frank theriault wrote: > On 10/18/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I remember reading it was tricky to land. > > I heard from an uncle of mine who used to work at a base in Germany, > and he claimed that the problem with the CF-104 was that the tiny > wings required them to "fly right onto the tarmac" rather than > "flaring out" just before landing like most airplanes. Trying to > flare out caused them to stall, and since flare outs occur only a few > metres from the ground, such a stall can't be recovered from. > > Apparently it was a case of pilots finding it hard to get rid of old > habits, and not adapting to newer ways... > > cheers, > frank >
That was a major issue. But what it comes down to is the F-104 was designed as a high altitude interceptor, not as a low-altitude strike aircraft. It could do low and fast reasonably well, but if you had to hit the brakes, you went in. Sometimes low and slow is necessary when doing low-level strike missions, particularly in the days before terrain-following radar (which this was). The F-105 had enough wing that it could do low and slow as well as low and fast. I do expect that half the problem with the F-105 was its designation (and the opening of certain wounds that would have caused). -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
