By: MigL
- 24th February 2010 at 19:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember reading in an aviation magazine or book ( i cannot remember which, damn middle age ) that there was a fly-off between the Super Tiger and the F-104. I don't recall if the context was the German order or the U.S. order, maybe someone with readily accessible date/version information can tell us if the Super Tiger was a contemporary of the F-104G or F-104C.
What stood out was an account of a takeoff and climb-to-hight test in which the F-104 had already reached 60,000ft whereas the Super Tiger was still struggling to clear 30,000ft. Maybe the wing of the Super Tiger wasn't as efficient as some think?
I have noticed that the latest volume of Secret Projects: U.S. fighters, shows numerous Grumman fighter designs of the 60s, all with rather large wings, but that were not selected for production. Either Grumman was designing for qualities tha the U.S. wasn't interested in, maneuverability as opposed to ordinance delivery, or maybe Grumman didn't have a good handle on wing design.
By: Sens
- 24th February 2010 at 20:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RANGE
Super Tiger would have had better range than the F-104G. The F-104 and Super Tiger had the same engine, so range would depend only fuel capacity and lift-to-drag ratios (Cl/Cd). The Super Tiger had 25% more internal fuel, so closer to an F-104G with wingtip tanks. In that configuration (clean vs. wingtip tanks), Cl/Cd would be in the Super Tiger's favor, especially since the F-104's small wing was very sub-optimal for generating lift.
You stick the finger to that already. The GAF F-104G were operated with wing-tip tanks mostly and even so had a smaller overall drag ratio. The lift of the F-104G did rise with speed and the typical mission of the F-104G demanded speeds above 400 kt most of the time at all. The SPS did generate the missing lift for take-off and landing! A F-104G pilot did come into trouble, when the J-79 did not work properly and one common hazard were bird-strikes during the low level runs. The Super Tiger would have been better in A2A, but the F-104G in A2G and the mayority of fighters in the GAF were operated in the A2G at low level.
By: H_K
- 24th February 2010 at 21:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember reading in an aviation magazine or book ( i cannot remember which, damn middle age ) that there was a fly-off between the Super Tiger and the F-104. I don't recall if the context was the German order or the U.S. order, maybe someone with readily accessible date/version information can tell us if the Super Tiger was a contemporary of the F-104G or F-104C.
What stood out was an account of a takeoff and climb-to-hight test in which the F-104 had already reached 60,000ft whereas the Super Tiger was still struggling to clear 30,000ft. Maybe the wing of the Super Tiger wasn't as efficient as some think?
I have noticed that the latest volume of Secret Projects: U.S. fighters, shows numerous Grumman fighter designs of the 60s, all with rather large wings, but that were not selected for production. Either Grumman was designing for qualities tha the U.S. wasn't interested in, maneuverability as opposed to ordinance delivery, or maybe Grumman didn't have a good handle on wing design.
Never heard that anecdote, but quite possible. The F-104 was a "rocket with a man in it" after all. :p Time to 30,000ft was only 1min, but then again it carried so little fuel in that configuration that it barely had enough to accelerate to Mach 1.7, engage in 5 minutes of combat at high altitude, and then glide back to base! ;)
AFAIK, there were F-104 vs. Super Tiger contests in at least 3 countries: Germany, Canada and Japan. The F-104 was apparently praised for its climb rate and the favorite of the more "hotshot" pilots, but there were significant misgivings about its dangerous handling caracteristics (particularly, high stall speed), poor range and generally poor suitability for turning combat as well as air-to-ground. The Super Tiger was praised as a "pilot's aircraft" offering unbeaten maneuverability, good supersonic performance, solid multirole capability and an easier transition from existing fighter types. The Japanese selected the Super Tiger over the F-104 before reversing themselves, the Germans were divided into two camps, and the Canadians selected the F-104 for industrial reasons despite the grumbling of the Canadian Air Force, who wanted the F-4 Phantom. Not sure which they preferred between the F-104 and Super Tiger - possibly there were multiple camps just like in Germany.
Overall, what was remarkable about the Super Tiger was that it was so competitive with the F-104 despite the constraints of being a naval fighter. The F-8 was never competitive. The F-4 was competitive, but in a totally different cost/capability range.
By: H_K
- 24th February 2010 at 21:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
pagen01 and sens,
Acceleration and climb rate would be critical in a number of situations:
- Deck-launched interception
- Interception of supersonic reconnaissance aircraft such as the Tu-22R
- Responding to attacks from a completely different axis than planned (quite likely with saturation attacks)
A subsonic fleet defense interceptor is useless in all these cases, so you'd better pray that the Sea Vixen was in the right place at the right time, and that the Soviets had the courtesy to approach from the expected direction!
(P.S. There was an interesting USN study in the 1970s that showed that deck-launched interceptors were in many cases actually more effective than having a large permanent CAP, because you could keep more fighters on alert with full fuel for a quick intercept in afterburner, while the CAP would often have to re-vector at subsonic speeds to meet the threat).
By: Bager1968
- 25th February 2010 at 04:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember reading in an aviation magazine or book ( i cannot remember which, damn middle age ) that there was a fly-off between the Super Tiger and the F-104. I don't recall if the context was the German order or the U.S. order, maybe someone with readily accessible date/version information can tell us if the Super Tiger was a contemporary of the F-104G or F-104C.
What stood out was an account of a takeoff and climb-to-hight test in which the F-104 had already reached 60,000ft whereas the Super Tiger was still struggling to clear 30,000ft. Maybe the wing of the Super Tiger wasn't as efficient as some think?
No, it is simply that, among other factors, that they weren't "fitted with the same engine".
F11F-2 (later redesignated to F11F-1F): J79-GE-3B; 9,600 lb (14,800 lb)
F-104A: J79-GE-7; 10,000 lb (15,800 lb)
That 7% difference in thrust, and the lower drag of the F-104 (due to its thin, short wing {no tip tanks at that time}) would account for quite a bit... it also depends on their relative weights at take-off, etc.
Note that the F-104S got the J79-GE-17; 11,430 lb (17,860 lb)
Also, for the USN, the A-5A/RA5C Vigilante had two J79-GE-8; 10,900 lb (17,000 lb)
By: Sens
- 25th February 2010 at 06:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
pagen01 and sens,
Acceleration and climb rate would be critical in a number of situations:
- Deck-launched interception
- Interception of supersonic reconnaissance aircraft such as the Tu-22R
- Responding to attacks from a completely different axis than planned (quite likely with saturation attacks)
A subsonic fleet defense interceptor is useless in all these cases, so you'd better pray that the Sea Vixen was in the right place at the right time, and that the Soviets had the courtesy to approach from the expected direction!
(P.S. There was an interesting USN study in the 1970s that showed that deck-launched interceptors were in many cases actually more effective than having a large permanent CAP, because you could keep more fighters on alert with full fuel for a quick intercept in afterburner, while the CAP would often have to re-vector at subsonic speeds to meet the threat).
The Tu-28P recce variant had a top speed of Mach 1,65 at >40.000 feet, which was still in the capability of the SV, which could reach that height within 7 minutes.
As long as the radar-detection distance of the Tu-22P was over 100 nm for the ship-radars.
But for the best threat reaction time the SV had to be airborn already, because a Tu-22P recce variant was out of the harms way above 50.000 feet, when AAMs had no snap-up capability.
Even a F-4 did climb at subsonic and did offer no advantage against such an threat.
Below 100 nm radar distance the Tu-22P could not intercepted by scrambled interceptors like the F-4 even in the mid-1960s.
The task fleet commander had to accept such a high-speed high-up recce flight most of the time. At least he does know, that the enemy did learn from his presence by that.
By: Sens
- 25th February 2010 at 06:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never heard that anecdote, but quite possible. The F-104 was a "rocket with a man in it" after all. :p Time to 30,000ft was only 1min, but then again it carried so little fuel in that configuration that it barely had enough to accelerate to Mach 1.7, engage in 5 minutes of combat at high altitude, and then glide back to base! ;)
AFAIK, there were F-104 vs. Super Tiger contests in at least 3 countries: Germany, Canada and Japan. The F-104 was apparently praised for its climb rate and the favorite of the more "hotshot" pilots, but there were significant misgivings about its dangerous handling caracteristics (particularly, high stall speed), poor range and generally poor suitability for turning combat as well as air-to-ground. The Super Tiger was praised as a "pilot's aircraft" offering unbeaten maneuverability, good supersonic performance, solid multirole capability and an easier transition from existing fighter types. The Japanese selected the Super Tiger over the F-104 before reversing themselves, the Germans were divided into two camps, and the Canadians selected the F-104 for industrial reasons despite the grumbling of the Canadian Air Force, who wanted the F-4 Phantom. Not sure which they preferred between the F-104 and Super Tiger - possibly there were multiple camps just like in Germany.
Overall, what was remarkable about the Super Tiger was that it was so competitive with the F-104 despite the constraints of being a naval fighter. The F-8 was never competitive. The F-4 was competitive, but in a totally different cost/capability range.
The F-104G with two tip-tanks and two AAMs was ~11 tons TOW and ~4 tons of that were fuel. In that interceptor configuration the fuel fraction was
0,36 and better than a F-4 with 0,3!
The F-104 had never "short-legs", whatever was claimed about that.
By: MigL
- 25th February 2010 at 07:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know what the F-104s has to do with anything since it is late sixties/early seventies vintage and not the same time frame as the Super Tiger and F-104c/g. A 7% difference in thrust shouldn't make such a large difference, unless other factors, such as large differences in empty weight or wing lift, come into play.
A very important quality for carrier aircraft is flat take-off and landing attitude. The only aircraft that excelled at this was the Crusader with its variable-incidence wing. Had it been re-engined in the middle sixties with a TF-30 engine or even a Spey, its performance would have benefitted and it would have served much longer. That 'goofy' nose intake which limited radar size, prevented a good fire conrol system from being installed. With a solid nose (side intakes ), a smaller version of the F-111b/F-14 fire control system and two Phoenix missiles, it would have made a great fleet defence fighter with no need for the expensive F-14.
By: Sens
- 25th February 2010 at 07:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know what the F-104s has to do with anything since it is late sixties/early seventies vintage and not the same time frame as the Super Tiger and F-104c/g. A 7% difference in thrust shouldn't make such a large difference, unless other factors, such as large differences in empty weight or wing lift, come into play.
A very important quality for carrier aircraft is flat take-off and landing attitude. The only aircraft that excelled at this was the Crusader with its variable-incidence wing. Had it been re-engined in the middle sixties with a TF-30 engine or even a Spey, its performance would have benefitted and it would have served much longer. That 'goofy' nose intake which limited radar size, prevented a good fire conrol system from being installed. With a solid nose (side intakes ), a smaller version of the F-111b/F-14 fire control system and two Phoenix missiles, it would have made a great fleet defence fighter with no need for the expensive F-14.
The Super Tiger development was not for naval fighter, but a and-based variant at all.
By: Schorsch
- 25th February 2010 at 09:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-104 had one of the best Specific Excess Power for its era, due to quite a lot of thrust and pretty low drag when not stuffed with stores. When loaded with wing tip missiles or tanks, the lift over drag ratio didn't suffer that much.
What the Starfighter really couldn't do well was turning, the wing produced excessive drag for high lift coefficients (like most 1950ies supersonic aircraft). The high SEP allowed for many possibilities to disengage or surprise an enemy. However, the Starfighter required not only good piloting skills, but also good tactical skills: you couldn't just merge and turn until you're on the 6 o'clock of somebody.
If flown correctly the Starfighter could outfly basically anything until the F-15 cam along.
Schorsch, I can see that you're a Phantom fan, but I'm not comparing the SV to the Phantom, which I already have said is the best fighter IMO.
Nor does the Phantom have small wings, I was drawing on F-8 and generalising about similar period land based aircraft.
I still don't buy that supersonic is always best, if you have the advantage of agility in a dog fight, you are better off, numbers of aircraft engagged in any scrap is important to.
The original list of best '60s naval fighters is basically a top of the tops of American fighters, most of which were poor as fighters, but good as very fast delivery platforms. It is good to consider other nations products, nothing has been mentioned of the Etendard IVP which was also a good fighter.
The Sea Vixen was probably a good compromise between fleet defense and fighter. Looking at the alternatives, they were rare.
If we look at the best subsonic naval fighters, I would rank the F4D quite high.
And yes, basically all designs are American, but the USA had a clear lead over all nations in fighter design in the 1950ies. The British had some good engines, but unfortunately specified rather strange aircraft (Lightning).
By: MiG
- 25th February 2010 at 10:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Schorsch;1539939]The F-104 had one of the best Specific Excess Power for its era, due to quite a lot of thrust and pretty low drag when not stuffed with stores. When loaded with wing tip missiles or tanks, the lift over drag ratio didn't suffer that much.
What the Starfighter really couldn't do well was turning, the wing produced excessive drag for high lift coefficients (like most 1950ies supersonic aircraft). The high SEP allowed for many possibilities to disengage or surprise an enemy. However, the Starfighter required not only good piloting skills, but also good tactical skills: you couldn't just merge and turn until you're on the 6 o'clock of somebody.
If flown correctly the Starfighter could outfly basically anything until the F-15 cam along.
The Sea Vixen was probably a good compromise between fleet defense and fighter. Looking at the alternatives, they were rare.
If we look at the best subsonic naval fighters, I would rank the F4D quite high.
And yes, basically all designs are American, but the USA had a clear lead over all nations in fighter design in the 1950ies. The British had some good engines, but unfortunately specified rather strange aircraft (Lightning).[/QUOTE]
If the lightning was strange then surely the F-104 was bloody surreal!
New
Posts: 115
By: stimpy75
- 25th February 2010 at 12:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I´ve read in one of my plane books,that one Tiger was shot down by it´s own 20mm rounds which she fired before???:eek:
anyone else heard sth about it
By: Schorsch
- 25th February 2010 at 13:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the lightning was strange then surely the F-104 was bloody surreal!
F-104: 2575 build
Lightning: 337 build
Of course, the success was only due to
- the fact it was American
- the bribery of Lockheed
- the evil Americans in general
- the Germans couldn't tell a jet from a prop and bought the Starfighter
By the way, the Starfighter was never officially specified.
Fun fact: despite being less than half the weight, the Starfighter did match the Lightning performance-wise, actually exceeded it in number of weapons carried and ferry range; was inferior in high altitude maneuverability.
By: Sens
- 25th February 2010 at 13:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I´ve read in one of my plane books,that one Super Tiger was shot down by it´s own 20mm rounds which she fired before???:eek:
anyone else heard sth about it
It was the Tiger, when it passed through the ballistic curve firing its guns.
By: MiG
- 25th February 2010 at 15:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-104: 2575 build
Lightning: 337 build
Of course, the success was only due to
- the fact it was American
- the bribery of Lockheed
- the evil Americans in general
- the Germans couldn't tell a jet from a prop and bought the Starfighter
By the way, the Starfighter was never officially specified.
Fun fact: despite being less than half the weight, the Starfighter did match the Lightning performance-wise, actually exceeded it in number of weapons carried and ferry range; was inferior in high altitude maneuverability.
I actually do like the planes that came out aorund the fifties and sixties, it's one of perhaps two periods so far in aviation history where there was not just a jump in technology, but a whole new paradigm to contend with. As such it compels a very odd image in my mind, a sort of engineering equivalent of one of those historical epriods like the Cambrian period where there is an explosion in evolution in species - where there are dozens of new types and the generally excepted norm hasn't been established.
You only have to look at the very differnet set of solutions that produced the Starfighter, Mirage III and the Lightning. There are design aspects on those planes, some of which have been copied, others that are entirely unique and haven't been seen since. I find it fascinating.
Of course, the F-104 was a better war machine than the lightning in everything that mattered, the US was able to boast more advanced avionics and missile systems just as Sandys paper released in 57 ultimately forestalled any potential development of the Lightning.
In terms of performance, The Lightning, as far as I'm aware had a far better service ceiling and would outclimb the F-104 in every regime except low level supersonic - which was a dead heat.(based on testimony form a test pilot carrying out comparitive testing of the two types) and would easily outturn the Starfighter at all altitudes. That the F-104 achieved it's performance at so light a weight and with a single engine is remarkable, but it did come a price, modern planes are more balanced, it's easy to see the design trade offs in the 50s/60s designs. I always figured that the F-104 was a better war machine but the Lightning was a better flying machine.
Ultimately the limited build of the Lightning was more due to the limitations imposed on it by short sighted political machinations rather than any real shortcomings in the aircraft- most of which could have been recitifed (arguably it's worst one was it's lack of endurance). When I say the F-104 is surreal then, I mena exacty that, it's design was entirely unique in it's conception, just as, in it's way the lightning was. I think it is hard to simply write off the British plane as performance wise it was superior in many aspects of flight, it was neve rgoign to compete with the US plane becuase of the limited development work that it got vis a vis the US plane (firestreak or sidewinder, no-brainer!), and lets not forget that the complexity of the Lightning and F-104 wa ssuch that the larger production run made the 104 cheaper ove rthe long run for the NATO allies to buy... although a cheeky wee backhander did help.
By: H_K
- 25th February 2010 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-104G with two tip-tanks and two AAMs was ~11 tons TOW and ~4 tons of that were fuel. In that interceptor configuration the fuel fraction was
0,36 and better than a F-4 with 0,3!
The F-104 had never "short-legs", whatever was claimed about that.
That's cheating. The proper comparison is with an F-4B with a 600gal centreline tank, which would have a better climb rate and higher fuel fraction:
As you can see, the F-4B was actually a better climber than the F-104C and also had more fuel. (Of couse, once the F-104 jettisoned its wingtip tanks it would do better, but wouldn't have much fuel left). You can expect the F-104G to have been a fair bit worse than the F-104C due to being about 1,300lb heavier and having 200lb less thrust.
Comparing the Super Tiger and the F-104G, you can see that they were very close, with the F-104G slightly ahead. The difference can be attributed to the navalization weight penalty.
By: H_K
- 25th February 2010 at 17:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A very important quality for carrier aircraft is flat take-off and landing attitude. The only aircraft that excelled at this was the Crusader with its variable-incidence wing.
Unfortunately, AFAIK the Crusader actually turned out to be rather hard to land on carriers. Despite having good visibility, it had a fairly high approach speed, which got worse through time as it gained weight, and also its gear/tailhook assembly led to the nose wheel slamming into the deck. This led in large part to the F-8J/H reconstructions.
By: MigL
- 25th February 2010 at 19:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 Crusader hard to land? There are several documented instances of the Crusader taking off and landing on a carrier with its wings in the folded position.
The thrust to weight ratios quoted for F-4, F-104 and Super Tiger are misleading because they use thrust at standard (sea level press and temp) conditions. as you gain height and speed, the more efficient multi shock intakes of the F-104 would give it a thrust advantage over the Super Tiger. Grumman was pleasantly surprised by the M2 capability of the two Super Tiger prototypes as they onlyexpected M1.4. See American Secret Projects: fighters and interceptors 1949 to 1975.
As far as I know, and I'll admit it was a special stripped version, no other aircraft from that era, neither F-4, Lightning and certainly not the Super Tiger could zoom climb to 104,000ft like the F-104. That should imply something about its T/W ratio and its wing.
As you can see, the F-4B was actually a better climber than the F-104C and also had more fuel. (Of couse, once the F-104 jettisoned its wingtip tanks it would do better, but wouldn't have much fuel left). You can expect the F-104G to have been a fair bit worse than the F-104C due to being about 1,300lb heavier and having 200lb less thrust.
Comparing the Super Tiger and the F-104G, you can see that they were very close, with the F-104G slightly ahead. The difference can be attributed to the navalization weight penalty.
1,39 min versus 1,40 min is a questionable difference of 0,6 seconds to stay polite. The typicial variation from aircraft to aircraft is even higher. ;)
By: H_K
- 26th February 2010 at 15:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1,39 min versus 1,40 min is a questionable difference of 0,6 seconds to stay polite. The typicial variation from aircraft to aircraft is even higher. ;)
Yeah, but we're talking about the F-104G and did you notice that it's T/W was 0.62 instead of 0.68 for the F-104C? (due to 1,500lbs higher gross weight for avionics & fuel, and 200lbs lower thrust. I wouldn't be surprised if it the F-104G's time to 30,000ft was closer to 2min, i.e. a lot more than an F-4.
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 24th February 2010 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember reading in an aviation magazine or book ( i cannot remember which, damn middle age ) that there was a fly-off between the Super Tiger and the F-104. I don't recall if the context was the German order or the U.S. order, maybe someone with readily accessible date/version information can tell us if the Super Tiger was a contemporary of the F-104G or F-104C.
What stood out was an account of a takeoff and climb-to-hight test in which the F-104 had already reached 60,000ft whereas the Super Tiger was still struggling to clear 30,000ft. Maybe the wing of the Super Tiger wasn't as efficient as some think?
I have noticed that the latest volume of Secret Projects: U.S. fighters, shows numerous Grumman fighter designs of the 60s, all with rather large wings, but that were not selected for production. Either Grumman was designing for qualities tha the U.S. wasn't interested in, maneuverability as opposed to ordinance delivery, or maybe Grumman didn't have a good handle on wing design.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 24th February 2010 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You stick the finger to that already. The GAF F-104G were operated with wing-tip tanks mostly and even so had a smaller overall drag ratio. The lift of the F-104G did rise with speed and the typical mission of the F-104G demanded speeds above 400 kt most of the time at all. The SPS did generate the missing lift for take-off and landing! A F-104G pilot did come into trouble, when the J-79 did not work properly and one common hazard were bird-strikes during the low level runs. The Super Tiger would have been better in A2A, but the F-104G in A2G and the mayority of fighters in the GAF were operated in the A2G at low level.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 24th February 2010 at 21:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never heard that anecdote, but quite possible. The F-104 was a "rocket with a man in it" after all. :p Time to 30,000ft was only 1min, but then again it carried so little fuel in that configuration that it barely had enough to accelerate to Mach 1.7, engage in 5 minutes of combat at high altitude, and then glide back to base! ;)
AFAIK, there were F-104 vs. Super Tiger contests in at least 3 countries: Germany, Canada and Japan. The F-104 was apparently praised for its climb rate and the favorite of the more "hotshot" pilots, but there were significant misgivings about its dangerous handling caracteristics (particularly, high stall speed), poor range and generally poor suitability for turning combat as well as air-to-ground. The Super Tiger was praised as a "pilot's aircraft" offering unbeaten maneuverability, good supersonic performance, solid multirole capability and an easier transition from existing fighter types. The Japanese selected the Super Tiger over the F-104 before reversing themselves, the Germans were divided into two camps, and the Canadians selected the F-104 for industrial reasons despite the grumbling of the Canadian Air Force, who wanted the F-4 Phantom. Not sure which they preferred between the F-104 and Super Tiger - possibly there were multiple camps just like in Germany.
Overall, what was remarkable about the Super Tiger was that it was so competitive with the F-104 despite the constraints of being a naval fighter. The F-8 was never competitive. The F-4 was competitive, but in a totally different cost/capability range.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 24th February 2010 at 21:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
pagen01 and sens,
Acceleration and climb rate would be critical in a number of situations:
- Deck-launched interception
- Interception of supersonic reconnaissance aircraft such as the Tu-22R
- Responding to attacks from a completely different axis than planned (quite likely with saturation attacks)
A subsonic fleet defense interceptor is useless in all these cases, so you'd better pray that the Sea Vixen was in the right place at the right time, and that the Soviets had the courtesy to approach from the expected direction!
(P.S. There was an interesting USN study in the 1970s that showed that deck-launched interceptors were in many cases actually more effective than having a large permanent CAP, because you could keep more fighters on alert with full fuel for a quick intercept in afterburner, while the CAP would often have to re-vector at subsonic speeds to meet the threat).
Posts: 3,614
By: Bager1968 - 25th February 2010 at 04:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it is simply that, among other factors, that they weren't "fitted with the same engine".
F11F-2 (later redesignated to F11F-1F): J79-GE-3B; 9,600 lb (14,800 lb)
F-104A: J79-GE-7; 10,000 lb (15,800 lb)
That 7% difference in thrust, and the lower drag of the F-104 (due to its thin, short wing {no tip tanks at that time}) would account for quite a bit... it also depends on their relative weights at take-off, etc.
Note that the F-104S got the J79-GE-17; 11,430 lb (17,860 lb)
Also, for the USN, the A-5A/RA5C Vigilante had two J79-GE-8; 10,900 lb (17,000 lb)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th February 2010 at 06:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tu-28P recce variant had a top speed of Mach 1,65 at >40.000 feet, which was still in the capability of the SV, which could reach that height within 7 minutes.
As long as the radar-detection distance of the Tu-22P was over 100 nm for the ship-radars.
But for the best threat reaction time the SV had to be airborn already, because a Tu-22P recce variant was out of the harms way above 50.000 feet, when AAMs had no snap-up capability.
Even a F-4 did climb at subsonic and did offer no advantage against such an threat.
Below 100 nm radar distance the Tu-22P could not intercepted by scrambled interceptors like the F-4 even in the mid-1960s.
The task fleet commander had to accept such a high-speed high-up recce flight most of the time. At least he does know, that the enemy did learn from his presence by that.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th February 2010 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-104G with two tip-tanks and two AAMs was ~11 tons TOW and ~4 tons of that were fuel. In that interceptor configuration the fuel fraction was
0,36 and better than a F-4 with 0,3!
The F-104 had never "short-legs", whatever was claimed about that.
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 25th February 2010 at 07:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know what the F-104s has to do with anything since it is late sixties/early seventies vintage and not the same time frame as the Super Tiger and F-104c/g. A 7% difference in thrust shouldn't make such a large difference, unless other factors, such as large differences in empty weight or wing lift, come into play.
A very important quality for carrier aircraft is flat take-off and landing attitude. The only aircraft that excelled at this was the Crusader with its variable-incidence wing. Had it been re-engined in the middle sixties with a TF-30 engine or even a Spey, its performance would have benefitted and it would have served much longer. That 'goofy' nose intake which limited radar size, prevented a good fire conrol system from being installed. With a solid nose (side intakes ), a smaller version of the F-111b/F-14 fire control system and two Phoenix missiles, it would have made a great fleet defence fighter with no need for the expensive F-14.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th February 2010 at 07:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Super Tiger development was not for naval fighter, but a and-based variant at all.
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 25th February 2010 at 09:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-104 had one of the best Specific Excess Power for its era, due to quite a lot of thrust and pretty low drag when not stuffed with stores. When loaded with wing tip missiles or tanks, the lift over drag ratio didn't suffer that much.
What the Starfighter really couldn't do well was turning, the wing produced excessive drag for high lift coefficients (like most 1950ies supersonic aircraft). The high SEP allowed for many possibilities to disengage or surprise an enemy. However, the Starfighter required not only good piloting skills, but also good tactical skills: you couldn't just merge and turn until you're on the 6 o'clock of somebody.
If flown correctly the Starfighter could outfly basically anything until the F-15 cam along.
The Sea Vixen was probably a good compromise between fleet defense and fighter. Looking at the alternatives, they were rare.
If we look at the best subsonic naval fighters, I would rank the F4D quite high.
And yes, basically all designs are American, but the USA had a clear lead over all nations in fighter design in the 1950ies. The British had some good engines, but unfortunately specified rather strange aircraft (Lightning).
Posts: 165
By: MiG - 25th February 2010 at 10:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Schorsch;1539939]The F-104 had one of the best Specific Excess Power for its era, due to quite a lot of thrust and pretty low drag when not stuffed with stores. When loaded with wing tip missiles or tanks, the lift over drag ratio didn't suffer that much.
What the Starfighter really couldn't do well was turning, the wing produced excessive drag for high lift coefficients (like most 1950ies supersonic aircraft). The high SEP allowed for many possibilities to disengage or surprise an enemy. However, the Starfighter required not only good piloting skills, but also good tactical skills: you couldn't just merge and turn until you're on the 6 o'clock of somebody.
If flown correctly the Starfighter could outfly basically anything until the F-15 cam along.
The Sea Vixen was probably a good compromise between fleet defense and fighter. Looking at the alternatives, they were rare.
If we look at the best subsonic naval fighters, I would rank the F4D quite high.
And yes, basically all designs are American, but the USA had a clear lead over all nations in fighter design in the 1950ies. The British had some good engines, but unfortunately specified rather strange aircraft (Lightning).[/QUOTE]
If the lightning was strange then surely the F-104 was bloody surreal!
Posts: 115
By: stimpy75 - 25th February 2010 at 12:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I´ve read in one of my plane books,that one Tiger was shot down by it´s own 20mm rounds which she fired before???:eek:
anyone else heard sth about it
Posts: 3,718
By: Schorsch - 25th February 2010 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-104: 2575 build
Lightning: 337 build
Of course, the success was only due to
- the fact it was American
- the bribery of Lockheed
- the evil Americans in general
- the Germans couldn't tell a jet from a prop and bought the Starfighter
By the way, the Starfighter was never officially specified.
Fun fact: despite being less than half the weight, the Starfighter did match the Lightning performance-wise, actually exceeded it in number of weapons carried and ferry range; was inferior in high altitude maneuverability.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th February 2010 at 13:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was the Tiger, when it passed through the ballistic curve firing its guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-11_Tiger
Posts: 165
By: MiG - 25th February 2010 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I actually do like the planes that came out aorund the fifties and sixties, it's one of perhaps two periods so far in aviation history where there was not just a jump in technology, but a whole new paradigm to contend with. As such it compels a very odd image in my mind, a sort of engineering equivalent of one of those historical epriods like the Cambrian period where there is an explosion in evolution in species - where there are dozens of new types and the generally excepted norm hasn't been established.
You only have to look at the very differnet set of solutions that produced the Starfighter, Mirage III and the Lightning. There are design aspects on those planes, some of which have been copied, others that are entirely unique and haven't been seen since. I find it fascinating.
Of course, the F-104 was a better war machine than the lightning in everything that mattered, the US was able to boast more advanced avionics and missile systems just as Sandys paper released in 57 ultimately forestalled any potential development of the Lightning.
In terms of performance, The Lightning, as far as I'm aware had a far better service ceiling and would outclimb the F-104 in every regime except low level supersonic - which was a dead heat.(based on testimony form a test pilot carrying out comparitive testing of the two types) and would easily outturn the Starfighter at all altitudes. That the F-104 achieved it's performance at so light a weight and with a single engine is remarkable, but it did come a price, modern planes are more balanced, it's easy to see the design trade offs in the 50s/60s designs. I always figured that the F-104 was a better war machine but the Lightning was a better flying machine.
Ultimately the limited build of the Lightning was more due to the limitations imposed on it by short sighted political machinations rather than any real shortcomings in the aircraft- most of which could have been recitifed (arguably it's worst one was it's lack of endurance). When I say the F-104 is surreal then, I mena exacty that, it's design was entirely unique in it's conception, just as, in it's way the lightning was. I think it is hard to simply write off the British plane as performance wise it was superior in many aspects of flight, it was neve rgoign to compete with the US plane becuase of the limited development work that it got vis a vis the US plane (firestreak or sidewinder, no-brainer!), and lets not forget that the complexity of the Lightning and F-104 wa ssuch that the larger production run made the 104 cheaper ove rthe long run for the NATO allies to buy... although a cheeky wee backhander did help.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 25th February 2010 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's cheating. The proper comparison is with an F-4B with a 600gal centreline tank, which would have a better climb rate and higher fuel fraction:
F-4B (4 Sparrows + centreline tank): 1.39min to 30,000ft , thrust/weight 0.71, fuel fraction 0.37
F-104C (gun only + 400gal underwing tanks): 1.4min to 30,000ft, thrust/weight 0.68, fuel fraction 0.36
F-104G (gun + 2 Sidewinder + 2 330gal wingtip tanks): thrust/weight 0.62, fuel fraction 0.36
Super Tiger (gun + 2 Sidewinder + 2 300gal underwing tanks): thrust/weight 0.60, fuel fraction 0.34
As you can see, the F-4B was actually a better climber than the F-104C and also had more fuel. (Of couse, once the F-104 jettisoned its wingtip tanks it would do better, but wouldn't have much fuel left). You can expect the F-104G to have been a fair bit worse than the F-104C due to being about 1,300lb heavier and having 200lb less thrust.
Comparing the Super Tiger and the F-104G, you can see that they were very close, with the F-104G slightly ahead. The difference can be attributed to the navalization weight penalty.
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 25th February 2010 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unfortunately, AFAIK the Crusader actually turned out to be rather hard to land on carriers. Despite having good visibility, it had a fairly high approach speed, which got worse through time as it gained weight, and also its gear/tailhook assembly led to the nose wheel slamming into the deck. This led in large part to the F-8J/H reconstructions.
Posts: 190
By: MigL - 25th February 2010 at 19:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-8 Crusader hard to land? There are several documented instances of the Crusader taking off and landing on a carrier with its wings in the folded position.
The thrust to weight ratios quoted for F-4, F-104 and Super Tiger are misleading because they use thrust at standard (sea level press and temp) conditions. as you gain height and speed, the more efficient multi shock intakes of the F-104 would give it a thrust advantage over the Super Tiger. Grumman was pleasantly surprised by the M2 capability of the two Super Tiger prototypes as they onlyexpected M1.4. See American Secret Projects: fighters and interceptors 1949 to 1975.
As far as I know, and I'll admit it was a special stripped version, no other aircraft from that era, neither F-4, Lightning and certainly not the Super Tiger could zoom climb to 104,000ft like the F-104. That should imply something about its T/W ratio and its wing.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 25th February 2010 at 19:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1,39 min versus 1,40 min is a questionable difference of 0,6 seconds to stay polite. The typicial variation from aircraft to aircraft is even higher. ;)
Posts: 630
By: H_K - 26th February 2010 at 15:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, but we're talking about the F-104G and did you notice that it's T/W was 0.62 instead of 0.68 for the F-104C? (due to 1,500lbs higher gross weight for avionics & fuel, and 200lbs lower thrust. I wouldn't be surprised if it the F-104G's time to 30,000ft was closer to 2min, i.e. a lot more than an F-4.