- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Fact is stranger than fiction. Almost half of the CF-104s we bought ended up destroyed in accidents.
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_27.html
"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239 delivered--a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of retirement, average airframe times were of the order of 6000 hours as compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe."
http://www.pinetreeline.org/metz/otherm1/otherm1-61.html
"Considerable success was achieved in reducing the number of aircraft accidents in 1966. The following accident rates are of interest.
The progressive rate for all aircraft in Air Division in 1966 was 1.3 per 10,000 hours compared to 3.7 for 1965;
The progressive rate for CF-104 aircraft was 1.4 per 10,000 hours compared to 5.5 for 1965; and
three CF-104 aircraft were lost in 1966 for a rate of .86 per 10,000 hours. Nine aircraft were lost in 1965 for a rate of 3.1."
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_27.html
"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239 delivered--a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of retirement, average airframe times were of the order of 6000 hours as compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe."
http://www.pinetreeline.org/metz/otherm1/otherm1-61.html
"Considerable success was achieved in reducing the number of aircraft accidents in 1966. The following accident rates are of interest.
The progressive rate for all aircraft in Air Division in 1966 was 1.3 per 10,000 hours compared to 3.7 for 1965;
The progressive rate for CF-104 aircraft was 1.4 per 10,000 hours compared to 5.5 for 1965; and
three CF-104 aircraft were lost in 1966 for a rate of .86 per 10,000 hours. Nine aircraft were lost in 1965 for a rate of 3.1."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
starfighter woes,
the starfighter was another bill of goods sold to canada and other nato countries by our friends to the
south after a intense pr. campaign with huge illegal kikebacks by lockheed. The usaf took one look
and sent it to the peuto rico nation guard.The airplane was not capable any of the missions it was
supposed to fulfill,in that it, was very similar to another great buy of the canadion gov. the F5,if you
put enough fuel in it you could not carry any weapon payload and with a decent weapon load you
were not going anywhere.It also had serious flight safety issues, it was basically kept in the air by the
thrust of its J79 engine its very small wing supplied very little lift which made landing or any kind of in flight
emergency a very tricky situation for the pilot requing a very quick decision generally to get out.It had
seriose angle of attack problems causing the aircraft to pitch-up and go out of control.The number of
crashes seems a little high but canadian pilots because of more jet aircraft experience made the right
decisions and ejected from the aircraft in emergency situations,whereas the german luftwaffe which
lost well over a quater of their total buy,460 aircraft and in a large number of cases the pilot died with
his plane.That being said it was a very impressive aircraft to watch from the safety of the ground.
the starfighter was another bill of goods sold to canada and other nato countries by our friends to the
south after a intense pr. campaign with huge illegal kikebacks by lockheed. The usaf took one look
and sent it to the peuto rico nation guard.The airplane was not capable any of the missions it was
supposed to fulfill,in that it, was very similar to another great buy of the canadion gov. the F5,if you
put enough fuel in it you could not carry any weapon payload and with a decent weapon load you
were not going anywhere.It also had serious flight safety issues, it was basically kept in the air by the
thrust of its J79 engine its very small wing supplied very little lift which made landing or any kind of in flight
emergency a very tricky situation for the pilot requing a very quick decision generally to get out.It had
seriose angle of attack problems causing the aircraft to pitch-up and go out of control.The number of
crashes seems a little high but canadian pilots because of more jet aircraft experience made the right
decisions and ejected from the aircraft in emergency situations,whereas the german luftwaffe which
lost well over a quater of their total buy,460 aircraft and in a large number of cases the pilot died with
his plane.That being said it was a very impressive aircraft to watch from the safety of the ground.
Any of you old enough to have ever seen one fly? (104)
Yer killin' me.............
CFIT- there were some discussions on the low level mission and supersonic speeds. Friend died in Europe )one of many) and his accident investigation revealed things that no one had thought of before. Reduced vis, low level, high speed, he flew into a mountain. Investigation found that the pilot was not at fault. Seems that by the time the light bounced off the mountain, into the pilots eyes, up to the brain, brain realised that this was a mountain, recognised the danger,analyzed the response, and then sent the message to the hand to pull up, the plane had impacted the mountain. That fast.
Low level is inherently dangerous- make it low level and supersonic, it's an accident waiting to happen.
Having said that, the Cold War was on in full by the time the Century Series of fighters were flying. This war drove the exploration of flying like no other- right place, right time- and new designs were literally conceived, built, tested, and into production in as litle as a year. Amazing.
The F-104 did a great job. Maybe the best testament of all is to ask a fighter pilot in the 80's what aircraft he'd pick for a joyride- near every single one said the 104.
No one said that Military Aviation was inherently safe, nor for everyone. Military Pilots sacrifice for freedom every day.
Cheers-Garry
Yer killin' me.............
CFIT- there were some discussions on the low level mission and supersonic speeds. Friend died in Europe )one of many) and his accident investigation revealed things that no one had thought of before. Reduced vis, low level, high speed, he flew into a mountain. Investigation found that the pilot was not at fault. Seems that by the time the light bounced off the mountain, into the pilots eyes, up to the brain, brain realised that this was a mountain, recognised the danger,analyzed the response, and then sent the message to the hand to pull up, the plane had impacted the mountain. That fast.
Low level is inherently dangerous- make it low level and supersonic, it's an accident waiting to happen.
Having said that, the Cold War was on in full by the time the Century Series of fighters were flying. This war drove the exploration of flying like no other- right place, right time- and new designs were literally conceived, built, tested, and into production in as litle as a year. Amazing.
The F-104 did a great job. Maybe the best testament of all is to ask a fighter pilot in the 80's what aircraft he'd pick for a joyride- near every single one said the 104.
No one said that Military Aviation was inherently safe, nor for everyone. Military Pilots sacrifice for freedom every day.
Cheers-Garry
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I have recently downloaded some very interesting videos; one of the last Italian interceptor squadron's which was recently still flying the F104.
French pilots are putting out some very good video's, most not done by any official group and the resolution is incredible. Anyway the best French video's I have seen are training flights in Chad and Djubuti. The pilots practice flying very, very low and strafing cars on the highway. Some of these guys are flying so low that they would end up taking off the top of a truck if it had been driving down the road.
French pilots are putting out some very good video's, most not done by any official group and the resolution is incredible. Anyway the best French video's I have seen are training flights in Chad and Djubuti. The pilots practice flying very, very low and strafing cars on the highway. Some of these guys are flying so low that they would end up taking off the top of a truck if it had been driving down the road.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Garry said:
Yes great for a joy ride, even as an interceptor, but as a strike aircraft? 4000lb warload? Not very good low-level performance? Very short range? The US Air Force certainly didn't think so, they got F-4s (originally a navy aircraft) instead. A few were in fact sent to Vietnam but proved fairly useless.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
my experience with the Starfighter was in two respects. the first was a choice of spending the summer vacation in the back set of the family car with siblings or going and visiting a cousin who was base CO at Comox, no brainier as to where summers were spent. My second experience was about twenty years later in Wainwright as a inf rad op in the bn cp during a brigade ex in which we were demonstrating our expertise in calling down close air support to destroy units of the 52nd Fanastian Motor Rifle Brigade. our pnr. plt had spent the morning setting up a pyrotechnic result of a simulated napham delivery. With a various assortment of multi service brass looking on a Starfighter came screaming down the valley minimum agl. just as he reached the boom zone the pnr plt Co ignited his display. Result one silver starfighter now sooty black and as high as he could go. Several multi service gentleman crowding in the door of the cp all demanding to know wether a plane was down and had a no duff been declared. Radio chaos on several nets all requesting immediate sit reps and over top of it all the unfortunate pilot using provocitives that clearly were leading to a contest with the RSM over inventituers to the English language. All in a days work.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The Widowmaker moniker was coined in West Germany though it ended up being applied to all Starfighters. If memory serves me right, a number of our CF104s and CF5s were sold to Turkey. Wasn't there something about Amnesty International or someone griping about the Aricraft going to a country who'se track record on civic rights leaves something to be desired.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Geo,
"Canadian export control guidelines call for close control of military exports to countries involved in, or under threat from, hostilities. They also call for control of sales to persistent violators of human rights, unless there is "no reasonable risk" of the equipment being used against civilian populations. These guidelines have not prevented extensive arms transfers to Turkey since the onset of the Turkish conflict. In addition to nearly $58 million in fluctuating commercial arms sales to Turkey reported since 1984, the government provided 50 CF-104 fighter aircraft and spares valued at over $67 million under the "Assistance to Developing NATO Nations Program" in 1986. Ignoring subsequent evidence of the use of F-104 aircraft in the internal conflict, in 1995 Canada also was prepared to sell upgraded CF-5 fighter aircraft to Turkey from Department of National Defence surplus stocks. A major invasion by Turkish forces into northern Iraq at the time brought temporary media and parliamentary attention to the proposed deal but, in the absence of a government announcement to the contrary, the CF-5 sale may yet proceed."
see also;
WEAPONS TRANSFERS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR IN TURKEY
http://hrw.org/reports/1995/Turkey.htm
"Canadian export control guidelines call for close control of military exports to countries involved in, or under threat from, hostilities. They also call for control of sales to persistent violators of human rights, unless there is "no reasonable risk" of the equipment being used against civilian populations. These guidelines have not prevented extensive arms transfers to Turkey since the onset of the Turkish conflict. In addition to nearly $58 million in fluctuating commercial arms sales to Turkey reported since 1984, the government provided 50 CF-104 fighter aircraft and spares valued at over $67 million under the "Assistance to Developing NATO Nations Program" in 1986. Ignoring subsequent evidence of the use of F-104 aircraft in the internal conflict, in 1995 Canada also was prepared to sell upgraded CF-5 fighter aircraft to Turkey from Department of National Defence surplus stocks. A major invasion by Turkish forces into northern Iraq at the time brought temporary media and parliamentary attention to the proposed deal but, in the absence of a government announcement to the contrary, the CF-5 sale may yet proceed."
see also;
WEAPONS TRANSFERS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR IN TURKEY
http://hrw.org/reports/1995/Turkey.htm
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yeah - that's the story. But, Turkey being a NATO ally AND being the neighbor of two or threee archnemesis of NATO (USSR & Iraq/Iran) - was surprised when the CF104s were picked out for protest. The starfighters were not particularly well suited for ground support (though we certainly figured out how to do some)
Similar threads
