F-104

Corporate Pilot

Corporate Pilot

Well-Known Member
Time Fuel Distance Sea Level Climb Rate
2 Min 20 Sec 1,025 lb. 12 N.M. 35,000 Feet / Min

Above 35,000 ft Mach 1.7 seems to give the best high speed climb performance. Acceleration to 1.7 Mach at this altitude takes 4.2 Minutes, 1,500 pounds of fuel and 50 nautical miles. To go from 35,000 ft to 50,000 ft at 1.7 Mach takes 3.1 minutes, 1,000 lbs fuel and 55 nautical miles. The initial climb rate at FL 350 is just barely 12,000 fpm. To accelerate on up to Mach 2.0 requires another 4 minutes, 500 lbs fuel and 75 miles. So, brake release to fifty thousand feet & Mach 2 takes 13.5 minutes, 192 miles and 4,025 lbs fuel.

http://airplanedriver.net/study/f104.htm
 
YeagerInCockpit1.jpg
 
I think it was an interesting jet for sure. I have the new Osprey series in which throughout the book, the author states that it was great fighter. My question is, if it were a great fighter, then why didn't it fight great? No really a fair comment, I don't know how well it did in daily BFM, intercepts, etc but in combat, it didn't do well. For us, 0-1, with the Pakistani's it was defeated by the MiG-21 on 3 or 4 engagements, went 2-1 with Taiwan, etc. My guess is it wasn't used as it was supposed to be used.
 
I worked a NASA F-104 a couple times when I was an ATC'er. The overhead break would almost leave Class D airspace (ATA in those days) because they slid so bad.
 
bunk22 said:
I think it was an interesting jet for sure. I have the new Osprey series in which throughout the book, the author states that it was great fighter. My question is, if it were a great fighter, then why didn't it fight great? No really a fair comment, I don't know how well it did in daily BFM, intercepts, etc but in combat, it didn't do well. For us, 0-1, with the Pakistani's it was defeated by the MiG-21 on 3 or 4 engagements, went 2-1 with Taiwan, etc. My guess is it wasn't used as it was supposed to be used.
Click to expand...
From what I've read it was misused in its role as a fighter in the aforementioned conflicts. During its limited service in Vietnam, it was said the NVAF wouldn't send up their fighters against it.
 
fholbert said:
I worked a NASA F-104 a couple times when I was an ATC'er. The overhead break would almost leave Class D airspace (ATA in those days) because they slid so bad.
Click to expand...

Image trying to work one down PAR final. Never had to do that with the F-104, but you really had to lead an F-106 or you'd go straight through final faster than you could say, "Too far right for safe approach."
 
RDoug said:
Image trying to work one down PAR final. Never had to do that with the F-104, but you really had to lead an F-106 or you'd go straight through final faster than you could say, "Too far right for safe approach."
Click to expand...

I still remember the Montana ANG -106s sitting in the south-side alert barn at DMA.
 
hook_dupin said:
It was designed as an interceptor and not a fighter. The USAF's ideas on how we would fight an air war in the mid 1950's were very different than how we actually executed air combat in Vietnam.

The same may play out as we try to go buy a $200M do-everything-but-not-well fighter.
Click to expand...
Exactly! My dad said it was designed for high speed attacks against Soviet bombers and that's how they trained in the 50's with it. It wasn't designed to turn and burn with other fighters. That was what the F-8 Crusader was for. The last Gunfighter.
 
Cptnchia said:
The last Gunfighter.
Click to expand...

We installed gun pods on F-4s in 'Nam as a stop-gap. In the decade that followed, the USAF's ideas on what made a good fighter changed dramatically. The Energy-Maneuverability diagrams all came out and nearly every single fighter (@MikeD, I give the Stink Bug a pass here) fielded in the USAF has had a gun installed. The AF variant of the F-35 will be the only JSF version with a gun.

I tell young guys to go read Sierra Hotel. It is a good read that quickly goes through how the USAF changed in the decade after Vietnam. As a sign of the times, it also has the Dear Boss letter in the appendix.
 
chrisreedrules said:
From what I've read it was misused in its role as a fighter in the aforementioned conflicts. During its limited service in Vietnam, it was said the NVAF wouldn't send up their fighters against it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what the F-104 guys say. I honestly don't know, the Chinese sent Mig-19's up against at least once against the F-104 and it was shot down. My guess is it simply wasn't used as intended.
 
hook_dupin said:
It was designed as an interceptor and not a fighter. The USAF's ideas on how we would fight an air war in the mid 1950's were very different than how we actually executed air combat in Vietnam.

The same may play out as we try to go buy a $200M do-everything-but-not-well fighter.
Click to expand...

It didn't excel in any theater/country it was used in for air combat, regardless if interceptor, fighter, etc. I get the ROE of Vietnam, I'm a student of history but it's difficult to say it's a great fighter when it wasn't great. By fighter, I think certain historians are covering a broad basis, maybe they mean interceptor and it was great in that role in peacetime. In actual combat, I'm not seeing its greatness, from the historical perspective of air-to-air combat. The MiG-21 beat up on it, like 4-0 against. The MiG-19, at least two kills...it has victories against less capable aircraft, MiG-19 included. I like the discussion, I'm a nerd and maybe I'm not giving a fair chance, the ROE and pilot's of Pakistan, Taiwan were probably not the most capable of aviators.
 
Last edited:
hook_dupin said:
We installed gun pods on F-4s in 'Nam as a stop-gap. In the decade that followed, the USAF's ideas on what made a good fighter changed dramatically. The Energy-Maneuverability diagrams all came out and nearly every single fighter (@MikeD, I give the Stink Bug a pass here) fielded in the USAF has had a gun installed. The AF variant of the F-35 will be the only JSF version with a gun.

I tell young guys to go read Sierra Hotel. It is a good read that quickly goes through how the USAF changed in the decade after Vietnam. As a sign of the times, it also has the Dear Boss letter in the appendix.
Click to expand...

'Fighter Pilot' is a good read on this, about John Boyd who developed E-M. And as is usual, history repeats itself and we're back to building incredibly expensive and complex jets that attempt to fill all roles.
 
bunk22 said:
It didn't excel in any theater/country it was used in for air combat, regardless if interceptor, fighter, etc. I get the ROE of Vietnam, I'm a student of history but it's difficult to say it's a great fighter when it wasn't great. By fighter, I think certain historians are covering a broad basis, maybe they mean interceptor and it was great in that role in peacetime. In actual combat, I'm not seeing its greatness, from the historical perspective of air-to-air combat. The MiG-21 beat up on it, like 4-0 against. The MiG-19, at least two kills...it has victories against less capable aircraft, MiG-19 included. I like the discussion, I'm a nerd and maybe I'm not giving a fair chance, the ROE and pilot's of Pakistan, Taiwan were probably not the most capable of aviators.
Click to expand...
I'm curious if the losses were of a Vietnam variety, intercepted on a predicted course after x number of identical sorties.

Also, the Soviet philosophy of ground-directed intercepts might have to be given some credit.

Was the effectiveness of Soviet technology underestimated?

Had its role as a fighter-bomber resulted in less ACM training (if much existed for an interceptor)?

Those questions aside, you can't ignore the combat record of a combat aircraft.
 
Last edited:
KKochan said:
'Fighter Pilot' is a good read on this, about John Boyd who developed E-M. And as is usual, history repeats itself and we're back to building incredibly expensive and complex jets that attempt to fill all roles.
Click to expand...

I think Boyd is overplayed in the grand scheme of things. Air Combat is in a constant evolution of tactics and technology in such a dynamic environment that creating a one trick pony may be more of a liability than an advantage. The "jack of all trades, master of none" can integrate with existing airframes to systematically destroy multiple threats at once, not just the enemy fighter with an awesome E-M diagram carrying heaters to the merge. If it were up to Boyd, F-16s wouldn't have Radars, conduct SEAD, CAS, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top