| Author |
Message |
|
104zip
|
 Posted: Mar 13, 2011 - 09:11 AM
|
 
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 13, 2011 - 08:37 AM
Posts: 1
Status: Offline
|
Hello!
First post here.
Been enjoying the Zipper threads. Father flew the CF-104 in the late 60's out of CFB Cold Lake so I have been fan for quite some time.
Simply amazing how much potential has packed into the airframe/design of so long ago. A shame the italians no longer fly them.
What is the VMAX of the tip tanks?
Are the tip tanks jettison-able and if so, what is the speed limit?
Regarding FL730 @ [Link pending approval], Walt BJ was burning 100 lbs of fuel a minute at 3/4 AB. Would the fuel flow be substantially less if the J79 was replaced with a modern engine like an "F-119 type" that was capable of [Link pending approval] @ FL600 in mil power?
Am I wrong to state that the F-22 supercruises at [Link pending approval] at 60,000 ft?
I curious to know how much fuel would be burned if the 104 was at FL600 and [Link pending approval] without using burner. Would the flow go from 100 ppm as stated above to maybe 50 ppm in mil power?
I do realize this if difficult to answer seeing as the J79 isn't designed to propel the 104 at FL600 and [Link pending approval] in mil power. I am interested to know fuel burn rates at high altitude and am using the 104 as an example.
And, if we could stuff a 414 EDE (26,500 lbs) in the 104, what affect would this have on high alt performance? The 79 turbojet would still outperform it? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 23, 2013 - 11:50 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieven
|
|
Posted: Aug 06, 2011 - 03:07 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Webmaster
Joined: May 23, 2003 - 04:44 PM
Posts: 2992
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: Aug 08, 2011 - 04:39 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1193
Location: Phoenix, Az
Status: Offline
|
100 ppm at Mach 2.0 is already incredible, the question is how much gas was left after getting there?
About your curiosity of replacing the J79 with F414 EPE, I have has the same question myself. does the amazing high/fast performance of J79 counter the 50%+ increase in base thrust? F414 also weighs in 2,000 lbs less than J79 resulting in improved climb and turning, especially subsonic. |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
alfakilo
|
|
Posted: Aug 14, 2011 - 04:08 PM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 22, 2011 - 07:01 PM
Posts: 12
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
TC
|
|
Posted: Aug 16, 2011 - 11:49 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator
Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
| Hopefully, our resident Zipper Driver, JR007 will come on and spot this thread. He has much knowledge on the subject. |
_________________
"He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: Aug 16, 2011 - 06:38 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1193
Location: Phoenix, Az
Status: Offline
|
| Thanks for the link alfakilo! Man that zipper sure could move. |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
JR007
|
|
Posted: Sep 11, 2011 - 05:53 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 03:46 PM
Posts: 539
Status: Offline
|
104zip,
The last time a Starfighter was at Cold Lake was in 2004, I flew it there, and she was a CF-104D. 12-632
VMax with tips is 750 KEAS or Mach 1.8
Jettison Limit for the Tip Tanks is Mach .9 There is a Note in the Dash 1 that in an emergency, empty tip tanks may be jettisoned at supersonic speeds. Though it recommends trying to jettison them at or below Mach 1.5.
I am not familiar with the GE 414, don’t even know if it would fit in the airframe, so that one I can’t answer.
Fly Fast, Zipper Fast!!!! |
_________________
Burning debris never reversed on anyone…
JR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
