Lockheed F-104 Starfighter: The Flying Coffin
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июн 2021
- Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/megaprojects to get 50% off your first order of Keeps hair loss treatment.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored by Keeps.
Love content? Check out Simon's other RUclips Channels:
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
![NOSFERATU - Official Teaser Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/b59rxDB_JRg/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/megaprojects to get 50% off your first order of Keeps hair loss treatment.
No hair? Take this and become sterile! Lol eugenics at work
@joesph tim ?
Simon: "You don't have to be like me."
Me: "But I want to blaze. DON'T KEEP ME FROM BLAZING!!"
"You don't have to be like me."
Oh sure, rub our noses in it, thanks.
Forgot to mention that it was the only plane that could shoot itself down, since it could out fly the bullets that it was shooting
media: this is a groundbreaking aircraft
pilots: I hope you don't mean that literally
I mean... if Maverick can fly below the hard deck in an F-14... :D
Actually, if you look at what real F-104 pilots had to say about it, they liked it.
In the case of the German airforce , it literally did .
Airforce: Uh... Totally not...
BA DA BUM BUM TSHSHSHSHSHSHSHHSHSHSHSHSHS
Here in Germany we had saying: If you wanna own a F104 just wait a few days one will sooner or later fall from the sky into your backyard :D
mein opa war beim bund & der hatte nen kumpel der starfighter geflogen ist , bei dem war zum glück immer alles gut
Very catchy 😉
I saw one crash near Flugplatz Hahn in the 1970’s. Thankfully the pilot survived although a bit banged up.
That happens when a pure interceptor is used as a low altitude strike fighter. My uncle, an AMI sergeant, witnessed an incident too
Flown properly the F 104 is a safe aircraft.
It’s also the only USAF aircraft to have intercepted the Starship Enterprise
I knew startrek sucked. But if a futuristic spaceship gets intercepted by one of the first jets the discussion is over: star wars is better xD
@@juliusraben3526 to be fair, the enterprise was having issues
ruclips.net/video/pBW0o38MbvY/видео.html
@@juliusraben3526 I don't really think one is better than the other. Star Wars is science fantasy, Star Trek is soft science fiction. They may be similar but genre wise, ftl space travel is the only thing SW and ST have in common. Personally I think they're both great, except for the Sequel Trilogy, ST: Discovery and ST: Picard are equally shitty. Hollywood is getting better and better at destroying franchises because of unoriginality.
I remember the first time I saw 'Tomorrow is Yesterday'. As the first minute or so started to play, I got really upset because the TV station had substituted an Air Force program for Star Trek lol. Imagine my 10ish year old surprise as I then saw the Starfighter close on the Enterprise!
I do love that juxtaposition, and that both have Star in their designations.
There was an entire movie devoted to this plane. It was called, "The Starfighters" and stars real Air Force personnel instead of actors -- and it shows. Also includes lots and lots of stock footage, mostly of mid-air refueling. It was featured in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I highly recommend it! Very, very funny!
Was this aircraft featured in a Star trek episode were members of the Enterprise go back in time ?
@@gus2600 Yes. As I recall the Enterprise's tractor beam destroyed the Starfighter, leading them to beam the pilot aboard.
yeah and even in that movie, which was ostensibly made to promote the Starfighter, one or two of the planes ended up crashing.
There was also the movie called "Blue Tornado" starring Dirk Benedict. It was pretty bad, but it was 91 and I loved the A-Team.
@@gus2600 Yes it was , and also , Major Anthony Nelson , in "I Dream of Jeanie" flew one....
These comments, unfortunately, repeat several myths about the F-104. For one thing, it is an excellent dogfighter when flown by someone who knows how 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.
With the G-model takeoff flaps the F-104 could outturn an F4. T/O flap limit speeds were then M0.8 or 550 KIAS, whichever was reached first. As for climb, a strictly standard F104A/J-79-19 in combat configuration could reach 45000ft. 90 seconds after brake release.
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. Pilots called it the Zipper.
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.
Sadly, the truth often gets buried by lies, over misrepresentation of the “bad times”, and the generally ignorant parroting.
In fact, your comment actually made me realize so many outlets will shit on this or that but never ever mention the actual functional numbers, much less explain them.
It is very telling that upon export other countries had significant problems. I’d honestly say that’s likely because of true numbers being classified along with unique kinks and quirks and how to solve them. It’s incredibly rare America would give even allies all the answers.
This comment needs to be pinned.
@Larry Grosfield. Thanks for the 'history' info!
Thanks my dude most accidents where due to pilot error and bad training discipline
Basically, what they call "energy" dogfighting or more commonly known as "Boom n Zoom"
I remember seeing/hearing a 104 flying at an airshow when I was a kid. It looks like a straight up space ship cosplaying as a fighter jet.
Hence the name 'Starfighter'. Such an amazing craft for it's time.
The noise was intense. The F-101 Voodoo was also a screamer.
@@tncorgi92 Never got to see one! When I was at a base one time I did get to see the F/A 18 Hornet, however. Talk about a marvel of machinery.
@@caz3010 Probably because you would not find one in the sky, look for one inserted in the ground as that is where they all ended up.
@@tncorgi92 Yup, I remember seeing those fly at airshows in Hamilton, Ontario. The pilots used to love to kick in the afterburners and give the crowd a jolt.
Here in Italy the 104 is a very respected machine, we used it till 2005
No supersonic ( or subsonic ) fighters from the 1950's had a particularly amazing safety record. They were all bloody deathtraps.
The 104 was particularly awkward if the engine failed, not just because you'd got no power and it glided like a brick, but because the engine failure also removed the boundary layer control from the flaps. The landing speed was insane without it working. The published engine out procedure assumed you could arrive at the runway with 10,000 feet altitude to spare, and if you couldn't manage that then it was best to use the Martin Baker option instead.
There were so many other aircraft of the era with flaws that could kill the unlucky or inattentive, like the Mig-19 that would blow up for no apparent reason ( if it's flight controls hadn't lawn darted you first ), the BAC Lightning which loved to catch fire and the F-101 Voodoo that enjoyed nothing better than uncontrollable pitch ups.
Even 1970's combat aircraft like the Sepecat Jaguar had their quirks, like departing controlled flight if they were given pitch and roll inputs at the same time.
Military aviation in the golden age of jets was dangerous, no matter which aircraft you were wobbling about in.
My Dad was in AF flt test in the fifties.......he would agree with you....Capt Mike.....SAT
Lockheed paid $22 million in bribes to get countries to buy the F-104, because the F-104 was a rotten, death trap.
The Starfighter was more a death trap than most. A combined 30% hull loss rate, hundreds of pilot fatalities, and having 50% more accidents per flight mile than any other jet fighter in USAF service
@@Jimaybob those figures are incorrect USAF only lost 131 to accidents and of those accidents only 51 resulted in fatalities the Saber, f4, f100 and f101 all had higher numbers of accidents and rates of fatalities.
When i started working at Lockheed on the YF-22, there were a few very old engineers still around that worked on the Starfighter. They had great stories.
What were some of them? Cool that you had a role in the YF-22 program!
@@vitamaltz Too many stories, too long ago. Most of the stories they told had lessons embedded in them. Like one time one of the engineers (very young at that time) got mad that the machinist didn't install an item to print but the engineer found out that it worked better and could be maintained easier the machinists way. Lesson learned, talk to the machinists they will teach you lessons that cannot be learned in engineering school. My specialty is electromagnetics, gives you a hint at what i did on the program.
@@sojollythat's a good lesson. I was a project manager at a school renovation job one time and realized the electricians in the cafeteria were doing something a bit different than the plans called for. I spoke to the lead electrician about it and he said, "Look, that electrical engineer [also young] may have learned a lot in college but it's obvious he has never wired up a light fixture in his life."
@@vitamaltz lol
I love the F-22, its superior capabilities & only US jet congress precluded from being sold to any foreign nations! F-35 has less in many areas than F-22...there's a reason its classified even to our ally pilots.
The early downward firing ejector seat was because they weren't good enough yet to ensure the pilot would clear the tail. As soon as they could, they changed over.
Also, Michael Collin's favorite plane he flew.
My father flew the F-104 from 1958 to 1966 including a deployment with the Black Aces of the 436th TFS in Vietnam. He never spoke a harsh word about the aircraft. In fact, he often told me it was superior to many other jet aircraft he had flown over his extensive career with the USAF. In short, I agree with the comments below that in the hands of the right pilot, it was a magnificent plane indeed.
Mark, was your dad stationed at George AFB in California during this time?
Yes, in fact he was. If memory serves, he was there from 1962 to 1966. Previous to that, he was with the Tennessee Air National Guard in Knoxville and Germany. @@TimmyBoyAZ
@@markharris7825 He may have been in my dad's squadron. I was born in Apple Valley in 1964 while we were at George AFB. Small world. Is your dad still with us? My dad's name was Gary Blake.
WHOA, you missed a big point. I had the thrill of seeing two 104's flying for the Bundesluftwaffe (West German AF) during a maneuver as a tank commander in the early 1980's (I assume a reserve unit due to the date). The West Germans deployed the F104's as JABO's (tactical fighter bomber), not high-level interceptors. This put the aircraft outside it's envelope for stall speed. This is well documented. Due to the scandal and cost the Bundesluftwaffe tried to make it work. Imagin needing a tractor to plow a field and you get a Ferrari instead. Seeing it at low level in that iconic German splinter camouflage, emblazoned with an Iron Cross was a thrill. Didn't hear of any crashes that day so I guess they made it home. Hey if you can sell KEEP's I guess the West Germans can use an F104 like a Stuka.
💀💀💀 the sass tho
My father, RCAF Captain Clifford John (HANK) HENRY said this was the finest aircraft he ever flew. He also said it was not for inexperienced pilots and that most pilots were afraid of the 104. He said it was an honest aircraft, but for a lack of attention, it would honestly kill you. It was like a F-1 racing car, get behind the flight envelope and you were in trouble. It was seldom employed in roles for which it was designed and yet it did everything that was ever asked of it. While it was never in a major air to air confrontation, and thus does not have a high ratio of kills, it was a very hard aircraft to beat, as many an adversary discovered. In all the NATO competitions never was a 104 'shot down' or intercepted before it reached its' target. In the hands of a pilot such as my father, the 104 could dog fight with the best of them and usually won.
Lockheed paid $22 million in bribes to get countries to buy that piece of garbage your old man thought was the finest aircraft he ever flew. Sounds like your old man had his head lodged firmly up his backside. Like father like son.
L. henry Cool, my dad H. W. "Rocky'" Jones, Jr. (RIP) was also in the RCAF years before joining USAF well before WWII and then later after Korean War becoming a Hughes Aircraft Co. test pilot. Dad was the pilot of the infamous "Mid Night Sinner" F-82G all black night fighter out of Naha, Japan during Korean War and hundreds of other planes I know very little about. I say that because I used to have pictures in my parents den of his walls of aviation history and after he was killed racing a Formula-1 plane in TX in 1990 and then mom died in 2008 unfortunately most of it went to eBay from the agent selling her house stuff she owed on because of a reverse mortgage...we got very little for ourselves. I do remember seeing his F-104 Starfighter picture and metal model amongst the items going to auction...he also busted Mach 1 and Mach 2 and I'm wondering if one of those records wasn't in the 104 flying coffin rocket. He flew just about everything the air force had for a fighter pilot to fly...but no bombers! He escorted quite a few though. The only thing he never flew was the F-105 which this guy accidentally says at about 1:30 or so. "The F-105 Starfighter..." no that's the F-105 Thunderchief ...and one my dad never flew. He also never flew the X-15 or XB70 Valkyrie but he knew the guys that did and the pilots killed. Also I recall the biggest thing (2' x 3' or so) on their wall was his RCAF plaque with the shield and squadron info. He was very proud of that because he also taught flying to the younger cadets as well while serving in the RCAF. You don't mention when he served, but maybe your dad knew mine...that would be cool.
To DS Symonds. First, sir let me say you are an ignoramus. Pilots don’t deal with the economics of an aircraft, they just fly them. There is no doubt that the Cf-104 was a superior aircraft, still is today.
Hello Mr. Henry. My dad (Lt. Col. Ed Gund, USAF) was a 104 IP in the 60's (Luke AFB). Dad absolutely loved that A/C. He told me you had to be 10 minutes ahead of the 104 if you wanted to survive. I remember when he came home after his first check ride. He had this huge grin and he couldn't stop talking about this aerial dragster.
Dad passed on New Year's Day 2021. I have his flight helmet, flight suit & spurs. I really miss him
@@rogerjones6033 Just curious- why would the children lose the personal items in a parent's house that was reverse mortgaged? Should have nothing to do with personal possessions.
“Hans, You know that purpose built interceptor the US have given us”
“Ja”
“Why dont we use it as a ground attacker”
“Helmut, you’re a genius”
Lmao.
Pakistanis used it as ground attack jet as well apart from interceptor, still got shot down by Mysteres and Mig21.
Sad but true
@@mantiqor
Sad, but bullshit.
The F-104 was designed to be a daylight air superiority fighter, not an interceptor.
The U.S. Air Force used it as an interceptor because they didn't have any "real" interceptor aircraft available and so re-purposed the F-101 and the F-104 to be interceptors (the former as a "wide area" interceptor while the latter was a "point defense" interceptor) until the interceptor they wanted, the F-102/F-106 finally hit the fan.
The (West) Germans wanted to become full fledged members of NATO and so planned to replace all of the obsolete aircraft they had with "something" that could perform three roles, recon, interception, and ground attack.
There were several bidders for the contract, but only two that actually had real live flying aircraft, namely Lockheed and Dassault.
The boys at Lockheed said that'd modify the F-104 to do what the Germans wanted and the Germans were looking in at what the boys at Lockheed were doing as they modified the F-104 to become the "Super Starfighter", AKA the F-104G
@@nucleargandhi101
Anyone who takes an F-104 into a turning fight with a Folland Gnat is an idiot.
Meanwhile, when the F-104 was flown by those who knew how to fly it in the way that it should have been flown (i.e. slashing attacks) should have done will in it.
The F-104 ended up besting the F-86, F-100, and F-4 in Project Feather Duster (Feather Duster II, IIRC).
@@lewiscole5193 Sounds like you know a bit more about the meat and potatoes of the situation. I've been calling it an interceptor too, but, without verifying, I think you're right. At least we can agree NATO and West Germany's main mission requirements didn't suit the Starfighter well?
Also, one of the more interesting things about the F-104 is that it begat the U-2. Which was a 104 with glider wings.
Underrated comment, and you’re right. I never noticed that until now!
@@globalautobahn1132 but slow... even with more thrust but almost 50% higher take off weight, and a slight difference in range.
@@timbushell8640 I worked on U2's in the 70's. One of the "Stories" I heard about a U2. is a pilot was flying over the Mississippi River and lost his engine . He called Beal AFB to report the issue and ask what he should do. They replied " Call us back when you cross the Rockies."
Exactly what this needed...wings!
@@theshadowoftruth7561 the real story is in a book and it's not too far off except the normal glide range was 70+ miles.
In 1971 in Ramstein Germany we walked up on top of a plane bunker to watch a pre show practice of two German F104s doing head on last minute turn slide byes at very low level above the runway . They spotted our little crowd of pilots and airmen turned and buzzed us at tree top level and sent us diving and tumbling down the grassed topped revetment. And some people say the Germans don't have a sense of humor. It was a thoroughly beautiful plane.
Proof that the great Kelly Johnson wasn't copying off of area 51 tech. He was one of the finest minds of the 20th century.
🙏RIP Mr. Johnson🙏
@Barry Dysert. I accede with that!! Mr. 'Skunks' work, himself!
Add the P-38,U2 and the SR-71 to Kelly Johnson's list of envelope pushing A/C..
@@wolfmanjack3451 Especially the A-12 ... predecessor to the YF-12 A and SR-71. ^v^
The aliens came to Earth to learn from Kelly Johnson.
Both and.
The Starfighter was developed as a stripped down, high performance, interceptor to shoot down attacking Soviet bombers, and for that, it was a brilliant design. What gave it a bad reputation was the decision to use it as an air superiority fighter. Even so, Taiwan used it with success against Chinese MiGs.
or even worse,... force it into a fighter bomber role as germany did
They didn’t intend it for the interceptor role - the F102/F106 was the pick for that. It was supposed to be an air superiority fighter (guns and short range missiles) and in many ways it’s the NATO equivalent of the MiG-21.
Being able to disengage and re-engage from a dogfight at will is a heck of a defensive trick, especially in the era when missiles were new and guns took over.
In many ways it’s an early mentality fighter - designed for visual range gunfights (more slash and dash than turn and burn) rather than the missile armament. Ended up being decent at the “fast radar platform and missile carrier” that defined the following generation before they realized that missiles weren’t good enough for that yet and they still needed to be able to dogfight.
And it got shot down by MiGs in Vietnam and also in Indo-Pakistan war.
Much less the Germans adopting it as a ground attack platform. Whoever signed off on that program should be shot.
@@TheGranicd Your point?
Pilots: Can’t you make it faster?
Kelly Johnson: Hold my beer …
Is kelly some sort of general or someone?
@@seantaggart7382 Kelly Johnson was the Lockheed aeronautical engineer that led the design of the F-104.
@@wacwebber got it
I love how he did the F 104 and the U2, " The wings are too short." hold my beer!
Don't forget the SR-71 Blackbird and the A-12. Both products of Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works at Lockheed. Johnson started with Lockheed in 1933, fixing a stability problem on the original Electra.
Some of the Italian pilots in the F-104S were among the sharpest and most efficient pilots! Intercepts and intrusions were difficult to counter and almost impossible to avoid thanks to the speed and small size.The Canadians also used the CF-104 very well. Kelly Johnson designed it after speaking to pilots about Korean War experiences - they got what they asked him for! (edit: Glad you mentioned the perfect record in Spanish service!)
Kelly Johnson paid $22 million in bribes to get countries to buy the piece of garbage. The only reason it was in production is corruption, which Lockheed has a long, storied history of.
@@Ziggy_Moonglow This is true. For example, Lockheed bribed politicians in Germany and the Netherlands, and it was a gigantic scandal.
Thank you Damienmaynar, my stepsons dad owns 5 of these, and I was sure he bought then from Italy. They fly them for government research and at air shows and don't seem to have a problem with them.
The F-105 Thunderchief looks like it lost weight.
It was a weight loss program success, apparently. Just imagine a J-75 engine in an F-104 body.
I caught that too haha
Changed names too but it can't hide lol
aaah Simon's numerexia strikes again XD
@@AvoidTheCadaver Aha, so _that's_ what it's called! He's becoming well known for changing centuries in he middle of segments. Oh well, with all those channels, I guess we're lucky he remembers what _millenium_ he's discussing... "Numbers? We don't need no stinking numbers!" But he's informative, entertaining, and _colorful,_ ain't he?
From when aircraft were beautiful....
Kelly Johnson knew what he was doing! 😎🥰😍
He was out of this world.
Have you seen the F 22 ? A very swanky bird.
With a slide rule, too!
Reason he used it as a spy plane with bigger wings.
He was an out of the box genius designer, but he didn't have to fly his creations.
I'm Italian, AMI (Italian air force) had 104 for decades and I used to see them passing above my house daily for years.
they were perfect interceptors for Italy as they can scramble in 5 minutes, take-off and intercept quickly anything entering the airspace.
as far as I know at least one Italian starfighter pilot managed to "kill" a F-15 eagle in dogfight simulation.
Saw a fleet of Canadian CF-104s at an airshow in 1978, right at the time that Star Wars was the biggest thing...I was 7...this this was fast and loud, looked freaking cool, and was called "Starfighter"....how could I not love it.
Also the coolest missile with a seat as standard ever!!!!🤣
If you think that's impressive take a look at the English Electric Lightning taking off.
@@greywizard2557 I suppose the x 15 fits that bill better lol
I loved to watch the CF-104 at various air shows, and at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta while I was an Air Cadet in 1981. There's nothing like the eerie howl of the J79. Great video, Simon. I had no idea of the sordid history of this aircraft.
I saw the 104 live in Norway in 2018. That was some experience. The noise was incredible, and it looks amazingly timeless and fast still. If I remember correctly, I believe we had far more accidents with the previous fighters like the F-84 and F-86.
My great grandfather was one of the mechanics that worked on that project. He was very proud to be a part of something like that
Air Force: "We need you to fly this new airplane."
Me: "What's it called?"
Air Force: "It's been nicknamed the 'Missile With The Man In It'."
25 year old me: "AWESOME, sign me up."
39 year old me: "What else do you have?"
40 year old you: I have angel wings now! 👼
60 year old me: YES, start that f*cking J79!!!
60 year old you: where is my medicine?
So much truth right here.
"Missile with a man in it?" sounds like a late WWII Japanese plane.
I remember seeing the Starfighter for the first time in "The Right Stuff" and thinking it was the coolest thing ever. And after 30 years I still think it is amazing, despite the shortcomings. Great video, thanks!
Got a stick of beeman’s?
@@MrOozieNelson Loan me some willya, I'll pay ya back after I walk outta the flamin' wreckage.
Fair enough
"Just gonna ring her out a bit..."
They used normal F-104s for the movie, however in reality they used NF-104s for this Nasa purpose, a special variant with an additional small rocket engine at the tail.
They couldn't use it for the movie because only three were built, and one survived until today
Canada had approximately 200 CF 104’s, built by Canadair as a slightly modified variant, and the Canadian press in the 60’s nicknamed them the widow maker due to the number of accidents. My school was in the path of a military runway and my days in class were mostly spent looking out the window watching CF104’s and Voodoo’s landing and taking off so I recall them quite well. Don’t recall what we were taught so well, but it passed the day.
My dad flew an f104 in the early 80s before switching to an f-18 while in the Canadian air force.
The safety record has to be taken in context… most of the century series were death traps.
The F-100 was no slouch on killing pilots.
The entire century series was so bad at keeping pilots alive that they had to ditch the numbering and go back to 1.
While in fact the F-104G had above average loss rate compared to Mirage III or most of MiG-21 variant in WPACT.
www.quora.com/What-was-the-German-pilots-opinion-of-the-F-104-starfighter/answer/Bal%C3%A1zs-Moln%C3%A1r-28
There is a sign over a certain bases' pilots' "heritage room" which reads "Never fly the A model of anything"..... Sabre-dance in the F-100A was mostly fixed by the D model.
@@damienmaynard8892 Which quote became broken because of the F-15A and F-16A and F/A-18A...
@@dukeford8893 ???
The F-104G had the specific loss of the about 14.8-17 planes / 100k flight hours.
Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters released an album many years ago.
It's the light-hearted tale of how Germany adopted the Lockheed F-104 'fair-weather fighter' and turned it into a strategic nuke bomber, the F-104-G.
All you needed was lots and lots of bomb racks on those tiny highly-loaded wings.
Who needs lift or stability when you have a 190+ knot take-off speed?
This plane killed more skilled German pilots than the P-51...kidding!
From the album:
"Does anyone want to buy a Starfighter? Don't bother. Buy an acre of ground, and wait."
Classic album by Hawkwind, I still play it from time to time...
The german band Welle Erdball actually has a song about the F104-G, give it a try
Great album by Robert Calvert.
G for, ahhh, G for Germany :-)
@@ianbcnp We need 500, " 250 is more than enough " 😊
To be fair, the F-104 was designed to be a high-speed, high-level interceptor, where it excelled with fewer problems. However, some customers like Germany and Canada decided they also needed to use it as a low-speed, low-level fighter-bomber where it was dangerously ill-fitted to perform. This misuse alone probably accounted for most of the crashes.
They were sold as a jack of all trades except the designers forgot the most important feature of an aircraft namely the wings, it did not have any LOL.
Yep. The German air force was not qualified to operate and maintain it.
Other air forces were generally pretty happy with it when they used it properly.
That said, the Century series fighter jets and everybody else's jets at the time (British included) had a very high accident rate compared to modern jet fighters.
@@2lotusman851 Canada lost 46% of their aircraft, Italy 37%, Belguim 41% , Demark 25% and Germany 35%, it was not only the Germans that hated this useless lemon.
I can believe that. Canada used Sperwer drones for reconnaissance in Afghanistan, a drone with an operational ceiling of 5,000 metres, in an area where the altitude was already 2,000+ m. Three thousand feet ain't a lot of room to manoeuvre, and a lot of them crashed, despite "controlled crash" already more or less being the craft's landing method lol.
What ! The F 104 StarFighter a good dogfighter !
With those little stubby wings !
Give us all a break.
In the 1970s while flying an F-4 on a Mach 2 run in the Edwards high speed air corridor we had just barely reached M2 when we were passed by 2 F-104s in formation! Very hard to see (while in afterburner) and by using high speed slashing attacks, the 104 was a formidable adversary. While serving as a Supervisor of Flying (SOF) I was in the tower at Luke AFB when a German student took off and then found the aircraft was stuck in afterburner. He was able to keep the aircraft below landing gear extension speed by constantly pulling hard Gs to bleed off airspeed, but that was using a lot of fuel. Finally he was able to get the aircraft on final approach and configured to land. He shut off the engine a couple of miles out was able to slow the aircraft enough to dead stick it on the ground successfully. Mad respect for my German F-104 pilot friends. Any red-blooded fighter pilot who ever looked at that glistening needle, or heard the signature J-79 howling shriek in the landing pattern and didn’t secretly want to fly that beast, well…
The Canadian Forces Lawn Dart. An epic aircraft for sure.
It was even featured in one Star Trek episode.
@@lestergillis8171 Oh yes! I like that episode too.
@@CrashAndBurnProductions A university friend whose commanded a Canadian squadron in Germany told me the pilots loved the CF-104, even when loaded up with externals. I spoke with one of those pilots many years later and got the same story -- loved every minute of flying it. Clearly, also, it was more manoeuvrable than reputed -- somewhere out there is a video taken by an RCAF pilot who, for reasons of his own, decided to fly down a firebreak below treetop height. The sharpest of the turns defeated him repeatedly but he finally got it. The video is apparently a fixture of squadron reunions. Good pilots make a good plane better.
@@CrashAndBurnProductions I remember reading in a book about the Starfighter that due to its very small wing area it was very stable in ground runs because it didn't catch much updraft. I used to love seeing these fly in Canadian airshows.
@@scuppersthesailordog Yes, I'd like to hear more opinions of the people who actually had to fly it.
My suggestion for another video:
Vulcan, NOT the bomber, the M61 Vulcan 20mm autocannon. 1 minute of the video you could only tell all airplanes which where equipped with it. This is (or was) the norm cannon for American fighters for about 60 years
And the same basic design is still in use today, both in the 20mm CIWS on US warships, the 30mm GAU-8 on the A-10 and the monsters on the latest generation of "Spookies"
It's used in every U.S. fighter aircraft today except the F-35. The F-15/16/18/22 all use it (so did the F-14), the F-111 used it, and the AMX attack jet (built by Italy and Brazil) uses it.
@@VisibilityFoggywhat cannon does the F35-A use?
My all-time most favorite jet aircraft and it still irks me to no end they keep calling her the flying coffin.
The design was way ahead of its time and although I've never flown her myself I spent a whole lot of time at 31Tiger Sqn in Kleine Brogel in the 70's and 80s among the pilots flying her. I learned a lot about her from them, many of whom are still alive after more than 6000 hours flying her... 6000 hours with no problems... They are still my friends and retired with great memories of the highlight of their career.
True, she was not easy to fly but everyone seems to forget why they had so many crashes in Germany.
Because of the same reason you don't take a 13 yr old kid out of his Go Kart, strap him in a Formula 1 bolide and say OK, kid, take it for a spin around the Nurburgring.
The German Air Force rushed pilots from their outdated F-84 F Thunderstreak developed in the Korean War era onto the more advanced Starfighter to fill their many squadrons in record time because of politics, hence inexperienced pilots having to fly a jet way ahead of their capabilities and experience. And that's why so many young pilots crashed because they couldn't handle it....
Let's end this bad reputation of a magnificent aircraft.
Agreed! My dad spent 22 years in the F104, amassing almost 3000 hours. He participated in the Tiger Meet at Kleine Brogel...I am looking at the plaque right now. He loved the 104 more than any other aircraft he ever flew.
@@TimmyBoyAZ Which air force and squadron was he with? That was in 1978, right? I spent the whole week there walking around the base with two cameras around my neck and photographed everything that came in front of my lens. Great memories. I vividly remember the Portuguese pilots with their Fiat G.91s. I was present when they landed and parked in a remote shelter near the 31 Baracks, opening the computer or gun compartment behind the cockpit and hauling out a wooden barrel of genuine Portuguese port which quickly disappeared into the Follow Me van....
Never got to taste it... for pilots only I guess... Glad your dad had such a safe and amazing career on an amazing aircraft,,,,
Couldn’t agree more. The plane did exactly what it was designed to do. The whole "Widowmaker” thing is an urban legend
Still one of the coolest looking fighters ever.
Being schooled in a similar science ballistics I'm more leaning towards the designers did not chant the proper incantations and appease the proper gods.
i also bet his toaster run away
Kelly Johnson was the god lol.
@@RCAvhstape : "No, seriously, you have to have control surfaces, even the 1812 British rockets had something."
ala' Warhammer 40K?
@@Wardads1 jup
If you haven’t already done a video about it yet, I’d like you to delve into the history of the Grumman’s F-14 Tomcat. It’s my all time favourite fighter aircraft. 😎👍🏻
It's a better looking jet than its successors. It's a shame that the Tomcat has such great maintenance needs. And that it was specialized for air superiority rather than being intended for a ground attack role.
As a child of the late '50s and '60s I was a big fan of the Starfighter. The looks and name were irresistible to a science fiction fan who didn't know about its weaknesses.
Yes yes yes!
F 15 is better they are still producing it
@@fecalmatter4195 It is a very good fighter/attack jet.
I went to air shows with my dad as a child and this is easily the loudest thing I have ever heard. Nothing else even comes close. What I remember most is, it had such tiny wings, they were more like fins... which explains the noise... the thing had to fly so fast to stay in the air.
F 104....the most beauty in the skys.
Was nice to work on it.
'I lost my hair by the time I was 25' Amen to that brother, mine started falling off at 20...
Greece and Italy where also major users of the Starfighter with very few incidents.
Also it just breaks apart when subjected to a 23rd century tractor beam.
Great reference. I also note that Spock was afraid the Starfighter might be armed with a Genie or a Nuclear Falcon missile which could actually do some serious damage to Enterprise.
Then the miraculous transporter materializes the pilot standing up!
@@RCAvhstape yeah, and yet they’re basically fine when the Romulan Bird of Prey drops a nuke and it detonates a few hundred meters off the bow.
@@georgehill8285 Nukes in vacuum are less damaging since there's no air to carry the blast wave. Heat and radiation are still a threat.
Thanks for this informative video. I was fortunate to spend a year with these iconic planes on my remote isolated tour in the Republic of Turkey in 1971-72. Properly used, properly maintained, and properly flown, these planes were magnificent 50 years ago, and are still world classics today.
German zero length launchers did nothing to help the accident rate. Add to that the weather; Army helicopters needed 500 and 1 for visual flight. The Luftwaffe used 300 and a half. There is only one thing scarier than having a 104 pass on each side of you while flying down a valley in really poor visibility. That is having ONE 104 scoot by because you KNOW there is an unseen wingman out there somewhere. If you fly into his wake turbulence at least you know you missed him. Assuming, of course, that you don’t loose control of your helicopter. I came really close a couple of times.
> German zero length launchers did nothing to
> help the accident rate.
No, they didn't ... because they weren't used.
There was interest in using zero length launchers in the U.S. and German.
IIRC, there Germans came to their senses and never actually tried to launch an F-104 in this way, but the U.S. did it at least once with an F-100 before they too came to their senses.
A magnificent aircraft. I flew 1600hrs in it. Fantastic shape, super reliable J79 jetengine and an impressive sound. I flew 2200 hrs in the F16 after that, a very capable aircraft, better than the Starfighter but the Starfighter is still in my dreams.
You forgot to mention the 3 NF104s used by the USAF for training astronauts back in the early 60's . Chuck Yeager established some records in one of them until his accident after it failed to recover from a flat spin and he got burned rather badly after being clobbered in the face with the hot end of the ejection seat and the pure oxygen environment in his helmet erupted in flames . It was featured in the classic early 80's movie "The Right Stuff " . After the accident the last remaining NF104 was withdrawn from the program and now sits on a pole outside one bases in the US
A good 50 some odd years ago when I started flying an old pilot who had flown the F-104, when asked about the difficulty flying it, gave me a pearl of wisdom that I found useful. He said it pretty much flew like any other airplane if you flew it by the numbers. You have to give that one some thought but it certainly makes sense.
Canada used the fighter exclusively in the low level nuclear attack role. Its actual mission profile was a one way suicide run from Canadian bases in France and Germany into the heart of tank alley, dropping their nuclear B-61 payloads then continuing on to a safe zone with forced ejection and hoping the war ends in a few days before they die of exposure. They later switched to conventional weapon loads which mean't they had to now attack in multi-ship formations in order to produce enough battle damage. Flying in groups of up to 12 ships mean't the last guy in line was mince meat by the time he started his low level run.
The joke we never told to pilots at the time was after the real mission and the pilot was calling in to locate the base was: Do you see that glowing red hole at your 11 o'clock about 5 miles out? That's us. Best to use the alternate....
Exclusively? I've always understood the F-104 was purchased as an interceptor to fulfill Canada's role in protecting itself and the US from Soviet bombers. When the bomber threat receded due to the nuke attack being more of an ICBM concern then Canada had a plane in search of a mission. High speed penetration mission? OK. At low altitude? Umm... At a medium-long range? Hey, we're running into bad options here. Expend the plane and nearly expend the pilots into bad conditions? Well, Canadians are used to the cold...
@@donjones4719 Canada used the nuclear armed F-101 Voodoo and the nuclear armed BOMARC missile for NORAD Defence. Canada was really into nukes back then. Even the army station in Germany drove around with nuclear tipped Little Johns in their back pockets. Back when Canadians believed in defending freedoms they fought for.
Just remember that the Italians were flying it into the mid 2000s. From what I've heard, Italian pilots who transitioned to the F-16 were disappointed because they felt that their new aircraft didn't have the "sportscar" handling and maneuverability of the 104.
I can see the Italians and Spaniards (which was pre NATO and fascist which would not get sales from left leaning France) who like the slick features and were willing to risk their lives. Canada used them, goit good with them after sending many pilots to the grave, or ejected with stained underpants.
I remember ground support calling it "The Flying Dart" which if you flamed out would actually prove the point! However I also remember that they were very popular and there would always be a crowd people waiting for one to land or take off, that bird was a true Star.
When I was a kid, the city I lived in put a F-86 Sabre in the park for kids to enjoy. It's engine was removed so we could crawl through the empty fuselage from front to back. There was no thought of safety and it was awesome. It was filled with sharp edges. It is such a contrast to the umbrella safety supplied to today's youth. I feel sad for the kids of today. We didn't live in fear back then.
Back in the 60s & 70s, we rode around on bicycles without helmets!😉
This is the danger of nostalgia. Apparently knowing better as a society is "Living in fear."
There was a joke in my country:
What is the cheapest way to get a starfighter?
You buy a plot of land and wait.
Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters is a 1974 satirical concept album by Robert Calvert, the former frontman of British space-rock band Hawkwind. It consists of a mixture of songs and comic spoken interludes.
I remember this album well. My favorite sketches were the "Cockpit Check" and " The Interview"
ruclips.net/video/veOeL4Q58UU/видео.html
In 1972 at Decimommanu in Sardinia I used to love seeing a finger-four formation of Luftwaffe F104s come into the break over the runway. The amazing noises that the engines made with the flap blowing were amazing and wonderful to hear! I was shown over a F104G by a German pilot and he though it was the greatest aircraft ever. I do remember that the leading edges of the wings had guards fitted to stop you removing the top of your head!
I once met a retired Canadian RCAF pilot who flew these in Germany during the Cold War in the nuclear strike and photo reconnaissance role. He called them the 'Lawn Dart of Death.'
Simon endorsing keeps: "I guide others to a treasure i cannot possess"
The "Missile with a Man in It" has held a place in my heart as one of my go to favorite aircraft of all time since I first saw it when I was 7 years old. I first heard about it when I was doing a report on my life hero, Brig. Gen. Chuck Yeager. He described an unofficial flight of his breaking FL100 over Edward's AFB and wrestling with the Reaction Control System when he lost control, entered a flat spin and had to eject, burning off some finger tips in the process.
I'm not sure where your team is researching these videos, but there are some differences from what I've read and what you're script focuses on. For one thing, Kelly Johnson and others stated that the primary reason for the design choices was their discussion with fighter pilots and the key phrase they used was "Speed is life." Hence the desire for a sweeping fast interceptor with an extremely fast gun. This would help against fast maneuvering aircraft as they could extend and rejoin rather than get tangled in a dogfight.
The tactics developed for the aircraft were similar to the concept of the Me-163 with the intent of slashing through the formation of enemy aircraft while climbing, realigning for a second pass. Below in the comments is a great comment by Walt Bjornby who had reason to know.
Early development and deployment of aircraft often lead to high loss rates and the employment of a brand new gun system did indeed cause a few losses too. (The most famous video of an A-10 ejection is actually due to a gun issue causing loss of both engines during the test program- Maj Gen Frances Gideon explains here- www.moody.af.mil/News/Features/Display/Article/212562/former-safety-chief-gives-a-10c-drivers-hard-learned-history-lesson/)
The loss you focused on with the formation crash of the German display team can happen to any aircraft, e.g. the Thunderbird's Diamond crash.
As to the seat, as I mentioned in my response to your other video on bad aircraft (thanks for doubling down on the -104 btw) you are correct about the catapult issues, however this didn't cover my comment about how an ejection using an upward seat in that low altitude area would also likely have issues. That region of flight where firing a seat into the ground is high risk was out-of-the-envelope for parachute deployment for any backpack parachute equipped seat without a rocket at the time. Ejection seats used a delay mechanism in the parachute for the seat/man separation and for delays to allow the pilot to slow down so the parachute wouldn't be damaged during opening or create such a high opening shock that it would injure the pilot. For low altitude use the pilot had to attach a "Zero Lanyard" to the lap belt to force the chute to open with zero delay. This had to be removed at typically 10000ft for the delay to be active. Parachutes of that type open based more on distance than speed (although speed increases distance). I am an ejection seat historian and would defer to a parachute expert for a better explanation, but in general this means that it takes about eight times the diameter for a round parachute to open. If a typical C-9 parachute canopy is used as was common that is a 28ft diameter that would then require 224ft of distance to open properly. That doesn't include deceleration time to a safe landing speed by the way. To get this distance and add safety margin an ejection wasn't recommended below 500ft. Upward or downward seat wouldn't matter that much at 500ft or above.
One reason this became a major focus of the lore of the F-104 was that Iven Kincheloe was a very well known pilot and had a great career ahead of him when he ejected and was killed. www.thisdayinaviation.com/26-july-1958/ The ejection was witnessed and of course people were horrified by him hitting the ground. It was a terrible mishap, as is the loss of any person. It did lead to the perception that the seats were more dangerous although his chance of survival in an upward seat without rocket at the time would have been no better than marginal. Today we are used to seeing amazing seats that do remarkable things (ask me about the 4th Generation seat someday....)
The other thing to mention is that downward seats are still in service to this day. The B-52 still includes two downward seats in the cockpit. B-47, B-45, X-3 and others were so equipped as well. The F-104 was the only fighter/interceptor to enter service with them though. In most cases seats are upgraded and improved over their lifespans based on experiences with them, and the F-104 series of Lockheed seats was no exception. At the time the ICESC industry investigation into supersonic seats was underway and the 'D' seat was envisioned for the Starfighter. It was initially designed as a downward seat until the Navy RAPEC and Talley Rocket Catapults were developed.
Of course those ROCATs (the term for a combined rocket and catapult that could fit in the same space as the original catapult tubes) were immediately worked into the designs of ejection seats and the F-102 and F-104 were among the first to receive them in service.
Kevin Coyne- The Ejection Site - www.ejectionsite.com
Thank you for correcting some of the many faults in this video. I'm familiar with a lot about the F-104 but didn't know all these details about low level ejection seats, only that low level ejection was difficult or impossible to survive due to no time for the chute to open. Thanks for the details.
@@donjones4719 You're welcome. I like seeing videos about historical aircraft. Egress systems though tend to be more mythology than reality because they are treated as an afterthought in many books on the topic and they magnify a single bad event into a systemic flaw, or as I mentioned in this case the dynamics aren't well understood unless you study them.
I've known men who worked on the designs and have spent their lives knowing that things they developed and tested worked better than the lore but they had no platform to explain the issues in. I've spent four months now researching the XB-70 capsule system and am preparing to report on it. I think what I have to say will surprise many people based on what they had read, or inferred.
The Gemini seats are another that is unfairly maligned. People point to the famous failed test to show that the seats were high risk, although the system fix for that was a simple and reliable one. They also assume that the seats would have caught fire due to oxygen saturation like the Apollo 1 fire yet they don't understand the differences in the scenarios.
I appreciate your willingness to listen and thank you for the curtesy of your comment!
@@theejectionsite1038 Gemini safer than the myth - another great thing to know. I thought the Gemini spacecraft was the coolest one when I was 10-14 y/o because the pilots had forward facing windows like jet pilots. (Was 10 y/o in 1965, an avid follower of manned spaceflight then and now.)
I'll love seeing a story on the Valkyrie escape capsule, have always been fascinated by escape capsules - they are intuitively more safe and less safe than an ejection seat. But intuition can be a poor guide for aerospace.
I serendipitously came across a mention of the escape capsule on one of the early X planes just a couple of days ago. The capsule would separate, deploy a chute, slow down, and then the pilot could bail out and use his personal chute. Scott Crossfield called it "the option of committing suicide before being killed."
@@donjones4719 The capsule issue is very complicated overall There were many different types and the X plane version wasn't the first like that. The Germans had a design like that! Quick and dirty- capsules often are heavy, block visibility, complicate maintenance, and require more connectivity to the aircraft than an open seat. The late F-111 crew modules (which some could argue are capsules but they really aren't) are some 3250lbs and require their own weight and balance check for each flight! The ejected weight of the XB-70 capsule was about 1000lbs!
my dad flew these and I can tell you from his experience they don't glide when they run out of fuel he did make it back to the base and managed to belly flop it on to the runway ripping most of the bottom half of the plane off and breaking his back if he hadn't lifted his legs up he probably would have had his feet ripped off he stayed in a full body cast for almost a year. later in his career he had a similar incident in Vietnam with an f4c he wasn't hurt in that one but they don't glide very well either.
the story is my father had from being in the Air Force from 1955 up to about 1976 he could have wrote a book I tried to get him to do it and he never did I tell people all the time when they ask well what did he fly if it had wings he flew everything from fighters early in his career to see 141's and c-130s later in his career.
In a 'standard' engine out emergency landing within the precinct of an airport it's generally taught to GA pilots that you aim for an altitude of 1500ft AGL while crossing the runway centreline on crosswind. My flight theory instructor and former RAAF Base Commander told us neophytes back in the day, when flying a Dassault Mirage III you crossed that same point at 15,000ft AGL and then started praying!
I recommend Tu-22 bomber, the “Man-Eater” similar, not in role but in disasters Soviet plane.
The flying vodka truck?
@@miken7918 I mean, that's one clear advantage.
I love the F104 Starfighter, thank you for the video.
In 1958 I bought my first plastic model kit. With my own money. It was an F-104 Starfighter by Revell. $0.79 ! None of THIS covered negative history was included. I though I'd picked a real winner as my favorite. I still admire this bird, and am amazed it has enough lift with such small wings. But it IS a beautiful machine!
As a teenager throughout the seventies I used to read my Dad's copy of Flight International when it was delivered through our door in Sussex every weekend. The latest Starfighter toll was a reliable fixture.
No mention of the 1964 movie or MST3K episode?!
“Here’s to the guys and gals who love to fly…”
I was wondering the same thing! “That’s a really sharp wing! Don’t run with that wing!”
"Welcome to minute 9 of the glorious refueling scene!"
I mean, not even a ‘poopy suit’ reference?
I know the F105 Thundercheif was not a super popular aircraft but my dad was involved with them in Vietnam. I would love to see a video on it. Thanks, I love you videos
When I was 4 or 5 years old my Dad was stationed at Shepard AFB in Texas F-104's would come overhead in pairs or finger 4's right as they broke the sound barrier. Looking up at the brightly polished aircraft as that BaBoom shook my body is still one of the coolest memories of my childhood. L0L Silver jets bright blue sky big boom.
Rail Riders are my home team!!! Never thought I’d hear the name here though 😂. Thank you Simon for the Shout out
Most of the problems with the starfighter were due to aftermarket alterations; especially in germany.
A truely outstanding and groundbreaking aircraft.
@@asgdhgsfhrfgfd1170 Not more than the average cutting edge fighter.
Almost 200 pilota killed only in Germany. German band Die erdball made even song about that.
@@zepter00 My point exactly. Look at the alterations the germans made to it.
Always been an issue here in Germany. Government and military officials altering the planes true purpose, slapping all sorts of shit armament on them and then wondering, why they cannot perform their roles anymore and are inefficient to the point of being pointless.
@@michaelpcoffee german aletrations made it? Lol that was project of Lockheed 😆
One of my memories, for jet planes, as a kid (I was a plane fanatic, and still), is that of it's design. Unfortunately, I've never seen one of these fly. There's one that I know of, that still exists, that enthusiasts can see. It's at a 'Great Adventure', theme park in Jackson, N J., USA. Well, as of the mid- 2000's, at least. Don't know if it's still exists, presently, but every time we (my wife & I), went there, I was sure to check it out, to my wife's chagrin.
Hannover Flugzeug Museum has a pristine one.
@@luisvalderramos6757 Where exactly is the Flugzeug Museum, located?
@@rogerrendzak8055 Ulmer Str. 2, 30880 Laatzen, Germany. It opens from Tuesday to Sunday.
@@luisvalderramos6757 Thank you, but I'm 'stuck' here, in America 🙄…………
Yeah we know how much they struggle but damn it it’s actually a really really good jet. It’s actually considered by Air Force pilots in the United States as the most beautiful fighter in their arsenal. If you watched “High Flight” then you know what I mean. It’s literally a work of art and still flies today. It literally reached out its wing “and touched the face of god”
That’s why we call it the star fighter for a reason. ITS SOO BEAUTIFUL!!!!
I knew a guy who flew all the CF-104s made in Canada to Europe and was the only one to never have an accident. He was a tough old arrogant bugger, but definitely earned it. Lots of legends based on this man, who retired on Vancouver Island, ironically near CFB Comox.
Hi Gordon, would this man be Capt. Clifford John (Hank) Henry?
"it´s like put a F1 engine on a Go-Kart and go for a spin"
somebody in Russia: that´s a deal !
uralkali decals included
German Officials: Oh, they are bribing us! Certainly that means this plane is great!
Lol
It proves they had little regard for the guys who had to fly them in European weather, doesn't it.
@@oldenweery7510 reminds me of those F-35 stories. Don't get it wet and don't fly near lightning.
Bob Calvert (using Hawkwind as his backing band) did a great satirical concept album: Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters (1974) about the troubled aircraft and the corruption behind its foreign sales. One the songs is called 'Ejection' lol! The album also features Brian Eno, Vivian Stanshall and Arthur Brown.
Indeed and well worth checking out.
All your video’s are done so well. I always learn something new. And having been a pilot for 52 years and a big know it all, I tip my hat to you and a hearty thanks 🙏
When I was in the Air Force in the early 80s, one of the nicknames was “Earth Nail” or “Lawn Dart”. I watched the West Germans do amazing things with this aircraft during the mid 80s
Another one of Kelly Johnson's masterpieces
Guy was a genius when it comes to aircraft design.
Saw one of these at a museum in Connecticut, it’s crazy how long it is and how stubby the wings are. Crazy plane, Nice presentation!
Had a chance to see one of these on a pylon on a static display a long time ago. The width of the wings it’s just mind-boggling. I seriously Stood there and looked at it for about a minute just shaking my head
I’d love to see you do an in depth video on the F-20 ‘Tigershark’.
According to many, an outstanding fighter developed from the F-5 Tiger. It was so good that it gave the F-16 a run for its money.
The F-20 could have been a decent fighter for nations that had a very restrictive military budget, but any nation that could afford the F-16 was not going to buy an F-20, and why would they when the price difference was only about 15%? The F-16 was simply better in every metric of combat performance and was well-established as both a successful fighter and strike aircraft before the F-20 even flew.
@@dumdumbinks274 I'd agree it's was probably better as it was at that time an exciting, new, clean sheet fighter that outperformed the F-20 in some, not all aspects. Chuck Yeager, Bob Hoover and others praised the Tigershark. The F-20 itself was unproven but it was a direct evolution and shared the bloodline of one of the best fighters ever designed; The F-5. The Freedom Fighter. A Fighter so good that only until a few years ago were they finally phased out of the 'Aggressor's' at Top Gun. . The YF-16 won the contract, but many think it was the wrong choice. The F-16XL outperformed the F-16 in every way. More range, more hard points, and an even more maneuverable Fighter aircraft. To this day, people keep dreaming up fantasies of a 4.5 Gen F-36 'Kingsnake' using a F-16XL inspired airframe plus an F-35 engine, two Vertical Stabs, new avionics, weapons suite, hard points etc. The images of the 'Kingsnake' exist (And it does look amazing) but I highly doubt it will happen.
@@DriveByShouting The F-20 had no advantages other than cost to operate. It was basically a slightly worse YF-17 in terms of performance owing to the fact that the F-20 was just an F-5 with a bigger engine and some other new features while the YF-17 was an evolution of the F-5 and improved it in every possible way. Quite notably the F-20 performed worse than the F-16 with any sort of payload, and couldn't carry nearly as much as the F-16 in terms of weight. Yeager said good things about the F-20 because that's partly what he was paid to do.
The F-5 is used heavily as an aggressor because it's cheap and training pilots to use appropriate tactics does not require advanced fighters. When they want high performance aggressors to fine-tune pilots decision making they use advanced fighters, which is why there were several aggressor squadrons equipped with F-15s and F-16s. The USN took it even further and created the F-16N purely for the aggressor role because the basic F-16 greatly outperformed the F-5, however they retired in the 90s due to cost and the fact it wasn't combat-capable.
The F-20 was not in competition with the YF-16. That was the YF-17, which was an evolution of the F-5. It lost mostly because of it's inferior maneuverability. The F-20 prototype didn't have it's first flight until a year after the F-16 had proven itself in real combat, and any potential production version of the F-20 wouldn't have existed until at least a decade after the F-16 entered service.
The F-16XL had longer range owing to it's delta wing and the layout of the hardpoints being more suitable for cruising. It had more hardpoints than the regular F-16, but could only carry slightly larger payloads on short range missions because the layout of the hardpoints meant each fuel tank would obstruct multiple hardpoints, and it couldn't carry multiple munitions per hardpoint like the regular F-16 could. Practically the XL carried the same payloads as a regular F-16, but with longer range and a faster cruise speed.
In terms of it's ability as a fighter the regular F-16 was better. The delta wing of the XL produced more drag when turning, resulting in worse sustained turn rates and worse acceleration which affected it's BVR survivability but was especially noticeable at low altitudes common to dogfighting and 1980s era strike missions.
For the cost and shift in performance the XL wasn't capable of replacing the F-16 as a general purpose fighter, and it fell far enough behind the F-15E in performance and survivability that it was pretty much a no-brainer to select the F-15E for the strike role.
The F-36 Kingsnake is a fantasy designed by members of an aviation media group. It was created in response to a USAF statement that they were considering purchase of a new 4th gen fighter, but nothing has come of that statement yet. There's no contract to compete for, and the F-36 design is not associated with a contractor anyway. It's in a worse position than privately designed fighters like the Silent Eagle, or Mirage 4000... fighters which never win contracts because they are developed for requirements that never emerge and eventually become obsolete.
I see a video about a Century Series fighter, I click on it. Love this Era of fighter development.
As long as you weren't a pilot during that era, I guess...
@@VisibilityFoggy it's more a love for the fluidity of design that came from trying to figure out exactly what a supersonic jet fighter should be.
For all her mistakes and failures, the F-104 is still one of the most elegant and beautifull jet fighters ever build.
My Father flew them for six months whilst on exchange with Luftwaffe in early 60s he compared it with Lightning he flew, and came out in favour of Lightning in terms of stability handling and could not separate them for performance, both cursed with poor range, but said Star-fighter was always on the edge were as the Lightning was more forgiving, but in both everything happened very very quickly, his favourite plane was the Hunter.
Hopefully you will like this detailed stuff about the F-104G. ;)
ruclips.net/video/QNzaNIXHHU0/видео.html
> My Father flew them for six months whilst on
> exchange with Luftwaffe in early 60s he compared
> it with Lightning he flew, and came out in favour of
> Lightning in terms of stability handling and could not
> separate them for performance, [...]
Well, actually, he and anyone else should have been easily able to separate them in terms of performance if the right metric is used, such as combat radius (AKA range).
> [...] both cursed with poor range, [...]
Even according to Wikipedia, the combat range of the F-104 is at least twice as good as the Lightning.
More over, even though the Lightning was eventually "upgraded" to perform ground attack, it could never carry a 1-ton nuclear bomb which the F-104 could.
>[...] but said Star-fighter was always on the edge
> were as the Lightning was more forgiving, but in
> both everything happened very very quickly, [...]
From Chapter 12 of Peter Caygill's book, "Lightning Eject: The Dubious Safety Record of Britains Only Supersonic Fighter", (yes, that Peter Caygill who also wrote "Lightning from the Cockpit: Flying the Supersonic Legend"):
Although the actual number of F-104G
accidents in West German service was
significantly greater than the total
number of Lightning accidents, this
tends to be obscured by the fact that
many more F-104Gs were delivered to
the _Luftwaffe_ and _Marineflieger_ .
Including the twenty development batch
aircraft, Lightning production for the
RAF amounted to only 280, whereas a
total of 916 Starfighters were taken
on by the German armed forces. It is
only when an analysis is made of the
accidents per flying hour that the
true picture begins to emerge.
During the first ten years of Lightning
operations in the RAF (up to the end
of 1969), a total of 199,000 hours
were flown and in this time thirty-two
aircraft were written off in accidents
(this figure includes two Cat.4
accidents in which the damage level
was subsequently upgraded to Cat.5).
Thus, on average, a Lightning was
destroyed every 6,218 hours flown.
During the complete life of the F-104G
in West German service, total flying
time amounted to 1,975,646 hours and
there were 298 accidents that resulted
in 298 accidents that resulted in
complete write-offs. A Starfighter
was therefore lost for every 6,630
hours that were flown. If the
seventeen-month period from the
beginning of 1970 is included in this
analysis of the Lightning accidents
[which was presumably when one
Lightning was being lost every month]
the loss rate worsens to one in
every 5,795 hours, and if this
period is looked at in isolation an
aircraft was being destroyed every
4,667 hours. These figures indicate
that the accident rate per flight
hour for the F-104G and the Lightning,
although not dissimilar, show that the
latter [the Lightning] did have an
inferior safety record for at least
some of its operational life.
There's a problem with comparing the life time accident rate of the F-104G in German service to the accident rate for just a portion of the Lightning's service life, but the fact remains that during some parts of the service life was every bit the "killer" that the Lightning was and yet no one is calling the Lightning a "widow maker" or "flying coffin".
And something to keep in mind here is that the accident rate of the Lightning SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER than the F-104G as this is what commonly happens when comparing an interceptor to a non-interceptor, at least according to an old Rand study on fighter aircraft accident and attrition rates during peace time that I have somewhere.
This is something that I think Caygill alludes to but doesn't actually come out and say when he says:
This was despite the fact that the
F-104G was designed at the outset as
a strike/attack aircraft so that it
spent much of its time operating at
low level, often in bad weather, and
was therefore more vulnerable to
terrain, bird-strikes and obstructions.
In contrast the Lightning had begun its
life at medium and high altitudes and
it was only towards the end of the
1960s that it also took on a low level
role in addition to its previous duties.
> [...] his favourite plane was the Hunter.
And not that it matters, many German F-104 pilots regard the F-104 at or near the top of the list of their favorite aircraft.
One pilot who'd flown the F-104, says in a video on RUclips that his favorite aircraft was the F-86.
But I think that the important thing to keep in mind when talking about the F-104 and the Lightning is that the British didn't offer the Lightning to the Germans at the time of the Sale of the Century.
They offered the paper airplane, the Saunders-Roe SR-177 which was cancelled before any were ever flown.
And it's not like the British were apparently vary interested in selling the Lightning to foreigners anyway.
The Indians came to the Brits asking to buy the Lightning and were turned down leading them to go to the Soviets and buying the MiG-21.
The Brits eventually did sell the Lightning to two different Middle Eastern countries, IIRC, one was the Saudis and the other wasn't.
One of the countries had the Brits maintain there Lightnings while the other wanted to do it on their own.
That latter country had enough problems with the care and feeding of the Lightning that they quickly got rid of them.
I think this is important to keep in mind because people seem to think that the "better" handling of the Lightning would have meant that this alone would have reduced the German accident rate while not taking into account the amount of maintenance required for a high performance fighter so that it can be used safely.
This is slightly unfair: Interceptors were very different than “fighters” and it was designed for a role. The shame may lie in trying to adapt it to different missions: it was designed to go straight to the bombers it was meant to intercept.
and when relegated to "ground strike / recce" role, they were very susceptible to bird strikes - well there goes the engine, and no glide available from those miniscule wings.
@@davidnoseworthy4540 And CFIT due to poorly-trained pilots. Maintenance crews in the Luftwaffe at the time weren't exactly up to snuff either.
No, the F-104 was not designed to be an interceptor.
It was designed to be a daylight air superiority fighter then ended up being used as an interceptor.
I wish you people would actually read some of the history behind the F-104 instead of repeating this "interceptor" nonsense.
@@lewiscole5193 - Well, finding the actual Air Force documentation on this isn’t obvious and as far as I read things, Kelly Johnson was far into his own development of this aircraft before the Air Force even weighed in with an RFP slanted towards it. The design appears to be based on the needs of Korean War pilots as told to Kelly. So you can say “the Air Force wanted an all-weather air-superiority fighter” but what they wanted was this airplane and, at least in the US, came to be used as a point-interceptor because of its fuel limitations.
So link me these documents, because the aircraft is as often described as supersonic interceptor as much as it is a fighter, it was used by the USAF as an interceptor, and seems to be the brainchild of a specific person and not the result of RFP’s or the normal design-follows-requirements. Seems to me that the requirements followed design.
@@b.w.22
> @Lewis Cole - Well, finding the actual Air Force documentation
> on this isn’t obvious [...]
Agreed.
> [...] and as far as I read things, Kelly Johnson was far into his own
> development of this aircraft before the Air Force even weighed
> in with an RFP slanted towards it. [...]
That is correct.
> [...] The design appears to be based on the needs of Korean War
> pilots as told to Kelly. [...]
That too is correct.
> So you can say “the Air Force wanted an all-weather air-superiority
> fighter” but what they wanted was this airplane [...]
Or I can say what I've said numerous times including here: the F-104 was a *DAYLIGHT* (not all-weather) *AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER* .
> [...] and, at least in the US, came to be used as a point-interceptor
> because of its fuel limitations.
It came to be used as a point interceptor because the aircraft they wanted to fill that the interception role, namely the F-102/F-106, wasn't ready.
So the Air Force retasked what it had, namely the F-101 which was designed to be a low-level penetration bomber, and the F-104 which was designed to be an air superiority fighter, to be a wide area interceptor and a point defense interceptor, respectively.
The Air Force became disenchanted with the F-104 as an interceptor because its limited fuel meant that it couldn't intercept an incoming bomber until the bomber was already over its target if the bomber flew high enough.
> So link me these documents, [...]
I can't link you to an official Air Force RFP, but I can provide you with a link to the "Encyclopedia of U.S. Air Force Aircraft and Missile Systems, Volume 1, Post-World War II Fighters, 1945-1973" put out by the Office of Air Force History, an office of the U.S. Air Force.
From page 175 of that work:
"Unsolicited Proposal November 1952
"Lockheed knew[2] the Air Force (based on its Korean experience) needed a new *AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER* [added emphasis is mine], capable of operating from forward air fields, accelerating rapidly from the ground, and fighting at high altitudes. Lockheed proposed a light-weight, straight-wing design, when the Air Force had in mind a relatively heavy delta-wing aircraft. Yet Lockheed's small 'Gee Whizzer' *DAY-FIGHTER* [again, added emphasis is mine] (later dubbed Starfighter) was tempting for it would be cheaper[3]"
The URL for the encyclopedia which is on the Defense Department's Web site is this:
< media.defense.gov/2010/May/26/2001330287/-1/-1/0/AFD-100526-027.pdf >
> [...] because the aircraft is as often described as supersonic
> interceptor as much as it is a fighter, [...]
There's all sorts of crap floating around about the F-104.
> [...] it was used by the USAF as an interceptor,
And as a fighter escort for bomb laden F-105s in Vietnam.
> [...] and seems to be the brainchild of a specific
> person and not the result of RFP’s or the normal
> design-follows-requirements.
> Seems to me that the requirements followed design.
It was a fantastic interceptor. Its speed and climb rate was exceptional for the time.
But it wasn't a capable dog fighter or ground attack aircraft.
It's strengths and weaknesses are similar to that of the English Electric Lightning. Both innovate, unique and extremely fast interceptors, that were downright dangerous at low level or when flown by inexperienced pilots.
If it hadn't been shoehorned into roles it wasn't suitable for I think history would have a much more favourable view of this fantastic aircraft.
Personally, its one of my favourite aircraft of the cold War.
You respect your viewers by providing measurement equivalents (meters + feet, for example). Thank you!
I was a T-38 pilot in 1971, when an F-104 pilot let me climb up and sit in his cockpit. Although the T-38 is mighty nice, the 104’s cockpit was far sexier, with a much shorter control stick and better visibility. Like sitting in a race car!
It was by far my favorite aircraft to fly.
The low level role in the mountains of Germany with frequent bad weather was demanding.
We kicked a lot of butt with the zip.
Over target plus or minus one second time of day was common.
10 seconds was a failed ride!
The vast majority of our squadron members loved the aircraft.
100 20mm canon rounds per second is nothing to sneeze at.
It has to be seen to be appreciated.
No one stopped is before we reached the target.
Your take on the 104 is the common lay person narrative.
Talk to some zip pilots!
Still, one of the most beautiful planes ever built.
Oh... It wasn't the wingtips that were razor-sharp, it was the entire leading and trailing edges that could scalp somebody.
Please do a video on the TU-22, The Supersonic Booze Carrier also known as the Man-Eater
Is worth pointing out that the Spanish Air Force used the F-104 in a very limited capacity. I knew personally people that served there in the 80's and even then the story was told that all interceptor squadrons of the Air Force were quite keen to switch to the Mirage III even if they hated the Mirage handling, cause at minimum the aircraft "was not trying actively to kill you", and that is a quote from someone i knew that sadly passed away flying an A/F-18 Hornet, I still remember learning about it and having a freaking rage tirade against the poorly managed military here in Spain. You are Missed, Grumpy. That's why Spain always tries to go now with double engine, proven aircraft. But even that will not save you if the freaking runways are let to crack and the planes maintenance is sub par.
My father's cousin Capt. Gerard Power was killed in a CF-104 Starfighter crash in 1978 while training in C.F.B Lahr. He was only 31. My family lived there as well at the time but my father was army.
You put Keeps on upside down
A suggestion? Well, now it would be time to cover the F-16 and, perhaps, the Mig-21
What I'd really love to see is an in-depth report on how the Indian Air Force turned the old MiG-21 into the "Bison" that is still in service. The MiG-21 was a cool plane, but I actually think what they've done with it in the years since is even more impressive. There's even some MiG-21 DNA in the new JF-17.
Walking around one of these on display at the Hamilton Warplane Heritage Museum, I was astonished at just how sharp the leading and trailing edges of the wings were. Not sharp enough to cut your finger running it along the edge, but enough that hitting it with any part of your body with any force would surely draw blood.