On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:10 PM, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
And don't forget the downward firing ejection seat ;-) -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
