|
Lightcycle (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
the F104 was primarily an interceptor it's advantage was the great amount of speed and power at its disposal... part of achieveing that was the focus on reduction of drag- hence the racketlike shape and small wings... which didn't help in the maneuvering aspect of the plane.Altho I wonder how well thrust vectoring would have improved the plane had it been a viable technology for it at the time.
BoOiMaOi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Also because of the low supersonic drag wing the F-104 could "supercruise", ie. fly supersonic for 30 minutes on military power. No other jet could do that until the recent Lockheed F-22 Raptor.
BoOiMaOi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It's true, the Packistani's didn't know how to fly the F-104, instead of using it's superior speed and rate of climb, they got into a turning battle with the Migs and lost. Also the Packistani's had the earlier versions without the maneuvering flap upgrade which greatly decreased the turn radius.
BoOiMaOi (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes the wings were short but also they had a long chord, plus the plane was relatively light so the F-104 actually had lower wing loading than the F-105. Kelly Johnson used the trapesoidal wing planform for low supersonic drag. In fact the pilot had to throttle back at mach 2.2, otherwise because of it's low drag plus the engine started to act like a ramjet it would have kept accelerating out to mach 2.6 and melted the airframe and turbine blades from air friction.
MandolinHymns (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
That this is the coolest looking fighter is not in question. However, I heard that in one of the India/Pakistani wars, the Mig-21 flew circles around the F-104. I find this hard to believe---any comments?
9thprotocol (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
with those stubby little wings I could never understand how the F104 managed to fly in the first place but in my opinion it's the best military interceptor ever designed and put into service..Lockheed knew what they're doing (and still do)....respect
2canines (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
cool aircraft. truly looks like a rocket. i wonder why they have so different appearance from the Swedish Draken from the same time period. i guess this was more of an interceptor fighter and the Draken more leaned toward bomber interceptor
sphinxrising58 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well, the trouble with fighters is that many that started out sa purely fighters also ended up serving as ground support units, requiring bulkier attack frames for added abilities & stablelizing factors.
thenouv (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
apparently when it was made, the ejector seat ejected downwards (through the floor) because the designers were scared that the pilot would hit the rudder on the way out!Then they sold it to the Germans as a ground attack aircraft... lol! No wonder it was nicknamed the Widowmaker!
AxelofBavaria (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Well, i read up a little, and while the StarFighter is an impressive climber, others are even faster, esp. some Soviet designs like the MiG-21 with 58,000 feet per minute. |
