LOCKHEED F-104 STARFIGHTER | The Widowmaker Aircraft | Bonus: An Additional Rare Documentary
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 фев 2024
- A documentary about the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter which was also called the "Widowmaker".
The F-104 Starfighter was created by Kelly Johnson and Skunk Works and was a supersonic extensively deployed during the Cold War.
The F-104 was designed to use the General Electric J79 turbojet engine, fed by side-mounted intakes with fixed inlet cones optimized for performance at Mach 1.7 (increased to Mach 2 for later F-104s equipped with more powerful J79-GE-19 engines). Unlike some supersonic aircraft, the F-104 did not have variable-geometry inlets; instead at high Mach numbers, excess air was bypassed around the engine. This bypass air also helped cool the engine.
Designed as a supersonic superiority fighter, the F-104 was produced in two major versions. Armed with a six-barrel M-61 20mm Vulcan cannon, it served as a tactical fighter, and when equipped additionally with heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles, as a day-night interceptor. Development of the F-104 began in 1952, and the first XF-104 made its initial flight in 1954. On May 18, 1958, an F-104A set a world speed record of 1,404.19 mph, and on Dec. 14, 1959, an F-104C set a world altitude record of 103,395 feet. The Starfighter was the first aircraft to hold simultaneous official world records for speed, altitude, and time-to-climb.
The USAF procured about 300 Starfighters in one- and two-seat versions. In addition, more than 1,700 F-104s were built in the United States and abroad under the military aid program for various nations including Canada, West Germany, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, Spain, Taiwan, and Japan.
The aircraft on display served with the USAF in California, West Germany, Spain, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Thailand. It also was flown by the winning pilot of the 1962 USAF "William Tell" Fighter Weapons Meet competition. It was flown to the museum in August 1975.
Known as "the missile with a man in it," the stubby-winged Lockheed F-104 Starfighter was the first U.S. jet fighter in service to fly Mach 2, twice the speed of sound. Designed as a high-performance day fighter, the F-104 had excellent acceleration and top speed.
Early Starfighters used a downward-firing ejection seat (the Stanley C-1), out of concern over the ability of an upward-firing seat to clear the "T-tail" empennage. This presented obvious problems in low-altitude escapes, and 21 USAF pilots, including test pilot Captain Iven Carl Kincheloe Jr., failed to escape from their stricken aircraft in low-level emergencies because of it. The downward-firing seat was replaced by the Lockheed C-2 upward-firing seat, which was capable of clearing the tail, but still had a minimum speed limitation of 90 kn (104 mph; 167 km/h). Many export Starfighters were later retrofitted with Martin-Baker Mk.7 "zero-zero" (zero altitude and zero airspeed) ejection seats.
The Starfighter was designed for production rates of up to 20 airplanes per day from a single assembly line. The entire aircraft was designed for modular assembly and disassembly. The two principal fuselage sections were split along the vertical centerline and completely assembled in two separate halves. All equipment, including wiring and plumbing, was installed inside the two halves before being joined. The wings were then attached with ten bolts plus a fairing.
TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: One M-61 20mm cannon, two air-to-air missiles, nuclear or conventional bombs
Engine: General Electric J79 of 15,800 lbs. thrust with afterburner
Crew: One
Maximum speed: 1,320 mph
Cruising speed: 575 mph
Range: 1,250 miles
Ceiling: 58,000 ft.
Span: 21 ft. 11 in.
Length: 54 ft. 10 in.
Height: 13 ft. 6 in.
Weight: 27,853 lbs. maximum
Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions ➤ / @dronescapes
To support/join the channel ➤ www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/...
IG ➤ / dronescapesvideos
FB ➤ / dronescapesvideos
X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesv...
#f104 #starfighter #aircraft 
Наука
➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
I never realized the f-104 was produced for that long
An appalling design and implementation.
@@markjennings2315 It was not an appalling design, it was an innovative design that was the first to deliver Mach 2 performance in a production fighter. Have some respect.
@@markjennings2315… Clarence Kelly did not design the F-104 to be a fighter-bomber. The F-104G added weight and increased pilot workload. Canada and Germany had the highest accident rates. Which wasn’t the case with other air forces flying the Starfighter
A@@gort8203
@@Idahoguy10157Agreed..
It was a jet missile delivering a missile.
I grew up with many grounds crew friends.
That is what it was intended for.
Quick launch nuke carriers at great speed.
Nothing else like it.
This is one of Kelly Johnson's classics. Also big fan of his P-39, Constellation, and F-80 designs.
P-38. The P-39 was a Bell aircraft.
@@AlanRoehrich9651 Both badass birds to be fair.
@@ironarmycommander6480 What does the badassness (or lack thereof) of the P-39 have to do with his comment that the P-39 was not one of Kelly Johnson's designs?
I think he meant the P-38. The P-39 was not a Kelly John designed Lockheed product
Kelly designed the p38 Lightning, the F-104 and the YF-12 later known as the SR-71. Greatness
The F-104 just screams The Right Stuff. And I can’t help thinking of my test pilot heroes and Edwards every time I see one.
During the early development stages, where there were educated guesses and discussions, then engineering, followed by fabrication, assembly, testing in every imaginable scenario…iterative trial and error, and testing to failure. Then back to the meeting rooms to review results, make more educated guesses, then engineering…repeat til the Starfighter arises.
It must have been stupendously gratifying to be showing up for work every day knowing you were working towards something there was little prior certainty and established technologies to predict outcomes and guide the team to a next possible step. And that next step might be the start of a completely dead end direction, whereupon you head back to that meeting room.
These guys were establishing so many processes, aircraft shapes and structures, analysis procedures, things that are the bedrock of the predictive models we can take for granted and build upon. We don’t have to wonder if doing X will result in Y - these guys had figured it out! The data and analysis of that data form the basis of a library we use within our design tools and software to create a design and predict how it will operate in a myriad of different circumstances. This leaves us free to push the state of the art by developing new structures, metallurgy, structures, etc, and gather data through iterative testing and operation that can eventually be applied to the same library for future use.
We stand on the shoulders of giants, and by doing so, we build upon their efforts such that the next generation of engineers can stand on OUR shoulders.
But these guys were at the dawn of an aircraft golden age, where almost everything was brand new and there many, many unknowns to work through. What an absolutely fascinating time to have been an aircraft engineer.
Also the coolest name for a fighter plane, ever.
The F-104 Starfighter: because it fights stars.
The sexiest fighter jet ever as well. I saw at airshows here in Canada our CF-104's fly very exciting demonstrations with that awesome sound that F-104's made.
@@Trev0r98well I think the F3H was pretty bad ass as the “Demon”
Loved that supersonic jet.
Mr Johnson the legend!!!!!
I wish they had some actual audio of the engines spooling up; love the sound of the whoooop
All that in 1954. Amazing.
Love this response, look at the cars from the time. First Fender Statocaster came out this year. The birth of Rock n roll.
The modern era was mostly invented by 1946. Mankind peaked in 1969. Everything since is derivative.
It's one of my favorite planes of all times.
Interesting to see the story about that gun.
Reminds me of a true story:
The Dutch airforce used to have the F104. In 1977 there was a train hi-jacking. Negotiations went on for weeks. The hijackers shot 1 hostage. That's when our government decided that the army commandos had to storm the train to free the hostages. From observations rhey knew that most hijackers slept in the cockpit area of thevtrain. Seconds before the storming started 2 F104's did low fly-overs and completely shot up the cockpit area of the train. After that they pulled up sharply with afterburners on. This was very effective. Most hijackers were already dead. The commando's took out the rest. There were only 2 victims among the hostages but overall it was a succesful end of the situation.
1 of the F104 pilots was Dick Berlin, he later became the chief of staf in the Dutch armed forces.
Wow. Imagine the cockpit after they hit it with the Vulcan. Probably wasn't much left for commandos to deal with
Crime does not pay. Thanks for the story!
Wow. Cool story
The F-104s never shot a bullet, their mission was to fly low over the train and once overhead ignite the afterburners to confuse the hijackers.
It is an absolutely gorgeous and stunning aircraft to behold. People trash talk how dangerous these were to fly, and it is understandable, especially considering how many Germany crashed alone because they were not given any real warnings about the tricky slow speed characteristics. However, supersonic aircraft in the 1950s all had their own dangers, it was all new tech and each plane was pushing the boundaries of what was known at the time in EVERY category from aerodynamics to metallurgy. At the time, the faster you wanted to go, the more compromise you had to make in low speed handling, and there were no fly-by-wire computers to help keep you from doing something the plane didn't like. At least here in the States, the men that flew these planes new and understood the dangers, and they took the risks because, at the end of the day, going fast is fun. And no matter if it is a plane, boat, car, modern or old, when you push into unknowns, it is dangerous, but it is fun when things work!
If u think the f104 a gorgeous plane check out the English elecktrick lightning. Similar looking but I think the Lightning beats it for looks hands down. The lightning didn't kill it's pilots in the same manner to. Also it was very very quick.
@user-se2vr6pm6r
LMAO! The EE Lightning was ugly, looked like a pregnant guppy, was a maintenance nightmare (because Brits think everything should leak) and never fired a shot in anger with the Brits.
I think you're due for an eye-exam, buddy.🤓
ruclips.net/video/mVJB_DvroJs/видео.html
The F-104 Starfighter RCAF, JASDF, BAF, TAF, Italian air force, USAF. Unique aircraft.
RDAF.
15 nations flew it, Italy until around 2005.
Pretty wild that they used a sodium pentothol enhanced debriefing for one of the test pilots, that's committment to your job right there!
RIP Ivan Kinchelo, who died Before the ejection problem was solved, as detailed around 1:02. “the wingless wonder”, holds a special place in my heart. Although I’m not a pilot, I acquired a kneeboard checklist for an RCAF 104. Emergency procedures were pretty short before ejection. 😉 “Chuck” Yeager, liked it but did “give one back to the taxpayer”, when it entered an unrecoverable spin.
The pilot bails out, sees his life flash before him and still those perverts make him relive the experience over and over!!! 🤑🔁
I think it’s is amazing that these aircraft were made with a slide ruler and a tape measure. Even the Awesome sr71 was developed this way and years later when the smartest of the smart people think they can improve on the design because of all of the advanced systems we have today they found out that there was not one single thing they could improve on.
Welllll, maybe some fuel tank sealant :)
@@ronjon7942 would never worked because the titanium expanded at speed and with the heat and it was designed like that
THANK YOU for being the first video to give Jackie Cochran her incredible achievements, although in a Canadian owned airplane.
Always loved the F 104.
Excellence in motion...how gorgeous...
My dad was on a NATO base in France in the 60's. I used to see them, rarely. Our school had books by CB Colby, with pictures.
Very Cool ! Thanks for sharing.
I got the chance to watch one do an aerobatic demonstration in 2015 at the TICO Airshow in Titusville, Florida. Such a fantastic aircraft. To this day one of my favorites. It was a beautifully restored F-104 owned by Starfighters. I guess they have a few of them in flying condition. A huge thrill to see one in the flesh.
When I watch video documentaries like this one I often wonder if anyone had the foresight to take a few examples of the aircraft along with multiple spares of everything and just set them aside for posterity so future generations can have them as examples of how things looked exactly as as they were manufactured at the time! It would be absolutely incredible to look at a brand new P-38 along with spare engines and parts still in there original shipping containers as they came off the assembly line!
In a way there kind of was with all of the left over new old stock engines and different parts after ww2 that’s when people started putting v12 aircraft engines in to cars and speed boats. I know where there is a brand new 4 blade p47 prop hanging on a wall that was bought as new old stock and the people have 3d scanned it and other props and now make replacements but the same people also make laminated wooded props for all ww1 planes and any plane that still uses wood props. They are Culver’s Props out of Rolla Missouri USA
Absolutely fascinating plane.
Kelly Johnson was an intuitive visionary. What he and his colleagues achieved is near miraculous.👍
Epic and interesting 👍
Gorgeous airplane.
Lockheed Lawn Dart 👌
I've always found the Anhedral design quite elegant looking.
Add huge wings…..boom U2
It was a flying JET ENGINE! I'd think maybe a good interceptor.. In ways it was ahead of it's time. Kelly Johnson the 'SWEDE' was one of the best engineers ever...
Holy crap!!! Who was buying this in 1983??? America already had f14s f15s, F16s and even the f117 at that time!!!
Our school was in Sunnyvale, CA not a couple miles from Moffitt Field which sported the ginormous dirigible hangar (now owned by Bezos I believe). C-130 subhunters took off and arrived every hour. As well, F-104's arrived looking like darts and emitting this insanely loud, high-pitched scream. It took a half-hour to wind down and sounded like 'EOTWAWKI.'
The British Miles M-52 was intended to fly 1000 miles at 1000 miles in less than one hour. Design work began in 1943 it had short wings similar to F-104 though a much shorter fuselage. When close to completion, the project was mysteriously cancelled and the designs given to USA.
Models were wind tunnel tested and the wings were flown on a test mule. The exact same criticisms were made about the small wings and potential instability. Despite the last minute cancellation, it effectively flew as the Bell X-1 which was a virtual copy despite using a rocket power instead on the turbo jet.
It’s odd that years later the USAF was continuing with its “standard” design concepts.
You can see an ex gunnery one at the back of the German technical museum. Much of the frame is exposed 😊 The wing root loading went through the fuselage via graduated set of vertical spars.
I once met a Danish F-104 pilot at the Danish live fire training facility on the North Sea. There they had a German pilot's helmet on display - he left it after he had ejected from his F-104 which crashed into the North Sea. The Danish pilot then told about how the German F-104's kept falling out of the sky, while Denmark had lost none - so maybe it wasn't as much the plane as the style of flying.
Thats not quite true. While the Luftwaffe suffered high loss rates, almost 32%, the RDAF lost 12 out of 51 Starfighters amounting to a loss rate of 23,5%. Lack of training and other factors where a big cause for the high German losses, but it was a difficult plane to fly. Especially the G model used in Europe as a fighter bomber. Something it was not designed to do. The Luftwaffe also improved the safety record quite a bit after revised training programs.
Most Starfighter accidents(outside of stall/spin on approach) were either engine failure/fire or cfit.. Flying at 500' and 500 knots means a sneeze is fatal
@@schr75 "Something it was not designed to do."
Everybody who parrots that line doesn't understand aircraft. The F-104 airframe was not unsuited to high speed low level flight, it was ideal for it. Look at every jet intentionally designed for the high-speed low-level strike role, and you will see small wings and high wing loading.
(That includes the TSR-2 so many internet fans think was the best jet never built, which had a significantly higher wing loading than the F-104.)
@@gort8203 It was designed to be a high speed, high altitude point defense interceptor. It could be adapted for ground strike, but it was designed to get high, get fast, attack enemy bombers, get home. If it was designed for low-level high-speed flight, then why did Kelly Johnson put such focus on its climb rate which is competitive with more modern designs?
@@RaderizDorret Nope. The 104 was designed as a day air superiority fighter, meant to engage other fighters, not intercept bombers. Forget the myth you see online and read the history of the aircraft.
I didn't say it was originally designed for high-speed low-level flight, I said its small wing and high wing loading made it inherently suitable for that flight regime. I said aircraft intentionally designed for that role also have small wings and high wing loading just to help you understand.
Kelly Johnson focused on climb rate in addition to speed because that is what the Korean War fighter pilots he specially interviewed told him they wanted in a fighter. He had designed fighters before and was familiar with requirements. Read the history. You don't understand air combat if you don't understand why climb rate and ceiling were vital commodities in air-to-air combat.
Interested in the need for shaped intake covers at 41:00 , instead of just plug inserts?
OMG, it's been around for 70 years! It's still waycool. I believe that's Walter Cronkite doing the narration. Every plane can be a 'widow maker' if its flown incorrectly.
Doesn't sound anything like Cronkite.
You know it was a crazy time when they decide to DRUG THE TEST PILOT!? YIKES! "Narcosynthist" is a fantastic band name BTW....
when i was 11 in 1964 a starfighter crashed no far from the school i was attending, the piolet land in the play ground after he ejected. When the jet hit the ground there was a huge fire ball like a nucellar explosion but a lot smaller then the window's rattled in the frames; I was on the 4 floor; this was exiting for a 11 year old kid. The nick name for this air craft was the widow maker. as it was unsafe to fly, a lot crashed.
It was not "unsafe to fly". It was a sound design, albeit somewhat radical, so it came with a learning curve - as do all new aircraft designs. Some countries simply had inadequate pilot training programs, or they attempted to "shoe-horn" the F-104 into roles or missions it was not designed to fulfill.
my dad took me to an air show in Navato when their was an airbase there.
i was around eleven . they had a few of these planes on display and one did a low level fly over for the crowd . scared the crp out of me .😂
When i got to Luke AFB in 75, the German airforce were flying them, I watched one on the hot pad test the 20mm canon.
Thanks to Mystery Science Theater 3000, episode 612, for reintroducing me to this striking aircraft. The F-104 Starfighter.
🤖🤵🤖
As a child in the early 1970s, the Starfighter was the single most inspiring military fighter in my eyes.
By that time the F-4 Phantom was well known.. but it was nowhere as fast or sexy as the Starfighter
''how do you get your own star fighter? just buy a patch of ground and wait'' german joke
One of Johnson's few designs with a single tail.
For quite a while after WWII, Kelly Johnson's, as well as other U.S. design teams were reluctant to move towards fully swept wings as we know them now, even though at the time, from late 40's to mid 50's, the concept was already fairly understood. Many U.S. designers preferred instead to rely low thickness rather than sweep. It would be interesting to know why.
That's not true. Swept wings were already the more common way to reduce transonic drag. Lockheed considered the common swept wing solution for the 104 but chose the short straight wing instead because they deemed it superior in this application.
Only the press called them widow makers... In Canada they were known as zippers
AKA, the Widowmaker (at least for its deployment in Germany)
More loved by the Italians who know sexy
I remember the first Sim flight I went into a flatspin at a fairly high speed just trying to bank that thing and turn.
Dag, how many "Widowmakers" we got? 1] Martin B-26 Marauder 2] Lockheed F-104 Starfighter 3] Lockheed U-2 Dragon Lady
4 that goofy-looking Osprey or v22
@@acespace7255 straight shot to the Cemetery...
The AV-8A Harrier, too.
@@mikedalgliesh1377 No doubt...
Anything with wings and an inexperienced pilot?
Realy I like this fastest fighters
I had a relative that flew the Starfire.
Back in the days when Lockheed was delivering on time and on, or under budget. The days of Kelly Johnson.
That plane is still sfaying today Kelly Johnson turned it into the dragon Lady U2
8 videos in 2 weeks.
The F-104 was a stellar design. It was a flying brick, a name given to the F4 Phantom. Not enough wing, yet at the time and in the right hands quite able aircraft. It's high take off speed and equally high landing speed made it a hand full. Speed was required at the time. Chuck Yeager took this aircraft to space
Somehow ‘brick’ and ‘Starfighter’ doesn’t mesh.
@@ronjon7942 lawn dart, sorry the F-104 has such a tiny wing and long fuselage that it takes off at quite high speed, it also lands at a high speed. Its design threw lift out of the window. When compared with fighters today its wing area is spartan.
Still love it, Chuck Yeager took this rocket to space.
Chuck left the aircraft. it was spiraling out of control. What is cool is that Chuck survied
Amsterdam
Rock opera is hilariously funny😂😂😂
Check out the Douglas X-3 Stilletto if ya want to know Where Kelly got those wings.
I’m watching the inside and parachute footage of the crash later in this video and wondering how the video survived the crash?
just saw one in the new england air museum
The only aircraft pointy enough for Admiral-General Aladeen
Thanks for the adverts every four minutes
Perhaps you are not aware that there are many ways not to see ads, including RUclips Premium, which among other perks, also removes every ad from all videos.
Maybe you want to consider it, or the myriad of alternative solution.
Check out Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters
Widow maker
Yes, it is in the title of the video…
I remember them well from my youth. They went over where I lived in a rural area miles away from where they were stationed. They could fly fast but were a manned rocket trying to catch missiles. When we got the F16 - the countryside went quiet. The F16 could turn around the airport. The Starfighter needed a lot of space to make a turn. To many people like me it's still a mystery why we had so many of them in Europe. They were far from ideal - there's a lot of stories about a mixture of threats, bribery and lobbyism made it come true. It was an intercepter - only doing well in that regard. Both flying and falling like a brick. It definitely wasn't made for dogfights. Apparently it could survive a good beating. I've seen them having landed after bird strikes and fires. You could only wonder why they didn't crash almost having only the flaps left. Unfortunately a lot did crash. In the former West Germany - they had more than their fair share of accidents. There they earned the title of a widowmaker.
The US shoved them down the throats of Allied countries at huge profits for Lockheed and the defense industry.
The new German Air force wasn't ready for such a hot rod. Erich Hartman was involved with the new Luftwaffe and recommended against getting it. He flew them in Nevada. The German pilots weren't ready for such a hot ship.
@@brealistic3542That was not actually the Problem.
The main Problem was that we took a superb Interceptor and tried to make an ok'ish multirole combat aircraft out of it.
That worked more or less, but it made flying those things even more difficult.
Especially when they started to change to low flying.
Not a rugged bird !
Broke up in the Enterprise’s tractor beam and the Captain had to be beamed aboard ..,.,
I wondered how deep into the comments before this reference.😍🖖
Kelly didn't build no ugly airplanes.
Was that Walter Cronkite narrating the second documentary?
Yes, that is a quite rare documentary we managed to find in the National Archives. A very fascinating find, narrated by an icon!
@@Dronescapes And it includes many of the historical testing film snippets used in Starfighter documentaries over the years. The first one is a "do-over" of the original John Honey Wings" series from the early 1990s that used to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel. Like many documentaries of its day, the second one with its production rooted in drama, having the pilots recreating their roles is so funny looking back at it. The truth serum scene is priceless!!!
Wo ist Heinevetter?
F-104 Starfighter German air force.
How did those engines not suck in dirt and debris on that dry lake bed?
It is an interesting presentation. One comment. Either the voice is an AI reading a transcript, or your cadence and delivery does not sound entirely normal. I struggled to detect any of the normal quirks of typical human speech. It didn't sound wooden (like a person), but instead almost too fluid and clean. Still, it was enjoyable to watch and I will watch more in the future.
Same voice as Winnie the pooh
First I win the internet today
👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈
Its funny how agile the 104 is in WT when irl its bad
If it had so many problems why was it in production so long ?
Some still love it (Italians for example).
At 32:44 the mig in the photo is only about up to your knee at winglevel height . They must send children in little uniforms to walk past one in movies to make the plane appear larger .
I own an original F-104 actuator for rear flaps, inside prepared to put a cognac bottle in it. Ideal for the desk of the boss! I want to sell it. Interested?
Faster then mig
Amsterdam
There is even a British Rock ,opera, named after the plane.
Taking the ,mickey, out of the Germans
Big buyer .
Named
,, Captain Lockheed & the Starfighters,,
Aka Lawndart
The F104 won European contracts mainly due to financial bribes handed out to those making the decisions
The EE Lightning was superior in some aspects StarFighter in others
It was the $$$ handed out that swayed the decisions
The EE Lightning and StarFighter went on to long careers
With the Italian Airforce using starfighters until 2004
I was gonna say that but you were first !Absolutely true and not mentioned here
The EE Lightning did NOT have a long career and never fired a shot in anger with the Brits.
So...kinda worthless and frankly; pretty goofy-looking.
Looked like a pregnant guppy.😄
@@goofyleo3869 The RAF operated the lightning for 28 years. How long did the USAF have the Starfighter in front line service?
You make it sound like European mfgs didn’t make bribes…what, do you think Lockheed invented the sales technique?
The X-15 had a similar wing
Proof that given enough thrust, wings were almost unnecessary. The F-104 did not suffer fools.
Hottest plane in the sky.
Ok, need to understand: Johnson got feedback from USAF pilots in Korea, and based the Starfighter on their stated requirements? The F-104, had it been available, offered the advantages those pilots needed against what? Mig-15s? Seems like more of an interceptor than a superior dogfighter. And aerodynamics exercise (albeit with a stunning result) rather than the fighter the USAF needed at the time.
Pilots said fast and high. Kelly gave them the fastest and the highest. I guess they figured they’d rather have energy over maneuverability.
Dam 1983 how bout no!
The original ejection seat was…odd to say the least.
70 years of F-104 in 2024
The window maker
Kelly had swedish ancestory His great grandf
Yes, he did. Like many others he thrived in the U.S.
For example the founder of Bank of America was the son of two Italian immigrants, but it is very unlikely he would have become the founder of the biggest bank in the World (during his tenure) in Italy.
Do the people who write up the summary for your videos speak English as their first language? I doubt it.
I saw this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Get on your poopy suits!
Laf. Keep the stool sample.
@@ronjon7942 Mystery Science Theater 3000-The Starfighters, Season 6 Episode 12 :)
there were far better options than the 104. Mirage III, F-8, and a couple years later the English Electric Lightning and F-4
Sales in West Germany followed a number of technical alterations, accompanied by "Massive Bribe" payments to the minister of defence. and his department. (It is now generally accepted that this order would not have been made without these payments). From a total of just over 900 planes. 292 planes crashed with the death of 115 pilots. I have the "utmost" respect for Mr. Johnson, and the brilliance of Lockheed, but when mentioning these two names some critical thinking gets lost. (As for the politicians it is a "given" they only work for their own pockets).
Anyone wonder what the US Air Force aircraft would look like during the jet development era if they snagged Soviet scientist instead of German during OP paperclip?
The drugging of the pilot while being questioned is cold war creepy.
People say they want to go back to hippie times. These were hippie times.
No thanks.
I agree. I found it despicable that they drugged him to illicit a particular response. I’m pretty sure he knew what happened since he was there.
i like this channel, translate to indonesian please
Refresh, and try again :)
thank you, i am new subscriber 👍@@Dronescapes
Lockheed: Check out this super-cool super fast air superiority Interceptor! It outperforms all other airctraft in its specific role!
West Germany: Wow, niche :D Can you make it all-wather-compatible?
L: Uhm... sure. We get right to i...
WG: and make it a strike Aircraft!
L: Wha...
WG: also, Air refueling and close air support would be realy sweet.
L: I dont k...
WG: And Bombs. Lotsa Bombs and Missiles.
L: Are y...
WG: Oh, and have it operate in piss-poor central european weather, on dirt runnways.
L: STAAAAAAAHP!!!
WG: Why are your Planes Crashing? :-(
Hey, not like Germany didn’t have at least seven other options to pick from. Can’t blame an aircraft manufacturer for wanting to sell its aircraft, nor fault them for outselling the others. And before anyone cries ‘corruption,’ Lockheed wasn’t doing anything everyone else was doing. They just got caught when the wrong people didn’t get their share of the swag.
The F104 was designed as a high altitude interceptor. It was never designed to be a fighter-bomber. It was forced into a role it was not designed for. If you don't understand these salient facts then please feel free to shut up.
Incorrect. You do not understand the actual facts, and your salient ones are a myth. The 104 was designed as a day air superiority fighter, not an 'interceptor'.
Like almost every other fighter, it also served as a fighter-bomber. It do so successfully in Vietnam.
The F-104 was not "forced" into the role of high speed strike fighter, it applied for the job and was selected by NATO countries because it was cost-effective solution for them. The small wing and high wing loading made the airframe inherently suitable for the high-speed low-level nuclear delivery role.
G for Germany