RE: You Know You Want To...Lockheed F104 "Starfighter"
Discussion
There are two periods to the F-104 story. The first part is the tale of a pure, simple interceptor designed by Kelly Johnson based on intrerviews with Korean War veterans who longed for a simple but effective interceptor.
The top brass at the US Air Force were not that keen on the idea as they were moving in the direction of heavy, sophisticated, all missile carrying weapon-systems aircraft such as the F-106 and (later) the F-4.
As a result, the USAF only used early variants of the F-104 (A to C) in fairly small numbers - many of them being passed on rapidly to Air National Guard units.
These early F-104s were indeed fitted it downward firing seats as it was considered that seats of that era would not clear the t-tail.
For the record, the prototype F-104 first flew in March 1954, about six months BEFORE the prototype English Electric P-1A (foreunner of the Lightning).
The second phase of the Starfighter story begins when West Germany was admitted into NATO and when a requirement for a multi-role fighter bomber to re-equip the new Luftwaffe and other NATO allies was issued - mainly to replace aircraft such as the Republic F-84F.
Lockeed offered a "Europeanised" derivative of the F-104 with upgraded engines and avionics, an UPWARD firing Martin Baker seat and the ability to carry out ground attack duties as well as being an effective interceptor.
In this format, it was accepted by NATO (for reasons we all know) and ended up equipping West Germany, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Greece, Canada etc etc.
It was in this more demanding European multi-rule service that the F-104 was found to have shortcomings. The Germans, in particular, suffered a high loss rate but that was probably more down to the fact that their F-104 pilots received initial training at Luke Air Force base in Arizona where a special Luftwaffe squadron (msquerading in USAF markings) was used to train up new F-104 pilots. They found that the clear skies of Arizona were not good training for the murky conditions they returned to over central Europe.
The top brass at the US Air Force were not that keen on the idea as they were moving in the direction of heavy, sophisticated, all missile carrying weapon-systems aircraft such as the F-106 and (later) the F-4.
As a result, the USAF only used early variants of the F-104 (A to C) in fairly small numbers - many of them being passed on rapidly to Air National Guard units.
These early F-104s were indeed fitted it downward firing seats as it was considered that seats of that era would not clear the t-tail.
For the record, the prototype F-104 first flew in March 1954, about six months BEFORE the prototype English Electric P-1A (foreunner of the Lightning).
The second phase of the Starfighter story begins when West Germany was admitted into NATO and when a requirement for a multi-role fighter bomber to re-equip the new Luftwaffe and other NATO allies was issued - mainly to replace aircraft such as the Republic F-84F.
Lockeed offered a "Europeanised" derivative of the F-104 with upgraded engines and avionics, an UPWARD firing Martin Baker seat and the ability to carry out ground attack duties as well as being an effective interceptor.
In this format, it was accepted by NATO (for reasons we all know) and ended up equipping West Germany, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Greece, Canada etc etc.
It was in this more demanding European multi-rule service that the F-104 was found to have shortcomings. The Germans, in particular, suffered a high loss rate but that was probably more down to the fact that their F-104 pilots received initial training at Luke Air Force base in Arizona where a special Luftwaffe squadron (msquerading in USAF markings) was used to train up new F-104 pilots. They found that the clear skies of Arizona were not good training for the murky conditions they returned to over central Europe.
Hellbound said:
You might notice that the detail of the engine intakes is obscured in that film, where they would otherwise be clearly visible. This is because the intake design was considered secret. The detail they were trying to hide was the fact the the intakes are slightly separated from the fuselage to control boundary layer flow into the engine. You can see the it in this picture:
Edit - The above is one of the prototypes. The production versions also had cones in the intakes to further optimise high speed airflow:
Edited by tank slapper on Friday 14th October 17:58
Tango13 said:
Part of the reason so many european airfoces bought the F-104 was that they were bribed to do so! The Lockheed sales force considered a small suitcase full of cash to be a perfectly acceptable tool during a sales pitch.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Lockheed bribing Ministers and Air Marshalls around the world helped result in the cancellation of the Saunders-Roe dual fuel intercept fighter.
The SR-177, which was widely considered to be a superior machine in most ways to the F104, except in the most important way that it didn't provide a retirement fund for Defence Ministers and senior Air Force staff...Duncan Sandys is widely castigated as killing off the UK's (once-world-leading) aviation industry, but our US 'allies' did a bloody good job of starting the process off by loading the dice in the export market! I'm still not entirely sure why we suck up to the Septics so much...
[quote=The Hypno-Toad]
Nearly right.
well "nearly right", i'm going to take that as a compliment. being nearly right ain't too bad for a brain that's still in full force hang over mode after half sodding 6 in the evening!
having said that, it isn't a mistake i should be making, seeing as, although he died before i ever got a chance to talk to him about it, my step granddad was one of the designers of the bloody thing!
ho-hum, you live and you learn...not a lot in my case.
Nearly right.
well "nearly right", i'm going to take that as a compliment. being nearly right ain't too bad for a brain that's still in full force hang over mode after half sodding 6 in the evening!
having said that, it isn't a mistake i should be making, seeing as, although he died before i ever got a chance to talk to him about it, my step granddad was one of the designers of the bloody thing!
ho-hum, you live and you learn...not a lot in my case.
Yes, yes it did in the early models. One of the curious and useless tidbits of aviation trivia rolling around in my head. Per wikipedia, to wit:
Ejection seat
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 some 21 USAF pilots failed to escape their stricken aircraft in low-level emergencies because of it.
---
All that said, people claiming the craft to be a widowmaker is a bit like calling the Porsche 930 the same. Challenging, unforgiving, but best in class for it's mission for many years after it's introduction. It took steel ones to fly it but all the better for those who did?
And I never knew that there were Fiat engines in euro-Starfighters. If I was confronted with flying that ride, I would resign as well.
Ejection seat
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 some 21 USAF pilots failed to escape their stricken aircraft in low-level emergencies because of it.
---
All that said, people claiming the craft to be a widowmaker is a bit like calling the Porsche 930 the same. Challenging, unforgiving, but best in class for it's mission for many years after it's introduction. It took steel ones to fly it but all the better for those who did?
And I never knew that there were Fiat engines in euro-Starfighters. If I was confronted with flying that ride, I would resign as well.
filski666 said:
LukeSi said:
Sod it, I'd still have a go flying one. As long as it has an ejection seat I don't care 
didn't the ejector seat fire downwards ?Edited by LukeSi on Friday 14th October 14:13
Apache said:
bump.....go on, have a listenhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cq7hf4ylvY&fea...
A great scene from a great film - 'The Right Stuff'.
A great scene from a great film - 'The Right Stuff'.
Justayellowbadge said:
thewheelman said:
No, he did buy it, he had it for a good few years, then the locals of Chipping Norton decided to cause problems over it, then planners got involved, & he was told to move it.
No he didn't, and it was only at his house for a number of weeks. thewheelman said:
Justayellowbadge said:
thewheelman said:
No, he did buy it, he had it for a good few years, then the locals of Chipping Norton decided to cause problems over it, then planners got involved, & he was told to move it.
No he didn't, and it was only at his house for a number of weeks. XM172 was temporary hired for this publicity stunt and then returned to it's owners at Booker within a couple of weeks.
toilet said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
Nearly right.
well "nearly right", i'm going to take that as a compliment. being nearly right ain't too bad for a brain that's still in full force hang over mode after half sodding 6 in the evening!
having said that, it isn't a mistake i should be making, seeing as, although he died before i ever got a chance to talk to him about it, my step granddad was one of the designers of the bloody thing!
ho-hum, you live and you learn...not a lot in my case.
Well you lived and learnt even less than you thought you did.well "nearly right", i'm going to take that as a compliment. being nearly right ain't too bad for a brain that's still in full force hang over mode after half sodding 6 in the evening!
having said that, it isn't a mistake i should be making, seeing as, although he died before i ever got a chance to talk to him about it, my step granddad was one of the designers of the bloody thing!
ho-hum, you live and you learn...not a lot in my case.
Toad was only half right, which made you a lot less than nearly right.
Congratulations on your step dad being on the designers of the thing, unfortunately what he designed would have been a bankruptingly expensive awkward b
d to have put into production with the promised specs.aeropilot said:
thewheelman said:
Justayellowbadge said:
thewheelman said:
No, he did buy it, he had it for a good few years, then the locals of Chipping Norton decided to cause problems over it, then planners got involved, & he was told to move it.
No he didn't, and it was only at his house for a number of weeks. XM172 was temporary hired for this publicity stunt and then returned to it's owners at Booker within a couple of weeks.
Possibly not the one used for a TV show, but i can tell you as a fact he had one there for a good few years. The do gooders of Chipping Norton protested about it. You could see it from the road.
I drove past it most days on the way to my dad's house, who lives very near him in the same village. Here's a pic of the one he personally owned. So, you have been corrected.
Edited by thewheelman on Friday 14th October 22:23
The Hypno-Toad said:
toilet said:
Shame about the Lockheed bribery sales technique though, if not for that the world may have had a much more capable bit of British engineering in it's place, the TSR2.
Nearly right.Lockheed bribing Ministers and Air Marshalls around the world helped result in the cancellation of the Saunders-Roe dual fuel intercept fighter.
General Dynamics bribing Ministers and Air Marshalls around the world helped result in the cancellation of the TSR2.
I mean it wasn't like it was so endemic in the 60s & 70s that President Carter had to pass an Act of Congress to stop it. Nor would I dream of suggesting that anybody in the British government would ever dream of taking bribes from the American defence industry. I mean its not like the Germans did....or the Greeks.....or the Italians..... or the Japanese.
On a totally unrelated subject Denis Healey (defence minister at the time of the TSR2 cancellation.) is the only British politican to admit to being a member of the infamous Bilderburg Group. The same group that has include chairmans of both General Dynamics & Lockheed in its time.
Not that those two facts have anything to do with each other and you'd be a fool or a communist to think so...
dy shame to ‘utterly and completely’ scrap the TSR-2. Spookily enough a certain Lord Healey, was Minister for Defense at the time and he evidently spouted something like “it wasn’t me guv, I didn’t order the total destruction of the prototypes and everything”, which made it a veritable “who dunnit?” in the ever gullible UK populations minds 
. So thank you very much whoever dunnit, because we had to wait another sdding 14 years (working with the Germans and the Italians) before we had an operational multirole fighter/bomber in the smaller swing-wing Panavia Tornado to fulfill a broadly similar role to what the TSR-2 was already meeting during it’s 1965 test flights. Still I’m sure it was all worth it in the long run 
You only have to listern to the commentary at 2:09 here;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXdJxjvQZW4
to understand just how far ahead of its time the TSR-2 was – Quote: “Roland Beamont (BAC's chief test pilot), having satisfied himself that the aircraft was performing as planned, took TSR-2 supersonic for the first and only time. Engaging re-heat on just one engine, the acceleration was such that he left Jimmy Dell behind, even though he had engaged full re-heat on both Avon engines of his Lightning”
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff