tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6618880.post7408389947592455369..comments2024-03-27T00:26:31.343-07:00Comments on The Commercial Space Blog: Part 7: 150 Years of Canadian Aerospace HistoryChuck Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09506476753520146858noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6618880.post-87391494523593867882017-05-02T15:37:21.774-07:002017-05-02T15:37:21.774-07:00(A few comments on Rob Godwin's latest (part 7...(A few comments on Rob Godwin's latest (part 7)...<br /><br />First, a small factual error: it was the McDonnell Voodoo, not the Douglas Voodoo. (The two companies merged about a decade later.)<br /><br />Second, much is made of the F-104's dismal safety record, but that was largely a problem with one F-104 operator, the Luftwaffe. Several other European air forces, e.g. the Norwegians, operated the F-104 with much better safety records. And the Luftwaffe's other fast jets also had unusually high crash rates. The single biggest improvement in Luftwaffe F-104 safety came not from changes in equipment, but from a concerted effort to train maintenance crews better. The F-104 certainly was a "hot", complex, unforgiving aircraft, but the terrible Luftwaffe F-104 crash rate was much more a Luftwaffe problem than an F-104 problem.<br /><br />And in fairness, the Voodoos didn't have to be "unarmed" without nuclear warheads -- they could carry non-nuclear air-to-air weapons too. Less effective, perhaps, but the option was there. Bomarc was the defensive system that really needed a nuclear warhead (even it theoretically had an alternative conventional warhead, but nobody took that seriously).<br /><br />Henry SpencerHenry Spencerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Spencernoreply@blogger.com