F-104 question.

Originally posted by Snoogans
I'm pretty sure that I have seen photos of Saudi Lightnings with bomb racks.

- I have seen these too.
Sorry but I don't know if their capabilities were enhanced by BAe for the sale or if they were always there but just never needed or used in RAF service.

Consider yourself backed up.

The attack capability was designed by EE for the RAF version and is also mentioned in the 1958 edition but the RAF chose never to use the Lightning in the attack role




(Observers-Aircraft, 1971 edition)

[edit on 3-11-2005 by waynos]

Did you have any picture or words which could prove that outside loading rall under Lightning's aerofoil also could carry guided-missil or fuel tank or bomb?
I have debated with my friend to support they can carry any kinds of load, but I have no evidence.

Here is such a picture emile, it shows the Firestreak and Red Top AAM missile packs which made re-arming quick and easy, at either side of the nose. In the foreground near the wing you can see bombs and fuel tanks which fitted onto the pylon which here is holding a rocket pod, wildest of all though are the twin overwing rocket launchers which consist of a rocket pod in the front part and fuel tank to the rear. That, to me, sounds like a very dangerous combination, for the pilot I mean!


Also, you may be interested to learn, in the mid 60's there was a plan to turn the Lightning into a VG aircraft in almost exactly the same way as Sukhoi did with the Su-7/Su-17 Fitter. The fascinating point about this that neither Sukhoi or BAC had any idea that the other company was doing the same thing and yet these two conversions were drawn up at almost exactly the same time and completely independantly. With the F-4 purchase pending BAC were ordered to drop their design while the swing wing Fitter was very successful.


[edit on 3-11-2005 by waynos]

After several casualties with the bottom ejection system, an upward eject seat was developed.

Some interesting information can be found here: www.landspeed.com...

The above link also talks about the turbulence problems with the flaps and how it was cured.

Some interesting reading about the 104 in combat.
home.att.net...


An enjoyable read about the hottest 104.
www.916-starfighter.de...

I started into this with the thinking that I could find a stall speed listed for the 104, but all I could find was allusions to a high stall speed . . . which most of us know already.

One source quoted a 315 kilometer per hour approach speed, but said nothing about stall speed proper.

I'd do some more searching, but am running out of time.

Waynos:
Very very great post I think, that Swing wing Lightning almost no-none have seen and known before. You always give some surprise to me or someone else.

Desert Dawg:
I believe that you can do surprised something as well as waynos given some F-104 full load picture which hard to found in internet by google for example to show a couple of pylon outside under wing also carry missle roket etc.
I have almost over one hundred photos of F-104, but non of them show full load F-104.

Now, I have some pictures show very strange F-104 named F-104VTOL. Who know the principle of its take off and land down? or,
Are ther any explanation of web in internet


[edit on 4-11-2005 by emile]

I've seen this proposal before, the idea was that the triangular wing on top spun like a rotor for vertical take off or recovery with the angled tips being used to maximise lift, as the aircraft moves forward under power of its engine the 'wing' flattens out and stops rotating and becomes a normal delta wing for high speed flight. Thats gotta be a technical nightmare and would surely raise the weight of the aircraft massively.

There was never any intention to use the F-104 operationally in this way, its a technology testbed design to try out the idea for future designs.