Comments by "Gort" (@gort8203) on "The best jet Britain ever made... and cancelled - TSR-2" video.
-
The funniest thing about the TSR-2 myth is that the majority of internet fanboys who think the wing loading of the F-104 somehow made it too dangerous to fly and unsuitable for the low-level strike role also think the TSR2 that was much heavier with equivalent wing loading was the perfect design for the job.
What follows is an edit added in response to a comment below from @sergarlantyrell7847.
I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as (supposedly) “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but also a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter.
The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the same pitch-up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone also seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and the plane had a stick pusher to keep the pilot from going there.
The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German service was due to training and operational issues. They would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead.
So, I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just saying it's ironic how many think the F-104G should have been cancelled for that reason. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. It was obsolete on its first flight.
9
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@sergarlantyrell7847 I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but it also had a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter.
The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it for the 104 instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the very same pitch up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and if a pilot was dumb enough to go there the plane had a stick pusher to keep him out of it.
The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German hands was due to training and operational issues. The Germans would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead.
So I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just surprised that everyone thinks the F-104G should have been cancelled. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. Obsolete on its first flight.
1
-
@sergarlantyrell7847 I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as (supposedly) “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but also a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter.
The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the same pitch-up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone also seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and the plane had a stick pusher to keep the pilot from going there.
The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German service was due to training and operational issues. They would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead.
So, I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just saying it's ironic how many think the F-104G should have been cancelled for that reason. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. It was obsolete on its first flight.
1
-
@sergarlantyrell7847
I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as (supposedly) “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but also a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter.
The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the same pitch-up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone also seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and the plane had a stick pusher to keep the pilot from going there.
The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German service was due to training and operational issues. They would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead.
So, I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just saying it's ironic how many think the F-104G should have been cancelled for that reason. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. It was obsolete on its first flight.
1
-
@sergarlantyrell7847
I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as (supposedly) “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but also a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter.
The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the same pitch-up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone also seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and the plane had a stick pusher to keep the pilot from going there.
The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German service was due to training and operational issues. They would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead.
So, I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just saying it's ironic how many think the F-104G should have been cancelled for that reason. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. It was obsolete on its first flight.
1
-
YouTube won't let me reply to @sergarlantyrell7847 again. I have tried four times. So, let's see if I can sneak it in as a reply to myself, but it is really a response to @sergarlantyrell7847.
@sergarlantyrell7847. I’m suggesting the TSR 2 would have been just as (supposedly) “tricky” to fly, if not more so. It not only had high wing loading (which in itself is not everything), but also a highly swept delta wing, which places the airplane deep into the backside of the power curve during approach and landing. I’m not the one who thinks this is “a problem” ; It’s a feature of the airplane configuration that the pilots of jets like the F-106 also coped with, even though it made them less forgiving than the F-104 on approach. I get a kick out of people who think the takeoff and landing speeds of the first Mach 2 fighter were too extreme, but they have no idea of the landing speeds of contemporaries such as the F-101 and F-106, or the Concorde airliner for that matter.
The wing of the F-104 was not problematic. It was a straight wing, and they had well-known characteristics. Lockheed chose it instead of a delta because of its superior lift properties at subsonic speed, while still providing low drag at Mach 2 due to its span and thickness. The pitch-up characteristic was not due to the wing, but to the tail, and it was not unique to the F-104. The F-101 had the same pitch-up characteristic even though it had a completely different wing planform. (Heck, everyone also seems to think the F-100 “Sabre Dance” was a pitch-up due swept wings stalling from the tip first.) The pitch-up occurred well outside the useful flight envelope of the F-104, and the plane had a stick pusher to keep the pilot from going there.
The F-104 did not have particularly dangerous flight characteristics in comparison to its contemporaries. It was obviously a poor glider, and its early accident rate was due to engine problems. Its accident rate in German service was due to training and operational issues. They would have crashed just as many F-105s if they had bought that airplane instead.
So, I’m not suggesting the TSR-2 should have been canceled due to its flight characteristics, I’m just saying it's ironic how many think the F-104G should have been cancelled for that reason. The TSR2 was properly cancelled because it was too expensive and behind its contemporaries in development. It was obsolete on its first flight.
1
-
1