Hi Andy, I just saw "The Right Stuff" again, and especialy focused on Chuck Yeager's altitude attempt. Since he tried it in an F 104 and that you are an F 104 jock (among other jets!), I was wondering about the "unrecoverable" spin that warranted his ejection during his attempt.

It seems that he waited for a long time to bail out, probably waiting for thicker air to generate lift, however, he could not recover.

Since the F 104 is probably one of my favorite plane (looks incredible!), I was wondering if its flight characteristics were as "twitchy" as they are portrayed in the movie.

Lastly, the string of mishaps with the German Air Force's F 104 in the Seventies gave the F 104 its reputation of a "widow maker".

If you find the time, I would trully appreciate you clarifying this "bad rap" that the F 104 got.

As always, I'd rather hear it from the horse's mouth rather than from some "enlightened" writer fantasizing.

Thanks in advance and thank you especialy for your compassion at our collective grief.



------------------
opinionated

Hi Nick

The F-104...one of my favorite subjects.

For starters, the real life flight scenes in the movie were filmed using one of our squadron jets. We had two a/c that were polished out to a bright finish...we used them for displays at airshows, etc. The one in the film has a dull grey patch on the vertical stabilizer...that is movie paint used to temporarily cover up the jet's serial number. The a/c number was 269...our squadron designation was the 69th Tactical Fighter Training Squadron...so the '69' in the tail serial number was a large red 69. I guess the movie people didn't like that, so they painted it out.

Yeager was doing a high altitude test with a modified jet that had a rocket added to the tail. He would use the rocket to get the 104 above 100,000'...at that point, the jet used special gas ports on the nose and wings to provide control inputs (since the regular flight controls were ineffective at those altitudes. Something went wrong when Yeager was squirting these gas jets to control the a/c and it fell out of control. He did wait until a much lower altitude to attempt a recovery but was unable to do so. I'm not sure the exact nature of his out of control situation...most reports call it a 'spin'.

I've never 'spun' a 104 or know anyone who has...but I have had a couple of real wild rides in the jet...all due to my pushing the flight envelope too far. The 104 had a 'pitch up' departure phenomena due to its T-tail design. A pitch up that happens at high g can be something to behold...to use an over worked expression, been there done that!!

The German experience with the jet was unique. No other nation has had that problem. I taught the Germans for 4 years in the 104 and am familiar with their capabilities. They did have a sad record initially with the jet. It was not the jet's problem. Chalk it up to inexperienced pilots and maintenance, short runways, bad weather, and the ever present dangers of low altitude flight.

I thought the jet to be an honest jet. Very predictable...but also very unforgiving of mistakes. For its time, the most high performance of anything flying. It's fast...I've been to 800 KIAS on the deck many times...not too many jets around that can do that. It is a maneuverable jet when flown properly...its reputation as a poor turner is BS from people that have never flown the jet. That's not to say that it is a F-16 or anything like that, but for its time, it could hold its own.

Did you know the a/c flew missions in the Kosovo conflict? The Italians still fly them...complete with all-aspect AIM-7 type missiles, AIM-9s, and the 20mm gun. Not bad for a jet designed in the early 50's.

All in all, a great jet and my favorite. And the best looking fighter ever made (along with the A-10)...just kidding on the Hog!!

We're keeping our fingers crossed on the accident.

Andy

Hi Andy, thanks for your answer!

800 knots on the deck! man I'm glad I wasn't at the spot at the time! you can kill innocent bystanders (or lost travellers in the AZ desert) doing that!

I remember you mentioning doing extremely low, very high speed passages in the F104 when you were stationed in Arizona, I guess you took care of the Prairie Dog problem!

That's pretty amazing stuff, I guess the F 104 is the perfect platform for such displays of raw power.

As to the accident prone German Air Force of the seventies, you are correct, I reread some articles blaming the nature of the missions assigned to the F104 squadrons.

Seems that most German F 104 guys had their problem at very low altitude and the loss of pilot lives was blamed on the fact that Germany is a densely populated area. This precluded most pilots to eject at the right time through fear of their plane crashing over a town, village etc...

The article mentions an unusual tendency of the German F 104 to "flame out" at the most inopportune time, is this the root of the problem? I mean, you guys do not seem to have had this probem, different engines?

Lastly, it's amazing that your very squadron provided the platforms for the movie! wow.

You know, I have to ask and you know it was coming right? did you fly in the movie? come on, you can tell us!

Thanks Andy, as always, I appreciate your time.

------------------
opinionated

Nick

There was a nice write up on the 104 in a mid year issue of Aviationn History. I'll see if I can dig it out of the pile...

Hi Nick

Sorry for the late reply.

Nope...I didn't fly the jet in the movie!!

As for the 104 engine...the major problem lay in the nozzle. The first J-79s had a history of nozzle failures to the full open position. When this happened, the engine thrust reduced to practically idle regardless of power setting. This situation happened to me once right after takeoff. I had the gear and flaps up and was maybe about 500'AGL when I brought the throttle back to military. As the burner shutdown, I was thrown forward suddenly...the deceleration was very evident. After a moment of surprise, I realized the nozzle had failed and I was becoming a ballistic dart on a parabolic arc that was starting back down. I had two choices...I could punch out right there before the sink rate increased any more...or I could jam it back into burner and hope for a relight.

I'm not big into ejections so I elected to try the burner. Lucky for me it relit, and all was well.

Only one little problem. What was I to do now? Kinda hard to land in afterburner!!

Not a big deal really. I pulled the throttle back to min burner, put out the boards, and rolled into a high g turn. I held the turn and let the speed bleed down to where I could throw out the gear and flaps. Once I had the drag out, I just blipped the burner to hold my speed as I turned back into the runway for an uneventful landing.

Other than the nozzle problem, the J-79 wasn't any more prone to failure than any other engine of its time. Our jets were actually made in Germany under license and were early G models. Other than having upgraded avionics, the European German 104s were not significantly different.

I wondered about our low altitude, high speed flights over the desert. The environmentalists claimed we were killing the cactus. The actual range area was unoccupied, but the adjacent area was all Indian reservation...and we routinely used that area to maneuver over at speeds up to the mach. We would run into the range at 600KIAS and 200' right thru the populated areas and then push it up once past the range boundary. I suppose it did get a bit noisy at times. Such was life.

It was a great airplane to fly!

Andy

Once again Andy, you have given me a full freakin' erection. #%&*$# good story!

-Skater

On reading my post, I realized I wasn't too clear on the nozzle situation.

Most fighters have nozzles that open and close to vary thrust. In the military position (idle to 100%), the nozzle closes to provide thrust. As the engine goes into burner, the nozzle opens back up again. If the nozzle is open in military power (not burner) then the thrust is reduced.

In my situation, even though I was still in full military after I came out of burner, the thrust was insufficient to maintain flight.

The 104 did have an emergency system to close the nozzle if it failed open. Because of my low altitude, I chose not to take the time to try it out.

Andy, on a completely different note, I had our (Jetstar) pilot come over and fly some of my favorite sims, Falcon4 along with USAF and especialy Flight Unlimited III and he was gasping!

Funny thing, he landed the Beechjet in FUIII without a sweat.

I asked him how he did it, he told me not to rely on the rpm dial, "wrong all the way" but instead, concentrate on a "fuel flow" approach, much more accurate for him, that's what he uses most on final approaches (using the fuel flow gauge as an indicator of speed) , is this general wisdom?

Also, he told me that for approaches, 10% flaps first, then gear, then 20% flaps then, when "commited to land", full 30% flaps and power all the way off upon touchdown, slight pullback as needed upon touchdown. Greased it everytime, very nice.

He also told me that those sims are incredibly well done, especialy FUIII, except for the RPM dials of the sim, not realistic at all.

I was wondering if you had that sim (FUIII), it is so far my favorite and I get great feedback from it, real guys fall in love with it.

Very realistic, according to Renato, he is Italian and an old "Business jet" salt, 57.

Next time we go somewhere, he'll let me have the commands of the Jetstar, "watch your AOA! 4, 4 is good!" "you're too high!" "too much flaps!, what if one engine fails?" "trim, trim!" " don't play with that throttle so much!" "you're too fast on the runway, it'll never settle mama mia!"

What a trip having this guy behing you while flying a GA sim!, he'll let you have it everytime.

I, however, humble the hell out of him with Falcon 4, he loves it but he is still miffed at the fact that you can make such steep turns with it. Seems that a lot of GA guys are afraid to "bank and pull", they feel they'll stall.

Anyhoot, if you don't already own it, get FUIII, it's really a blast.

Lastly, on the DC 9, do you use the same approach techniques that Renato mentioned?

Thanks Andy.

PS. Did you ever fly the Jetstar?






------------------
opinionated

Hi Nick

Negative on the FUIII and Jetstar!

Using fuel flow is one of several techniques for setting the throttles. Some guys here use it, but I don't.

As a technique, it is no better or worse than the others. All of these basically are some form of engine thrust indication. In the DC-9 (and many other airliners) we also have instruments that show measurements of pressure inside the engine (called EPR for Engine Pressure Ratio) and RPM readings at two points in the engine (called N1 and N2).

I use a combination of EPR and N1 for most of my flying.

I use N1 to set the engines at cruise thrust. The typical N1 RPM range for cruise is from about 84% to about 89%. Depending on altitude, gross weight, and temperature, I'll set the throttles based on N1 and then give the jet a chance to settle out before making any more changes. (Others use EPR or fuel flow to get the same result.)

I use EPR settings as an estimate for where to put the throttles for descents and traffic pattern work. From experience, I know that a certain EPR setting will hold 'X' knots in level flight or a descent. Typical EPRs range from 1.0 (idle) to over 2.0 at full thrust...this depends on engine model. For example, if I want to hold 250KIAS (clean) at low altitude, I'll set the EPRs around 1.35 and wait to see how that works.

Good luck with that Jetstar!

Andy

HI Andy,

Thanks for your answer, the Jetstar is being hauled up with new avionics to meet the new requirements, should be back soon with some MFD's. The overhaul is scheduled to take 6 weeks and the Swiss won't start any work without a hefty down payment,(we are having it reequiped in Switzerland), man, those guys want their money up front!, no credit even though we have been using them for years!

Anyhoot, for a more technical question, I was wondering which engine you derive your pressurisation system from?

I read about that golfer's plane (a Learjet I believe) that probably experienced a rapid decompresion at high altitude thus killing everyone on board.

We talked about it with Renato and it seems that any explosive decomp over FL 400 is pretty much a death sentence, seems that those folks were cruising at that altitude when it happened, the auto pilot, I guess wasn't affected (shouldn't be) and carried them on track until the plane ran out of fuel.

Seems that on a few twin private jets, as the pressurization system is handled by only one engine, if that engine fails, you're in big trouble (if at high altitude of course).

I was wondering about the DC 9, is your compressor power fed from both engines or only one?

Lastly, have you ever experienced any "rapid decompression" at high altitude?

Thanks for taking the time, I hate to be boring



------------------
opinionated

Hi Nick

There's nothing boring about a RD!!

I've never had one...knock on wood.

The DC-9 uses both engines to supply bleed air to the pressurization and air conditioning systems, as well as the anti-ice system.

The Stewart accident is a puzzler. One of our favorite guesses is that they had some sort of a RD coupled with an oxygen system failure. No one wants to criticize dead pilots, but one possibility is that the oxygen system may have never been turned on. If the RD happened at cruide altitude, the time of useful consciousness would be minimal. With the oxygen off (or empty), the delay in realizing that may have been enough to incapacitate the crew before they could have corrected the problem. I doubt that we will ever know for certain.

Andy

Andy, putting all emotions aside, I was wondering if you guys had any updates concerning the Egyptair crash.

As far as we are concerned, we have no news and it seems that they put a lid on the story.

The NTSB is silent and so is all law enforcement involved in the investigation.

Here in Cairo, Egyptair and the ECAA (Egyptian Civil Aviation) refuse to answer any questions, an absolute brick wall.

I was wondering if anything leaked in the States or whether this whole affair was conveniently burried to "protect the guilty".

The strangest thing to have come out of this incident is the lack of law suits filed from the families of the victims.

Even more puzzling is the lack of protest from any relatives of the victims on local US TV, any TV station will milk the hell out of a story like that, they did it with TWA 800 and the Swissair flight, why not here? especialy considering the loss of over a hundred Americans.

Since my home base is Louisiana, I had a friend of mine check one of the passenger's names that was listed as from louisiana, according to the manifesto, it was an old woman from around NO, he checked the phone book and called city hall there, there was no-one under that name in that town.

I crossed checked the manifesto from Egyptair and the one that was published in the states, that person seems to have never existed.

We did the same routine with some other names published, same thing.

I wonder what really happened.

I heard of a fifty million dollar law suit being filed days after the incident (out of New Jersey), but it seems to have vanished as well, strange.

Someone is hiding something.



------------------
opinionated

Sorry about posting such a message on your board Andy, it has nothing to do with sims or flying, again, I shouldn't have posted this here, my mistake.

Disregard.

------------------
opinionated

Not at all, Nick...

This situation and its explanation is at the hands of the present political administration.

That being the case, Lord help us.

Andy

BTW...your posts are always welcome, regardless of topic.