with the type on February 20, 1958. Next to acquire the F-104A were the 56th FIS at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, the 337th FIS at Westover AFB in Massachusetts, and the 538th FIS at Larson AFB in Washington.

 

The first recipient of the F-104B was the 83rd FIS at Hamilton AFB in California, which took on its first aircraft in early 1958. Subsequently, all three F-104A ADC squadrons received the F-104B. The F-104B was assigned to operational units, at a rate of four aircraft per squadron. If required, they could be used for tactical operations. The last of 26 F-104B was delivered in November of 1958, against 106 originally ordered in 1957.

[shep854]

The green pilot/hot ship problem wasnt new. Even with dual instruction, the first few solo flights are a big mental hurdle. The early B-26 Marauders were deadly for trainees, but loved by the combat crews who pushed them to their limits.

The AV-8A had very few accidents when first flown by experienced pilots, but crashes soared when new pilots were assigned to them.

Edited April 16, 2020 by shep854

[MiloMorai]

The first F-104s had a downward ejecting seats. Many years ago was talking to a 104 pilot. He said if you had to think about ejecting it was to late.

[shep854]

The first F-104s had a downward ejecting seats. Many years ago was talking to a 104 pilot. He said if you had to think about ejecting it was to late.

The seat tech at the time was not up to safely getting a pilot over the tail, especially at high speed. The early seats used an explosive charge (a 37mm cartridge in some seats) and the force would have broken pilots' backs. At higher altitudes, the downward seat was effective, but of course close to the ground...

The problem was solved when rockets were installed, since they gave a longer acceleration impulse which was less dangerous to the pilots.

[Ariete!]

For budgetary reasons, Italy kept the 104s going (with updates, etc.) well into the 1980s (early 90s). In Italian service it was often referred to as "Spillone" ("Big Pushpin" but also, arguably, "Prick" due to its pointy shape).

It was basically a hot rod but with short legs and an indifferent radar. Essentially a short-range, quick-reaction, ground-controlled interceptor.

 

The problem with the F-104 in NATO use was that Lockheed, as part of a huge, Europe-wide scandal, bribed governments in the 1960s/70s to buy F-104s and C-130s

 

The F-104G was meant to be used as a light-bomber / interdiction / strike aircraft and, as many have pointed out,. it had limited load-range and was hard to handle.

[R011]

Re the CF-104/F-104G: it turns out flying near Mach 1 at low level in a hilly country in the rain can be . . .interesting.

Edited May 10, 2020 by R011

[Daan]

For budgetary reasons, Italy kept the 104s going (with updates, etc.) well into the 1980s (early 90s). In Italian service it was often referred to as "Spillone" ("Big Pushpin" but also, arguably, "Prick" due to its pointy shape).

It was basically a hot rod but with short legs and an indifferent radar. Essentially a short-range, quick-reaction, ground-controlled interceptor.

 

The problem with the F-104 in NATO use was that Lockheed, as part of a huge, Europe-wide scandal, bribed governments in the 1960s/70s to buy F-104s and C-130s

 

The F-104G was meant to be used as a light-bomber / interdiction / strike aircraft and, as many have pointed out,. it had limited load-range and was hard to handle.

The Italians kept their F-104S in service far longer that then the early 1990s. I remember seeing the aircraft taking off from and landing on Grosseto airbase in 1999 when I was on holiday in the region. According to the Wiki, the type was only withdrawn from service in 2004 with test aircraft flying until mid 2005.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Daan

[Ken Estes]

Just by chance, I witnessed two German Navy F104s take off from their air station somewhere in Schleswig in early 1981. I was in a German Army helo flying nap of the earth from Rendsburg to Karup Air Base, Denmark. We were cleared by the naval station tower to cross to the east of the airfield [Flensberg?] while the F104s took off to the west. They were side by side and took off with afterburners, so it must have been a drill, but I had never seen such fireworks as then, including the spherical fireballs blown to the rear. We were just crossing the axis of the runway so we had true ringside seats!

[Stuart Galbraith]

I witness them at what I think was one of the international air tattoo shows, either 1979 or 1980, and they did a low speed pass. Drove your ear drums six foot inside your skull. That is about 40 years ago, and ill never forget that was possibly the loudest pass ive ever heard. Less sound of Freedom, more Freedom is deaf really.

[Yama]

Think that a part of the problem was that people transited from a very tame trainers of that time, commonly T-33 and ended in something totally different. That was a problem with MiG-21 locally, pilot transited from either T-33 or a local G-2 trainer, real joy to fly to a MiG-21 that was anything but a joy.

In Finland the transition was from Fouga Magister (a glider powered by two hair dryers...) to MiG-21

Granted there was MiG-15UTI as an intermediate trainer, but it was used little as it was so different to MiG-21.

[bojan]

In Finland the transition was from Fouga Magister (a glider powered by two hair dryers...) to MiG-21

Foguas at least had some of the 21s nasty characteristics like flat spin in some cases. Ironically, locally G-2 was chosen over license building Foguas by the fact that it was more easy to fly for the beginners... Then everyone was surprised when it was discovered that transition Prop basic trainer - G-2 - MiG-21 is a bit harsh on pilots, and result was losing 1/4 of the total numbers of 21s in the accidents.

[R011]

Canada didn't have a decent lead in fighter until the CF-5 entered service in the late sixties. Before that, it seems we used Sabres, which had a high accident rate, after training on T-33 and Canadair Tutors.

[Colin]

Video on the CF-104 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLpGlzH7xZg

[Nikolas93TS]

Yugoslavia lost almost ~35% of MiG-21s (first supersonic fighter they operated) in accidents. Which is fairly comparable to Italians losing 38% of their Starfighters.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Was that landing accidents?

[Nikolas93TS]

Mostly low level maneuvers and stalls.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The low level stuff I can get, but I thought its stall was relatively benign. Pilots flying them out of Tonopah claimed you could still manoeuvre them as low as 135 knots.

 

Course if you stall at low level, I guess that is always going to be a killer.

[DB]

IIRC the loss rate for Meatboxes was 55%, so getting into the 30% bracket is quite an improvement.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I felt sure it was going to be the landing, which was terrifyingly fast by European standards, something like 172knots on touchdown. OTOH, when you see them doing something like this, they dont seem to have been any worse off than our Jaguars. It had if nothing else a damn good portable ILS system.

 

My favourite Meatbox story, from the memoirs of Concorde Test pilot Brian Trubshawe. He was on duty one day at what was then the Empire Test Pilot school at Raf Hullavington (now an Army barracks off the M4). A pilot came around in a Meteor and landed on the runway rather long, and staggered back in the air, ripping off the undercarriage on some anti invasion blocks that had been foolishly left at the end of the runway. Suspecting damage he flew by the tower. 'Is the undercarriage down?', the pilot plaintively asked. 'Sure its down, its down here.'

[shep854]

I understand the MiG-21 was rather rough on Indian pilots as well.

Edited June 15, 2020 by shep854