Leap in Performance - F-4 J79-19?

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

kdub104

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2018, 01:03

Unread post18 Aug 2019, 19:05

f-16adf wrote: Guessing for greater endurance the reason for just one Aspide and one Sidewinder?

The bare metal Starfighters certainly win the beauty contest:


CF-104 Starfighter.jpg


I also wondered why one Aspide and Sidewinder. The Norwegians discovered 2 Sidewinders under the fuselage offered less drag at supersonic speeds than under the wings or on the wing tips.

Bare metal Starfighters... agreed and Amen!
"Never underestimate the underestimated"
Father 104 Driver; "Everything Else Takes Bird Strikes in The Rear"
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2263
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post19 Aug 2019, 06:24

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
madrat wrote:What eyepiece on such Sparrow would have survived Mach 3 flight without degradation? None. A Falcon-derivative on the other hand, maybe with some help. There's a reason Falcon was carried internally and relied on canisters. High speeds heat up the seekers too much.

Sparrow is a Radar missile that flies at M4+, I think you are thinking about Sidewinders?


kdub104 said, "Carry two AIM-9s under the fuselage or put the AIM-9 seeker head on a Sparrow?"
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4419
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post19 Aug 2019, 13:58

Missed that, apologies.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3349
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post19 Aug 2019, 15:31

kdub104 wrote:
f-16adf wrote: Guessing for greater endurance the reason for just one Aspide and one Sidewinder?

The bare metal Starfighters certainly win the beauty contest:


CF-104 Starfighter.jpg


I also wondered why one Aspide and Sidewinder. The Norwegians discovered 2 Sidewinders under the fuselage offered less drag at supersonic speeds than under the wings or on the wing tips.

Bare metal Starfighters... agreed and Amen!


That's really interesting, thanks for passing it along. I assume the same would be true for Sparrows? Less drag under fuselage vs. when carried under wing?

We have a beautiful F-104C here at the New England Air Museum. Surprised just have thin/razor sharp the wings were! Unbelievable performance, especially for the time. I think the one on display here got over 90,000 ft and mach 2.4 on at least one run.

Beautiful piece of aviation history..
Offline

kdub104

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2018, 01:03

Unread post20 Aug 2019, 01:13

Unable to find the Norwegian article but they had numerous intercepts due to their geographical location and this is what they discovered. Makes you wonder why the Italians didn't mount a winder and sparrow under the fuselage. Could have carried wing tanks in place of the missiles - increased endurance and range. I guess air forces/countries didn't share information like we'd think they should.

The sparrow is a mere 2 feet longer than the sidewinder so it will fit under the fuselage.

I've been fascinated by the 104 since I was a boy. My father flew them late 60s and early 70s. Canadian Air Force CF-104G. He was a 104 demo pilot for the airshow circuit in 70 and 71 and gave it up for 72 as I was born June of 72.

The 104 was never maximized. Its potential never fully realized. Italy came closest. Money/politics overruled potential. Can endlessly visit and re-visit a modernization program, but I have a thread up on this already.
"Never underestimate the underestimated"
Father 104 Driver; "Everything Else Takes Bird Strikes in The Rear"
Previous

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests