Talk:F-104 Starfighter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Comments
I could have sworn that the F-104 saw extensive service in VietNam as a specialized radar jammer for B-52's. Not true?
-
- Never heard of that. I'd be surprised -- the F-104 is TINY, not much space for a complex avionics suite. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
WaltBJ: I believe this is confused with the F4 which was used in such a manner, usually dropping chaff to screen the B52s. F4s also flew escort about 3 miles behind the B52s.
An event mentioned in this article is a May 18 selected anniversary
hjo;
Almost all the F-104s in the fighter-bomber version, assigned the letter C, were used in Vietnam, for 21 months, during which time they performed important, far-ranging work. The first fifteen Starfighters arrived in April 1965, with the 476th Tactical Fighter Squadron and the 479th Tactical Fighter Wing: from April 20 to November 20 of the same year they carried out 2,927 missions of machine-gunning, bombing and escorting strike aircraft, sometimes in North Vietnamese air space, before returning to the United States. The 476th was back, however, in June 1966, operating from the Udorn base in Thailand. The F-104Cs were now camouflaged in accordance with operational needs and in July were handed over to the 436th TFS and in October to the 435th, still belonging to the 479th TFW. From June 1966 to July 1967 the F-104Cs carried out escorting and bombing missions on North Vietnam, with over 5,290 sorties. The last Starfighter left Thailand before the end of 1967, its duties being taken over by the Phantom F-4D. Although not much has been written and said about the F-104C, it seems to have given a good account of itself, but the shortage of machines obviously limited its use. see: http://www.gruntonline.com/US_Forces/US_Aircraft/us_aircraft5.htm
This article, unfortunately, repeats several myths about the F-104. For one thing, it is an excellent dogfighter when flown by someone who knows to work the vertical. Pilots of other fighters in dissimilar aircraft exercises often accused the F-104 of cheating, since it kept going up and down instead of making turns like a real airplane. One F-8 pilot reported following a smoke trail to track down an F-4 (which used the same J-79 engine) and realizing he was in trouble when the F-104 flying close formation with the F-4 pulled up into a climb the F-8 couldn't match. He was still trying to spot the smaller plane when it made a diving attack from behind and scored a simulated kill.
WaltBJ: With the G-model takeoff flaps the F-104A could outturn an F4. T/O flap limit speeds were then M1.8 or 550KIAS, whichever was reached first. As for climb, an strictly standard F104A/J-79-19 in combat configuration could reach 45000 90 seconds after brake release.
Additionally, ferry range with 4 drop tanks is around 1500 NM at best-range cruise. Remarkably, by climbing to high altitude and accelerating to Mach 2 the plane could achieve almost the same range, due to the inherent low drag in those conditions. Walt BJ: I flew one cross-country at M2.0 and 73000 with a fuel burn of 3000lbs/hr. The F104A/J79-19 combination was obviously capable of higher altitude and speed from the way it handled up there.
None of the nicknames listed were actually used by F-104 pilots, especially "Widowmaker." This was given to it by others, largely due to the unfortunate German accident rate early in the plane's deployment there. (Note that during this same period Spain lost *none* of its F-104s.) Once Germany changed its training program their accident rate for the F-104 dropped to well within the same range as that for other jet fighters of the period.
What pilots of the F-104 prefered to call it is "Zipper."
I actually wrote an article on this aircraft. A copy is posted at: http://www.dcr.net/~stickmak/JOHT/joht12f-104.htm
Rod (Stickmaker) Smith
- Well then, get your hands out of your pants and fix the article! :-) But seriously, you'd likely do a better job than anybody else on some of these details. Stan 05:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that it was not the German Democratic Republic (DDR, a.k.a East Germany) that bought the Starfighter, but in fact the West German Airforce. Such a glaring error in this external article does tend to throw the credibility of the rest into some doubt, at least for me. Graham 02:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
Air does not "think," and cannot be "fooled!"
- Fixed Graham 02:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the high crash rate of the German Starfighters can be blamed entirely on pilot training. As i recall, Luftwaffe wanted an all-purpose jet (which the Starfighter was not designed to be) which resulted in a large number of extras being put into the F-104G. The result was a jet that was significantly heavier than the original and consequently harder to handle. An example that was given was the increased take-off speed. That speed was in fact so high the pilots had no more than two seconds after take-off before theit landing gear would rip off. Also, the F-104G was constantly updated with new equipment and new procedures. Sometimes those came so fast that pilots had no more than a day to learn a new procedure before the next one arrived. Another reason for decreased crash rates in later years were changes in maintainance. Once Luftwaffe started using spares from domestic production instead of those imported from the US, reliability improved significantly. --Qualle (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I challenge the statement that the landing gear would rip off within 2 seconds. What would actually happen is that retracting the gear at much over 250KIAS would result in the main gear doors being trapped open by the airflow, necessitating slowing down and cycling the gear. The problem with the F104G and the Luftwaffe was a combination of shorter runways (8000 ft) than the pilots had trained on at Luke AFB (11000 ft), much worse weather (Luke is in the desert), and lack of experience of the pilots and of the mechanics. At this time the economy of Germany was swiftly improving and many LW mechanics separated from the service to go to work in industry at much higher levels of pay. Note that the Belgians seldom had an accident although their weather is generally as bad as Germany's. Walt Bjorneby, 730 hours of F104 time.
[edit] Quality
In this article i dont see anything about the corruption scandals where some people accepted bribes. also i think this article is too positive about the starfighter, everything i read about it (granted, main infosource is discovery channel) states that it was a crap plane (tricky to fly) and was quickly replaced in the USA
104-owner: Take the Discovery Channel's expose' with a grain of salt. If the aircraft was "a crap airplane" as you call it, then why did so many countries build it and even more flew them? Italy last flew them in 2004! Not bad for a 50 year old design! Like every aircraft, especially military aircraft, have their quirks. And military aircraft are designed to be unstable as it allows them to depart normal straight and level flight to perform maneuvers that are not to be done on regular aircraft. And if the aircraft are so tricky, then why are three flying in the US and you don't see any other century series flying?
[edit] Role
I would change the Role to Single-Seat Multi-Mission Fighter instead of Fighter-Bomber. But opinions on this are open.
I agree... My six pennyworth: There have been several F104 air display teams over the years. The first was I believe called The Slivers and could well have been Belgian though it might have been German. The latter had possibly the most famous team called The Vikings which I also saw a couple of times during the 1980s. There is a website dedicated to them: http://www.fly-navy.de/vikings/vikings.html
WaltBJ: The 'Silver Slivers' were Belgian.
The Canadian AF in Europe also had at least one team - called The Red Indians I think, at least I saw one painted up in an all-red scheme at Mildenhall in the early 1980s. There was another team too I vaguely recollect as I saw them at RIAT in 1985 with at least half a dozen planes. Great to see and with their spooky howling when in the circuit memorable in the extreme.
Another nick name I heard once was Flying Blowlamp. I recall seeing an F104 taxying and up the jet pipe you could see what might well have been the pilot light for the afterburner. Walt BJ: Correct. This device was invented by a USAF maintenance officer to assure AB lights at altitude.
Did the F104 have boundary layer control and did this contribute to the strange sounds it used to make.
104-owner: Yes the -104 did have boundary layer control which allowed the -104 to land at slower speeds than without it.
Walt BJ: No, that is due to the weird aerodynamics in the dual nozzle. On the ground it changed pitch at about 68%; in the air at about 89%. The later J79-17/19 engines had an improved nozzle but alas lost their warble.
104-owner: Thought the sounds were made by the air moving over the intake vanes?
The Yeager crash is featured in the movie 'The Right Stuff' but I doubt this is the only film featuring this fantastic machine.
WaltBJ: There is a sub-B movie entitled 'Starfighter' which incorporates every Hollywood cliche aboput fighters and fighter pilots. I have not seen it but my cohorts have. I understand it's better with the sound off. Ex-Congressman Bob Dornan is in it. Be warned.
104-owner: Agreed about the 'Starfighter' movie. There was another Italian based movie where F-104's were chasing UFO's. Called "Blue Tornado" and contained the actor Dirk Benedict.
Books: "There is an excellent book about Starfighter service with the Royal Canadian Air Force. It is written by a former RCAF Starfighter pilot, David Bashow. It is titled “Starfighter - A loving retrospective of the CF-104 era in Canadian fighter aviation”, published in 1990 by Fortress Publications. The ISBN number is 0-919195-12-1. It is an excellent first-hand account of what it was like to fly the 104 in active service". Roy Szweda szweda[at]gmail[dot]com
[edit] Pic of a Gnat forced to surrender by F-104
Should this pic be in the article under Impressions of PAF pilots?Waqas.usman 08:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Depends what the point is? That a supersonic interceptor can force down a lighter subsonic jet derived from a trainer aircraft? Why isn't the section entitled combat service with the PAF or similar since there are no quoted impressions of the pilots given. GraemeLeggett 10:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Because, I presume, the section was written under "Pilot impressions", with an anti-PAF bias (I edited it yesterday). I've updated the article again Waqas.usman 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- My take on the image is that it is too much of a sidetrack for an article about the F-104 but it could make a good addition to the article about the conflict as a whole. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I added this because it is claimed that the same aircraft did shot down one or two f-104, so it can shot it down why can't it be forced to land by a f-104
- My take on the image is that it is too much of a sidetrack for an article about the F-104 but it could make a good addition to the article about the conflict as a whole. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reference to the "Lancer"
The reference to the "lancer" in this article is incorrect. The Lancer never flew - it only got as far as full-scale mockup, so the number of pilots who flew it is very low indeed :)
Do a Google search for "lockheed lancer" for numerous references.
[edit] German pilots
- I erase the words, that the riskful german pilots take the responsibility for the lost of nearly 300 Starfighters. That was stupid and fare away from a real fact (it was based also on one personal statement) 217.83.12.236
I have read the source, and it's not from a reliable sources, but rather a discussion group of some kind. You are right that it doesn't belong here, but as you had not provided an edit summary when you deleted it, I had no idea why it was taken out.
Also, the usual practice is to post new topics here at the bottom of the page, where they can be found more easily. If you sign your post with four ~ , Wiki will automatically sign at date it for you. Thanks for your contributions. - BillCJ 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Having once watched a German Starfighter take off at night from the Saskatoon airport tower & hit the Afterburners at the end fothe runway,THEN BREAK THE SB, ,I suspect that a Saskatchewan homeowner is behind that quip:')
Spectacular sight! Opuscalgary 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] footnoting and sourcing
Someone shoot me... I've given EMT147 a fit about [citation needed] an article to death but this one seems to scream for it. There isn't a footnote one in several sections at all about design and construction where you'd expect alot of it. Tirronan 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] world records
Are these FAI recognised records? - it doesn't get a mention under Flight airspeed record GraemeLeggett 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad excuses for claiming that F-104s do not exist anymore
Let 'er rip, I'm desperate to hear your explanation why F-104s do no longer exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.246.103 (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
- Frankly I don't have the patience to find out your motives, but you did some changes which are either vandalism or disregard for other's contributions. Pick one, but don't be suprised if others ridicule you for it.
- "was was"? Yeah, right. The plane does still exist, in more than one instance. Please explain why Wikipedia should refer to the past in this case. --217.235.246.103
-
- I'm sorry, but the issue of which tense to use is not important enough to me for me to waste my energy arguing any further, especially with someone whose not even bothered to register (or at least log in). Have fun yanking someone else's chain. Thanks. - BillCJ 01:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, but the phraseology matters a lot. No one is claiming the F-104 doesn't exist any more, just that it no longer exists in its designed capacity. Surely you aren't claiming that any US forces are still using them as military interceptors.--chris.lawson 01:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, then call it former interceptor or something. This is really not necessary, because service times are mentioned as the very next thing, but it might work. Using the past however, does not, as the thing still exist, unlike dead persons, past battles, destroyed buildings or anything else from the past. --217.235.246.103
Neutral uninvolved opinion dropping in. The text at issue is: The Lockheed F-104 Starfighter is an American high-performance supersonic interceptor aircraft. If all or most units have been scrapped, then it should read "was". In all other cases, regardless of any change in their actual use (since this does not change the aircraft itself or its designed use), it should read "is". Any questions? Chris cheese whine 17:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- All or most units have been scrapped, and so "was" is the right word to use here. I have changed the article back. --Guinnog 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I could ask where this rule comes from, but I accept the outside opinion. Closed. --217.235.210.177
[edit] Introductory definition
I think the introductory definition of an article's subject should primarily state what the subject is or was, rather than just mentioning for whom it was designed to do what ...
However, I can live with the current wording "[The] Starfighter was designed for the USAF as a [definition] ...". I'm just nitpicking and stating a principle. --83.253.36.136 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you, and I don't particularly like how it was re-worded. WP:AVIATION has decided on a consistent style, and one anon making a fuss about it shouldn't be reason to change our style at the expense of readability.--chris.lawson 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] There are no VTOL F-104 in Germany
in Articel clames that Germany build two F-104 VTOL called The EWR VJ 101C, those Aircraft are NOT F-104!!! nore were part of F-104 used to build the Prototypes X1 & X2. But the Germans build two Protoypes of F-104G for Zero-Length Launch Test (ZEL) one oft ZEL Prototype ist on Display in Lufwaffenmuseum Gatow Berlin Germany see ZEL http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html See Prototype F-104 G ZEL http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/x_planes/zell104.html87.66.161.171 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VTOL F-104
Two VTOL F-104 one is Proposed by Ryan Aeronautical engineer Peter Girard turning an F-104 Starfighter into a supersonic helicopter. http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/F-104VTOLPage.htm anonder is Idea to replace the wingtip stations by lift jets engines http://aerostories.free.fr/dossiers/ADAV/f104.JPG (frence Webpage "publicité North-American d'époque" = North american ad from that Time) 87.66.161.171 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class military aviation articles | Military aviation task force articles | B-Class military technology and engineering articles | Military technology and engineering task force articles | B-Class weaponry articles | Weaponry task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | B-Class aviation articles needing review | B-Class aircraft articles | B-Class aviation articles
