Fontenelle archives 89 : "Air Canada" in my Leica collection.

[Pecole]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, it is not really "Leica" collecting! but since it is related to Leitz Canada, and since I was an airman, I decided to include them both in the Fontenelle collection.

The first is a Leitz Canada N-9 camera gun, coming from a former Belgian Air Force Lockheed F-104G. If you compare the photo with others published elsewhere (Dennis Laney...), you'll notice the two heavy, armoured holding/securing plates on the top and the bottom, the slightly different connecting plug and the two filters.

The second is the bulky,hand-held aerial camera Maurer KS-28B featuring a Leitz Elcan 6inches F/2.8 lens (in this case nº 138-0156). The camera came with its fitted high-resistance carrying case.

 

Ernst Leitz Canada N-9 16mm camera gun

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Maurer KS-28B aerial camera

 

Elcan 6 in. F/2.8 lens on the Maurer KS28B

[sabears]

Interesting, Pierre.

I've never been able to know how many of these two were done.

If you know please share with us...

[Pecole]

Interesting, Pierre.

I've never been able to know how many of these two were done.

If you know please share with us...

 

No idea either, except that I had access to N-9's technical files long time ago, and anything related to "Production records" was void and marked "Classified". As for the Maurer, the only possible guessing is based on lens serials : all I could see were beginning "138-" like mine, and the highest encountered following number was 191.

[luigi bertolotti]

The Elcan Maurer I tihink is not SO rare... time to time, you see some sparse item for sale; on the contrary, for me is the first time I see that "camera gun" for F104s (a fighter well known in Italy... when I was on my miltary duty - 1981/82 , Italian Air Force had many) ; Pierre, which kind of camera is that ? judging from the shape, at first I even thought it was a Cine camera... which foramt did it use ? And was it made for standard film ?

[sabears]

Luigi, the Leitz N-9 "armored" was the NATO gun camera of the Cold War mainly for use on F104-G in Europe, some in Canada, a little number were for Luftwaffe - Germany (also on F104-G... widow-makers, Germany paid the highest price for these "experiments", you find a lot on internet about this argument).

 

N-9 uses 16mm film. Military aircraft power should be 28 VDC, It does have a variable shutter Frame Rate 16, 32, or 64 fps.

I guess something like few hundreds were made (may be 200 or so) but I don't have a precise number, so I've asked to Pierre.

 

cheers.

[Pecole]

Luigi, the Leitz N-9 "armored" was the NATO gun camera of the Cold War mainly for use on F104-G in Europe, some in Canada, a little number were for Luftwaffe - Germany (also on F104-G... widow-makers, Germany paid the highest price for these "experiments", you find a lot on internet about this argument).

 

N-9 uses 16mm film. Military aircraft power should be 28 VDC, It does have a variable shutter Frame Rate 16, 32, or 64 fps.

I guess something like few hundreds were made (may be 200 or so) but I don't have a precise number, so I've asked to Pierre.

 

cheers.

 

Just a remark by a former pilot, sabears : if German pilots had a very high rate of accidents with the "widow maker", it had nothing to do with "experiments" or even the aircraft. Other Air Forces had a perfectly normal attrition rate with the 104, but the brand new Luftwaffe (at the time...) let relatively unexperienced pilots fly on a highly sophisticated aircraft. If I remember good, the average German F-104 pilot had logged 300 to 500 flying hours, against an average 1,500 for othet NATO pilots.

Now, about the number of N-9 cameras produced, and since all F-104Gs were equiped, it must have been higher tan 200.

[sabears]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you, Pierre, interesting remarks, if of interest I can add some informations.

I was referring to "experiments" even because Luftwaffe F104 were modified from the one in use in other places, making them a lot more dangerous.

There are different explanations.

One refers to the fact that the F-104 Starfighter was conceived as a high-altitude interceptor and was not used for very long by the US military. It was sold to Germany as a low-altitude ground-attack aircraft. Also, it was heavily modified to include the ability to drop nuclear bombs (which would have been handed over to the Luftwaffe by the Americans in the event of a nuclear war with the Warsaw Pact).

See this interesting article from u.s TIME magazine (year 1975): AVIATION: The Widow-Maker - TIME

As a result of its heavy modifications and misuse, 292 aircraft were destroyed and 116 pilots lost their lives between 1961 and 1986.

One running joke at the time was that if you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would have a Starfighter crash onto it.

The press left many people with the impression that there was something intrinsically wrong with the F-104G, that it was just too difficult an airplane to fly for the new and, as you say, relatively inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots.

The high loss rate generated a flurry of criticism of the Bonn government, some critics claiming that the entire Starfighter program had been politically-motivated and should be cancelled outright."

 

Here another interesting explanation: Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

…Operating in poor North West European weather conditions (vastly unlike the fair weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying at high speed and low level over hilly terrain, a great many accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain or water, (CFIT). Luftwaffe losses totaled 110 pilots.[39]

Many Canadian losses were attributed to the same cause as both air forces were primarily operating over West Germany. An additional factor was that the aircraft were parked outside in adverse weather conditions (snow, rain, etc.) where the moisture affected the delicate avionic systems. It was further noted that the Lockheed C-2 ejection seat was no guarantee of a safe escape and the Luftwaffe retro-fitted the much more capable Martin Baker GQ-7A seat from 1967, and many operators followed suit…

 

Regarding the Leitz N-9 seems that not all F104G had it, only very very few F104G were so modified in order to carry cameras, the camera instead was used on all RF104Gs variant (R= reconnaissance G=Germany but they were used even in Belgium, Italy and Netherlands).

About these I have different sources regarding production: the highest say 194 were produced, others 189 ( ex. here: Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-104 Starfighter ), lowest source says 149.

There should be usually Maurer KS-67A and Leitz N-9 cameras mounted in the forward fuselage in place of M61A1 Vulcan cannon.

Considering this and the fact that it appears that the N-9 were used only on this plane we can imagine that not an high n. of Leitz N-9 camera were done, a precise n. seems not possible because, as you have correctly told, "... anything related to "Production records" was void and marked "Classified"..."

[Pecole]

Thank you, Pierre, interesting remarks, if of interest I can add some informations.

I was referring to "experiments" even because Luftwaffe F104 were modified from the one in use in other places, making them a lot more dangerous.

There are different explanations.

One refers to the fact that the F-104 Starfighter was conceived as a high-altitude interceptor and was not used for very long by the US military. It was sold to Germany as a low-altitude ground-attack aircraft. Also, it was heavily modified to include the ability to drop nuclear bombs (which would have been handed over to the Luftwaffe by the Americans in the event of a nuclear war with the Warsaw Pact).

See this interesting article from u.s TIME magazine (year 1975): AVIATION: The Widow-Maker - TIME

As a result of its heavy modifications and misuse, 292 aircraft were destroyed and 116 pilots lost their lives between 1961 and 1986.

One running joke at the time was that if you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would have a Starfighter crash onto it.

The press left many people with the impression that there was something intrinsically wrong with the F-104G, that it was just too difficult an airplane to fly for the new and, as you say, relatively inexperienced Luftwaffe pilots.

The high loss rate generated a flurry of criticism of the Bonn government, some critics claiming that the entire Starfighter program had been politically-motivated and should be cancelled outright."

 

Here another interesting explanation: Lockheed F-104 Starfighter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

…Operating in poor North West European weather conditions (vastly unlike the fair weather training conditions at Luke AFB in Arizona) and flying at high speed and low level over hilly terrain, a great many accidents were attributed to controlled flight into terrain or water, (CFIT). Luftwaffe losses totaled 110 pilots.[39]

Many Canadian losses were attributed to the same cause as both air forces were primarily operating over West Germany. An additional factor was that the aircraft were parked outside in adverse weather conditions (snow, rain, etc.) where the moisture affected the delicate avionic systems. It was further noted that the Lockheed C-2 ejection seat was no guarantee of a safe escape and the Luftwaffe retro-fitted the much more capable Martin Baker GQ-7A seat from 1967, and many operators followed suit…

 

Regarding the Leitz N-9 seems that not all F104G had it, only very very few F104G were so modified in order to carry cameras, the camera instead was used on all RF104Gs variant (R= reconnaissance G=Germany but they were used even in Belgium, Italy and Netherlands).

About these I have different sources regarding production: the highest say 194 were produced, others 189 ( ex. here: Aerospaceweb.org | Aircraft Museum - F-104 Starfighter ), lowest source says 149.

There should be usually Maurer KS-67A and Leitz N-9 cameras mounted in the forward fuselage in place of M61A1 Vulcan cannon.

Considering this and the fact that it appears that the N-9 were used only on this plane we can imagine that not an high n. of Leitz N-9 camera were done, a precise n. seems not possible because, as you have correctly told, "... anything related to "Production records" was void and marked "Classified"..."

 

Most interesting, thanks a lot! Just a point : when there is question of a camera pod replacing the cannon on recce aircraft, it has nothing to do with the N-9, which is a camera intended - and only so - to be connected to a cannon to register results of the shooting. I remember having seen "recce pods" with various cameras, but mostly Fairchild ones (never the Maurer KS-28B which is a hand-held camera).

[pico]

I worked at RAF Upper Heyford and whenever a Luftwaffe Star Fighter was to land, all flightline emergency facilities lined the flightline. (None crashed)

 

It was an amusing sight - American or RAF people rushed to the craft with a boarding ladder, but before they got to the aircraft, the German pilot had crawled from the cockpit, hung down by hand and dropped safely to the ground. I remember one removed his helmet and shoulder length blond fell out. Wow, talk about macho.

 

I heard but cannot confirm that one cause of the frequent crashes was caused when the pilot had to reach behind his seat, moving his head and thus disorientation.

[Pecole]

I worked at RAF Upper Heyford and whenever a Luftwaffe Star Fighter was to land, all flightline emergency facilities lined the flightline. (None crashed)

 

It was an amusing sight - American or RAF people rushed to the craft with a boarding ladder, but before they got to the aircraft, the German pilot had crawled from the cockpit, hung down by hand and dropped safely to the ground. I remember one removed his helmet and shoulder length blond fell out. Wow, talk about macho.

 

I heard but cannot confirm that one cause of the frequent crashes was caused when the pilot had to reach behind his seat, moving his head and thus disorientation.

 

As for the last sentence : absolutely untrue! There was nothing to reach "behind the seat" in the 104. What is true is that some accidents (at the Belgian Air Force and elsewhere) were caused in no-visibility conditions by inertial platform's malfunction. Further, I've never heard that disorientation came from a pilot "moving his head"! No-pilots should abstain from such comments!

[Ronan]

As for the last sentence : absolutely untrue! There was nothing to reach "behind the seat" in the 104. What is true is that some accidents (at the Belgian Air Force and elsewhere) were caused in no-visibility conditions by inertial platform's malfunction. Further, I've never heard that disorientation came from a pilot "moving his head"! No-pilots should abstain from such comments!

 

I believe they had a place/hook/strap for their canteen/provision back there.

[Pecole]

I believe they had a place/hook/strap for their canteen/provision back there.

 

Officially, no! but there was some space on the left side for a mini-bottle of schnaps:D

[Ronan]

Officially, no! but there was some space on the left side for a mini-bottle of schnaps:D

 

Of course not officially Soldiers tend to do this on their own, to find comfort, etc