INSTRUCTORS AND SPINS

[itterble]

Sorry to bust in on this post, however the site won't let me post on the marketplace? 172pilot do you still have the Garmin aera for sale? e-mail me at ji@muleys.ca
Again all, sorry.

[YYZSaabGuy]

iflyforpie is amusing in a left-wing manner, but his grasp of the facts is a little loose in this case, as is typical of left-wing people. The RCAF was not exactly the sole operator of -104's in Europe.

It was actually the Germans who had a horrible problem with the F-104G over in Europe, mostly because their pilots had not gone through the Sabre years in the 1950's that the RCAF did. Even left-wing people can probably recall WWII, and that for a time afterwards, the Germans were not allowed to have a military.

The Germans lacked seasoned wing commanders and group captains to tell their pilots what was safe, and wasn't safe, with horrible consequences.

To be fair, the RCAF comment was mine, not iflyfor pie's - his comment was limited to the phrase in between the quotation marks.
And I was definitely aware that the RCAF was not the sole operator of 104s, and that the Luftwaffe did have a terrible problem with that aircraft. I had understood it was because, like the RCAF, they used an aircraft designed for high-altitude intercept in a ground support role - any truth to that? Your comment above about the lack of a seasoned training staff is one I hadn't seen before, but it makes sense.

[Colonel Sanders]

they used an aircraft designed for high-altitude intercept in a ground support role - any truth to that?

The -104 was used in many ways it wasn't initially intended.

My father, who was at CEPE at Cold Lake in the early 60's, was the first to demonstrate a low-altitude bomb run in IMC, which is a nice aerobatic demonstration. All sorts of personages said it couldn't be done, but that's the role it took on in Europe for the RCAF - low altitude ingress nuclear bomber.

And since it had the marvellous M61 Gatling gun - used on many, many other types since then - it could simply pulverize anything on the ground with it.

However the high speed of the -104 (300 knots is slow) made it a very poor choice for CAS, IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M61_Vulcan

The M61 and its derivatives have been the principal cannon armament of United States military fixed-wing aircraft for fifty years.

The first aircraft to carry the M61A1 was the C model of the F-104, starting in 1959.

A lighter version of the Vulcan developed for use on the F-22 Raptor, the M61A2, is mechanically the same as the M61A1, but with thinner barrels to reduce overall weight to 202 pounds (92 kg). The rotor and housing have also been modified to remove any piece of metal not absolutely needed for operation and replaces some metal components with lighter weight materials. The F/A-18E/F also uses this version.

The Vulcan's rate of fire is typically 6,000 rounds per minute, although some versions (such as that of the AMX and the F-106 Delta Dart) are limited to a lower rate, and others have a selectable rate of fire of either 4,000 or 6,000 rounds per minute. The M61A2's lighter barrels allow a somewhat higher rate of fire up to 6,600 rounds per minute

[Colonel Sanders]

re: crossover spins

I've never had a problem with upright vs inverted - frankly I don't really care, because a spin is all about yaw - but this reminds me, a few days ago I met a fellow who got some aerobatic instruction from Gerry in the 2-seat Pitts, many years ago, and insisted upon telling me this story.

At the time, he was a young instructor that wanted to fly aerobatics in his Citabria back east, but there was no one to teach him to fly it, so he went to Gerry and asked him to teach him how to do some gentle rolls and loops.

So, no ground briefing, which slightly concerned the young instructor. They pull to the vertical, and Gerry says, "this is an inverted spin", and he applies full forward stick and then full left rudder, and off they went.

[Shiny Side Up]

iflyforpie is amusing in a left-wing manner, but his grasp of the facts is a little loose in this case, as is typical of left-wing people. The RCAF was not exactly the sole operator of -104's in Europe.

It was actually the Germans who had a horrible problem with the F-104G over in Europe, mostly because their pilots had not gone through the Sabre years in the 1950's that the RCAF did. Even left-wing people can probably recall WWII, and that for a time afterwards, the Germans were not allowed to have a military.

The Germans lacked seasoned wing commanders and group captains to tell their pilots what was safe, and wasn't safe, with horrible consequences.

While you're a really smart guy physics wise, occassionally your historical facts are out to lunch. A photo is worth a thousand words.



Incidentally that's the one marked in Hartmann's personal markings, who did work for the Luftwaffe at the time, though was fired over his critisism on how the Germans were using and training on the 104. They were equipped with Sabres from 1957 to 1964 before transitioning to 104s.

[iflyforpie]

You see what happens when you bring in the political binary CS? Logic breaks down and your credibility goes out the window in spite of all you have to offer on this forum.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_binary

My tongue-in-cheek comment was based on fact and on the operation of the 104 in Europe by the Luftwaffe, in which they lost 110 pilots.

It's pretty unfair to say that it was lack of experience on the part of the Germans as well. In addition to Erich Hartman and indeed operating F-86s, they also had pilots like Johannes Steinhoff, who was one of the first jet pilots in the world flying the 262.

I don't know a lot about the 104 but I did gain some knowledge of the operations in the CAF since much of my CPL was under the tutorage of a former 104 driver.

[Trematode]

Read Gunther Rall's biography a couple months back -- the Luftwaffe general in charge of integrating the 104 -- and he seemed to blame the Germans' high accident rate on a differing aviation mentality the Germans still had as a hold over from the war. They had quite a few experienced old aces (including himself as the third highest scoring ace of all time) -- so I'm pretty sure experience wasn't an issue.

He mentions the old cadre were not yet accustomed to the widespread use of checklists and the strict safety and training standards that were already common place with American pilots, and combined with the 104s unforgiving nature he cites that as the reason they got bit in the ass so badly. Maybe a case of too much experience from the old trainers, who can't pass on their experience effectively without the proper training tools and safety culture?

That was what I gleaned from it anyway.

[Shiny Side Up]

He mentions the old cadre were not yet accustomed to the widespread use of checklists and the strict safety and training standards that were already common place with American pilots, and combined with the 104s unforgiving nature he cites that as the reason they got bit in the ass so badly. Maybe a case of too much experience from the old trainers, who can't pass on their experience effectively without the proper training tools and safety culture?

Partly, but not entirely. The issue has interesting parallels with some of the busier arguements today. At the time there was a big push from the political side of things to get more airplanes in service and obviously shortcuts were taken. Often cited by Rall and others was a lack of training for flying low level, as well as a lack of instrument training as compared to the Lockheed training, and other 104 users at the time. Only after political pressure swung the other way - where not crashing airplanes finally became more important to the populace, than say the security they felt was needed to keep the Reds at bay (amongst other things), that they started listening to the old guys again and those still in the structure like Rall were able to make the change.

edit:

He mentions the old cadre were not yet accustomed to the widespread use of checklists and the strict safety and training standards that were already common place with American pilots,

I'd find this assessment a little hard to believe personally. Follow rules is what Germans do. Have you met these people? Someone just obviously didn't give them enough rules to fly the 104. Nothing more chaotic than a bunch of Germans without a rulebook.

[Beefitarian]

Sorry to bust in on this post, however the site won't let me post on the marketplace? 172pilot do you still have the Garmin aera for sale? e-mail me at ji@muleys.ca
Again all, sorry.

You need more posts. The board is set up that way to reduce spammers. I'll PM him for you.

[Trematode]

I'd find this assessment a little hard to believe personally. Follow rules is what Germans do. Have you met these people? Someone just obviously didn't give them enough rules to fly the 104. Nothing more chaotic than a bunch of Germans without a rulebook.

Don't take my word for it -- read his autobiography if you're interested. He explicitly mentions the differences in aviation safety mentality between the luftwaffe of WW2 vs. the Americans, post-ww2. The heavy reliance on checklists and SOPs was a bit foreign to the grizzled old eastern front vets of the german luftwaffe, but in his opinion, ended up being required for the safe transition to the jet age.

... but I am of course just citing this from memory. I could be muddling what he was trying to say a bit.

[Shiny Side Up]

That last little bit was more tongue in cheek. From teaching them how to fly, they make your head hurt sometimes. "Vat is der rule?" is the most common question they have.

[Colonel Sanders]

I stand corrected! I'm glad to know that the Germans
didn't crash a lot of 104's after all.

[Trematode]

That last little bit was more tongue in cheek. From teaching them how to fly, they make your head hurt sometimes. "Vat is der rule?" is the most common question they have.

Hah! gotcha

[Beefitarian]

I stand corrected! I'm glad to know that the Germans
didn't crash a lot of 104's after all.

You see, I love cheese and I love burgers. It's just that I don't really love them combined. Then again sometimes you just want something you usually don't. What can I say, I'm an enigma.

[Colonel Sanders]

Beef: I'm puzzled. Does your elliptical response imply that the Germans did indeed crash a lot of -104's?

Now, the AvCan brain trust states above that the German pilots were highly trained and experienced in flying in the soupy wx of Europe, so we must therefore conclude that the aircraft must be at fault.

the Royal Norwegian Air Force operating identical F-104Gs suffered only six losses in 56,000 flying hours, and the Spanish Air Force lost not a single one of its Starfighters to accidents

Gosh, maybe the AvCan self-styled brain trust is wrong that the aircraft is at fault? Horrors!

Maybe the German pilots didn't have the requisite experience flying Sabres in the crappy wx of Europe in the 1950's after all, before they stepped up to the -104?

Another factor may have been the fact that the initial training of Luftwaffe aircrews took place in the USA rather than in Germany. The reason given for training Luftwaffe pilots in the USA rather than in Germany was that the clear air and good flying weather in the American Southwest was much more conducive to pilot training than was the often lousy weather of Northern Europe.

There are many challenging (and capable) aircraft that the AvCan brain trust would have great difficulty operating. That doesn't meant that they're "bad" aircraft - just that the AvCan brain trust lacks adequate training, experience and leadership. Much like the German air force in the 1960's.

[Beefitarian]

Not entirely.

I really like burgers. Everyone responding to the thread seems to be aware that the Germans crashed a lot of F-104s. There is I presume some records of that in addition to these posts.

You said that was caused by the fact that they did not fly Sabres to learn about jets. Someone posted a picture of an F-86 painted to suggest the Germans flew at least one of them.

Then there was the off topic stuff. So basically, I really like pizza too. I enjoyed reading the thing about the weather being too nasty for flying, so they trained the pilots in a sunny place before sending them to fly in the fog. I note that to be much like not being allowed to fly in cross winds then having trouble when you have no choice.

[Trematode]

What beef said...

Harland, not one person in the thread said the german's DIDN'T crash a lot of 104s. Nobody blamed the plane, as far as I can tell, either. Not sure why you keep responding to posts as if they did.

[Colonel Sanders]

Sigh. If one accepts as axiomatic that:

1) There is a German nation
2) Said German nation operated F-104's in the 1960's.
3) Said German nation crashed a lot of F-104's in the 1960's
4) There wasn't an inherent problem with the F-104

Then one might wonder why the F-104's crashed? Were they
shot down by surface-to-air missles? Were they zapped in flight
by powerful alien laser beams?

No, the inevitable conclusion (if one accepts 1, 2, 3 and 4 above)
is that the German pilots were simply not up to it, because of
their corporate lack of experience flying jets in the soup of
Europe, which NATO had in spades during the 1950's. As a
result, NATO air forces had superbly-qualified and experienced
wing commanders and group captains, the like of which we
have not seen since.

This, like "2 + 2 = 4" is true, regardless of whether or not the
AvCan self-styled brain trust with left-wing leanings opines it.

[jamesel]

Germans operated a total of 916 F-104's, lawn-darted around 298 loss ratio of under 33%.
Canadians had 239, and lost about 110 - several pilots jettisoning the aircraft and carrying on manually more than once - slow learners?

I think it was more a case of problems arising from the differing mindset than one of ability- the Canadians came to Europe for the beer & skits, and were changing over from the '40s/'50s ethos of " safety's for pansies", the Germans were defending the Vaterland, training like they were going to fight.

[Beefitarian]

This,

German pilots were simply not up to it, because of
their corporate lack of experience flying jets in the soup of
Europe, which NATO had in spades during the 1950's. As a
result, NATO air forces had superbly-qualified and experienced
wing commanders and group captains, the like of which we
have not seen since.

sounds right. Also

At the time there was a big push from the political side of things to get more airplanes in service and obviously shortcuts were taken. Often cited by Rall and others was a lack of training for flying low level, as well as a lack of instrument training as compared to the Lockheed training, and other 104 users at the time.

Seems to agree with it. I wonder if that could mean even if they had experience,

In addition to Erich Hartman and indeed operating F-86s, they also had pilots like Johannes Steinhoff, who was one of the first jet pilots in the world flying the 262.

it was not being passed on. Yet the answer to the question of why might be tougher to get to.

I'm sure we can nearly all agree they lost more planes, it likely wasn't the equipment's fault and I like a nice Shnitzel.