NationStates Jolt Archive

Contrails (http://www.contrailsmagazine.com/) is one of the best free magazines that I've seen. Well, the first three issues are free and they provide some of the best first-person narratives by pilots that I've ever read.

The SR-71 was no piece-of-cake to fly. Those (few) that I knew who flew the Blackbird were always given a lot of respect by other pilots who flew some of the 'Glory' planes. I was at a friend’s house for a party in 1991. He was a Lt. Col doing a fellowship at Rand Corporation. Most of those invited were friends of his from Edwards Air Force Base. Most were test pilots including those working on the F-22 and B-2. One of the guys was a Blackbird pilot (used collectively for all those who flew the A-12, YF-12, and SR-71). It was very interesting listening to the stories they were tossing about in a friendly one-upmanship. When it came time for the Blackbird pilot to tell his story, everyone became all ears and no one that I recall even tried to top his average-day-in-the-cockpit story.

The pilot was Bill Weaver and Contrails finally published his story (http://www.contrailsmagazine.com/1.3/1.3.sr71.1.html)about a test flight gone bad. It's pretty interesting, I enjoyed hearing it the first time, reading it before he published it, and re-reading it today. I hope those of you that enjoy aviation stories will too.

If you're up on this stuff, do you know if the domestic version of the Starfighter was prone to crashing as well, or was that just down to the modificatioons that were made to the German version, rather than innate design problems?

All of the versions of the Starfighter were widowmakers. It had one of the worst safety records of any deployed jet aircraft.

That said, the German version does appear to have been a little less stable, judging by statistics alone (they're all declassified now). The difference is minor, but notable.

Right. Thank you.

Point being, the Starfighter sucked.

Period.

Point being, the Starfighter sucked.

Period.
One wonders why Lockheed were so zealous to sell it to other markets if that was the case, was this purely an attempt to recoup the development costs after the USAF decided they weren't going to order any more?

One wonders why Lockheed were so zealous to sell it to other markets if that was the case, was this purely an attempt to recoup the development costs after the USAF decided they weren't going to order any more?

IIRC, it was quite cheap. I'm sure they jumped at the chance to sell large quantities of cheap fighters to smaller air forces.

At least we have better now.

All of the versions of the Starfighter were widowmakers. It had one of the worst safety records of any deployed jet aircraft.

That said, the German version does appear to have been a little less stable, judging by statistics alone (they're all declassified now). The difference is minor, but notable.

The initial versions of the German starfighters (They had the export G models) had a downward firing ejection seat. To complicate this they used these aircraft for ground support, something it was not designed for. The manuver to eject was to roll the aircraft onto it's back and punch out. Not something you want to do when you have 2 seconds before you become a lawn dart. I found a rather interesting site regarding German F-104's, here it is:


F-104's are a aircraft that does take a high degree of skill to fly. There simply isn't much wing area for the aircraft to generate lift. This makes it downright foul in low and slow situations. A interesting note is that the approach speed on this bird around 190kts. A boundry layer control system was used on this... meaning that it takes bleed air from the J79's compressor stages (Front of the engine) and vents it over the flaps, energizing the air and allowing the aircraft to fly with slower airspeeds. Otherwise, the approch speed would be in the 250-300kt range.

Haven't downward facing ejection seats continually proved to be a really bad idea?

I think you're right about them being comparatively cheap: at least part (though presumably quite a small part) of the problem the German air force had with them was that they ended up buying rather more of the things than they could cope with, to an extent that the maintenance by ground crews was often quite sloppy.

Haven't downward facing ejection seats continually proved to be a really bad idea?
I would hope that nobody's tried to use them since, to be honest.

I would hope that nobody's tried to use them since, to be honest.

B-52's are the only other aircraft that comes to mind that still uses downward firing ejection seats.

The 104's were upgraded to upward firing seats. However, there was a story told to me by a AF museum volenteer of two german 104's. He had said that the two 104's had gotten into a situation where both were going to become lawn darts. The first pilot ejected and had the downward firing seat, so he hit the trees. The second pilot seeing this had time to roll the aircraft inverted then ejected only to hit the trees (his had the upward firing seat). I guess the moral to the story is know thy aircraft.

B-52's are the only other aircraft that comes to mind that still uses downward firing ejection seats.B-52s are still in use? I thought they went out in the '60s.

The 104's were upgraded to upward firing seats. However, there was a story told to me by a AF museum volenteer of two german 104's. He had said that the two 104's had gotten into a situation where both were going to become lawn darts. The first pilot ejected and had the downward firing seat, so he hit the trees. The second pilot seeing this had time to roll the aircraft inverted then ejected only to hit the trees (his had the upward firing seat). I guess the moral to the story is know thy aircraft.
So presumably the training for the pilots wasn't all it could have been either...

B-52s are still in use? I thought they went out in the '60s.


Nope. They're the primary Cruise Missile launch aircraft in the US Air Force. IIRC, they're not to be retired until 2020.

B-52s are still in use? I thought they went out in the '60s.

Nope, they're still there. Some have been modified to carry nukes, some for ALCMs, some left for conventional bombs.


So presumably the training for the pilots wasn't all it could have been either...
Possibly, but the real problem was the lack of standardization. Both in procedures and in aircraft. I had a C.O. that flew C-47s before transitioning to A-6s. He said every single aircraft had the instruments and controls in different locations.

thank you

Must you spam every single thread?