# F-104 Starfighter.....



## Lucky13 (Aug 7, 2008)

Is it the most beautifully designed jet fighter/interceptor in aviation history? I certainly think so...8)


----------



## JugBR (Aug 7, 2008)

*Is it the most beautifully designed jet fighter/interceptor in aviation history? I certainly think so...*

so theres 2 of us !!!

the american fighters are really pretty machines, but the f-104 is the greatest design ever made !

such beutifull lines !

a video that i had posted before, but worth to post again :


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6qMTrqGMNI_

nice trip !


----------



## Graeme (Aug 7, 2008)

The projected CL-1200-2 development was even more impressive...





At one point it was even considered a Mirage replacement for the RAAF.

This is a technical summation of the Lancer from a magazine (Aircraft - December 1971) article discussing the possible Mirage replacement choices... 








Lockheed CL-1200 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 7, 2008)

Best looking jet fighter? Not in my opinion. I just love the F-14.

Best looking interceptor? Yeah, I gotta give you that. I just guessing but with those stubby little wings it couldn't have been much of a dogfighter. Am I wrong?

Nothing like having a big jet engine with a seat strapped to it.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 7, 2008)

This always caught my eye.

"A loop with maximum dry power was started from 500 knots IAS and required about 10,000ft of airspace" - Military Jets/Design and Development - Robert Jackson


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 7, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Best looking jet fighter? Not in my opinion. I just love the F-14.
> 
> Best looking interceptor? Yeah, I gotta give you that. I just guessing but with those stubby little wings it couldn't have been much of a dogfighter. Am I wrong?
> 
> Nothing like having a big jet engine with a seat strapped to it.



No, it was not much of a dogfighter; but, then again, it wasn't designed to be, either. F-104 pilots were taught "energy tactics"; keep your speed up, and make fast passes at the enemy. DO NOT slow down and get into a furball with the enemy, he will most likely be able to turn well inside of your minimum turn radius. Maintain speed and altitude, attack the enemy with missles and/or guns, then zoom away again for another attack. When it was in it's element, and flown properly, nothing could touch it until the advent of the "teen" fighters (F-14, F-15, F-16, etc.).


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 7, 2008)

Good info SodStitch. Thanks


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> Best looking jet fighter? Not in my opinion. I just love the F-14.
> 
> Best looking interceptor? Yeah, I gotta give you that. I just guessing but with those stubby little wings it couldn't have been much of a dogfighter. Am I wrong?
> 
> Nothing like having a big jet engine with a seat strapped to it.



You do realize the F-14 was an interceptor right?


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 7, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You do realize the F-14 was an interceptor right?


An interceptor? I've always thought of it as fighter.... Find it difficult do compare the F-104 to F-14 design and style wise, though the F-14 IS a beautiful bird, especially in the colorful era of the 70's and 80's...!8)


----------



## JugBR (Aug 7, 2008)

f-104 is more beautifull than f-14 or any other fighter, interceptor, bomber, spaceship... whatever... f-104 is the best design ever made.

in second on my rank i put the mirage III

3° f-4 phanton
4° mig 25 foxbat
5° f-14 tomcat
6° f-106 delta dart
7° mig 21
8° f-100 super sabre
9° mig 23 flogger
10° tornado

anyway, starfighter, the best of the best designs. i also like that "chromed" looking of ancient usaf jets. its very pretty, like a silver bullet.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You do realize the F-14 was an interceptor right?



No sir, I was not aware of that. I assumed (yes, I know what an assumption will do to you) that role was for the F-15. Besides, I never claimed to be an expert at jets!  Heck, I'm not even an expert at WWII planes. That's why I love this site. If you don't know, someone will tell you.............


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 8, 2008)

Its a winner! I saw a couple starfighters at the Reno Airshow.
I suspect it did not glide very well...


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2008)

Probably just as well as a brick....


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2008)

Or a pencil.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2008)

The F-8 Crusader is my #2 on my list...


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 8, 2008)

I like the Crusader too, but I never understood why they had the whole wing section come up to act as a speed brake. It seems they could have picked a better way to slow the plane down.

Was it effective?

I'm guessing there may have been problems or it didn't work as well as planned since there isn't any other plane (that I know of) that uses this method to slow down.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 8, 2008)

it is a cool jet but it did have proplems with the controls i think


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 8, 2008)

Crusader, heck yeah. Now we are talking.

And JugBR, certainly NOT the MiG-25. May have been an engineering marvel, but beautiful it is not. At least in my eyes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 8, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> No sir, I was not aware of that. I assumed (yes, I know what an assumption will do to you) that role was for the F-15. Besides, I never claimed to be an expert at jets!  Heck, I'm not even an expert at WWII planes. That's why I love this site. If you don't know, someone will tell you.............



The F-14 was a fleet interceptor. Its purpose was to go up and intercept (usually with the Pheonix missile) bombers and other aircraft attacking the fleet.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 8, 2008)




----------



## DBII (Aug 8, 2008)

F-104 has my vote. Pictures do not do it justice, one has to see it in the air. I was lucky enough to see one flying back in the 80's. It belong to a collector that lived in the Houston area. He kept it at IAH for several months. I saw it one and never saw it again.

An LTC attached to my old unit was a F-104 driver. He told me they trained to fly at max speed toward a bomber formation and launch missles. If they made it through the first pass, they would roll off the top and try to catch the formation for a second pass. 

DBII


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 8, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> I like the Crusader too, but I never understood why they had the whole wing section come up to act as a speed brake. It seems they could have picked a better way to slow the plane down.
> 
> Was it effective?
> 
> I'm guessing there may have been problems or it didn't work as well as planned since there isn't any other plane (that I know of) that uses this method to slow down.



Actually, the original reason for the "tilting" wing wasn't so that it would act as speed brake, but that it would increase the incidence of the wing when landing on carriers, thereby increasing the AoA and decreasing the landing speed. It also allowed the pilot a better view over the nose when landing, as the fuselage would be closer to level during the final approach.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 8, 2008)

And with respect to the F-8, you gotta love these...

""Safety" Record - a point of perverse pride. Overall accident rate of 46.70 per 100,000 hrs. (For comparison: A-4: 23.36; F-4: 20.17; F-14: 9.32). Many reasons probable, none of which include pilot inadequacy. The VIW wing (or something) made it a strange beast on final; 140 kts+/- approach speeds to a 27C; gremlins; "tiger" attitude, to close for the kill on anything, anyplace, any time, with any weapon available, apparently including the airplane. In an article in the August 2000 issue of Flight Journal, Paul Gilcrist points out that "the 
accident statistics of the Crusader in the Fleet was atrocious . . . the Navy bought 1266 Crusaders during those years and at the same time, experienced 1106 major Crusader accidents. In other words, some intrepid aviator or 
other crashed virtually every Crusader ever built!"

and...

"First ( only?) to execute 4 point slow roll on take off not get his wings jerked forthwith: 7 May 1958 in F8U-1 BuNo 143814. (Awarded poison oak leaf cluster for displaying extreme stupidity in the face of serious personal peril to wit, ignoring commonly know fact that maneuver would obviously be in full view of black shoe atsugi base skipper who, when he wasn't gleefully reaming perfectly innocent brown shoe folk, spent the balance of his time feet on desk sucking on pipe staring out of office window - I thought he was asleep.)"

and this beauty...

"Most Unique Ground Attack - During the 64 cruise on ranger I was a unarmed photo type with VFP-63. I was launched about 2 am in the dark night with 4 A-4s and a tanker to do photo bomb damage on a truck farm in the middle of the jungle.

The A-4s spent an hour dropping flares looking for the truck farm- while me and the tanker orbited at 20m.. I kept topping off and when the A-4s gave up and left, I had a full load of fuel and 40 million half candle power photo flash flares with 8 sec delay, that I could not bring back to the ship.

We were near route one on the west side of Nam and with a full moon the road stood out like the yellow brick road.. We knew there was a VC protected inter section just to the south. So I said goodbye to the tanker and let down to tree top level straight down the road doing about
mach 1.1... As I approached the inter section I salvoed the whole 40 flares and pulled straight up and got the hell out of there..

To this day I bet there are some VC who are still going around blinking their eyes. It was my only shot in anger !!!. Chuck Anderson"

and last but not least...

"World's Altitude Record for Launching A Paper Airplane -Test vehicle placed in speed brake well, s.b. pumped shut before start. Boards opened at 50,125 feet indicated; 11 August 1966, F-8D BuNo 147069, between Eglin AFB Cecil. 

Cleanest Bomb Attack On Soviet Vessel - Med, about May 1967. 13 rolls toilet paper (unused) loaded into speed brake well (I liked that speed brake). Hard right off cat, gear up, opened boards over trawler maneuvering to force carrier to turn. No medal, but no hack either. "

courtesy of Welcome to Cloudnet!


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Aug 8, 2008)

You could probably compare the F-104 to the 1968 Hemi Road Runner. If it didn't make go fast, it did not have it.8)


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 9, 2008)

Aaron Brooks Wolters said:


> If it didn't make go fast, it did not have it.8)



 

Sorry Aaron, can you elaborate?


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 9, 2008)

No he can't. He's used up his vowels.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 9, 2008)




----------



## Matt308 (Aug 9, 2008)

Sorry, Jug, I like her too, but for different reasons. She's a flying tank.


----------



## Kruska (Aug 13, 2008)

F-104?

Sure has my definite vote.





















Regards
Kruska


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 8, 2009)

All that is very nice but, might I remember the catastrophical losses of the F-104 in accidents.





> The Luftwaffe was the primary user of the Starfighter, operating over thirty-five percent of all F-104s built. Luftwaffe F-104Gs came from all five production lines of the Starfighter consortium. The West German Luftwaffe received a total of 915 Starfighters (30 F-104Fs, 96 F-104Gs, and 136 TF-104Gs from Lockheed, 255 F/RF-104Gs from the North Group, 210 F-104Gs from the South Group, 88 F-104Gs from the West Group, 50 F/RF-104Gs from the Italian Group, plus 50 replacement F-104Gs from MBB to replace some of those lost in crashes).
> 
> At their peak in the mid-1970s, Starfighters equipped five nuclear-armed Luftwaffe fighter-bomber wings, two interceptor wings, and two reconnaissance wings. In addition, two attack wings of the Marineflieger (Federal German Navy) were equipped with Starfighters
> 
> ...



Starfighter with Luftwaffe


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 8, 2009)

The Starfighter was a pretty machine, but for most aesthetically pleasing interceptor, I have to go with the EE Lightning. You might say of the Starfighter "If it didn't make it go fast, it didn't have it", but I say of the Lightning "If it didn't kill Soviet bombers, it didn't have it". The whole thing was just a very large and powerful system for flinging missiles at bombers. There is nothing in that design that serves any other purpose... 8)


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 8, 2009)

The losses of the RCAF were due to the type of flying originally they were nuclear strike aircraft and flying lo level at 600 knots while navigating is a tough job, on a side note originally the LW had a very poor maintainence program and after changing to a better program their losses dropped dramatically


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 8, 2009)

Eh...wasnt only german and canadian models. There were 19 fatalities of US test pilots during its development program, and that was the F-104A, a simple good weather interceptor, not the packed multi-role F-104G. ( multirole in Lockheed minds, it wasnt suited for the task)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 8, 2009)

Pakistan took the F-104 into combat and I believe they lost 2, one non-combat. Spain operated the -104 and never lost one. NATO with the exception of Greece and Turkey had a loss rate of 1.81, if you factor in Greece and Turkey it rises to 2.14 - Now how about Japan? Their attrition rate average .068 through out their 20 operational history!!!

Compare these numbers with other aircraft. I think NATO operators of F-100s had over a 4% attrition rate.


----------



## Sweb (Apr 9, 2009)

How do you distinguish a 104 crew chief from all others? He's the one with scars on his forehead. Truth or urban legend, the wing leading edges of the 104 were near knife-edged. The 104 was fast and that was it's prime design spec. Jacquelyn Cochran held the world's speed record for a while in the 104. It didn't have any range. Basically it was an engine with flying surfaces and cockpit attached and little else. One shot at the target and it was back down for refueling. Of that period I preferred the F-105D over all other designs. I think the Double-Ugly was the culmination of all the things that went right with the Century Series up through the F-106.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2009)

Sweb said:


> How do you distinguish a 104 crew chief from all others? He's the one with scars on his forehead. Truth or urban legend, the wing leading edges of the 104 were near knife-edged. The 104 was fast and that was it's prime design spec. Jacquelyn Cochran held the world's speed record for a while in the 104. It didn't have any range. Basically it was an engine with flying surfaces and cockpit attached and little else. One shot at the target and it was back down for refueling.



I actually worked on civilian owned 104s and I found the leading edges weren't as sharp as advertised.

The aircraft's fall backs were a product of the design spec. Kelly Johnson gave the USAF what it wanted at the time.


----------



## Butters (Apr 9, 2009)

During the mid-70's, you could stand within 50-70 ft of the runway at CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia. Nothing could match the experience of watching a Zipper howling by right down on the deck and arcing into a zoom climb. The roar of that mighty J-79 would still be echoing in your ears as the 104 magically disappeared from sight in the clear blue sky. AWESOME!!

A very good book on the F-104 in Canadian service is, 'Starfighter', by CF-104 pilot Dave Brashow. Lots of great anecdotes, information, and pictures.

Definitely one of the most beautiful jet fighters ever.

JL


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 9, 2009)

They don't get much better than the F-104 or F-8 in style! On the other hand, the F-102 and F-106 don't look halfbad either!


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 9, 2009)

The F-104 seems like the plane you would see in UFO movies from the 50's and 60's trying to intercept the UFO or shoot it down. I must have seen a movie or two with the F104 in it at some point growing up, because that is what it has always reminded me of.


----------



## Sweb (Apr 9, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Eh...wasnt only german and canadian models. There were *19 fatalities of US test pilots during its development program, and that was the F-104A,* a simple good weather interceptor, not the packed multi-role F-104G. ( multirole in Lockheed minds, it wasnt suited for the task)



 Damned near criminal. That's a serial killer cloaked with wings.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 9, 2009)

> Damned near criminal. That's a serial killer cloaked with wings.



I wont say that but was a dangerous airplane for sure.



> Pakistan took the F-104 into combat and I believe they lost 2, one non-combat. Spain operated the -104 and never lost one. NATO with the exception of Greece and Turkey had a loss rate of 1.81, if you factor in Greece and Turkey it rises to 2.14 - Now how about Japan? Their attrition rate average .068 through out their 20 operational history!!!



Well, Spain used only a reduced quantity ( I think 18 ) for a short time.
Probably the high atrition rate in the german Luftwaffe was caused by asking the aircraft/pilots to do task for who they were not properly designed/trained. However there is no doubt in my mind the the F-104 was quite unforgiving.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2009)

here something to read posts 35 37 to see what could be done with a 104
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/mo...chnology-mismanagement-8620-3.html#post260523


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 9, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Well, Spain used only a reduced quantity ( I think 18 ) for a short time. Probably the high atrition rate in the german Luftwaffe was caused by asking the aircraft/pilots to do task for who they were not properly designed/trained. However there is no doubt in my mind the the F-104 was quite unforgiving.


Correct on all counts.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 9, 2009)

Maybe someone can tell me about the landing characteristics of the F104? The reason I ask is, back in the mid sixties, I was at Prestwick airport, Scotland, when there was still a (then) Royal Canadian Air Force prescence, including Starfighters. One of my vivid memories is of three or four landings, by different F104's, when the engine noise can only be described as very, very similar to someone tuning an old radio receiver! The whistle went up and down the scale and, even though at the time I was fairly young, about 14, I was 'switched on' enough to realise that there was no wind-shear or strong winds to contend with on approach. I'm assuming the pilot was jockeying the throttle to maintain attitude/approach configuration, or would it have been a peculiarity of the aircraft or engine?
Years later I was able to see and hear West German Luftwaffe F104's on approach and landing, and didn't notice this sound.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 10, 2009)

> Correct on all counts.



Thank I sought more detail and there were 18 single-places and two trainers with the Spanish Air Force (Ejercito del aire)



> Maybe someone can tell me about the landing characteristics of the F104? The reason I ask is, back in the mid sixties, I was at Prestwick airport, Scotland, when there was still a (then) Royal Canadian Air Force prescence, including Starfighters. One of my vivid memories is of three or four landings, by different F104's, when the engine noise can only be described as very, very similar to someone tuning an old radio receiver! The whistle went up and down the scale and, even though at the time I was fairly young, about 14, I was 'switched on' enough to realise that there was no wind-shear or strong winds to contend with on approach. I'm assuming the pilot was jockeying the throttle to maintain attitude/approach configuration, or would it have been a peculiarity of the aircraft or engine?



Interesting history Airframes, no idea precisely wich was the name of the "procedure".


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 10, 2009)

Love the airplane. But one must remember it was a pure interceptor.

And one that has a 10,000ft loop diameter. Straight lines, baby. Straight lines.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 10, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Love the airplane. But one must remember it was a pure interceptor.
> 
> And one that has a 10,000ft loop diameter. Straight lines, baby. Straight lines.


a good tactical strike aircraft.... can't hit what you can't see, ours were optimized for lo level nuke strike and recce in the European enviroment


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 10, 2009)

I guess there were many people in the early 1960s who tought " there will be no more doghfights and future combat will be dominated for missiles", in that line of thinking the F-104 had an important space, but of course that concept was wrong.

Video of Luftwaffe F-104 with ZELL. Rocketdyde rocket booster.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eo-ysAF-vw_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 10, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Interesting history Airframes, no idea precisely wich was the name of the "procedure".





Matt308 said:


> Straight lines, baby. Straight lines.


From the one that I briefly worked on that was what I was told. It landed at 170 mph. 

The varying of engine RPM as described by airframes might be because of different models. Earlier 104s had no flaps and landed a lot faster, perhaps the West german -104 were later models with flaps.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 10, 2009)

That could well be the answer Joe. I saw the West German '104G's in about 1977 I think, and their landing speed, and approach pattern, was certainly different. What I remember of the RCAF birds (F104C?) was their long, high, straight approach, at a fairly high speed, so I guess a bit of throttle jockying might be needed on occassion. Thanks Joe.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From the one that I briefly worked on that was what I was told. It landed at 170 mph.
> 
> The varying of engine RPM as described by airframes might be because of different models. Earlier 104s had no flaps and landed a lot faster, perhaps the West german -104 were later models with flaps.



The flaps on the -104 were actually "blown"; i.e: high-pressure air from the compressor section of the J-79 was diverted to bleed nozzles along the top leading edge of the flaps, thereby increasing the mass flow of air over the top of the flaps and increasing lift. This was one of the many measures required to keep the -104 at a reasonable approach speed with such a small wing. I am guessing the constant "throttle jockeying" may have had to do with maintaining a constant flow of bleed air over the top of the flaps upon landing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2009)

SoD Stitch said:


> The flaps on the -104 were actually "blown"; i.e: high-pressure air from the compressor section of the J-79 was diverted to bleed nozzles along the top leading edge of the flaps, thereby increasing the mass flow of air over the top of the flaps and increasing lift. This was one of the many measures required to keep the -104 at a reasonable approach speed with such a small wing. I am guessing the constant "throttle jockeying" may have had to do with maintaining a constant flow of bleed air over the top of the flaps upon landing.



Yep - additionally you're varying power settings to maintain airspeed thus establishing a stabilized approach - something needed on any landing but especially if you're coming over the numbers at 190!


----------



## Graeme (Apr 11, 2009)

Who was Riccioni and what exactly was the "double attack system?" 

'+'


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 11, 2009)

From the looks of the diagram, the idea of the double attack is to climb up under the enemy, take out a few a/c from below, complete the loop and attack from again from above, presumably scarpering at high speed after passing through the enemy formation for the second time. Two shots in one pass, essentially. On paper and tactically, a bloody smart idea, IMHO. It makes perfect sense when flying an aircraft that climbs like a rocket, but I'm not sure how the second phase would work out in an a/c needing 10k ft of air to complete a loop - perhaps one of our pilot members could clarify how the maneuver would actually work? 

No idea who Riccioni is/was though...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> From the looks of the diagram, the idea of the double attack is to climb up under the enemy, take out a few a/c from below, complete the loop and attack from again from above, presumably scarpering at high speed after passing through the enemy formation for the second time. Two shots in one pass, essentially. On paper and tactically, a bloody smart idea, IMHO. It makes perfect sense when flying an aircraft that climbs like a rocket, but I'm not sure how the second phase would work out in an a/c needing 10k ft of air to complete a loop - perhaps one of our pilot members could clarify how the maneuver would actually work?
> 
> No idea who Riccioni is/was though...



That page was from a training pamphlet put out possibly by Lockheed or the USAF in the early 1960's I believe. I've seen it before.

As far as Riccioni? Col. Everest Riccioni - a fighter pilot legend. He did a lot of work with Col. Boyd and helped develop the F-16.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks, I didn't know anything at all about Riccioni.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks Joe and SoD, the info re blown flaps etc now all makes sense, and I can understand what was actually happening. At that approach and landing speed, even a small deviation would require throttle input, hence the 'radio tuning' sound. Thanks again.
Terry.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as Riccioni? Col. Everest Riccioni - a fighter pilot legend. He did a lot of work with Col. Boyd and helped develop the F-16.



Thanks for that. What struck me as odd in the manoeuvre, according to the cartoon, was that the F-104s needed to cross over before returning? 



FLYBOYJ said:


> That page was from a training pamphlet put out possibly by Lockheed or the USAF in the early 1960's I believe. I've seen it before.



Yes I found them in an article on the F-104. Lockheed produced the book (around 66-67?) which was written by test pilot 'Snake' Reeves and illustrated by Pete Trevison...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Thanks for that. What struck me as odd in the manoeuvre, according to the cartoon, was that the F-104s needed to cross over before returning?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I found them in an article on the F-104. Lockheed produced the book (around 66-67?) which was written by test pilot 'Snake' Reeves and illustrated by Pete Trevison...



YEP - THAT'S IT!!! Those guys worked for Tony LeVier when he was the chief Lockheed test pilot.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 11, 2009)

Airframes said:


> Thanks Joe and SoD, the info re blown flaps etc now all makes sense, and I can understand what was actually happening. At that approach and landing speed, even a small deviation would require throttle input, hence the 'radio tuning' sound. Thanks again.
> Terry.


it would also depend if he was doing some sort of instrument approach using the throttle to maintain 2.5 degree glideslope


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 11, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> it would also depend if he was doing some sort of instrument approach using the throttle to maintain 2.5 degree glideslope


Very True! And many times, even in VFR conditions, the aircraft was flown to the ground with an ILS.


----------



## Airframes (Apr 12, 2009)

Makes it even more understandable, and I guess it was a ILS approach. Thanks again, it's answered a question that I've pondered for over 40 years!


----------



## HoHun (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Stitch,

>I am guessing the constant "throttle jockeying" may have had to do with maintaining a constant flow of bleed air over the top of the flaps upon landing.

From what I've read, the bleed air supply breaks down abruptly if you go below a certain rpm threshold, causing abrupt loss of lift and a roll to one side, so too much jockeying would be bad, too.

A friend of mine flew F-104 with the Luftwaffe, and despite the public perception of the Starfighter as widow-maker the F-104 seems to have been extremely popular both with pilots and groundcrew of the Luftwaffe.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Apr 12, 2009)

Hi Graeme,

>Who was Riccioni and what exactly was the "double attack system?"

The Double Attack System was a doctrinal break with the old "welded wing" tactical system that had been based on having one shooter and one defensive wingman, and which had been codified during the Korean War by Fredereck "Blesse" Boots in his tactical manual "No Guts, No Glory".

"No Guts, No Glory" had been written for the specific conditions of the Korean War, with low-powered jets without afterburners operating high up in the stratosphere where manoeuvrability was marginal so that it was imperative to hold a pretty tight formation at all times, and where little tactical flexiblity was possible. However, the influence of Blesse's manual was so great that "welded wing" became standard doctrine for all situations - my Luftwaffe F-104 pilot friend's tactics were completely based on an extended version of "No Guts, No Glory".

Boyd's "Aerial Attack Study" made the first steps towards developing an energy combat theory, and since the Double Attack System is attributed to Boyd's friend Riccioni in your illustration, it seems it came from the same line of thinking. Note that the high yo-yo is an energy combat tactic. (The cross-over during the turn is tactical standard procedure to avoid different turn radii for leader and wingman.)

Here is a short description of "Double Attack" from Shaw's "Fighter Combat":

"Double attack, also known by many other names, is a system by which each aircraft of a pair of fighters can support the other without remaining in the rigid structure prescribed by fighting ["welded"] wing. This doctrine permits the section to split, allowing for coordinated, sequential attacks. There is still a leader and a wingman in this method, but the relationship can change back and forth during an engagment."

(Followed by 15 pages of text and diagrams 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 12, 2009)

Nice info guys. 8) 

- Video of Luftwaffe s ZELL experimentation in Lechfeld
- description of the boundary control system :


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eo-ysAF-vw_


----------



## SoD Stitch (Apr 12, 2009)

HoHun said:


> A friend of mine flew F-104 with the Luftwaffe, and despite the public perception of the Starfighter as widow-maker the F-104 seems to have been extremely popular both with pilots and groundcrew of the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Henning (HoHun)



I haven't spoken to any F-104 pilots (I'm not THAT close to military aviation, unfortunately, just civilian aviation), but from what I've read, those pilots who knew how to utilize the F-104 preferred it to any other air-superiority fighter (except perhaps an F-15 or F-16); Colonel Don Kutyna, who has flown over 25 different aircraft types in his long career with the Air Force (including a combat tour in Vietnam in F-105's flying _My Karma_), has this to say about the F-104: "To this day, excepting the F-15 and the F-16, many of the pros would still take the 104 (particularly with the -19 engine) as a pure clean air mass visual fighting machine over any other fighter in the inventory."


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 12, 2009)

here is an interesting item on German and Canadian losses
"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239 delivered - a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest-flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of retirement, average airframe times were in the order of 6000 hours as compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe. "
I believe 6000 hours is a fairly high amount of hpours on a fighter airframe , I also never met a 104 pilot that didn't like it


----------



## Butters (Apr 12, 2009)

Here's a reference to Glen "Snake" Reaves and Tony LeVier in Bashow's "Starfighter". Two CF-104 pilots picked up Reaves and LeVier at Palmsdale in a couple of duals to bring them to the ten-year CF-104 reunion at Cold Lake in '72. The narrator is Ray Dunsdon.

"Al French and I flew two duals to Palmsdale, and brought back Snake Reaves and Tony LeVier. Tony hadn't flown a CF-104 for over seven years; Snake only flew to put on his five-minute demo. At any rate, Snake and Tony did all the flying back to Cold Lake. The formation takeoffs, etc. were terrifying, and when we arrived at Cold Lake, Tony and Al landed. I advised Snake that he was cleared to do his show. He started the display 20 feet above the end of the runway, 420 knots, 10-20 degrees nose up, and then performed an 8-point roll. I was sure we were dead, but I couldn't bail out inverted that low. He completed a perfect 8-point roll and levelled out at 420 knots, 20 feet above the runway. As the time was close to 6:00pm. most people had moved to the Mess. I pointed out its location and Snake flew by at about 20 feet. I was happily waving at friends on the front balcony when he started a series of snap rolls; about four, I think. Then for his landing, he was into stick-shaker all the way around final turn, pulled the 'chute 20 feet in the air, landed and turned off the runway in less than 1000 feet, as smooth as silk!"

I guess Snake had some confidence in the 'Aluminum Death Tube' ;o)

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 12, 2009)

Good post but its "Palmdale."


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 13, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Thanks for that. What struck me as odd in the manoeuvre, according to the cartoon, was that the F-104s needed to cross over before returning?




Graeme, the cross-over is necessary to keep your E up. Think of it as a large rolling loop that allows for the -104 to maintain high speed, maximize an altitude advantage, and roll-out with a tail (minimal deflection) chase.

At least that's the theory.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 13, 2009)

An interesting video of 1966 showing a german parliament member flying the F-104:







_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6ZzRHdch7Q_

For those who dont speak german some translation of the dialogue between the anchor and the Paliament member:

_P- "Has been a great working society" ( in relation wich the european society of construction of the F-104)

P "- I must say that I had no fear at all , nor for one minute"

I -"Do you have the impression that the Starfighter pilots are excessive workloaded? "

P- "The pilot of such a machine is, I would say, it does not make excessive demands of but only particular with takeoff and landing nevertheless so far tensely that one can say, they are demanded by in that seconds."

I- " Would you endorse the purchase of Starfighters after your current experiences and with your current knowledge again? " 

P -" I am convinced that the acquisition of the Starfighter was absolutely correct (Pk- yea, sure) and we could no made better decision even today.
We should to put all the effort in improve the Starfighters to the highest stardars.

I- " Do you think that or you think we going to continue having accidents of Starfighter in this manner in the future?

P- " The measures are partially already met or almost complete. I hope that that they will contribute to the fact we will no longer have so much Starfighter accidents._ 

This video showed 2 things, ugly and corrupt politicians you can found them everywhere.


----------



## Butters (Apr 14, 2009)

Here's a site with more of the 'Snake Sez...' cartoons. The site has gotta lot of other good '104 stuff.

916 Starfighter

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2009)

I haven't seen those in years! Thanks for posting!


----------



## HoHun (Apr 14, 2009)

Hi Matt,

>Graeme, the cross-over is necessary to keep your E up. Think of it as a large rolling loop that allows for the -104 to maintain high speed, maximize an altitude advantage, and roll-out with a tail (minimal deflection) chase.

Oh, so I probably misunderstood Graeme's question - my reply answered the question why the two F-104s' flight paths crossed, while Graeme probably asked for the crossing with the bandits' flight path, which you answered 

One addition though: Due to the characteristics of the contemporary gunsights, Boyd in his "Aerial Attack Study" advises not to let the aircraft slide into a minimal deflection tailchase, as the resulting low-and-decreasing Gs would cause the gunsight pipper to float away from the proper aimpoint and react erratically to the slightest disturbance.

Instead, a slight crossing attack with some constant (or increasing) Gs was recommended as this would stabilize the pipper and give a true aimpoint.

Against bombers, Boyd actually advises to use a technique of decreased deflection, setting up the gunsight for a speed markedly less than that of the intercepted bomber, and aiming at a "virtual" target flying at a lower speed than the real target. Properly done, this would result in the fighter's fire running along the full length of the bomber's fuselage before the additional speed that can be kept in such a "semi-tracking" attack would be used to break away and set up another attack.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Butters (Apr 14, 2009)

Yeah, they're great aren't they I'd only seen 4 or 5 of them before I stumbled on to this site.

Here's a site with a nice study guide on the specs, systems, and flying qualities/procedures of the Zipper.

Lockheed F-104

BTW, I don't know where the extra 's' in 'Palmdale' came from. 

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2009)

Butters said:


> BTW, I don't know where the extra 's' in 'Palmdale' came from.
> 
> JL



No worries, the only thing the place is good for is building cool airplanes.

Palmdale, California (CA) SperlingView: "WORST place in UNITED STATES..Hands down" by Jerry


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No worries, the only thing the place is good for is building cool airplanes.
> 
> Palmdale, California (CA) SperlingView: "WORST place in UNITED STATES..Hands down" by Jerry




And when the San Andreas fault slips, this place is going to be wiped out. 

Which to some people, it might not be a bad thing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 14, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> And when the San Andreas fault slips, this place is going to be wiped out.


Or beach front property


syscom3 said:


> Which to some people, it might not be a bad thing.


Yep!


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 14, 2009)

The San Andreas Fault goes right through the middle (and look how a resivour "Lake Palmdale" is built right on top of it). Palmdale is just to the right, a couple of miles away.

Since this city is built on old alluvial plains and unconsolidated sediments, if the quake happens in the late afternoon in the summer ..... there will be a new meaning for "shake and bake".

Not to mention Highways 14 and 58 will be shutdown due to damage/destruction, so this city will be on its own.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Oh, so I probably misunderstood Graeme's question - my reply answered the question why the two F-104s' flight paths crossed, while Graeme probably asked for the crossing with the bandits' flight path, which you answered
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...



I didn't even notice that!!! Good catch. Now I don't know what Graeme was asking.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 14, 2009)

Oh and here is your sound, Airframes. Pretty cool indeed.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6K4iSxET6g_


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 14, 2009)

One of those birds that was as dangerous to the pilot that flew them as to the enemy....


----------



## Airframes (Apr 14, 2009)

Thanks Matt! Brought back memories, methinks the F104 might be on my 'build list' now!


----------



## Messy1 (Apr 14, 2009)

That was a cool video.


----------



## Butters (Apr 14, 2009)

A Ryan X-13 Vertijet engineer/test-pilot thought that the '104 could be made into the world's first Mach II attack helicopter. Here's what it might have looked like...

New Page 0

Snake sez: Let's just slowly back away, tiger...

JL


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 14, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> One of those birds that was as dangerous to the pilot that flew them as to the enemy....


Unfortunately the 104 garnered a reputation over time as a "killer" a/c and it is time this unfair reputation was put squarely in perspective 
it was extremely honest aircraft as long as it was flown in the boundaries of its flight envelope and was treated with respect . It was utterly dependable When teh 104 entered service in the early 60's the technology afforded by the aircraft was quantum leap over over other the earlier over the earlier vintage jet a/c then in service and it took some time for the operators and maintainers to come ti grips with this new technology it made on pilot and technician alike and the The canadian accident rate is comparable to that of to other NATO member' s who operated the 104 .Although 113 of the 238 CF 104's were destroyed to In accidents during Canadian service it must remembered be remembered that this record represents 25 years continuous service In a very demanding enviroment Thirty- seven Canadian pilots forfeited their lives on CF104 operations needless to say, this record says a great deal for the escape system of the aircraft and there were a great many succesful ejections even in marginal conditions The biggest accident cause factor was the role to which the aircraft was exposed the high speed low-level arena where opportunities to err are legion Since the jet was only equipped with one engine, If you lost that engine at low altitude! you were In a world of hurt Some years ago I reviewed all the 104 accidents that had occurred in the NATO consortium. and at is truly amazing how in few were attributable to unexpected mechanical failures, other than a number in its early service service days when various teething troubles were being ironed out and recurring catastrophic engine failures due to bird strikes at low level . It wasn't a devious airplane it just demanded respect and punishment for a major transgression was often swift and final .By and large ,104's did not kill pilots . Pilots killed pilots and 104's 
The article closed with thanks for the memories Kelly Johnson
also the 104s in Canadian service had about 6000 hours on each airframe
By Maj Dave Bashow with 3500hrs of fighter time including 2500 in the 104


----------



## Graeme (Apr 15, 2009)

HoHun said:


> (The cross-over during the turn is tactical standard procedure to avoid different turn radii for leader and wingman.)





Matt308 said:


> Graeme, the cross-over is necessary to keep your E up.





Matt308 said:


> Now I don't know what Graeme was asking.



Thanks for the input gentlemen. Yes, I was asking why the F-104s needed to cross each other at the high point of the loop. To me it would add more danger to the manoeuvre - high speed jets running the risk of hitting each other in a tense combat situation.
I've consumed a bottle of New Zealand red so the diagram is lousy, but prior to your answers I thought it would have been simpler to remain parallel to each other. Of course at some point each aircraft has to rotate 180 degrees prior to the downward leg of the attack...


----------



## HoHun (Apr 15, 2009)

Hi Graeme,

>To me it would add more danger to the manoeuvre - high speed jets running the risk of hitting each other in a tense combat situation.

Not necessarily ... since you can use the third dimension to avoid a collision, other considerations are more important.

Shaw's "Fighter Combat" lists the alternative turn you described as "in-place turn", and the main drawback is that the section leader (on the right in your example) loses sight of his wingman for much of the manoeuvre, which means that he can't watch the tail of his wingman at that instance.

The "tac turn" with both fighters crossing over has the advantage of minimizing the time during which each one is without visual cover, which makes it safer to perform when bogeys are around.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Graeme,
> 
> >To me it would add more danger to the manoeuvre - high speed jets running the risk of hitting each other in a tense combat situation.
> 
> ...



Also consider folks that these guys trained to do these maneuvers so it wasn't like they were going out there cold an attempting this.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2009)

You have to think about it in 3-dimensions.

With two blue force F-104s in leader-wingman formation, committing to a rolling loop against 5 red force airplanes will necessarily force their paths to cross in a 2-dimension perspective, but not in 3-dimensions. They simply roll around a common longitudinal axis. However, from a drawing perspective they appear to cross paths. Just hold out your two hands a simulate a rolling loop, where the wingman follows the flight leader. At the top of the loop they appear to cross in 2-D.

My crude MSPaint drawing...


----------



## Graeme (Apr 15, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> My crude MSPaint drawing...



Perfect! That's what I was TRYING to illustrate Matt.



Matt308 said:


> At the top of the loop they appear to cross in 2-D.



Ahhh...so I've misinterpreted the drawing, believing that at the indicated arrow the flight paths physically crossed each other...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 15, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Graeme,
> 
> The "tac turn" with both fighters crossing over has the advantage of minimizing the time during which each one is without visual cover, which makes it safer to perform when bogeys are around.



A crossover is not a part of tac turns.


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Apr 15, 2009)

Flyboy..did you work on those in Florida ? those are all former Royal Norwegian starfighters and came from our Museum  shipped the last over with C-130 a few years ago


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Apr 15, 2009)

the now three F-104`s flying private in USA are all former norwegian starfighters..swoops been made.. the last was deivered a few years ago..here i am in the cockpit before we packed it into the C-130 and shipped it over ..i have planty of pics from the loading into the C-130 but all on paper..if any interest i can find some and scan


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2009)

Junkers88A1 said:


> the now three F-104`s flying private in USA are all former norwegian starfighters..swoops been made.. the last was deivered a few years ago..here i am in the cockpit before we packed it into the C-130 and shipped it over ..i have planty of pics from the loading into the C-130 but all on paper..if any interest i can find some and scan


are they not CF104's that were originally Canadian


----------



## Junkers88A1 (Apr 15, 2009)

that is correct..the only F-104`s we have are americanbuildt two seaters..like the first picture i posted--the single seaters are all Cf`s..my mistake..its 3.20am so off to bed with a not so well working brain..hehe


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Ahhh...so I've misinterpreted the drawing, believing that at the indicated arrow the flight paths physically crossed each other...



What is left out of the cartoon is the rather large loop diameter of the F-104. Assuming that the two F-104s succeed in initiating the attack at the beginning of the rolling-loop, the red airplanes will likely immediately break. As the F-104s with their poor loop performance complete their maneuver they will likely NOT end up in a zero deflection rear engagement. I'm no F-104 pilot by any stretch, but imagine the F-104 to fight similarly as the P-38. Energy management is its forte'. You wouldn't want to fight in a Luftberry with a Starfighter. But you would definitely want to fight in slashing attacks. Phonebooth tactics are sure killers to a Starfighter pilot. But cloverleafs and altitude preserve the F-104s advantage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 15, 2009)

Actually there are 10 F-104s regestered in the US. I believe "one or two" of these have been flying around for a number of years.

I worked on this one "a little."






Here's a good site showing civilian 104s

Civil Starfighters


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2009)

My God... is there an ugly F-104?? Me thinks not.


----------



## Butters (Apr 15, 2009)

Is there are such a thing as an ugly F-104?

Well...We certainly tried 

Scramble Messageboard • View topic - 104's

JL


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 15, 2009)

I stand corrected, Butters. While the Luftwaffe F-104Fs are utterly gorgeous, this CF-104 is butt-ass-ugly. How such beautiful lines can be so arbitrarily destroyed. Oh the humanity...


----------



## mkloby (Apr 15, 2009)

My goodness - it's like a flying chess board


----------



## HoHun (Apr 16, 2009)

Hi Mkloby,

>A crossover is not a part of tac turns.

Hm, when projected into a two-dimensional plane, the flight paths of the two aircraft in one section certainly cross each other in Shaw's diagrams.

However, Shaw also lists a "cross turn" in which the two aircraft turn into each other - maybe that's what you know as "crossover"?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## mkloby (Apr 16, 2009)

HoHun said:


> Hi Mkloby,
> 
> >A crossover is not a part of tac turns.
> 
> ...



Howdy HoHun,
A crossover is simply increasing vertical separation and crossing from port to starboard side or vice versa, then decreasing that vertical separation.
This is a different maneuver from the cross turn.

Don't forget, both time, vertical, and horizontal separation factor into deconfliction.


----------



## HoHun (Apr 16, 2009)

Hi Mkloby,

>A crossover is simply increasing vertical separation and crossing from port to starboard side or vice versa, then decreasing that vertical separation.

Well, then simply read the non-formal "crossing over" where I wrote "cross-over" above. Shaw at least doesn't formally define "cross-over".

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> What is left out of the cartoon is the rather large loop diameter of the F-104. Assuming that the two F-104s succeed in initiating the attack at the beginning of the rolling-loop, the red airplanes will likely immediately break. As the F-104s with their poor loop performance complete their maneuver they will likely NOT end up in a zero deflection rear engagement. I'm no F-104 pilot by any stretch,* but imagine the F-104 to fight similarly as the P-38*. Energy management is its forte'. You wouldn't want to fight in a Luftberry with a Starfighter. But you would definitely want to fight in slashing attacks. Phonebooth tactics are sure killers to a Starfighter pilot. But cloverleafs and altitude preserve the F-104s advantage.



As he did in WW2 Tony LeVier went around to various bases showing pilots how to fly the F-104.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> I stand corrected, Butters. While the Luftwaffe F-104Fs are utterly gorgeous, this CF-104 is butt-ass-ugly. How such beautiful lines can be so arbitrarily destroyed. Oh the humanity...


now don't these look purty 421 Red Indian Sqn, 441 the Silver Foxes in the check and 439 Sqn Sabre Tooth Tigers


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 16, 2009)

> Unfortunately the 104 garnered a reputation over time as a "killer" a/c and it is time this unfair reputation was put squarely in perspective
> it was extremely honest aircraft as long as it was flown in the boundaries of its flight envelope and was treated with respect .



Well, the same could be said about any jet fighter, some are more forgiving than the F-104.



> It was utterly dependable When teh 104 entered service in the early 60's the technology afforded by the aircraft was quantum leap over over other the earlier over the earlier vintage jet a/c then in service and it took some time for the operators and maintainers to come ti grips with this new technology it made on pilot and technician alike and the The canadian accident rate is comparable to that of to other NATO member' s who operated the 104 .Although 113 of the 238 CF 104's were destroyed to In accidents during Canadian service it must remembered be remembered that this record represents 25 years continuous service In a very demanding enviroment



Sorry to be a pain but the canadian loss rate was nearly 49 %, it closest worst would be the Luftwaffe 36% wich also worked during 28 years of service.

For example I can think i a more demanding enviroment the war operation, and war operations in the Soth atlanctic bad weather, Argentina lost nearly 140 aircrafts but only 4 in accidents 1 Skyhawk, 1 Mirage III and two mirage V.
And I dont think canadian pilots were dumb, so my conclusion...there is something about the F-104, something not good at all.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2009)

I found this little tongue in cheek tale in my "archives" it takes place after a little bash the previous evening
Puresome being the F8 jock
"Puresomes hop was with no less then the Canadian Skipper, who must have noticed with satisfaction that the green hue of the Yanks face almost matched the skippers flight suit. Luckily it was simple Crusader vs CF 104 capability flight involving canned set ups . With no complicated air traffic control procedures to get in the way of things the two aircraft were to take off , join up, steam directly into the operating area and get on with the program. "no tricky stuff " Puresome thought as he sucked down lots of black coffee.
"the aircraft should be ready straightaway so lets get cracking eh?" said the skipper as he finished up the briefing
"righty Oh!" Puresome responded in his best imitation of f/L Bently-Smythe off to have a go at the Hun. He hoped the combination of caffiene and 100% oxygen in the aircraft would give him the will to live and kick serious butt. Now if he could only talk the cherry picker crash crane into hooking on to his torso harness D ring and gently lifting him into his Crusader cockpit.
It was filthy work but it had to be done . Puresome was feeling better after take off as he joined on the CF104 while they both climbed to 20000ft. The first set up was for the F8 to split and gain separation from the '104. Youthly was to turn in , lock up the starfighter on his radar and call out ranges as the 2 closed .When the Canadian thought he could force an overshoot , he would turn into the F8 and the fight would be on.
Puresome lit the burneras he turned in and locked up the cf 104, dutifully calling of ranges as he bored. Finally the starfighters wing went up as he turned in the F8 , hoping to cause an overshoot . It didn't happen , Puresome didn't have to high yo-yo , lo yo or do anything other then a hard level turn straight on to the 104's 6 oclock before calling" Fox 2'
Puresome could almost see the question mark appear above the skippers canopy.
The excercise proved that the crusader turned a whole lot better then the Starfighter > Puresome wasn't used to being able to outturn dissimililar aircraft and thought this was pretty neat. Of course the 104 was designed to be a bottle rocket go fast interceptor and the Canadians used it as high speed low level strike fighter. As the early fights showed the Starfighter could not escape the crusader by zooming to the moon and half flapping over the top - the F8 would just cut across the top of the arc and catch the 104 on the way down. . In the usual air combat speed regimes the 104 didn't have aspeed advantage . But the learning curve went up quickly the canadians took advantage of their low frontal cross section to point straight at the Crusader and go invisible > they would try to blow by at the speed of heat disappear and come back in the fight from an unexpected direction. They also took advantage of their knowledge of the operating area to be as sneeky as possible . Puresomes task was to never let a 104 get head on and if he lost sight to get up into the contrail layer so the bad guy would follow and leave a track"


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Well, the same could be said about any jet fighter, some are more forgiving than the F-104.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was used as *low level strike aircraft * over ground not sea level that is different enviroment then Argentinian aircraft were used in ,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Sorry to be a pain but the canadian loss rate was nearly 49 %, it closest worst would be the Luftwaffe 36% wich also worked during 28 years of service.


To make an accurate assessment you have to factor in flight hours. Although Canada lost almost half of their -104s, they were flying the p!ss out of them![/QUOTE]


----------



## Butters (Apr 16, 2009)

This is from Bashow's 'Starfighter':

"Of the 110 "A" Category accidents, 21 were due to FOD (of which 14 were directly attributable to birdstrikes), 14 were due to in-flight engine failures, 6 were directly caused by faulty maintenance, and 9 were lost in mid-air collisions. A full 32 struck the ground for one reason or another while flying at low level, usually under adverse or deteriorating weather conditions"

All together, 37 pilots were killed flying the CF-104 in its 25 year operational career. This can be compared to the 112 RCAF pilots killed flying the F-86, which incurred 282 "A" Category accidents over a 12 year career in a much less demanding, single-role, high altitude environment.

Nobody calls the Sabre a 'widow-maker'...

JL


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 16, 2009)

Great info Butters! I was even going to ask if anyone had info on Sabre and CF-100 ops compared to the -104.


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 16, 2009)

...and for the record, Pb. Those are beauties aren't they.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 17, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies.

Some comment:



> It was used as low level strike aircraft over ground not sea level that is different enviroment then Argentinian aircraft were used in ,



Well actually the argentine were used in both enviroments, they had to cross the mainlad of the Falklands/Malvinas ( wich is plenty in hills) from west to east at low level to avoid detection. And take in consideration the the Mirages had no inflight refueling device so they were packed with fuel, one 1300 liters and 2 x 1700 liters and 2 x250 kg bombs. A load load exceeding 5000 kg ( the hanbook recomended a max load of 4000 kg), the wheels ball bearings only lasted two take off with their landings with that load.  



> To make an accurate assessment you have to factor in flight hours. Although Canada lost almost half of their -104s, they were flying the p!ss out of them!



Okay, but did they flew more than Luftwaffe ?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 17, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Okay, but did they flew more than Luftwaffe ?


the German 104's had about 2000hrs on each airframe the Canadian ones were about 6000hr and to put it in perspective thats about 6000 sorties the 104 was a very impressive strike fighter with hard to see and hard to catch , maybe the 104 with that performance would been just the ticket for the Malvinas personally I *IMHO* believe it would be far better at that role then the Mirage III


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 17, 2009)

Those airframes were wasted !!  , thanks for the info.

I would love to had Starfighters in 1960s and 1970s for quick reaction agaisnt intruder crossing the andes but honetsly I dont think the F-104 had the range or payload to be a more decent attack aircraft than the french craft. It had the electronics I give you that.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 17, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Those airframes were wasted !!  , thanks for the info.
> 
> I would love to had Starfighters in 1960s and 1970s for quick reaction agaisnt intruder crossing the andes but honetsly I dont think the F-104 had the range or payload to be a more decent attack aircraft than the french craft. It had the electronics I give you that.


Remember the German Navy used them as a maritime strike aircraft and the range should be able to get to Malvinas and depending on the crews maybe a better weapons platform due to its lo level capabilities


----------



## Butters (Apr 18, 2009)

Here's an explanation for the unique sound of the '104. From Bashow's, "Starfighter", as usual...

"Noise was a part of the unique personality of the '104. It made distinctive sounds that manifested themselves on engine run-up and in the overhead break. On run-up, the 15,800 pound thrust General Electric J-79 engine made an unearthly shriek that was dubbed the "moose call" because it sounded exactly like a moose in rutting season, and became a cause for nervous banter during the moose-breeding season in northern Alberta where we were based. Perhaps even more distinctive was the unique, supernatural moaning sound, like the wail of a wounded banshee, made by the '104 in the overhead-break for landing. Sometimes it's a pity to let science get in the way of romanticism. Unfortunately, both the moose call on engine run-up and the moaning in the overhead break had a technical explanation. The "moose" was due to a rapid repositioning of the engine inlet guide vanes; and the "moaning", I am told, was due to disturbed airflow over the engine air bypass flaps. But to those of us who flew her and lived around her, this was just more '104 magic."

JL


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 18, 2009)

Great post Butters.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 21, 2009)

And some interesting Starfighter projects, including the Shorts/Lockheed VTOL Starfighter project...

F-104 Starfighters - all produced types


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 21, 2009)

Which squadron had the most colourful '104's then, not counting the squadron leader etc.?


----------



## pbfoot (May 19, 2009)

here is a little blurb I found on the 104 
"The airplane was extremely reliable. The radar cold be changed in 20 minutes; the engine in 2 hours. Every comm/electronic box could be changed at the end of the runway in the quick check area in matter of a few minutes - and was. Our QC crew had spare boxes in their van and saved many a sortie."


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 21, 2009)

Cool pictures Graeme...
Was the CL-2000 just an upgrade version? Kinda looks like the Dassualt F.1


----------



## Stitch (May 21, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> Cool pictures Graeme...
> Was the CL-2000 just an upgrade version? Kinda looks like the Dassualt F.1



IIRC, it was designed to be a competitor in the USAF's LWF program of the early '70's (which was won by the YF-16); I don't think it ever even reached the prototype stage, I don't ever remember seeing any mock-ups of it or anything.


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 21, 2009)

Stitch said:


> IIRC, it was designed to be a competitor in the USAF's LWF program of the early '70's (which was won by the YF-16); I don't think it ever even reached the prototype stage, I don't ever remember seeing any mock-ups of it or anything.



Hmmm... Cool stuff, thanks


----------



## Waynos (May 22, 2009)

Here's the mock up, albeit with one air intake missing. Lockheed also designed a 'Big Starfighter', the L-205, with twin engines mounted on the wings, Canberra fashion, which incidentally, the same position chosen for the SR-71 so it may be possible to draw an evolutionary line from the F-104 to the Blackbird!


----------



## Graeme (May 22, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> Cool pictures Graeme...
> Was the CL-2000 just an upgrade version? Kinda looks like the Dassualt F.1



Well spotted FB2. I had another look at that article and could find no reference to CL-2000 in the text. I'm wondering if it's a typo? There is of course much on the CL-1200 Lancer but CL-2000 neither googles successfully (for me) nor is mentioned in this site...

List_of_Lockheed_aircraft

Wayne's photo is an extension of the CL-1200, the CL-1600, also known as the X-27?


----------



## Stitch (May 22, 2009)

I have a decent source for the F-104 at home, I'll check it when I get there tonight.


----------



## junkman9096 (May 23, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Which squadron had the most colourful '104's then, not counting the squadron leader etc.?



Overall, for a whole wing, I'd say the 479th TFW of the late 50's. Try this link to a decal sheet for all US F-104 units.
USAF and NASA Starfighters Decal Review by David W. Aungst (Victory Models 1/48)


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 23, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Well spotted FB2. I had another look at that article and could find no reference to CL-2000 in the text. I'm wondering if it's a typo? There is of course much on the CL-1200 Lancer but CL-2000 neither googles successfully (for me) nor is mentioned in this site...
> 
> List_of_Lockheed_aircraft



A few posts ago Stitch said that it was just designed as a competitor, never actually entering a prototype stage, so maybe that can explain why it can't be found anywhere since it technically was never an actually produced aircraft.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 23, 2009)

junkman9096 said:


> Overall, for a whole wing, I'd say the 479th TFW of the late 50's. Try this link to a decal sheet for all US F-104 units.
> USAF and NASA Starfighters Decal Review by David W. Aungst (Victory Models 1/48)



I......can't......resist.....must......buy.....this.....  

Thanks for the link mate!


----------



## Graeme (May 23, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> designed as a competitor



Then I would have expected that Lockheed allocated it a design number? Lets see what Stitch digs up.


----------



## Matt308 (May 23, 2009)

BTW anybody know what the FS number is for the Flourescent Red paint on the USAF and NAVY versions might be?


----------



## Stitch (May 23, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Here's the mock up, albeit with one air intake missing. Lockheed also designed a 'Big Starfighter', the L-205, with twin engines mounted on the wings, Canberra fashion, which incidentally, the same position chosen for the SR-71 so it may be possible to draw an evolutionary line from the F-104 to the Blackbird!



You're right, I can find no mention of the CL-2000 in my "source"; HOWEVER, I did find a reference to a follow-on to the CL-1200 "Lancer" called the X-27 which, as it's designation indicates, was theoretically capable of Mach 2.7 speeds. However, this proposal never left the drawing board. Perhaps this is the CL-2000? My sources DO indicate that an up-rated P&W TF30-P-1 was to power the CL-1200-2, my guess is it IS a typo; there was probably never such an a/c as the Cl-2000, only the CL-1200-2.


----------



## Waynos (May 24, 2009)

It can be very confusing when you are looking into designations, for example in this case, the CL-1200-2 was the original company designation for the X-27 but Johnston changed it to CL-1600 to differentiate it from the earlier CL-1200 programme, all three designations belong to the same design.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 29, 2009)

F-104A test shooting Gennie atomic missile.


----------



## Matt308 (May 29, 2009)

The most impressive part of that video, CB, was that the little stubby winged F-104 could actually achieve 54,000ft altitude!


----------



## pbfoot (May 29, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> The most impressive part of that video, CB, was that the little stubby winged F-104 could actually achieve 54,000ft altitude!



It also did a 103000 in NASA and the RCAF was in the high 90's


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (May 29, 2009)

It seems amazing at times what they did without the aid of today's high powered computers.
Shoot, even today's lowly home computers...


Wheelsup


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 29, 2009)

> The most impressive part of that video, CB, was that the little stubby winged F-104 could actually achieve 54,000ft altitude



Using the calculator that gives me 16459 meters, yes, it is amazing for such loaded tiny aircraft, even a F-104 detractor like me had to recognize that. Pure engine power I guess.


----------



## Matt308 (May 31, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> It also did a 103000 in NASA and the RCAF was in the high 90's



Yeah but that's just a zoom to altitude, not sustained flight. 54,000ft with those little wings is most impressive. I bet at that altitude that Vs and Vmo are REAL damn close.


----------



## batcocan (Jun 21, 2009)

The 104 is one of the most beautiful aircraft to grace the skies-I remember as a kid watching them fly at the Trenton Ontario Airshows back in the day. Here are some picture I saw on the web of some RCAF machines-so is anyone going to post the 104 sequence form "The Right Stuff"?
Cheers,
Matthew


----------



## Butters (Jun 22, 2009)

Batcocan,

I like the picture of the Argus on your siggy. I lived near CFB Greenwood, NS in the mid-'70's, and the roar of those huge radials thundering overhead at a couple hundred feet was pretty impressive. Not easy to sleep thru, tho...

JL


----------



## butcher bird (Jun 22, 2009)

JugBR said:


> f-104 is more beautifull than f-14 or any other fighter, interceptor, bomber, spaceship... whatever... f-104 is the best design ever made.
> very unstable aircraft. killed many a good pilot
> in second on my rank i put the mirage III
> 
> ...



very unstable. hard to fly. killed a many good pilot. called the widow maker


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 22, 2009)

butcher bird said:


> very unstable. hard to fly. killed a many good pilot. called the widow maker


Please explain....

Unstable? In what flight regime? Landing? Takeoff? Low Level? By the 1980s the F-104 has a better attrition rate than most of the other fighters serving NATO. The Spanish AF never lost one and the Italians built the last ones up till 1989, so tell us how you come up with this summation?


----------



## Stitch (Jun 22, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Yeah but that's just a zoom to altitude, not sustained flight. 54,000ft with those little wings is most impressive. I bet at that altitude that Vs and Vmo are REAL damn close.



Yes, it was; I know that computer flight simulators aren't the real thing, but whenever I've been that high in a simulated F-104, you REALLY didn't want to do any kind of manuevering at altitude, or that tiny wing would stall out on you. And, with the -104, you usually wouldn't recover for 10,000 or 15,000 feet.


----------



## Butters (Jun 22, 2009)

Everything I've read stresses the superb stability of the '104, esp during hi-speed low level flight. It was however, very unforgiving when pushed beyond its handling limits.

JL


----------



## batcocan (Jun 23, 2009)

Starfighter Sequence from The Right Stuff 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlsWD1-fmIk_




Butters said:


> Batcocan,
> 
> I like the picture of the Argus on your siggy. I lived near CFB Greenwood, NS in the mid-'70's, and the roar of those huge radials thundering overhead at a couple hundred feet was pretty impressive. Not easy to sleep thru, tho...
> 
> JL



Thanks Butters! I'm glad someone remembers the old Argus
I wish I was out in NS-much better than the Greater Toronto area where I am!
Cheers,
Matthew


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 23, 2009)

batcocan said:


> I'm glad someone remembers the old Argus


I remember the Argus - I built the first 18 CP-140s that replaced it.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 23, 2009)

Stitch said:


> Yes, it was; I know that computer flight simulators aren't the real thing, but whenever I've been that high in a simulated F-104, you REALLY didn't want to do any kind of manuevering at altitude, or that tiny wing would stall out on you. And, with the -104, you usually wouldn't recover for 10,000 or 15,000 feet.




Stitch you know that I have to comment on your "simulator" reference. Personally I would refrain from making references based upon games. I understand that game designers attempt to simulate aircraft performance, but that simulation is most often compromised for game playability. Therefore, game simulators are a very poor reference for real world comparisons.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 24, 2009)

Matt, I would have been disappointed in you if you HADN'T said something about my reference to a "simulator". Yes, I know simulators are a long way from the real thing, and I will try and refrain myself from referring to "simulators" again.


----------



## Z06vette (Jul 4, 2012)

"Snake" Reaves lived just behind me in Palmdale in the late 50's and 60's and I babysat his daughters Glenda and Toni several times. He was a super guy, hard to get to know but he was a tremendous pilot, I saw him fly many times. I have these huge pictures of with the F-104. He had me come to toe flight line one night when he was teaching the Germans pilots the F-104 and I was able to enjoy all the moments of his flight that night. he Germans did not do so well with this A/C had many accidents due to overconfidence in an A/C that is very unforgiving.. I was at a test pilots dinner in Lancaster CA back in I am guessing 2001 or so and I asked I think it was Tony LeVier or "Fish" Salmon what happened to Glen and I was told the unfortunate thing that he died of a heart attack selling bibles door to door. I was so sad. I often wonder what Glenda and Toni are doing. Wish I had contact.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2012)

Z06vette said:


> I was at a test pilots dinner in Lancaster CA back in I am guessing 2001 or so and I asked I think it was Tony LeVier or "Fish" Salmon what happened to Glen and I was told the unfortunate thing that he died of a heart attack selling bibles door to door.


Tony died in 1998, Fish died in 1980.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 6, 2012)

IIRC...
Eric Hartman retired in protest from the Bundeswaffe (my incorrect term for the post WW2 Luftwaffe) because he as then General/Head of Fighters, he was opposed the 104 being accepted for German service; 
From his combat experiences and his personal evaluation/perception of its restricted combat maneovering envelope and he noted how it possessed some dangerous handling traits, in particular when landing, which would, when in WW3 combat, could lead to a wastage... of pilots, training, fuel, aircraft overal, money; due to wartime operational exigences leading to lesser trained/houred pilots to make up the numbers.

I suppose, it seemed to him from my point of view, to mix the combat/tactical landing loss risks limitations of the Me262, along with a small combat range ala 163 style verses other available NATO A/C designs.

Some of which was borne out by increased suseptability to tip vorticies effecting its stability lift - which caused IIRC, at the least, the loss of a chase pilot and an XB-70's and its test crew in the US, let alone other losses. 

This led to some incidents and many laundry bills (for those whom survived) when landing in close formation, bad weather conditions and/or within too short an spacing interval for the trailing tip vortices to dissapate in the viscinity of the runway - leading to a sudden drop lift and dutch roll problems.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 6, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> IIRC...
> Eric Hartman retired in protest from the Bundeswaffe (my incorrect term for the post WW2 Luftwaffe) because he as then General/Head of Fighters, he was opposed the 104 being accepted for German service;
> From his combat experiences and his personal evaluation/perception of its restricted combat maneovering envelope and he noted how it possessed some dangerous handling traits, in particular when landing, which would, when in WW3 combat, could lead to a wastage... of pilots, training, fuel, aircraft overal, money; due to wartime operational exigences leading to lesser trained/houred pilots to make up the numbers.
> 
> ...



When the F-104 entered service in Europe, it was placed in a position to become a multi role fighter, something it was never designed for. Outside of the mis-guided political aspects of its procurements and eventual deployment the aircraft eventually served well but was very unforgiving. Training was the key factor for its ultimate success and I know many pilots who flew the -104 and just loved it. From an earlier post on this thread...

_"Pakistan took the F-104 into combat and I believe they lost 2, one non-combat. Spain operated the -104 and never lost one. NATO with the exception of Greece and Turkey had a loss rate of 1.81 percent, if you factor in Greece and Turkey it raises to 2.14 - Now how about Japan? Their attrition rate average .068 throughout their 20 year operational history!!!

Compare these numbers with other aircraft. I think NATO operators of F-100s had over a 4% attrition rate."_

As far as the F-104s flight characteristics being a cause of the XB-70 crash? Total nonsense.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCORwUxlNQo_

No one could fully explain why Walker "tucked" under the XB-70 but I can tell you no "tip vortices effecting its stability lift" at least from the -104 caused that crash. According from what I read the actual accident report says that the F-104 was caught up in the 'compression lift' from the XB-70s wings. Any of those aircraft flying in that formation that day could have been in that mis hap, it had nothing to do with the F-104 or its flight characteristics.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 7, 2012)

Ok, I'll go with that. 
I'm not intending to slate this aircraft nor contradict all those whom enjoyed it; I mean the great Clarence Johnson did design it very well for its intended role as a interceptor.
And much rocketry testing of profiles, strutures along with more regular development testing done for this aircraft set the standard to follow for aerial R&D of the time. 
But I'm sure too that I have read somewhere, (or more likely gathered/interpreted from reading) that due to its short span wings, that it could suffer from greater than normaly accepted vortex disturbance to its own tip votices; which when normal, assisted its controllabilty lift - akin to using the vortecies in way to trap the main part of the airflow lift over the roots and the wing instead of a using a boundary/'defector' plate(s) which were also aided by its blown flaps tailplane systems.





http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/Features/2008/XB-70.html
Similarly related - 4/5th's down for some ideas of large A/C affecting smaller A/C's
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/about/Organizations/Technology/Facts/TF-2004-14-DFRC.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 7, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> Ok, I'll go with that.
> I'm not intending to slate this aircraft nor contradict all those whom enjoyed it; I mean the great Clarence Johnson did design it very well for its intended role as a interceptor.
> And much rocketry testing of profiles, strutures along with more regular development testing done for this aircraft set the standard to follow for aerial R&D of the time.
> *But I'm sure too that I have read somewhere, (or more likely gathered/interpreted from reading) that due to its short span wings, that it could suffer from greater than normaly accepted vortex disturbance to its own tip votices; which when normal, assisted its controllabilty lift - akin to using the vortecies in way to trap the main part of the airflow lift over the roots and the wing instead of a using a boundary/'defector' plate(s) which were also aided by its blown flaps tailplane systems*.



With or without wing tanks or missile rails? At what speeds? Vortices and vortex disturbance varies with speed and wing tip configuration. The -104 had no band aid assistance like fences or boundary layer tools so you had to fly the aircraft precise. Once that was figured out the aircraft performed well.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 7, 2012)

I stand corrected - thought it had flaps and tail blown at low/landing speeds - not that that if it did, that they'd be active during normal flight - a slight wastage of engine power.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 7, 2012)

razor1uk said:


> IIRC...
> Eric Hartman retired in protest from the Bundeswaffe (my incorrect term for the post WW2 Luftwaffe) because he as then General/Head of Fighters, he was opposed the 104 being accepted for German service;
> From his combat experiences and his personal evaluation/perception of its restricted combat maneovering envelope and he noted how it possessed some dangerous handling traits, in particular when landing, which would, when in WW3 combat, could lead to a wastage... of pilots, training, fuel, aircraft overal, money; due to wartime operational exigences leading to lesser trained/houred pilots to make up the numbers.
> 
> ...



Here we can see Hartmann...the look on his face tell us that he was less than convinced about that aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 8, 2012)

I think you are reading more into that pic than is there, CB.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 8, 2012)

Why did the wingtip tanks for the -104 have fins on the back? I've always wondered that.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 8, 2012)

syscom3 said:


> Why did the wingtip tanks for the -104 have fins on the back? I've always wondered that.


To limit pitch movement of the tank during certain maneuvers. If the tank was allowed to pitch, it would twist the wing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 8, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> I think you are reading more into that pic than is there, CB.



I agree. 

How are you going to know what he was thinking anyhow?


----------



## futuredogfight (Jul 11, 2012)

I prefer the Phabulous Phantom.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 11, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> To limit pitch movement of the tank during certain maneuvers. If the tank was allowed to pitch, it would twist the wing.



Wasn't it also to minimize induced drag from the wing tank vortex?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Wasn't it also to minimize induced drag from the wing tank vortex?


Yupp! But tip tanks liked to dance around the wingtip depending on maneuvers. I was in a T-33 pulling some Gs, I thought the tip tanks were going to go into orbit!


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 13, 2012)

Yikes.


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 13, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yupp! But tip tanks liked to dance around the wingtip depending on maneuvers. I was in a T-33 pulling some Gs, I thought the tip tanks were going to go into orbit!


So long as they didn't waggle around as much as an old 747 tips do on take-off... sometimes, memories of being in a jumbo leave me wondering was it the engines pushing it, or was it trying to flap (glad I didn't typo there..) like a bird.

I think Wings (or then) Great Planes did a Starfigther documentary - inc' many aerial shots, info and rocket scaled test videos - one of the vid clips in it, is a *Rocketry Test* with wing (structural aerodynamical model) + tip tank model test shows how twisty and vibey they could be. Some of that ensuing data R&D is what methinks led to the 33's wasited tip tanks and to the tails of 104 tanks.

Naturally I know the rocket test ahcieved a far higher 'scale' of acceleration than real size, and that they were mainly concerning then aero thermal structural theories and ideas before development towards real application. Mind due, CJ staff Lockheed/Skunkworks (did it stink there or did they smoke) did IIRC from spec issue to 1st flight do it in close to a year, when most previous jet RD&F timelines took of that era, triple that.


----------



## Mancarti (Jul 15, 2012)

Glen Reaves DID not die selling bibles. 2006vette I'm sure lived behind the Reaves family because he got the daughters names right, but Reaves divorced his wife Sugardoll back in the 70's and went to Europe to fly choppers for Lockheed. Glen gave me about 20 of those nice aircraft company models as well as a nice big F 104 for my bedroom. My uncle Stan Mancarti flew with Reaves before he was killed in a F 84 accident. Reaves remained a life long friend of the family and we lost touch in the 80's.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 18, 2012)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree.
> 
> How are you going to know what he was thinking anyhow?



Face is the reflection of the soul (old say), beside it was not just him, everyone in the Luftwaffe wich experience in WW2 share his toughts, even the new free press of 1960s was quite corrosive after the big number of accidents. You understand german so you can check this one:

Wochenschau-Archiv


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 22, 2012)

Was never a big fan of the F-104's looks, just a big lawn dart to my eyes (looked cool in some flashier liveries though). 

Or its *ahem* accident rate. It may not have been the widowmaker the American and German press made it out to be but it was an extremely demanding bastard of a jet to fly and while it performed well for its time the E.E. Lightning and Su-15 Flagon were just as impressive if not more so, and didn't have such a bad reputation (info on the Su-15 has always been pretty limited though). They also had better agility, the -104's turning radius with that tiny stub of a wing was atrocious even for an interceptor. 

I think the F-106 is the best looking of the Century series. Very clean thoroughbred lines, no external ordnance to clutter the almost perfect delta, just a gorgeous aircraft. Probably the best-looking fighter in US service until the F-15 came along.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 22, 2012)

Supposedly had fairly advanced avionics to boot. But that damn splitter plate, no gun during an admittedly poor missile capability period and ability to attain high supersonic speeds needing literally minutes for Vmax. Pretty yes. But...

I didn't think about the Flagon... interesting.


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 22, 2012)

Matt308 said:


> Supposedly had fairly advanced avionics to boot. But that damn splitter plate, no gun during an admittedly poor missile capability period and ability to attain high supersonic speeds needing literally minutes for Vmax. Pretty yes. But...



They did address the lack of gun by installing an M61 in the internal bay with the Six Shooter program. Which was sorely needed because AIM-4 was just about the most useless missile ever. If it was available with Sparrows or Sidewinders, even early models, it would've been a lot more capable. 

The F-106 was the prettiest but my favorite in actual combat out of the Century fighters would be the -105. I love the Thud, it was a badass bird, served admirably and with heavy losses in the heart of Vietnam. Even managed to blast 27 MiG-17's out of the sky mostly using cannon, in an era when guns were (very wrongly) thought to be outliving their usefulness...


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 18, 2016)

German politicians flying the F-104G to probe if is dangerous or not (damn sure it was), with english subtitles created by me, newsreel february 1966

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (May 18, 2016)

Good job on that. The danger was more in the mission profile than in the qualities of the plane. Designed as a high speed interceptor, it was thrust into a low level tactical role in NATO for which it was not ideal. The term "widowmaker" was coined by the media, not the pilots.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2016)

We have beat this to death. 
_
"A USAF comparison study of the accident rate of all the Century Series, F-4 Phantom, A-7, and F-111 aircraft over *750,000 flying hours* showed that the F-100 Super Sabre led the table with an accident rate over double that of the F-104 (471 accidents for the F-100 versus 196 for the F-104) which had the second highest rate, closely followed by the F-102 Delta Dagger. It should be noted that the F-104 figures in this study were taken over 600,000 hours as the type had not reached 750,000 hours at the time."_

Vietnam Conflict Aviation Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

From Wiki

"The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, in the mid-1960s. In West Germany it came to be nicknamed _Witwenmacher_ ("The Widowmaker"). Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the German Air Force lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career,and Canada lost 46% of its F-104s (110 of 235). *The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none.*


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 19, 2016)

*"The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, in the mid-1960s. In West Germany it came to be nicknamed Witwenmacher ("The Widowmaker"). Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the German Air Force lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career,and Canada lost 46% of its F-104s (110 of 235). The Spanish Air Force, however, lost none."
*
Made high profile news and with good reason, imagine today losing* 6 F-35 Raptor pilots in 3 months*....Would that made news or not ? surely do. Germany had that kind of losess, sometime more and canada also had his share of tragedy.

The spanish Ejercito Del Aire probably had the advantage of the clear mediterranean skies, and they never overload their planes with inertial navigation, bombs rail, infrared gunsight and so, all the gadgets preset in the 104 "G".


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 19, 2016)

CharlesBronson said:


> The spanish Ejercito Del Aire probably had the advantage of the clear mediterranean skies, and they never overload their planes with inertial navigation, bombs rail, infrared gunsight and so, all the gadgets preset in the 104 "G".


And wasn't the fault of the aircraft - the operator(s) changed the role of this high altitude interceptor into a low level nuclear bomber. Despite that, the numbers speak for itself. The Ejercito Del Aire operated the aircraft in the role it was designed for.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 11, 2016)

Sweb said:


> How do you distinguish a 104 crew chief from all others? He's the one with scars on his forehead. Truth or urban legend, the wing leading edges of the 104 were near knife-edged.


They were sharp, but they weren't like a scalpel. They probably were like a butter knife, or somewhere between the butter knife and steak-knife.



> It didn't have any range.


That's not actually true. In fact, I'm not sure where that came from, though I suppose in some context it probably is: If I was to compare the low altitude performance supersonic with the high altitude subsonic performance of another plane, sure it'd likely come up quite short.

Those who have flown the plane, and those who have studied its performance have shown that it's range was no worse than any other Century series fighter. It had a good fuel-fraction (30% or so), and while it's L/D wasn't very high, it seemed similar to the F-4 at cruise (F-4E at least). At low-altitudes, it actually could fly at least as far as the F-4 could, and fly fast enough to stay with the F-105's.

I remember there was a proposal to graft a conformal store underneath the aircraft able to carry an MB-1 or AIR-2 Genie: To minimize drag, a boat-tail was added to the back of the weapon. The aircraft in this configuration was expected to meet a requirement for a supersonic intercept radius (outbound supersonic, decelerate to subsonic and either loiter for 10-15 minutes; then turn back subsonic)
of 650 nm, which it achieved.

I'm not exactly sure how far it could fly with it's normal wing-tip sidewinders & 195-gallon drop-tanks, though I have heard a comparison likening it to the F-4.

There seemed to be a real animosity in the USAF for the aircraft, and I'm not sure how much of it was due to the various handling problems the aircraft possessed, or due to the fact that they didn't want a cheap aircraft that could be quickly produced.

For a small nation: A small air-force is great; for a large-nation (except in time of war) it's a catastrophe! Budgets are allocated based on the previous year's budget, and a reduction in necessary budget would mean the budgets would be expected to conform to this if not even get lower (I'm generally opposed to this kind of budgetary practice as it just encourages ever increasing defense spending). Even if the Air Force was able to procure more fighters to compensate, and let's say 350 light-weight fighters could do what 250 normal-weight fighters could do, Congress might only allocate them 300.

The New Look: The Truman administration realized we'd be hard pressed to match the size of the (former) Soviet Union's military in numbers of troops and equipment. As a result, the decision was made to use long-ranged bombers with nuclear-ordinance so as to reduce the numbers we'd need to destroy them (exact policy varied from carrying out a series of city-busting raids, to just hurling the whole enchilada at the USSR in one fell swoop). By the late 1940's, nuclear bombs started to get small enough that aircraft that previously couldn't carry them could including fighters and attack planes (as well as the B-45 which was volume restricted), and in the 1950's practical aerial refueling systems were developed allowing aircraft ranging from heavy bombers to fighters to be refueled: The end result of all this, was a primary strategy of using nuclear war for deterrence, with conventional warfare for "brush-fires". This policy might very well have favored a more technologically advanced Air-Force of smaller size.
The Air Force basically had little interest in a fighter-plane unless it could carry nuclear-bombs, could carry-out all-weather interceptions of enemy bombers, or could escort a bomber (and that interest faded), and while the F-104C would meet the nuclear-strike demands; there are many ways to make a case against a design you don't like. 

In politics: The argument is more important than the facts.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 12, 2016)

No contemporary 1950s jet suffered fools gladly. Comparing F-35 v F104 is comparing peaches to concrete.
The F104 came out of Korean war studies where sheer performance mattered the most and that's where the Starfighter shines.
The nuclear question is still big. The USAF is a big player because it's nuke capacity. Not CAS. So more B-52 less A-10.


----------



## johnbr (Aug 28, 2019)

The Lockheed CL-802-12, a modified VTOL F-104 designed for operations in Europe.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 29, 2019)

I remember seeing that both Belgium and the Netherlands had quite high accident rates with the F-104, but the Belgians has higher rates with the Mirage III, which doesn’t have the same sort of widowmaker reputation.


----------

