The F-104 with a big wing?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
14,376
4,694
Apr 3, 2008
Known much more for it's abysmal safety record and the bribery scandal than for performance figures, the F-104 was probably one of most un-loved fighters post ww2. For sake of discussion, lets have Lockheed design the F-104 from a day one around a bigger wing, say 250-270 sq ft instead of the tiny 196 sq ft that it had. Would the improved maneuverability and low-speed capabilities make it a significantly better warbird? What wing planform to use - stick with historical one with minimal sweep, or make a change there too (while using what was used back in late 1950s)?
drgondog - IIRC you were working at Lockheed before? Care to add your take on this?
 
The other improvements were that they moved the wing to the top of the fuselage and the tail down; moving the wing got rid of the fuselage structure that had to take the wing's bending moment and moving the tail down reduced the deep stall problem.

I think the CL-1200 was a competitor to the F-16 for the USAF's LWF competition in the early 1970s.
 
Almost certainly: The wing-area of the F-104 was heavily dictated by the fact that sustained Mach 2 performance was a requirement.

That said, there were several designs and derivatives that included larger wing areas such as the...

NF-104A: Wing area increased from 196.1 to 212.8 ft^2, wingspan increased from 21'9" to 25'9", aspect ratio increased from 2.4124 to 3.1159.



Designed for astronaut-training.

CL-981: Wing are increased from 196.1 to 250 ft^2, wingspan increased from 21'9" to 27'6", aspect ratio increased from 2.4124 to 3.025, with a retractible canard, and longitudinal strakes (probably for directional control).



CL-1010: Designed as an F-104J with provision to carry AIM-7E Sparrow III air-to-air missiles, and an improved radar, aft fuselage strakes for improved directional control, and the J79 GE-19 engine for more power. The designs called for a GTOW of approximately 31,000 pounds. The design came in several proposed variants: The CL-1010-1, which featured a standard wing; the -2 which featured a larger wing of 250 ft^2 (uncertain of wingspan); the -3, which was a version of the -2 with provision for Falcon missiles; the -4, which was a derivative of the -2 with provision for additional Sidewinders and; the -5 which had a larger horizontal stabilizer. The designs called for a GTOW of approximately 31,000 pounds, and ability to sustain Mach 2.4 flight.

The variants with the 250 ft^2 wing area is depicted here.



The CL-1010 had some similarities to other designs such as the CL-958, CL-978, CL-981, and CL-982. It wasn't procured, for reasons I'm uncertain of.

The CL-958 is depicted here, and includes the larger wings the CL-1010 would ultimately use



CL-1195: Used an enlarged wing with an automatic maneuvering flap, extendable by 10-degrees up to Mach 1. The CL-1195-1 uses a J79-GE-19, with the CL-1195-2 using a Rolls Royce engine.




This appears to be an F-104S derivative. The only reason I displayed it is that, its wingspan is closest to the F-104A/D, and serves to provide a good comparison.
 
Interesting question that perhaps needs a little review.

First - the 104 was designed primarily for the interceptor role, contemplated as 'continental based' and never considered as a knife fighter in the context of the Korean War. It performed exactly as proposed and designed.

Second - while the low speed qualities were dangerous to the unwary, it was more forgiving than say the T-38 Trainer. I knew and talked to many USAF and NASA pilots that loved the airplane.

So, the question is what could it looked like if Lockheed had a different Mission Role than set for by USAF Requirements had the Mission changed while the program was well advanced and prohibitive to re-start? I the dominant role became air superiority with mandate for missile/gun capability (like the F-16) then the wing would have been the major focus - and possibly an extension to the fuselage (internal fuel, perhaps cg).

Swampyankee pointed out a good possibility to re-consider the T-Tail, when an increased wingspan and chord became feasible, with the accompanying feature of reconsidering the T-tail/stabilator to improve high AoA envelope. The X-27/CL-1200 discussion is the most likely approach. That said the existing requirement to maintain lines and tooling for the forward section points to about the same radar footprint - a limiting factor when compared to the F-15.
 
The F-104 was to literally be a manned missile in order to quickly climb and intercept Soviet bombers.

It wasn't supposed to be a fighter, so how much should be changed while retaining it's original mission profile?
 
fastmongrel said:
A bit off topic but I have often wondered what were the aircraft that could have seen service without the Lockheed bribery money.
Click to expand...

That's a great question!

The only ones where I think there's a clear alternative were Japan, where the Grumman F11F Tiger was the leading contender for the role filled by the F-104 and the DC-10 was displaced by the L-1011 at ANA and the Netherlands, where it was F-104 vs Mirage 5. I don't know what other aircraft were in consideration for the role filled by the F-104 in West Germany, Italy, and the other purchasers of the F-104.
 
fastmongrel said:
A bit off topic but I have often wondered what were the aircraft that could have seen service without the Lockheed bribery money.
Click to expand...

I worked for Lockheed during the 1980s and there always stories about these scandals. I think this is one where Wiki has it covered:

Lockheed bribery scandals - Wikipedia

According to Ben Rich, director of Lockheed's Skunk Works:

Lockheed executives admitted paying millions in bribes over more than a decade to the Dutch (Prince Bernhard, husband of Queen Juliana, in particular), to key Japanese and West German politicians, to Italian officials and generals, and to other highly placed figures from Hong Kong to Saudi Arabia, in order to get them to buy our airplanes. Kelly [referring to Clarence "Kelly" Johnson, first team leader of the Skunk Works] was so sickened by these revelations that he had almost quit, even though the top Lockheed management implicated in the scandal resigned in disgrace​
​
I worked for a manager who was actually caught up in this scandal and did time in jail (I will not mention his name). He was an alleged "bag man." Up until the late 1980s Lockheed maintained a suite across the the street from their Burbank facility at a Hilton hotel - for "entertainment purposes." Some pretty nice "eye candy" could be seen coming in and out of that suite. (I stayed in that hotel for a bit after returning from a field assignment).

At the end of the day, people I know who were close to these scandals had little remorse - "We weren't doing anything different that any other large aircraft company was doing at the time. We were just dumb enough to get caught."
 

Do you mean the F11F-1F Super Tiger I imagine the F11F Tiger would have been a bit old fashioned next to a 104.
 
The CL-1200 was an F-16 rival built around what Lockheed thought the USAF should procure. There also might have been a desire to make the design easier to export. Northrop's YF-17 also ran into trouble in that regard: They wanted a design that could be exported fairly easily, and they were less willing to take the design to the degree the YF-16 was taken to. That said, the decision for the YF-17 to be a twin-engined aircraft was largely the decision of the USAF which wanted a single, and a twin-engined aircraft. There also might have been a General who simply wanted a twin-engined fighter design, for some reason of his own.

That said, the reason they placed the wing in the mid-section in the F-104 was because it gave the best transsonic drag, and the high-tail was predominantly to prevent inertial coupling, but, it also gave more lever-arm (useful for supersonic flight).

I don't want to contradict you, because you actually worked for Lockheed and I merely read books on the subject.

That said, from what I remember reading (and it was from multiple sources): The roots of the design started during the Korean War (1952, if I recall) with a visit by Lockheed and North American making a visit to a fighter base. There were some complaints about the F-86 because it was less maneuverable and didn't climb as well as the MiG-15, and was felt to be overly complicated in terms of hydraulics (which was actually totally justified), and possibly the gunsight (This is a guess, but it was quite complicated, it's possible that some pilots were still outperforming the system with the Mk.I eyeball and some mad-skills, or the fact that the radar-directed gunsight hadn't incorporated the degree of automation that it would later employ -- I'm not sure when this change was made -- and required frequent adjustments): There seemed to be a desire for an aircraft that was real light, simple, and could outrun, out climb, and get on top of anything the enemy could throw at them. Whether maneuverability was explicitly specified, I don't know. It's possible that they did (and changing specs ultimately reduced it), or they didn't because they felt it was obvious that a fighter should be highly agile.

The USAF seemed pretty receptive (after all, they bought it), and gave Lockheed some degree of latitude in the design at first (in the interest of weight-reduction), but it seemed that the Mach 2 requirement appeared pretty early on (possibly from the outset), as supersonic-flight was becoming possible during this time-period (the F-100 started development in 1949), as was the interceptor requirement. That said, it didn't appear to be an all-weather design like the F-102 (with a highly sophisticated long-ranged radar and integral fire-control system, etc.), but more of a day-fighter that could climb real fast and accelerate good, with a slightly improved radar (more than a day fighter, but less than the F-102), which was still, in essence, a longer-ranged radar-directed gunsight. Since the design was already built around the ability to accelerate and climb-real fast, as most fighters were designed around prior to the age of missiles, it might not have seemed to be a big deal.

I personally think the Northrop N-102 was the better choice in terms of agility, the F-104 wasn't totally irredeemable in terms of performance (though I think it left a bit to be desired). As long as it was possible to lower the flaps to the T/O configuration up to 450 knots (I'm not sure this was a feature until the F-104G), the design could maneuver about as well as the F-4 (well, the F-4 without flaps, but...), with both showing remarkable energy retention. It also proved to be quite adaptable...
  • When it came to air-to-air ordinance: Originally, it could only carry 2 x AIM-9 on the wingtips; by the F-104C, it was capable of carrying an additional pair on catamaran-mounts under the fuselage; some Norwegian variants were also wired to carry AIM-9 on their underwing pylons; the F-104S were capable of carrying 2 x AIM-7 under the wings; It was also evaluated by the USAF, for the ability to carry 1 x AIR-2 Genie nuclear-tipped air-to-air rocket.
  • When it came to air-to-ground ordinance: Originally, it had a load of 2 x 1000 lb. bombs under the wings (Typical load seen on the F-86, and less than half the maximum load of 5300 lb.); by the F-104C: It could carry 4000 pounds of ordinance (the same as the F-100A), which included the provision for a 2000 lb. nuclear store on the centerline mount; by the F-104S: It could carry as much as 7500 pounds of air-to-ground ordinance.
  • Avionics were quite primitive early on: It was basically a radar-directed gunsight with longer range; since there was a need to fill in the gaps that the F-102 & F-106 weren't filling fast enough, it soon found itself fitted with the SAGE datalink; by the F-104C: It was fitted with the LABS system, to allow for toss-bombing attacks; by the F-104G: It had a multi-mode radar capable of carrying out air-to-air intercepts, and terrain-contour mapping (it might not have been as sophisticated as the F-102A/F-106A, but it wasn't bad); by the F-104S: It had a continuous-wave illumination system that could guide AIM-7's.
  • The aircraft, as designed, had no provision for aerial refueling: By the F-104C, a crude attachable receptacle was added; by the F-104G, a fully retractible refueling receptacle was installed.
The fact that the canopy had good all-around visibility and a reliable gun, was also something that definitely can't be said for all of the fighters of that era.
  • F-102A/F-106: Was designed without guns, limited top/rear visibility, and some complaints were made about the V-shaped windscreen on forward visibility
  • F-105: Visibility to the rear was rather poor.
  • F-8: While equipped with cannon, they were prone to stoppages (not sure how much of this had to do with the specifics of the gun, its installation, or some mixture of both); visibility to the rear was poor.
  • F-4: No guns, and pilot visibility to the rear was poor
It was also fairly low-maintenance, with modular electronic boxes that could be swapped out in a half-hour (something ADC F-104 pilots appreciated), some have claimed it was fairly cheap overall compared to other fighters (though others claim the maintenance was cheaper).

The larger wing-designs like CL-1010 would have probably been most able to achieve much of the supersonic performance while still achieving a lower stall-speed.
  1. While it had a lower aspect ratio, it had a larger area, and a higher taper-ratio, which tends to reduce losses in lift to tip-vortices.
  2. Though the CL-1010 had a more powerful engine (J79-GE-19), it also was expected to sustain Mach 2.4. While I could be wrong, the reduction in thrust, might offset the decrease in sustained speed.
I'm not sure if the design would have faired as well in terms of weight, while CL-1010 was to weigh in at 31000 pounds, I'm not sure if that was inherent to the wing-design, or due to strengthening made to allow for greater payload and missile capacity (The F-104S also had a weight of 31000 pounds).
Second - while the low speed qualities were dangerous to the unwary, it was more forgiving than say the T-38 Trainer.
Click to expand...
That is a surprise...
 
swampyankee said:
I don't know what other aircraft were in consideration for the role filled by the F-104 in West Germany, Italy, and the other purchasers of the F-104.
Click to expand...

The West Germans had their eyes on the cancelled mixed propulsion Saunders SR.177 jet/rocket interceptor at one stage, with the Marineflieger showing interest in the Blackburn Buccaneer. It was something of a disappointment to Lockheed that Australia ordered the Dassault Mirage instead of the F-104, which, according to various politicians was a shoe-in as the next RAAF fighter to replace the Avon Sabre.

The F-104 ZELL always intrigued me.

Europe 239
 
Though, I often tend to reply in bulk: I've decided to address some things in separate replies (both to avoid irritating people, and to avoid the 20000 character limit -- I have run up against that once, and it wasn't fun).

fastmongrel said:
A bit off topic but I have often wondered what were the aircraft that could have seen service without the Lockheed bribery money. . . . Do you mean the F11F-1F Super Tiger I imagine the F11F Tiger would have been a bit old fashioned next to a 104.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure the F11F-1F/F11F-2 would have been all that pedestrian: The basic aircraft was a fundamentally sound design with no major vices, was far more docile than the F8U, had a lower stall-speed, and was sturdier too (8.0g vs 6.4g) -- it's only problem was that it was underpowered, which the J79 would have rectified. The F8U had a higher fuel-fraction than the F11F, and longer range on internal-fuel (not sure with drop-tanks), but with the J79's and inlet mods: The F11F was definitely capable of exceeding Mach 2.0 (something the F8U couldn't reach, unless you count the XF8U-III), though I'm not sure if it could keep up with the F-104, or be able to match the F8U's sustained turn-rates.

Regardless, I'm not sure if the F11F-1F/2 would have stood a chance even without bribery scandals. MAP generally preferred not to use naval aircraft for land-based air-forces because of the fact that they were often more complicated (mechanically, anyway -- stronger landing-gear, arrester-hook, and folding-wings), and heavier (the F8U was an exception in terms of weight). That said, if the Mirage V was on the table, I could imagine it might have had a shot (the RAAF liked 'em).
 
Last edited:
tomo pauk said:
Known much more for it's abysmal safety record and the bribery scandal than for performance figures, the F-104 was probably one of most un-loved fighters post ww2.
Click to expand...

I'll go back to the original post. Let's start with "un-loved." By who? Maybe by those who flew their aircraft into the ground! Sarcasm aside, I've spoken to US, Canadian and Italian F-104 pilots and they all loved the aircraft. Perhaps because of the mission they were flying.

Safety record - no doubt they were being crashed in abundance when they were first entering service. New Luftwaffe pilots going from the F-86 into the F-104 with no supersonic transition aircraft, the aircraft being deployed into a role it was never designed for. Once those poison pills were swallowed the F-104 went from having one of the worst safety records in NATO to having one of the best. Spain operated the F-104 for I believe 6 years, never lost one! Pakistan, Taiwan, Greece, Turkey - never hear much coming from them.

Here's a great video that goes full circle.




BTW - the US fighter with the highest attrition rate operated by NATO? The F-100. The F-102 was also more dangerous than the F-104.
 

I wouldn't get too hung up on this considering you're going to be tracking your target BVR prior to engagement and still tracking when attempting to get lock on if you're VR by this time. I also think you're going to know if someone is on your six before you get to turn your head around!
 

I think by the CL 1200 the design was stretched as far as it was going to go and I don't think the CL 1200 would have come close to competing with the F-16. I think it was shown that with proper training you could overcome the bad low speed characteristics. By virtue of design, I don't think you'll going to get better maneuverability without going back to the drawing board.
 

Thank you for the video.
The book about the F-104 by Gerard Paloque notes that Belgium lost 41% of its F-104s in 20 years, Italians lost 37% by 1992, the Canadians lost 46% in 25 years. All of the 3 countries have had a continued training and use of aircraft, unlike the new Luftwaffe, yet suffered the same.

BTW - the US fighter with the highest attrition rate operated by NATO? The F-100. The F-102 was also more dangerous than the F-104.
Click to expand...

In US service, the loss rate per 100 000 hours was worse for F-104 by 50% than for the F-100:




Premise of the thread is that F-104 is designed around a bigger wing from the get go, not that it received a bigger wing later in it's life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Curtiss P-36 with the Wright R-2600 Twin Cyclone (hypothetically)
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
tomo pauk
A
Could a single engined, single seat fighter be made for the Lycomings xr-7755?
Replies
8
Views
1K
GrauGeist
A
Falklands but with fresh Mayo
Replies
4
Views
854
FrL
Menu
Log in
Register