Talk:Lockheed F-94 Starfire

Supersonic?
Could this exceed Mach 1 in a dive if burner was used?

~ ~ Paul Murphy ~ ~


 * According to the F-94B "dash one" (the pilot's Flight Manual, dated 1 May 1951), the 'B model had a "limit of .80 Mach number or 505 knots IAS, whichever is less." Like so many other contemporary designs, the airframe physically could exceed Mach 1, but was limited to a lower speed (in this case, the manual goes on to explain, severe controllability issues along with extreme structural stresses would be encountered above the limiting speed).  The F-94C (information from its "dash one," dated 1 February 1957) had only a limit indicated airspeed of 550 knots, without a limiting Mach number.  The manual states, "This airplane is capable of supersonic speeds in dives at the higher altitudes."  Some of the same controllability issues existed but were addressed as acceptable (it advises, even, that these flight regimes should be investigated by the flight crews), with each issue addressed in turn as certain speed ranges were transitioned through (control surface "buzz," "spoiler jump," "rudder shift," "roll-off," etc.).  Structural distress up to the higher limit airspeed of 550 KIAS was no longer an issue.192.100.70.210 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Tony LeVier mentions in his autobiography, "Pilot", in some detail (Chapter 15), that the F-94C could go supersonic. Hard to believe but I figure that he was there and I wasn't. I met him once at a lecture he gave at NASM and he did not sound like the type to tell "fish stories" in public. --Phyllis1753 (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks,

If anyone is interested in adding to the article, the F-94 was known by its pilots and ground crews as the aircraft "with a TV and overdrive."

Jackehammond (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Jack E. Hammond Indiana, USA

.

Armament on F-94
Folks,

The entry indicates that the F-94C had both .50 caliber machine guns and the 2.75 inch rockets. Is there anyway to change that so to avoid confusion?

Jackehammond (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
 * The C version had no gun armament, relying solely on 24 2.75-in. Folding Fin Air Rockets (FFARs) in the nose and 24 FFARs in two wing pods. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bzuk,

Yes, that is what I know. But I don't want to change the article, as it is so easy to step on some toes or the rules it seems. Also, a tidbit if anyone wishes to change the article. The F-94C 70mm rocket launcher was the most accurate of all the fighters fitted with the Might Mouse rockets in the 1950s. The reason being the tubes were closed at the rear end (ie they had to make the launch tubes heavier as result) and the launch speed was about double of the other USAF and USN fighters fitted with 70mm tubes open at both ends -- eg the F-86D. If need I can give the reference to a 1970s issue of "Aviation & Marine" an Italian publication also printed in English and sold world wide which was absorbed by the firm that became Jane's.

Also, I think I will drag out that issue of A&M. The F-94 was a crash development due to the failure of the XF-87. Lockheed told the USAF that they could have a night fighter version of the T-33A flying in 12 months.

Again, thank you for your reply.

Jackehammond (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Jack E. Hammond

.

My revision to the History and Development of the YF-94A
Folks,

I hope I did not mess anything up. I spent a couple of hours and found that 1970s publication with the big article on the F-94 Starfighter and the information that it was developed due to the failure of the Curtiss-Wright XF-87 and the problem with the afterburner. Jackehammond (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

.

The F-94D Starfire - a common error
Folks,

There is a statement that one prototype of the F-94D was built which was a purposed single seat version of the F-94C for the long range escort fighter and close support role. This had been repeated in many articles. And it is true that the USAF ordered 112 examples of the F-94D. But it never went beyond the paper stage according to all the sources I checked. But it is a legit error since many publications repeated it many times over.

Jackehammond (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Aircraft 51-13604 was almost complete to serve as the prototype YF-94D when the USAF cancelled the entire F-94D program on October 15, 1951 - depends on what you consider almost built but certainly appears to be more than a paper excercise. Do you have a reliable reference that 51-13604 was not built as most refs appear to repeat the started but not completed story ?  Most of the images of the YF-94D are actually one of the two aerodynamic test aircraft (F-94Bs 51-5500 and 51-5501 with new noses). MilborneOne (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * MilborneOne, thanks for the research. Your reference, definitely trumps my reference.  At last what actually occurred is now known due to WP.  And on top of that, that reference was one interesting read.  Probably it was canceled when the USAF adopted the British Canberra twin engine light bomber.--Jackehammond (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

.

External link to drawings
If the drawings in the external links are from a USAF manual then they are in the public domain and could be uploaded to commons as public domain. MilborneOne (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Milborne, I agree that they could be legally uploaded to commons. But the last time I uploaded a photo to WP, I was so confused and worried, etc.  I mean it is really a pain.  I have tried to be a good WP volunteer, but I wish that idiot in Tennessee had not caused such a problem and p*ssed in WPs rice bowl. --Jackehammond (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

.

SAGE and the F-94C
While talking about the F-94C, this article states: "This version of the aircraft was extensively used within the Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) air defense system." Really? What's the reference for this? It doesn't seem likely as the F-94C left the active duty Air Force inventory in Feb 1959 (and ANG inventory the following year) while the very first SAGE air division only became operational a month earlier in Jan 1959 (Leonard's "History of Strategic and Ballistic Missile Defense" (V. 2, p. 312). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is it?
In the same paragraph where the curious statement is made that the F-94C was "extensively used" with the SAGE system in the few months when the two were both were operational (if true, then surprising no one investigated the Air Force for wasting money equipping an aircraft with the SAGE hardware just to retire it when the SAGE system started to be deployed), is this gem: "The largest problem discovered in service was the nose-mounted rockets, which blinded the crew with their smoke and fire. The most severe problem associated with firing the nose-mounted rockets was that the exhaust could cause a flameout of the jet engine, which could lead to loss of the aircraft." Assuming "largest problem" and "most severe problem" mean roughly the same thing, it would appear there's a competition for which problem rates this "prize" amongst wiki writers (or perhaps it is just one confused teenaged contributor to this fine scholarly endeavor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.162 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Korean War Kill
Seems odd that no mention is made of the aerial victory scored by Fithian and Lyons of the 319th on the night of Jan 30, 1953. See for example: http://www.319th.com/korea.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.16 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why was it notable in some way? MilborneOne (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see, it was the first kill by an F-94 - that might be significant in an article about the F-94. Believe it is also the first night USAF kill by a jet fighter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.18 (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We dont normally mention the "first kill" when describing an aircraft that is just doing its job, unless there is something else notable about it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't do we? No problem my lord - your article still makes the incorrect claim that the F-94C was used with SAGE system even though it didn't have the datalink to do so, but to be fair, the F-86D article makes no mention of the F-86L being used with the SAGE system even though it was a specific modification (built around that datalink) of the F-86D to do so. Oh well, we can lead them to water but we can't force them to drink....

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lockheed F-94 Starfire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140607034800/http://lighthousememories.ca/winhttrack_website_copier/www.pinetreeline.org/other/neac.html to http://lighthousememories.ca/winhttrack_website_copier/www.pinetreeline.org/other/neac.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524004115/http://forgottenjets.com/F-94homepage.html to http://www.forgottenjets.com/F-94homepage.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)