@@alphacentauri34 They had a really weird version because they wanted a ground attack plane, but the 104 was an interceptor, so many redesigns had to take place. These redesigns, along with an even higher wingloading due to the heavier ordinance for ground-striking, caused it to have a bad tendency to sheer its wings in turns.
My dad flew a F104 in the 60’s and had to eject out of it due to mechanical problems, he still talks about how much fun it was to fly and how fast this plane was for the time
@@davidecarucci1073 i dont know how long you playd but i would go for the f86f2 it is a amzing jet. And you can dog fight with it. And you get great brs know. I am pushed down to 8.7 and 8.0 and 9.0 is comon. But rearly 10.0
It also killed a lot of Canadian pilots, but it's safety record in Japan and Spain are flawless. Not a good idea to use a high altitude interceptor as a low altitude tactical strike platform.
If you want a real inside of this plane check this: ruclips.net/video/eB8l_fCKDSw/видео.html Germany did not built hangar for their 104 and left them "outside" all the time being used to the F86: just imagine how a sophisticated jet like the Starfighter would react to that treatment... v__v Also flying supersonic at treetop in bad weather is not the safest way to keep your plane intact. Another misconception about the 104 is the "Huge" turning circle: it was about the same of an F-4B/C/D below the sound of speed and above it the 104 could run circles around any other supersonic jet because it was conceived to manoeuvre above Mach1. This can be easily seen checking the turning ratio charts in the F-104 manual and those of the Phantom. When you go beyond Mach1 the centre of gravity of a plane moves and the plane becomes way less agile, and there was where the F-104 shines. The only better fighter plane above the sound of speed was the much more sophisticated F-106 which employed a complex pump system to move fuel between the different tanks so to correct the balance and shift back the centre of gravity. It also is often told that the 104 had short range which was true to some extent, but it could bring a nuclear bomb inside the enemy territory faster and deeper than any other fighter bomber except the F-105 which had an internal vane for reducing drag. the vaunted F-4 in the USAF created a lot of probems to the f-105 formation because they had to slow down to allow the fighters to keep pace when they were loaded with tanks. Finally, in air to air role, the F-104 could outrun, out accelerate and outroll any other fighter plane until the "teen" series became available, including all the soviet planes it could come across: in the eighties Col. Andy Bush created a controlled fight for their German cadets which were sceptical about the ability of the plane to face actual combat (because of bad press at home). The combat would involve an F-5E and an F-104G, flown by himself, starting at the same level and speed: the planes had to engage in a scissor manoeuvre and try to kill each other. in 3 sequent engagement Col. Bush was able to kill the F-5E 3 to 0 using the superior energy of the F-104 and fast roll ability. The F-5 pilot comment was "I can't F***ing believe it!!!" One of the defining characteristics the F-104 was the incredible acceleration which allowed it to dogfight mostly without reaching the AB, while a Phantom would simply open the gauges and blast away, but the huge weight mixed with two F-104 engines would drain the fuel tanks in 3 minutes where the F-104 would have the ability to stay in that fight up to 5min (tested at Decimo base in Sardinia), which is about the same time an F-15 can do! The bad reputation in combat for the F-104 comes form the fruitless cap in Vietnam where it never faced opposition, and the excessive wearing it was subject to due to lack of number: the only USAF f-104 shot down was lost pilot ambushed by a Chinese mig 19 driven by ground radar control to intercept the starfighter form behind and below. The F-104C did not had a RWR, which was immediately introduced on all the Starfighters after that fact. The other casualties were Pakistani second hand F-104A fighting against much more modern Indian Mig 21PF: Gen. Chuck Yeager tried hard to teach the poorly trained pakistani to NOT dogfight a mig 21 at low speed but they did fall for that more then one time. The problem with the F-104 is that you had to have a very high skill as a pilot to make it perform: it was not an instinctive plane that you just turn on the tail of the enemy: you need to know how to manage speed, turning rate energy retention and acceleration to be able to outperform the soviet migs: it can be done, but you got to know what you are doing. Finally the Starfighter was one of the best interceptors ever: it could be flown from stop to 30K feet faster then any other plane before the F-16 excpt may be the EE lightning, but the later had such a short range to be actually impractical and the red top missile was so bad that it probably wouldn't be able to shot down anything smaller then a T95. The latest f014S was able to carry both the Aim9 and the AIM7 in 1968 up to the Aim9L and the Aspide (which was an improved Sparrow) which made it usable as an interceptro up to the end of the nineties.
Why not? The F-104 had everything that purpose built strike aircraft of the time had: Tiny wings for high low altitude speed and a smoother ride through thermals. A huge amount of thrust to carry high weights and go high speeds. The F-105 and TSR-2 both used these. The problem was... low altitude flying is risky. That’s why the F-105-even discounting losses due to enemy action in Vietnam-had a terrible attrition rate. In spite of its reputation as a “widow maker”... the -104 had a lower loss rate than the Sabre in Canadian and German service.
@@Bartonovich52 The Lightning was the the highest performance aircraft in NATO by quite a margin until the F-15 arrived (and even then F-15 was only just slightly faster in the climb and acceleration) massively short ranged however, they were fantastic as an interceptor in Germany, not as much use as UK QRA. The Red Top was also probably the best IR missile around at the time (with an honourable mention to AIM-9B), all missiles were unreliable at the time. Sidewinder was made reliable first after all the experience in Vietnam. But..... TSR.2 could outrun a Lightning...in dry thrust with the Lightning in full burners....which given that the Lightning was the first combat aircraft able to supercruise is quite something....
The most amazing fact about the F104 is that a Lockeed engineer named Daryl Greenamier built one out of spare parts and set a low altitude speed record of 999.something miles per hour 100 feet off the ground and I believe that record still stands.
You're enactment brought again my dad Andy Mullin experienced being stuck in an F104 starfighter when the canopy jammed. This was at Edwards AFB, at the General Electric facility in the hangar, 1959. The plan to open the canopy was to bleed out air pressure. Then Andy Mullin, a civilian aircraft mechanic, could pull the ejection cable and without enough air pressure only the canopy would pop off. The F104 didn't use air pressure like other ejection systems. When he sat down and pulled the cable he and the seat were slammed into the roof and he dropped onto pipes. Three years including a traction bed. And he got his old job back. His lawyer got him $40,000 and he was in and out the hospital until Andy Mullin died in 1971. I wish someone knew his part in the jet age history books. Thanks for sharing the F104 story and the complexity of it's ejection system.
Thats a helluva story! Glad your dad survived it. It seems they could have cut through the canopy to avoid the ejection seat egress. They do have concrete saws that would have cut through it.
The F 104 was the most beautiful bird that ever flown. I was in the German Air Force from 1980 to 1982 and we were one of the last squadrons to have the F 104. What a great time ...
The reason for the downward firing ejection seat was they believed the seat ejection was not powerful to get the pilot above the T tail at hi speeds. They then came up with a more powerful seat that ejected upward clearing the tail.
the museum which has these aircraft has as one of it´s objectives to teach about aviation to others, so they have to make things more simple for the casuals
@@ZacLowing Yeah, They need less dumb-ass more factual info. If Wings over Rockies needs some editorial advice, go watch the Bovington Armor Museum on how to do a YT channel right. www.tankmuseum.org/
I worked on all of the F-104's at George from '64 - '65. It was a wonderful AC and great to work on. It carried tip and pylon fuel tanks for longer range, Yes, the wings edges were sharp, my co0worker slashed his hear on one when he didn't duck low enough.
I I meant to say this is the most enthusiastic channel on RUclips ! And I give huge amounts of great props to the camera "guy" he's like 90%of the videos quality!
I worked on these in the mid sixties. I was assigned to the 479th tac fighter wing, George AFB, Calif. I was an instrument tech & in 1964 we took a squadron to Spain for a few months patrolling the Mediterranean corridor. It was a fast, unforgiving aircraft.
My mom worked at Lockheed for almost 50 years. As a kid I remember riding in the car when she was meeting my dad and came to a stop sign on the sprawling facility and met a NASA F104 at the intersection. He had the right of way and taxied right past us.
@@TheEmperorOfWei I did indeed indicate 104, but the same point does sorta apply to the phantom. FWIW my brother was a maintenance crew chief for a squadron of them during his stint in the Air Force. That was a long time ago. My plane was the EA-6B Prowler.
NASA's Starfighters also looked gorgeous in blue and white. There's one hanging from the ceiling at the Air & Space Museum in DC. It's always one of the first things I go see when I'm there.
@@mrz80 Thanks for the tip. I bet it's a beauty! They also have Liberty Bell 7 there. Both are definitely on my list of aircraft to see. And of course the Spirit of St. Louis! I have heard that they also have an X-15 there too. Marvelous aircraft! Have a great evening.
If you want legendary, you should look at the Avro Arrow, or what’s left of it. Built in the late 1950’s in Canada, the Avro Arrow was intended to be the main interceptor jet of the RCAF. This thing was a beast. Standing at 6.5 metres tall, 24 metres long and 15 metres wide, the Avro arrow was the first step in aerospace development. Flying at speeds above Mach 2, and a ceiling of 50,000 feet, the Avro Arrow was the best. Unfortunately it never saw use in the RCAF as it was cancelled in 1958 and all 6 were to be dismantled and destroyed.
I was tdy to Gioia del colle air base in Italy in 1984 for displayed determination, the Italian Air Force still flew these then. Our pilots said this thing was a little rocket and hard to catch, easy to see though they smoked bad. They taxied these with no brakes, they would be zipping down the parallel runway at 50 to 60 mph. Cool plane.
The first time I saw this fighter I was only 7 years old. I was watching Star Trek with my dad. I saw it flying up to shoot down my Favorite Star ship USS Enterprise NCC-1701. I went on to join the Navy in 1980. Guess Which Air Craft Carrier was I put on? No Joke USS ENTERPRISE CVN-65! No F-105 on board We had F-14 Tomcats and right before I left the new F-18 Hornets were replacing the Tomcats. Man landing on an Aircraft Carrier was the most heart pounding end to a trip I have ever gone through.
Most air forces had no unusual losses flying the 104. The Germans big problem was they tried to use it as a multirole aircraft, something it was not made to do. They didn't learn from WW2 when they also wanted all aircraft to be multirole, and then ended up with planes unsuited to tasks. The 104 was made as a bomber interceptor, hence not much fuel or wing, just off the ground and as close to the target as fast as possible. Most pilots loved and respected these aircraft, and they served for many years.
You are absolutely incorrect. Canada lost half its 104's to accidents and the aircraft had an abysmal accident rate upwards of 30 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. I'd still love to fly one though.
Eric Hartmann had to retire from the Luftwaffe because of his objections to buying the Starfighter. But what did he know, he only had 365 kills in WW2. The Starfighter gained one possible kill in it’s whole career, in the Indo-Pakistan war. Tiny Folland Gnat fighters shot them down.
@@JimmyJamesJ Canada also used the F-104 as a strike aircraft, at least initially mainly for the low level delivery of nuclear weapons and later for conventional weapons, and the fact that the aircraft could technically carry air to air weaponry was almost as an afterthought in Canadian service. In Canadian service the F-86 before it also had a even worse record both in incident rate and number of killed pilots. Starting to see a pattern? Then you have Spain and Japan that operated them almost entirely without incident as interceptors. Just blaming the aircraft doesn't work, just blaming wrong use of the aircraft doesn't work, just blaming faulty maintenance doesn't work, just blaming low or wrong pilot training doesn't work, but the combination of all of them made the F-104s reputation that of a widowmaker. Just that it was much more evident in the nations that did use them at low level and in poor weather, for the obvious reasons that it compounds all the other issues.
@@SvenTviking > Eric Hartmann had to retire from the > Luftwaffe because of his objections to > buying the Starfighter. According to his so-called "Final Interview", Hartmann didn't think that the Luftwaffe was ready for an aircraft with as high of performance as the F-104, not because the thought that the F-104 was a bad aircraft. As it turns out, the Luftwaffe experience after Steinhoff took over seems to support that belief. What people seem to forget is that the Luftwaffe at the time of the F-104 was *NOT* the Luftwaffe of WWII ... the service didn't have the old timers trying to fly the aircraft and in many cases, their first flight in an F-104 was the first time in a high performance aircraft for many Luftwaffe pilots. > The Starfighter gained one possible kill > in it’s whole career, in the Indo-Pakistan war. > Tiny Folland Gnat fighters shot them down. Anyone who tries to take an F-104 into a turning fight is an idea. As Operation Feather Duster (I or II, I can't remember) shows, when flown the way it should be flown, it beat the F-86, F-100, and F-4.
The F-104 Starfighter was the first airplane model that I built when I was a boy. I remember saving up to buy this model and how excited I was when I brought it home and started putting it together. Over the years it got lost. Wish I still had it, because it was a beautiful model :-)
I'm glad to see that at least one of the former Puerto Rico ANG F-104 is still relatively complete, I do believe this is the second one I've seen, the first being in Muñiz ANGB in Puerto Rico.
In Italy we upgraded them and kept in service till the 2000, then we had f-16 for a couple of years to close the gap when finally the Typhoon was available. It was our main interceptor while Tornados were dedicated to bombing and patrol.
I'd love to fly an F104! It is by far my favorite jet, especially because of the uniquely life like engine growls. This beautiful girl ought to be 100% restored, made airworthy even if she's going to remain on static display. Gorgeous 😍
My Grandpa died with an F-104 in Germany, because we think the engine flamed out and the plane dropped like a Stone to the ground. The only thing that my Grandma got from the Government was a Letter with the Signature from Franz Josef Strauß and one sentence that her husband died becaus of an pilot error.
I mean no offense to you, but pilot error with high performance jets like the 104 were not uncommon during that time. A similar phenomenon occurred during the transition to the jet age with pilots stalling out on take off due to them over roatating like they would in a prop plane.
I must politely differ. When I sat in an A-4 Skyhawk, I was shoulder to cockpit tight. When I had the chance to sit in an F-104, I had a whole lot more room, and I am NOT little, 6'2" & 320 lbs. (working on the girth part, LOL). I wish you guys were closer, but we have some pretty neat air museums here in Florida, Pensacola anyone? You do have a rather impressive facility. I, too, am an aircraft geek, military of course. You have my dream job, which is why my house looks like an air museum, much to my wife's chagrin. I love your unique approach and at 57, am not a kid. I have subscribed so keep them coming as Colorado would be a long road trip for us. Thank you, take care and God Bless from Florida.
I've been to the Air Force Museum at Eglin AFB in Florida. Saw an F104 parked next to an F4. The F104 was so small in comparison. It looked like a dart. Definitely a high performance machine though, like a supercar sports car. NOT for the average pilot.
The F-104 was also one of the fastest land vehicles of all time. Guy took off the wings and put high speed wheels on her, almost broke the sound barrier on land doing that.
@3:40 Pretty sure my stepdad Lyle designed the plastic piece to go over the wings while they were on the ground. Guys would rub their hand down the wing and it would cut them.
You inspire me man. I'm in school on the GI Bill as a history major. Writing your thesis on nose art is by far the coolest academic endeavor I've heard of thus far. Geek out indeed 🇺🇲🤟
The real reason why such a lot F-104s got down in Germany was: We have quite different weather here in Germany AND the German Luftwaffe wanted to use this plane for multi purpose for what the 104 was never thought to be. That doesn't work. You can't have a cow that lays eggs and gives wool.
My grandpa Howard Stern worked on the electronic system for this aircraft! My family also recently met the test pilot Alex (forgot his last name) la flew this plane who unfortunately passed this year. He said this was a really fun plane to fly.
Was stationed at Soesterberg AB Netherlands in the late 70's with F-4E's, we would go TDY to Leewarden AB Netherlands and fly DACT missions against the Dutch F-104's. Coolest thing was they would taxi by and you could look up.the tailpipe and see a little hooded pilot light flickering at the bottom of the engine by the AB spraybars. Our Phantoms also had J-79 engines but used ignitor plugs. Always thought the pilot light was wierd.
I found an F-104G for sale, available for civilian purchase. It’s almost 100% complete, and costs roughly $400,000. So, I might have a new goal, yeehaw.
funny that shooting star icon on the wing tip tank. some belgian F104's had a shooting star painted on the lateral air intakes, symboll of the florennes squadron
I was hoping to see him grab a wing tip and give it a wiggle. Something that impressed the heck out of me was the fact that a person could move the wing tips up and down at least 6" - 8". The wings were perfectly stiff and seemed to be hinged at the root. FYI, this was something that I discovered personally at the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, back in the days when they'd actually let people touch the planes. I'm not sure if this is a normal feature of the F-104, or if it was part of how that particular plane had been prepared for display.
If you ever have an opportunity, read Chuck Yeager’s autobiography. He talks about the F104 on several occasions and he said that it was an interesting plane to fly but it had a really bad pitch up problem. They said that it wasn’t uncommon for that plane to be in a climb and then it would stall out and as it was dropping the pilots would have to put the engine in the full afterburner to try and get the momentum going again to save the plane. He flew especially modified F104 and got an altitude record for it but he was unable to recover the plane and ended up punching out a.k.a. ejected. When he did the rocket from the ejection seat hit him in the face and burned him severely. He was lucky to have survived but as you can tell if you’ve ever seen his interviews, he’s OK.
The usual description of the F-104 was that it was an "honest" but "unforgiving" aircraft. Is something happened, you needed to deal with it right away or else _terrible things would happen_. But while people like to point at the F-104's pitch up and deep stall problems, most people seem to be unaware that other aircraft have such problems as well and not gets too excited about them. Without something to prevent it, swept wing aircraft are also prone to pitch up and/or deep stalls. For example, the F-86 and F-100 were prone to pitch up and/or deep stall problems. The problem was simply avoided (by the pilot) in the case of the F-86, but a fatal deep stall was sufficiently common in the case of the F-100s that it got the nickname "Sabre dance". The problem was finally fixed in the F-100G (IIRC) through wing fences. In the case of the F-104, it was equipped with a "stick shaker" which would shake the stick similar to what one might feel on some other aircraft when it was entering a stall before the main wings actually stalled.
I am proud to say I'm interested in military history and have never ever ever ever ever played War Thunder. I'm here because I searched for it!!! Give me f-104 please RUclips.
> [05:46] "It didn't have a great safety record. > In fact, it's got the worst safety record > of all of the Century Series fighters". I don't know what "safety record" you are referring to, but in terms of U.S. Air Force service, there were 196 accidents involving the F-104 with 160 aircraft destroyed and 58 pilots killed. While these figures are bad, they are not the worst. That honor goes to the F-100. In the case of the F-100, there were 471 accidents resulting in 287 aircraft destroyed and 91 fatalities. And I would argue that high loss figures for the F-100 are for basically the same reason that the Germans lost so many aircraft and pilots. The F-100 was a quantum leap in terms of performance over that American pilots had experience with which they simply were not prepared for, just as the F-104 was a quantum leap in terms of performance over anything the German pilots had experience with and were likewise not prepared for.
This plane was a favorite of mine (alone with F14 Tomcat) when I was a kid.... mostly because I really liked the cool name, but also because it could go more than 2x the speed of sound on a single jet engine and just looks FAST! This plane was meant to fly high and fast. I don't believe one was ever lost due to combat, all the crashes were due to stalling that wing at low air speeds. The plane was a true interceptor, it was not designed to fly low or slow or get into a dogfight so those nations that tried to use it low and slow crashed them left and right. It is a VERY cool plane when used the way it was designed!
MShrader211: Sadly, a number of 104's were lost in Vietnam. My late Dad was piloting one of them. See my Comment above. facebook.com/ColonelTomFinneyRemembrancePage/?eid=ARDfn3MSwB-f7weNwvarrZUwYZSOXlyd0JWxZFc3J-yp5L3CiSYY7D_4v2FOQt3fpIxl34LauNe-ifdZ
Several F-104s were lost in combat. And virtually none of the crashes had nothing to do with flying slowly to the point of stall. Finally, the F-104 was *NOT* designed to be an interceptor. It was designed to be a daylight air superiority fighter. In fact, part of the reason why the U.S. Air Force became disenchanted with it is that it was a pretty crappy interceptor due to its limited fuel.
@@lewiscole5193 Well, I never heard read or saw any reports about that before. Who were F104's in combat with? And with the outboard wing tanks, I'd think on a single engine it'd have plenty of fuel for flight... but that's just my opinion nothing more. Regards Lewis!
@@MShrader211 > Well, I never heard read or saw any reports > about that before. Who were F104s in combat > with? With all due respect, sir, it sounds like you haven't bothered to look for any reports before. Even the Wikipedia entry for the F-104 lists combat losses. In the case of the U.S. all of the combat losses (about 10 of them) were due to ground fire (which while not AIR combat is still COMBAT nevertheless) in Vietnam. The first direct air combat losses between an F-104 and a MiG-21 occurred during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 where between 2 to 4 F-104s were shot down by MiG-21s. > And with the outboard wing tanks, I'd > think on a single-engine it'd have plenty > of fuel for flight ... The tip tanks and pylon tanks roughly double the fuel carrying capacity of the F-104. However, how long that fuel lasts depends on it's used during a mission. For wide area interception, it's not enough to keep the F-104 in the air for a long, long, *LONG* time like the F-101 which was the wide area interceptor of the time. For point defense, the F-104 would presumably take off and climb to intercept its target which requires that the F-104 be as light as possible so that it can accelerate its fastest which means no tip tanks, but Sidewinder missiles instead. In that case, the internal fuel severely limits its range as a function of the altitude of the attacker. For a target flying at about 45,000 feet, the F-104 can take off and intercept a target up to about 150 miles. For a target flying at about 70,000 feet, the F-104.can take off and intercept a target up to about *ZERO* (0) miles away ... which isn't something that's terribly useful if the target happens to be carrying nuclear weapons. The good news is that when the F-104 is used in an interceptor role, it can get to its target supersonically while other fighters, in particular the F-102/F-106 which was used for point defense, may have longer range only at subsonic speeds. It's useful to keep in mind that going to afterburner increases the J-79's thrust by about 60-percent, but at double the fuel consumption. In afterburner, the J-79 consumes about 10-gallons *PER SECOND* so the 900 or so gallons storable externally only lasts for about 90-seconds. And if you need further evidence that the F-104 was not intended to be an interceptor, you need look no further than the weapons that it could carry out-of-the-box. The U.S. interceptors, the F-101 and F-102/F-106, could fire the nuclear tipped Genie unguided missile while the F-104 could not until it was outfitted with a trapeze mechanism that it was never fitted with in operation
@@MShrader211 OBTW, you didn't bring up your apparent belief that most of the F-104s lost in German occurred due to stalls at low speeds which as I've indicated is not true at all. If you need further evidence of this, you can find a brief summary of all F-104G crashes that occurred listed in the FAA's booklet on what it takes for an F-104 to be certified as airworthy for flight in the U.S. which can be found online. (The booklet is presumably for FAA inspectors who end up having to consider F-104s brought into the U.S. from overseas, repaired, and then presented to the FAA by private owners.)
He's trapped in an F-104, of course he's screaming. If he's got any German in his blood, he's screwed.
I don't get it
@@alphacentauri34 The Germans had the highest mortality rate in the F-104 than any other operator.
@@BlunderMunchkin I got that I just thought they had a worse version of it
@@alphacentauri34 They had a really weird version because they wanted a ground attack plane, but the 104 was an interceptor, so many redesigns had to take place. These redesigns, along with an even higher wingloading due to the heavier ordinance for ground-striking, caused it to have a bad tendency to sheer its wings in turns.
Or Canadian
My dad flew a F104 in the 60’s and had to eject out of it due to mechanical problems, he still talks about how much fun it was to fly and how fast this plane was for the time
Who else got recommended this after the War Thunder update
War thunder players: *Interesting*
Lol
I’m researching it
@@Who_Jock when i unlock tier 6 it will be my priority becayse its better than the last f86 and it takes only 10.000 rp more
@@davidecarucci1073 i dont know how long you playd but i would go for the f86f2 it is a amzing jet. And you can dog fight with it. And you get great brs know. I am pushed down to 8.7 and 8.0 and 9.0 is comon. But rearly 10.0
Lol
It also killed a lot of Canadian pilots, but it's safety record in Japan and Spain are flawless. Not a good idea to use a high altitude interceptor as a low altitude tactical strike platform.
imagine the surprise of the t72 tank commander what a supersonic interceptor crashes in a ball of fire in-front of him
Yeah. Spain lost none. Thanks to use them 100% in the AtoA role, better weather and higher level of training compared to 60s Luftwaffe German pilots.
If you want a real inside of this plane check this: ruclips.net/video/eB8l_fCKDSw/видео.html
Germany did not built hangar for their 104 and left them "outside" all the time being used to the F86: just imagine how a sophisticated jet like the Starfighter would react to that treatment... v__v Also flying supersonic at treetop in bad weather is not the safest way to keep your plane intact.
Another misconception about the 104 is the "Huge" turning circle: it was about the same of an F-4B/C/D below the sound of speed and above it the 104 could run circles around any other supersonic jet because it was conceived to manoeuvre above Mach1. This can be easily seen checking the turning ratio charts in the F-104 manual and those of the Phantom. When you go beyond Mach1 the centre of gravity of a plane moves and the plane becomes way less agile, and there was where the F-104 shines. The only better fighter plane above the sound of speed was the much more sophisticated F-106 which employed a complex pump system to move fuel between the different tanks so to correct the balance and shift back the centre of gravity. It also is often told that the 104 had short range which was true to some extent, but it could bring a nuclear bomb inside the enemy territory faster and deeper than any other fighter bomber except the F-105 which had an internal vane for reducing drag. the vaunted F-4 in the USAF created a lot of probems to the f-105 formation because they had to slow down to allow the fighters to keep pace when they were loaded with tanks.
Finally, in air to air role, the F-104 could outrun, out accelerate and outroll any other fighter plane until the "teen" series became available, including all the soviet planes it could come across: in the eighties Col. Andy Bush created a controlled fight for their German cadets which were sceptical about the ability of the plane to face actual combat (because of bad press at home). The combat would involve an F-5E and an F-104G, flown by himself, starting at the same level and speed: the planes had to engage in a scissor manoeuvre and try to kill each other. in 3 sequent engagement Col. Bush was able to kill the F-5E 3 to 0 using the superior energy of the F-104 and fast roll ability. The F-5 pilot comment was "I can't F***ing believe it!!!" One of the defining characteristics the F-104 was the incredible acceleration which allowed it to dogfight mostly without reaching the AB, while a Phantom would simply open the gauges and blast away, but the huge weight mixed with two F-104 engines would drain the fuel tanks in 3 minutes where the F-104 would have the ability to stay in that fight up to 5min (tested at Decimo base in Sardinia), which is about the same time an F-15 can do! The bad reputation in combat for the F-104 comes form the fruitless cap in Vietnam where it never faced opposition, and the excessive wearing it was subject to due to lack of number: the only USAF f-104 shot down was lost pilot ambushed by a Chinese mig 19 driven by ground radar control to intercept the starfighter form behind and below. The F-104C did not had a RWR, which was immediately introduced on all the Starfighters after that fact. The other casualties were Pakistani second hand F-104A fighting against much more modern Indian Mig 21PF: Gen. Chuck Yeager tried hard to teach the poorly trained pakistani to NOT dogfight a mig 21 at low speed but they did fall for that more then one time. The problem with the F-104 is that you had to have a very high skill as a pilot to make it perform: it was not an instinctive plane that you just turn on the tail of the enemy: you need to know how to manage speed, turning rate energy retention and acceleration to be able to outperform the soviet migs: it can be done, but you got to know what you are doing. Finally the Starfighter was one of the best interceptors ever: it could be flown from stop to 30K feet faster then any other plane before the F-16 excpt may be the EE lightning, but the later had such a short range to be actually impractical and the red top missile was so bad that it probably wouldn't be able to shot down anything smaller then a T95. The latest f014S was able to carry both the Aim9 and the AIM7 in 1968 up to the Aim9L and the Aspide (which was an improved Sparrow) which made it usable as an interceptro up to the end of the nineties.
Why not? The F-104 had everything that purpose built strike aircraft of the time had:
Tiny wings for high low altitude speed and a smoother ride through thermals.
A huge amount of thrust to carry high weights and go high speeds.
The F-105 and TSR-2 both used these.
The problem was... low altitude flying is risky. That’s why the F-105-even discounting losses due to enemy action in Vietnam-had a terrible attrition rate.
In spite of its reputation as a “widow maker”... the -104 had a lower loss rate than the Sabre in Canadian and German service.
@@Bartonovich52 The Lightning was the the highest performance aircraft in NATO by quite a margin until the F-15 arrived (and even then F-15 was only just slightly faster in the climb and acceleration) massively short ranged however, they were fantastic as an interceptor in Germany, not as much use as UK QRA. The Red Top was also probably the best IR missile around at the time (with an honourable mention to AIM-9B), all missiles were unreliable at the time. Sidewinder was made reliable first after all the experience in Vietnam.
But..... TSR.2 could outrun a Lightning...in dry thrust with the Lightning in full burners....which given that the Lightning was the first combat aircraft able to supercruise is quite something....
The most amazing fact about the F104 is that a Lockeed engineer named Daryl Greenamier built one out of spare parts and set a low altitude speed record of 999.something miles per hour 100 feet off the ground and I believe that record still stands.
You're enactment brought again my dad Andy Mullin experienced being stuck in an F104 starfighter when the canopy jammed. This was at Edwards AFB, at the General Electric facility in the hangar, 1959. The plan to open the canopy was to bleed out air pressure. Then Andy Mullin, a civilian aircraft mechanic, could pull the ejection cable and without enough air pressure only the canopy would pop off. The F104 didn't use air pressure like other ejection systems. When he sat down and pulled the cable he and the seat were slammed into the roof and he dropped onto pipes. Three years including a traction bed. And he got his old job back. His lawyer got him $40,000 and he was in and out the hospital until Andy Mullin died in 1971. I wish someone knew his part in the jet age history books. Thanks for sharing the F104 story and the complexity of it's ejection system.
Thank you for the info on your Dad. Sad that he ended up in that condition.
Thats a helluva story! Glad your dad survived it. It seems they could have cut through the canopy to avoid the ejection seat egress. They do have concrete saws that would have cut through it.
The F 104 was the most beautiful bird that ever flown. I was in the German Air Force from 1980 to 1982 and we were one of the last squadrons to have the F 104. What a great time ...
The reason for the downward firing ejection seat was they believed the seat ejection was not powerful to get the pilot above the T tail at hi speeds. They then came up with a more powerful seat that ejected upward clearing the tail.
Actually knowing the history of the f-104 Starfighter makes the intro slightly disturbing...,..
true
The host is a disrespectful Jack ass
Sam B can you tell me what you mean please? Did someone get trapped in one?
yeah Dad (in a 100)was behind a guy who flamed out on take off (early model bottom eject) ugly
Aka: the widowmaker
It's not that I don't like this channel, but it's like "BLUES CLUES " for airplanes.
the museum which has these aircraft has as one of it´s objectives to teach about aviation to others, so they have to make things more simple for the casuals
Too goofy
@@ZacLowing Yeah, They need less dumb-ass more factual info. If Wings over Rockies needs some editorial advice, go watch the Bovington Armor Museum on how to do a YT channel right.
www.tankmuseum.org/
That may be an insult to "Blues Clues". My first thought was "is this produced for grade schools?" Awesome.
And nooow its comes to warthunder
The hot rod age has begun
I worked on all of the F-104's at George from '64 - '65. It was a wonderful AC and great to work on. It carried tip and pylon fuel tanks for longer range, Yes, the wings edges were sharp, my co0worker slashed his hear on one when he didn't duck low enough.
I'm watching Behind the wings instead of doing laundry, don't tell my wife.
Im watching behind the wings instead of doing my wife, dont tell the laundry.
I'm watching my Wife instead of doing the laundry, don't tell Behind the Wings
Gotcha. Just don't tell mine I'm eating vanilla oreos with strawberry milk...
Don't tell my love interest that I'm dating with that is SNAPPLE that im watching it
I’m watching laundry instead doing my wife, don’t tell behind the wings
My son and I went here 2 years ago on a trip. He LOVED the B1A. He was in awe of it. You made a great father/son memory for him that day.
I
I meant to say this is the most enthusiastic channel on RUclips ! And I give huge amounts of great props to the camera "guy" he's like 90%of the videos quality!
I’ve been to the retirement event for the Italian AF’s F-104 a few years ago and man that thing was loud! Beautiful aircraft
The F-104 is still my pick for the coolest looking jet during its service. The AVRO Vulcan being my next favorite
My grandfather was one of the test pilots for these
was he german?
Nope full blood American
Still alive actually
@@infinitepickle3727 holy crap what were the chances that after this comment existing for 9 months, i would see the replies within an hour lol
@@infinitepickle3727 cool
Tell your grandfather this Air Force veteran thinks he has brass balls.
I worked on these in the mid sixties. I was assigned to the 479th tac fighter wing, George AFB, Calif. I was an instrument tech & in 1964 we took a squadron to Spain for a few months patrolling the Mediterranean corridor. It was a fast, unforgiving aircraft.
They still have a F104 flying in Norway!!
My mom worked at Lockheed for almost 50 years. As a kid I remember riding in the car when she was meeting my dad and came to a stop sign on the sprawling facility and met a NASA F104 at the intersection. He had the right of way and taxied right past us.
F-104 is living proof that even a brick will fly if you strap a big enough engine and a stubby pair of wings on it.
lets not forget the space shuttle
Nah that's f4 phantom
You mean the F-4 not the 104.
@@TheEmperorOfWei I did indeed indicate 104, but the same point does sorta apply to the phantom. FWIW my brother was a maintenance crew chief for a squadron of them during his stint in the Air Force. That was a long time ago. My plane was the EA-6B Prowler.
Roving Punster One of the nicknames for the 104 was the prostitute because she had no visible means of support
The most beautiful military aircraft the Airforce ever flew, particularly in polished aluminum and insignia.
NASA's Starfighters also looked gorgeous in blue and white. There's one hanging from the ceiling at the Air & Space Museum in DC. It's always one of the first things I go see when I'm there.
@@mrz80 Thanks for the tip. I bet it's a beauty! They also have Liberty Bell 7 there. Both are definitely on my list of aircraft to see. And of course the Spirit of St. Louis! I have heard that they also have an X-15 there too. Marvelous aircraft! Have a great evening.
If you want legendary, you should look at the Avro Arrow, or what’s left of it. Built in the late 1950’s in Canada, the Avro Arrow was intended to be the main interceptor jet of the RCAF. This thing was a beast. Standing at 6.5 metres tall, 24 metres long and 15 metres wide, the Avro arrow was the first step in aerospace development. Flying at speeds above Mach 2, and a ceiling of 50,000 feet, the Avro Arrow was the best. Unfortunately it never saw use in the RCAF as it was cancelled in 1958 and all 6 were to be dismantled and destroyed.
I was tdy to Gioia del colle air base in Italy in 1984 for displayed determination, the Italian Air Force still flew these then. Our pilots said this thing was a little rocket and hard to catch, easy to see though they smoked bad. They taxied these with no brakes, they would be zipping down the parallel runway at 50 to 60 mph. Cool plane.
Interesting we had a squadron xchange with the Gioia del colle pilots and I was at their base for a week in the '70's with my RF-4C.
Thanks. The US Air Force F-104 Starfighter did hold the World Speed and Altitude Records in its time.
The first time I saw this fighter I was only 7 years old. I was watching Star Trek with my dad. I saw it flying up to shoot down my Favorite Star ship USS Enterprise NCC-1701. I went on to join the Navy in 1980. Guess Which Air Craft Carrier was I put on? No Joke USS ENTERPRISE CVN-65! No F-105 on board We had F-14 Tomcats and right before I left the new F-18 Hornets were replacing the Tomcats. Man landing on an Aircraft Carrier was the most heart pounding end to a trip I have ever gone through.
One of the most beautiful aircraft ever built.
F 4 wild weasel
Most air forces had no unusual losses flying the 104. The Germans big problem was they tried to use it as a multirole aircraft, something it was not made to do. They didn't learn from WW2 when they also wanted all aircraft to be multirole, and then ended up with planes unsuited to tasks. The 104 was made as a bomber interceptor, hence not much fuel or wing, just off the ground and as close to the target as fast as possible. Most pilots loved and respected these aircraft, and they served for many years.
You are absolutely incorrect. Canada lost half its 104's to accidents and the aircraft had an abysmal accident rate upwards of 30 accidents per 100,000 flight hours. I'd still love to fly one though.
Eric Hartmann had to retire from the Luftwaffe because of his objections to buying the Starfighter. But what did he know, he only had 365 kills in WW2.
The Starfighter gained one possible kill in it’s whole career, in the Indo-Pakistan war. Tiny Folland Gnat fighters shot them down.
@@JimmyJamesJ Canada also used the F-104 as a strike aircraft, at least initially mainly for the low level delivery of nuclear weapons and later for conventional weapons, and the fact that the aircraft could technically carry air to air weaponry was almost as an afterthought in Canadian service. In Canadian service the F-86 before it also had a even worse record both in incident rate and number of killed pilots. Starting to see a pattern?
Then you have Spain and Japan that operated them almost entirely without incident as interceptors.
Just blaming the aircraft doesn't work, just blaming wrong use of the aircraft doesn't work, just blaming faulty maintenance doesn't work, just blaming low or wrong pilot training doesn't work, but the combination of all of them made the F-104s reputation that of a widowmaker.
Just that it was much more evident in the nations that did use them at low level and in poor weather, for the obvious reasons that it compounds all the other issues.
@@SvenTviking
> Eric Hartmann had to retire from the
> Luftwaffe because of his objections to
> buying the Starfighter.
According to his so-called "Final Interview", Hartmann didn't think that the Luftwaffe was ready for an aircraft with as high of performance as the F-104, not because the thought that the F-104 was a bad aircraft.
As it turns out, the Luftwaffe experience after Steinhoff took over seems to support that belief.
What people seem to forget is that the Luftwaffe at the time of the F-104 was *NOT* the Luftwaffe of WWII ... the service didn't have the old timers trying to fly the aircraft and in many cases, their first flight in an F-104 was the first time in a high performance aircraft for many Luftwaffe pilots.
> The Starfighter gained one possible kill
> in it’s whole career, in the Indo-Pakistan war.
> Tiny Folland Gnat fighters shot them down.
Anyone who tries to take an F-104 into a turning fight is an idea.
As Operation Feather Duster (I or II, I can't remember) shows, when flown the way it should be flown, it beat the F-86, F-100, and F-4.
I love Starfighters!!! Beautyfull airplane and very speed fighter. Super machine! I like Zippers!!!
The F-104 Starfighter was the first airplane model that I built when I was a boy. I remember saving up to buy this model and how excited I was when I brought it home and started putting it together. Over the years it got lost. Wish I still had it, because it was a beautiful model :-)
According to my father this was the BEST aircraft my father ever flew.
I'm glad to see that at least one of the former Puerto Rico ANG F-104 is still relatively complete, I do believe this is the second one I've seen, the first being in Muñiz ANGB in Puerto Rico.
He's such a goofball. I love this channel.
Cool! F104 one of the coolest fighter ever!!
Wrote his Masters Thesis on WW-2 nose art? Respect!!!!!!!!
A good friend of mine flew these with the AZ National Guard in Phoenix. He has some wild stories about flying the F-104.
I'm totally loving this channel!! Another fantastic episode- thank you Mr B and team!!
How does this channel only have 7k subs, they are really quality
Good question!
Cause thet dont go into much dtail
HELP! HELP! I can't get out!!
In Italy we upgraded them and kept in service till the 2000, then we had f-16 for a couple of years to close the gap when finally the Typhoon was available. It was our main interceptor while Tornados were dedicated to bombing and patrol.
I'd love to fly an F104! It is by far my favorite jet, especially because of the uniquely life like engine growls. This beautiful girl ought to be 100% restored, made airworthy even if she's going to remain on static display. Gorgeous 😍
I sat in an F-104G of the German Airforce - yeah.....it is pretty cool! :)
Was it a heap of crumpled metal?
Judging by the fact you're still alive to comment here, it had to be pretty cool.
The f-104 is the pinnacle of there being no margin for error, especially during landing
My Grandpa died with an F-104 in Germany, because we think the engine flamed out and the plane dropped like a Stone to the ground. The only thing that my Grandma got from the Government was a Letter with the Signature from Franz Josef Strauß and one sentence that her husband died becaus of an pilot error.
I'm thinking mechanic error.
I mean no offense to you, but pilot error with high performance jets like the 104 were not uncommon during that time. A similar phenomenon occurred during the transition to the jet age with pilots stalling out on take off due to them over roatating like they would in a prop plane.
WHERES MY *P O L I S H E D A L U M I N I U M*
Oh, another furry Aircraft-lover, i see
I've seen one in person in Munich, Germany. Never thought they were this tiny. Really a turbine with an extra cockpit in front.
I lived near Luke AFB in the 70’s. Luftwaffe trained to fly F-104’s at Luke. Beautiful airplanes!
I must politely differ. When I sat in an A-4 Skyhawk, I was shoulder to cockpit tight. When I had the chance to sit in an F-104, I had a whole lot more room, and I am NOT little, 6'2" & 320 lbs. (working on the girth part, LOL). I wish you guys were closer, but we have some pretty neat air museums here in Florida, Pensacola anyone? You do have a rather impressive facility. I, too, am an aircraft geek, military of course. You have my dream job, which is why my house looks like an air museum, much to my wife's chagrin. I love your unique approach and at 57, am not a kid. I have subscribed so keep them coming as Colorado would be a long road trip for us. Thank you, take care and God Bless from Florida.
I've been to the Air Force Museum at Eglin AFB in Florida. Saw an F104 parked next to an F4. The F104 was so small in comparison. It looked like a dart. Definitely a high performance machine though, like a supercar sports car. NOT for the average pilot.
The F-104 was also one of the fastest land vehicles of all time. Guy took off the wings and put high speed wheels on her, almost broke the sound barrier on land doing that.
Crag Breedlove, wasn't it?
@@jimbobaggans1564 Ed Shadle too, wants to break the current record.
@3:40 Pretty sure my stepdad Lyle designed the plastic piece to go over the wings while they were on the ground. Guys would rub their hand down the wing and it would cut them.
"Yeah, i agree, the F-104 is the greatest fighter ever designed and built."
jay deister fighter? A rocket with wing babyyyyy
It was never in the same class as the English Electric lightning . Fact .
As a current starfighter pilot in training, I very much enjoyed this video ! Cheers !
Ejecting at Mach 2 would be instant death actually.
從以前到現在，就算是有許多漂亮的飛機。
但是F104還是我的最愛。
You inspire me man. I'm in school on the GI Bill as a history major. Writing your thesis on nose art is by far the coolest academic endeavor I've heard of thus far. Geek out indeed 🇺🇲🤟
What a beautiful aircraft. Looks like it's flying at Mach 1 sitting still. My dad was career Air Force. Saw them many times.
Word of the day is ! "HOW COOL IS THAT!"
I got a wing bite below my eye in the 70’s. only once.
One of my All time favorite cold War interceptors
“Eject at 2. Something Mach, you’ll probably break something” 🤣🤣🤣
sponsored by Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown
+1
+2
+3
Dude take it down a notch!
This guys awesome
These always pop up when there is a new War Thunder update
The real reason why such a lot F-104s got down in Germany was: We have quite different weather here in Germany AND the German Luftwaffe wanted to use this plane for multi purpose for what the 104 was never thought to be. That doesn't work. You can't have a cow that lays eggs and gives wool.
My grandpa Howard Stern worked on the electronic system for this aircraft! My family also recently met the test pilot Alex (forgot his last name) la flew this plane who unfortunately passed this year. He said this was a really fun plane to fly.
This man is a vibe
Was stationed at Soesterberg AB Netherlands in the late 70's with F-4E's, we would go TDY to Leewarden AB Netherlands and fly DACT missions against the Dutch F-104's. Coolest thing was they would taxi by and you could look up.the tailpipe and see a little hooded pilot light flickering at the bottom of the engine by the AB spraybars. Our Phantoms also had J-79 engines but used ignitor plugs. Always thought the pilot light was wierd.
I was down at Zweibrucken flying RF-4C while you were at Soesterberg....never landed there for some reason.
I’ve worked on one of these at Moffett Field and I’m happy to say our cockpit is actually complete
We've been worked on ours too since we filmed this episode. Might need a F-104 part 2....
Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum That’d be awesome to see! Ours is a little bit of an odd ball in that it also has a tail hook on it.
Thanx, Kelly Johnson!!!!.
basically a smaller U-2 fuselage lol. which is probably what saved a lot of time developing the U-2
Most beautiful jet fighter ever.
Good job Matthew.
Thank you! MB
a thing of beauty is a joy for ever.. it will never fade away..
I saw this in person and let me tell you guys it’s amazing!
Going here on Sunday, hopefully Corona doesn't ruin the experience.
I’m a simple man. I see F-104, I click.
Same. Such a badass looking fighter.
They used the Spurs because on ejection you had the risk that your knees would be stuck on the instrument panel.
I found an F-104G for sale, available for civilian purchase. It’s almost 100% complete, and costs roughly $400,000. So, I might have a new goal, yeehaw.
I LOVE these "Behind the Wings" episodes!!!
You're a fun guy to watch, Matthew.
funny that shooting star icon on the wing tip tank. some belgian F104's had a shooting star painted on the lateral air intakes, symboll of the florennes squadron
The Heinkel Salamander was the inspiration for the landing gear arrangement of the F-104, and in-turn the F-16.
I was hoping to see him grab a wing tip and give it a wiggle. Something that impressed the heck out of me was the fact that a person could move the wing tips up and down at least 6" - 8". The wings were perfectly stiff and seemed to be hinged at the root. FYI, this was something that I discovered personally at the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, back in the days when they'd actually let people touch the planes. I'm not sure if this is a normal feature of the F-104, or if it was part of how that particular plane had been prepared for display.
This man is fenomenal!!!!
If you ever have an opportunity, read Chuck Yeager’s autobiography. He talks about the F104 on several occasions and he said that it was an interesting plane to fly but it had a really bad pitch up problem. They said that it wasn’t uncommon for that plane to be in a climb and then it would stall out and as it was dropping the pilots would have to put the engine in the full afterburner to try and get the momentum going again to save the plane. He flew especially modified F104 and got an altitude record for it but he was unable to recover the plane and ended up punching out a.k.a. ejected. When he did the rocket from the ejection seat hit him in the face and burned him severely. He was lucky to have survived but as you can tell if you’ve ever seen his interviews, he’s OK.
The usual description of the F-104 was that it was an "honest" but "unforgiving" aircraft.
Is something happened, you needed to deal with it right away or else _terrible things would happen_.
But while people like to point at the F-104's pitch up and deep stall problems, most people seem to be unaware that other aircraft have such problems as well and not gets too excited about them.
Without something to prevent it, swept wing aircraft are also prone to pitch up and/or deep stalls.
For example, the F-86 and F-100 were prone to pitch up and/or deep stall problems.
The problem was simply avoided (by the pilot) in the case of the F-86, but a fatal deep stall was sufficiently common in the case of the F-100s that it got the nickname "Sabre dance".
The problem was finally fixed in the F-100G (IIRC) through wing fences.
In the case of the F-104, it was equipped with a "stick shaker" which would shake the stick similar to what one might feel on some other aircraft when it was entering a stall before the main wings actually stalled.
I have that one! In 1/72 Die Cast but in the Vietnam markings, without the refueling probe as well.
This guy is the Mr.Rogers of Aviation.
I am proud to say I'm interested in military history and have never ever ever ever ever played War Thunder.
I'm here because I searched for it!!!
Give me f-104 please RUclips.
Corny but very entertaining! Great learning experience!
This guy really loves his job :)
1:38 no longer used on the British-made Martin Baker Mk. GQ-7 ejection seats !
Love the enthusiasm in your videos. Great Job
Matthew, you rock, gave up that Tax Collection job to Aviation, well done.
I was wondering why the music seemed off... it’s the song HBO uses in their Cat House series on Brothels.
> [05:46] "It didn't have a great safety record.
> In fact, it's got the worst safety record
> of all of the Century Series fighters".
I don't know what "safety record" you are referring to, but in terms of U.S. Air Force service, there were 196 accidents involving the F-104 with 160 aircraft destroyed and 58 pilots killed.
While these figures are bad, they are not the worst.
That honor goes to the F-100.
In the case of the F-100, there were 471 accidents resulting in 287 aircraft destroyed and 91 fatalities.
And I would argue that high loss figures for the F-100 are for basically the same reason that the Germans lost so many aircraft and pilots.
The F-100 was a quantum leap in terms of performance over that American pilots had experience with which they simply were not prepared for, just as the F-104 was a quantum leap in terms of performance over anything the German pilots had experience with and were likewise not prepared for.
This plane was a favorite of mine (alone with F14 Tomcat) when I was a kid.... mostly because I really liked the cool name, but also because it could go more than 2x the speed of sound on a single jet engine and just looks FAST! This plane was meant to fly high and fast. I don't believe one was ever lost due to combat, all the crashes were due to stalling that wing at low air speeds. The plane was a true interceptor, it was not designed to fly low or slow or get into a dogfight so those nations that tried to use it low and slow crashed them left and right.
It is a VERY cool plane when used the way it was designed!
MShrader211: Sadly, a number of 104's were lost in Vietnam. My late Dad was piloting one of them. See my Comment above. facebook.com/ColonelTomFinneyRemembrancePage/?eid=ARDfn3MSwB-f7weNwvarrZUwYZSOXlyd0JWxZFc3J-yp5L3CiSYY7D_4v2FOQt3fpIxl34LauNe-ifdZ
Several F-104s were lost in combat.
And virtually none of the crashes had nothing to do with flying slowly to the point of stall.
Finally, the F-104 was *NOT* designed to be an interceptor.
It was designed to be a daylight air superiority fighter.
In fact, part of the reason why the U.S. Air Force became disenchanted with it is that it was a pretty crappy interceptor due to its limited fuel.
@@lewiscole5193 Well, I never heard read or saw any reports about that before. Who were F104's in combat with? And with the outboard wing tanks, I'd think on a single engine it'd have plenty of fuel for flight... but that's just my opinion nothing more. Regards Lewis!
@@MShrader211
> Well, I never heard read or saw any reports
> about that before. Who were F104s in combat
> with?
With all due respect, sir, it sounds like you haven't bothered to look for any reports before.
Even the Wikipedia entry for the F-104 lists combat losses.
In the case of the U.S. all of the combat losses (about 10 of them) were due to ground fire (which while not AIR combat is still COMBAT nevertheless) in Vietnam.
The first direct air combat losses between an F-104 and a MiG-21 occurred during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 where between 2 to 4 F-104s were shot down by MiG-21s.
> And with the outboard wing tanks, I'd
> think on a single-engine it'd have plenty
> of fuel for flight ...
The tip tanks and pylon tanks roughly double the fuel carrying capacity of the F-104.
However, how long that fuel lasts depends on it's used during a mission.
For wide area interception, it's not enough to keep the F-104 in the air for a long, long, *LONG* time like the F-101 which was the wide area interceptor of the time.
For point defense, the F-104 would presumably take off and climb to intercept its target which requires that the F-104 be as light as possible so that it can accelerate its fastest which means no tip tanks, but Sidewinder missiles instead.
In that case, the internal fuel severely limits its range as a function of the altitude of the attacker.
For a target flying at about 45,000 feet, the F-104 can take off and intercept a target up to about 150 miles.
For a target flying at about 70,000 feet, the F-104.can take off and intercept a target up to about *ZERO* (0) miles away ... which isn't something that's terribly useful if the target happens to be carrying nuclear weapons.
The good news is that when the F-104 is used in an interceptor role, it can get to its target supersonically while other fighters, in particular the F-102/F-106 which was used for point defense, may have longer range only at subsonic speeds.
It's useful to keep in mind that going to afterburner increases the J-79's thrust by about 60-percent, but at double the fuel consumption.
In afterburner, the J-79 consumes about 10-gallons *PER SECOND* so the 900 or so gallons storable externally only lasts for about 90-seconds.
And if you need further evidence that the F-104 was not intended to be an interceptor, you need look no further than the weapons that it could carry out-of-the-box.
The U.S. interceptors, the F-101 and F-102/F-106, could fire the nuclear tipped Genie unguided missile while the F-104 could not until it was outfitted with a trapeze mechanism that it was never fitted with in operation
@@MShrader211
OBTW, you didn't bring up your apparent belief that most of the F-104s lost in German occurred due to stalls at low speeds which as I've indicated is not true at all.
If you need further evidence of this, you can find a brief summary of all F-104G crashes that occurred listed in the FAA's booklet on what it takes for an F-104 to be certified as airworthy for flight in the U.S. which can be found online.
(The booklet is presumably for FAA inspectors who end up having to consider F-104s brought into the U.S. from overseas, repaired, and then presented to the FAA by private owners.)
My favorite plane when I was a kid.
Who's watching this because of the new war thunder patch