Bremspropeller

That's a real good point. I think the C-101 has almost twice the amount of fuel as the L-39. The Albatros has tip-tanks and was in James Bond, though, which gives it nutnfancy "first kind of cool" appeal. Srsly @VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants: Get both of them

In the end, it's down to what experience you're in for. I love trainers, so I have all of them (still missing the Saab, though). The L-39 is a bit more of a tractor (in both good and bad ways) and it comes with that same appeal as an AK and the Mi-8 are coming with. Solid and dependable Eastern Block hardware that has seen action all over the world. In relative terms and focussing on the handling itself, the L-39 is the hardest trainer to fly with it's lively pitch behaviour. To me, the C-101 is by far the most refined module of the three and even though the jet is the least perfoming, it flies the nicest and the module itself has the most features. Like the GPU that you already know from the F1. You can also actually grill the motor. I also like the pedal shakers.

The 339 also still has the taxiway issue. Had one aircraft completely break on me tonight. The switches are still inverted. As is the flight controls overly. After a whole evening of doing some close form wingwork in all three of the trainers: The C-101 is the best pick.

It sure is a hot topic.

They do. You can see the step in the Ps curves at Mach 0.85, where the flaps are coming up.

Hey Ivan, thanks for digging those up! That's precisely the EM diagrams I rememberred. Looks like I rememberred a bit optimistically, though: 6g sustained, not 7g, at the conditions I mentioned in my first post (5000ft, 50% internal fuel, two Sidewinders).

Post- and Pre-Flight inspections during the early times of F-104G flight ops (pre 1967, as indicated by the DD+241 code: 2. Staffel of JaboG 34 at Memmingen) Startup: 1 finger at 10%, 2 fingers at 20%, 3 fingers at 30%, cut-off signal at 38%, GPU air needs to be switched off by 40%. Seven-Finger check: (no finger) 1st crew-chief engages torch-igniter for the afterburner, 2nd crew-chief checks it's function by looking for the glow 1) Speed Brake check 2) Flight Control check 3) Trim check 4) Stab Aug check 5) APC check - RH AoA vane is checked to energize both stick-shaker and kicker (landing gear uplock override switch needs to be used for the kicker funtion) - LH AoA vane is checked to energize the stick-shaker, the kicker must not fire 6) Flaps check - BLC valves open at 16° deflection and need to be fully open at 45° - check for proper airflow on both wings - check for no airflow at T/O (15°) on both wings 7) Emergency Nozzle Closure System check Note the aircraft rolling, pitching and yawing during the runup check on the runway. That's the precession moments of the engine acting on the aircraft during the quick power changes.

Coccarde Tricolori Speciale 2 "F-104S" pg.52/53 - memories of Col. Luigi Piccolo "The Aspide could have been a truly great missile if it could have been supported by a truly capable radar. In reality, it would be the 18° Gruppo that was the best off in the second half of the eighties, as - having CBO-configured aircraft - it could fly with the Vulcan cannon and four AIM-9L." Might be a misunderstanding - it doesn't actually say they were flying air-defence, just their fighter-bombers had a better setup for the real-world air defence with the radar being lacking in performance. and therefore the Aspide not being able to perform up to it's capabilities.

There were more 104s besides the figher sub-type S* variants that had their guns removed or replaced: - the first A models didn't have a gun, since the guns weren't ready - a lot of CFs, RFs and F-104Gs had no guns, but an aux tank instead** - none of the two-seaters had a gun * Seems like one italian unit (18° Gruppo) at least for some time flew the S fighter-bomber in air-defence, so they had the gun and four Lima Sidewinders as a normal loadout. **In fact, initially all CFs and most of the 104Gs (if fighter-bombers and paricularily in the strike-role) had no guns. The F-104G "AWX" sub-type (all weather fighter) had their guns installed at the beginning.

No such thing. The first full up F-104G Geschwader of the Luftwaffe (JaboG 31 at Nörvenich, west of Cologne) became operational on 20 June 1962. Just one day after a formation of four F-104Fs (WaSLw 10 aircraft) flew into the ground during the final training session for the aerobatic display planned on the 20th. It was somewhat similar to the '82 Thunderbirds Diamond Crash. All the operational 104s in Germany during the Berlin Crisis were US A or C models, including Guard aircraft. One of those crashed during the takeoff in Ramstein AB the day before, June 18 '62. It was an Arizona Guard A model.

Make sure the gear is up by 260KIAS. Unless you want to trap the gear doors open like this guy does right after T/O and during the first pass.

2:10 Impressive.Very noice. Let's see Paul Allen's take-off acceleration.

I think it's in here null

USN and USM used the MK4 gun pod, which is a different thing altogether. On top of that, the USN didn't use the pod on the boat, which essentially means the pod was used in theater - at times - by the Corps only.

One thing tabou the flap-limits: If the airspeed is below 330/360KIAS, there's actually no Mach limit for the flaps in T/O at all. Hence, especially at high altitude, they can be used in wild abandon. @Smyth thanks a lot for your great work!

I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s.

All in german, but you might get away with using the subtitle function. Some really good info in there. Three playlists by Frank Heinevetter (F-104 and Tornado pilot). Flying the 104 - from the pilot's seat. Starfighter Stories Starfighter pilot memories

Choo-Choo! All aboard the hypetrain! Let's post videos about the 104 here. I'll start with a dutch TV snippet from 1965 - at the heart of the "Starfighter Crisis" - containing an interview with a german Member of Parliament, and some interesting additional information (in Dutch, though). Like that 63% of all pilots who had crashed at this point had less than 1000 flight hours. This was at a time when the Luftwaffe in particular was playing catch-up while trying to handle a space-age moder jet fighter at a time when qualified personnel was hard to get and when logistics and the administrative structures were no beneficial for getting more than 700 (over 900 in total) of those jets within a relatively short time. You may want to give the channel itself a visit, too!

No whatter what you think it is, I think we can agree on one basic fact: It's sexy as duck!

The 104S manual I have states on 1-47 that NOTE: When flaps are lowered to TAKEOFF position, the angle at which angle-of-attack sensing vane energizes the stick shaker or the kicker is automatically increased, thereby permitting aircraft maneuvering to a higher angle of attack than when flaps UP. The 104's got a better subsonic L/D, though. Something like 9.2 for the 104 and 8.6 for the F-4, plus the fuselage is creating a good deal of lift on the 104. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-a3.htm Looking forward to reading your analysis!

Canada Sabre is best Sabre. Unless OZ Sabre, in which case OZ Sabre is best Sabre. Because 30mm desu! null In case there's any RCAF alumni here: The ice-rink at Soellingen still exists. How YOU doin? CF with a Vinten-pod and a faired-over gun port. http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wC898.htm

Let's not fall for semantics or shifting goalposts. "BVR" is mostly about front-quarter attacks and being able to destroy a target reliably in the weather or at night and only then a matter of range - especially when factoring in apparent target size, which might be *small* when talking a MiG-21 head on at 5NM.

I have a -S manual which states the following (Section 5-5): During extension: 450KIAS or M0.85 (no Mach limit if 330KIAS isn't exceeded) Out and retracting: 520KIAS or M0.85 (no Mach limit if 360KIAS isn't exceeded)

Starting in the early 70s, german jets were converted to the J79-MTU-J1K engine, which manifests itself by the long afterburner nozzle. With that mod, the engines lost most of their howl. Late Luftwaffe jets got ECM antennae: The odd-coloured panel on the rear fuselage was a crash-safe data-recorder: Marine jets had the ALE-40 CM dispensers, verysimilar, but placed slightly differently to the late canadian CFs:

Also, for the 104C, check out Annex G of this one: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0372500