i was thinking thant the 104 starfighter had one of the worst flight record of a mass prodused fighter/interseptor with its horribale crash record in germany. what dose the rest of the forum think the plane with the worst flight record.

p.s is the f104 a 70s aircraft

I'd say the F-104 is a 50's aircraft. And it has a pretty bad record, but probably not any worse than other 50's jets.

In the Swedish airforce we had a total 135 Drakens written of due to accidents between 1960 and 1993. Superstalls, mid-air collisions and engine malfunctions are considered to be the most common causes for the crashes.

My country aquired 52 A-7's in 1980. 32 crashed due to several failiures. That probably had to to with the fact they used to be in storage for years. They retired in 1999. I wont miss them, because the whole deal was a scam wich was payed in several pilots lives.

We also had to take a back seat during 1991 gulf war because of them, wich was a bit hummiliating.

In all fairness to the aircraft, the A-7 did carry out it's role well in all of the conflicts it participated in. Bad flight records can be found on all aricraft, so bashing one or two isnt really fair. For example, the German WWII Komet blew up on landing and the Me-262's engines were very faulty which cost many German lives. This is a very subjective topic, so lets be fair eh?

The 140th here in Colorado used to fly A-7Ds, and they had a pretty normal safety record. Now they fly F-16Cs, and their safety record is still normal, even though their role changed from air-to-mud to dual role. Their primary mission is air-to-air, but they also regularly train for air-to-mud.

The safety records of both aircraft used by this Wing are DEFINITELY not unblemished, but they are normal.

quote:

Originally posted by helk61:
In all fairness to the aircraft, the A-7 did carry out it's role well in all of the conflicts it participated in. Bad flight records can be found on all aricraft, so bashing one or two isnt really fair. For example, the German WWII Komet blew up on landing and the Me-262's engines were very faulty which cost many German lives. This is a very subjective topic, so lets be fair eh?

Not bashing the aircraft themselves. The **** things could go to the Azores, drop bombs and return to base without refueling.( not that I wanted to bomb our nice country men there or any of the thousands native cows)
But come on... buying 1960's aircraft from graveyards as debt payment for the use of Lajes AB in the azores was a short sighted deal, they were pretty much obsolete even before we got our hands on them. Cant belive we actualy used them in the air defense! Good ridens!

The F104's combat record too is nothing to write home about.4 Pakistani F104's were shot down by IAF MiG21's without a single loss on the MiG's in the India - Pakistan 1971 war.

Link regarding downing of a PAF F-104A by an IAF MiG-21FL in the Indo-Pak '71 war.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/History/1971War/Soni.html

The Tu-22 had a horrible record, 20% aircraft lost in Soviet service, much more in Libya and Iraq AF. It was difficult to control at low speeds, was initially rejected by the VVS, but entered service due to political pressure (Soviets needed a counter to the B-58, which itself wasn't very pleasant to fly).

Tu-22 had downward ejecting seats which didn't do much good for crew confidence at low level and during landing.

how about thease the the F111, tornado [in first gulf i think it had the highet attrion rate]

p.s are swing wings more dangeruse becase they have more moving parts

quote:

Originally posted by harryrriedl:
how about thease the the F111, tornado [in first gulf i think it had the highet attrion rate]

p.s are swing wings more dangeruse becase they have more moving parts

Thats beacause their mission were also more dangerous.

Historicaly ground attack aircraft have suffered the highest attrition due to the nature of their mission.

eg: In vietnam, F-105 losses were the highest of all USAF aircraft.

Low level operations attract fire from everything, AKs to Short ranged SAMs.

Variable geometry aircraft are generally as safe as fixed wing, if not safer. There are a few exceptions though.

Just to add to the F-111 discussion. The F-111F had ZERO losses in ODS, yet, it was responsible for over 70% of the kills against armored vehicles.

The F-111, like any other aircraft, had its share of problems. One problem was that the manual system for varying the wing geometry was counter-intuitive. In the beginning...pulling back on this lever resulted in the wings swinging back. This was a bad design, as pilots would tend to pull it AND the throttle in the same direction. Decreasing lift while decreasing power...NEVER a good idea unless you are over the threshhold.

Early Harriers were a bit deadly too.

A little late in seeing this, but I think the F-104 never really saw combat in its intended environment. The PAF only had about 10 at any point (rest were embargoed) and used them because they were just short on planes and were so heavily outnumbered. In 65 they got little use, and by 71 thier only edge (speed) was pretty much equaled by the later model Mig-21s the IAF was using (see the above link-is an excellent source of info on those wars).

I know a retired USAF col who flew in the wing of F-104Cs that went to nam for escort duty in the mid 60s....a pair of F-105s had been downed by Mig-17s (some sources say 15s) and the 104s were rushed there in their new camo schemes.
They trained extensively in the "energy fight"
(Boom and zoom stuff)using thier power, which would have been interesting against the Mig-17, which was the usual NVAF equipment at that time. They stayed close to the 105s, and suffered damage from ground fire, going in low with them to keep teh migs from ambushing them (no EC-121s coverage that far north apparently), and his plane took a 37mm at low level that gave him some moments nursing it back south once.

During his tour in the 104, the NVAF NEVER came up against the strikes that were escorted by the starfighters. So i guess well never know how it would have turned out in those circumstances. The mig-21 made the 104 obsolete, in anybody's hands, and the USAF wisely never pitted it against it.

So i dont really think the PAF's dismal results should rank it in the failure catagory any more than Iraqi use of the Mig-29 should rank it there.

The RAF Tornados in the 1st gulf war where used for low levele bombing by the RAF, it was realised that this tectick of bombing stuff was not working as it should, and the defence cheefes at the MoD eventuwlly came to the same concusion, after at first bening any change a beleve. so old RAF Buccaneer aircraft, (which the tornado was ment to replace) where cauled in to provide LGB targting for LG bombs on Tornados allowing Tornados to fly at hight altitides and there for be safer.
The Buccaneers also droped there owne LGBs and suffered no losses.

quote:

Originally posted by harryrriedl:
how about thease the the F111, tornado [in first gulf i think it had the highet attrion rate]

p.s are swing wings more dangeruse becase they have more moving parts