On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that's a CF-104 being flown by Starfighters in that shot. > > And there's nothing unsafe about the Starfighter, it was a superb > high-altitude interceptor and was quite safe in that role. The problem > was the crazy idea that the Canadians and Germans had of using the > things as low-level strike platforms that caused most of the crashes. > heck, the CF-104's were air-to-ground only (and actually, Nuke-only > until 1972) having no air-to-air capability whatsoever. We shoulda > bought F-105's instead. I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I have an uncle who used to be in the Royal Canadian Air Force (back when it was still called the Air Force). He wasn't a pilot, but he talked to plenty of them, and was told that part of the problem with the crashes is that many of the German pilots simply weren't properly trained in how to land them. Because of the small wing area they tended to stall when flaring out during landing (as one does for most other planes). They have to be flown (and flown fast) right down to the runway. That's why they have to deploy chutes and brakes to slow down once on the ground. When you stall during flare-out a hundred or fifty feet from the ground, you can't recover, you fall, you die. It's pretty simple. Add that to everything you said, and I guess that's why the plane acquired the rather unfortunate moniker "widow maker". I agree with you that when used for its intended purpose it was a safe and dependable airplane - and damned good-looking, too! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- 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.
