Bremspropeller

I don't think scraping was a major issue, but what limited their use with some operators was their negative effect on stability. I think there was also some concern about damaging the seekers, which were close to the nose tyre, but those concerns may have been mostly theoretical, since the cat config was flown at least into the 80s.

All in german, but you might get away with using the subtitle function. Some really good info in there. Three playlists by Frank Heinevetter (F-104 and Tornado pilot). Flying the 104 - from the pilot's seat. Starfighter Stories Starfighter pilot memories

Choo-Choo! All aboard the hypetrain! Let's post videos about the 104 here. I'll start with a dutch TV snippet from 1965 - at the heart of the "Starfighter Crisis" - containing an interview with a german Member of Parliament, and some interesting additional information (in Dutch, though). Like that 63% of all pilots who had crashed at this point had less than 1000 flight hours. This was at a time when the Luftwaffe in particular was playing catch-up while trying to handle a space-age moder jet fighter at a time when qualified personnel was hard to get and when logistics and the administrative structures were no beneficial for getting more than 700 (over 900 in total) of those jets within a relatively short time. You may want to give the channel itself a visit, too!

No whatter what you think it is, I think we can agree on one basic fact: It's sexy as duck!

The 104S manual I have states on 1-47 that NOTE: When flaps are lowered to TAKEOFF position, the angle at which angle-of-attack sensing vane energizes the stick shaker or the kicker is automatically increased, thereby permitting aircraft maneuvering to a higher angle of attack than when flaps UP. The 104's got a better subsonic L/D, though. Something like 9.2 for the 104 and 8.6 for the F-4, plus the fuselage is creating a good deal of lift on the 104. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/app-a3.htm Looking forward to reading your analysis!

Canada Sabre is best Sabre. Unless OZ Sabre, in which case OZ Sabre is best Sabre. Because 30mm desu! null In case there's any RCAF alumni here: The ice-rink at Soellingen still exists. How YOU doin? CF with a Vinten-pod and a faired-over gun port. http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wC898.htm

Let's not fall for semantics or shifting goalposts. "BVR" is mostly about front-quarter attacks and being able to destroy a target reliably in the weather or at night and only then a matter of range - especially when factoring in apparent target size, which might be *small* when talking a MiG-21 head on at 5NM.

I have a -S manual which states the following (Section 5-5): During extension: 450KIAS or M0.85 (no Mach limit if 330KIAS isn't exceeded) Out and retracting: 520KIAS or M0.85 (no Mach limit if 360KIAS isn't exceeded)

Starting in the early 70s, german jets were converted to the J79-MTU-J1K engine, which manifests itself by the long afterburner nozzle. With that mod, the engines lost most of their howl. Late Luftwaffe jets got ECM antennae: The odd-coloured panel on the rear fuselage was a crash-safe data-recorder: Marine jets had the ALE-40 CM dispensers, verysimilar, but placed slightly differently to the late canadian CFs:

Also, for the 104C, check out Annex G of this one: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0372500

FWIW this contains a couple of Ps curves for the 104G and 104C in different configs and environmental conditions: http://www.916-starfighter.de/SURE7_InterceptProfileOptimization.pdf

Good point, though

You're both wrong. The -19 engined A is the best performing variant.

I remember an extract that Andy Bush once posted from the 104G manual on the keypublishing forums that had the 104G at 50% fuel, two tip winders and 5000ft (IIRC) at just about 7g sustained around 420-450KIAS. Think hard wing F-4 with possibly a touch more Ps at higher airspeeds. But that's just top of my mind and in a nutshell. The M1.8 flap limit is a typo. It's actually 0.85, though one canadian CF once had the T/O flaps out till 1.3 on a Mach-run, had the pilot wonder about the hesitant accel, see the flaps are out, retract them and carry on. 104G Systems and limitations: http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_Bad Ass Airplane.htm

The CF-104 has a better cockpit layout with that fat abbajabba in the center, while the 104G was a bit more awkward. CF German 104G

They put the guns back in, when they shifted from strike to attack, though. Pulling the guns off some birds was done as well with the Luftwaffe and Marine (IIRC) - either for the strikers (they'd put in a tank instead) or for the recce birds. All the cameraswere internal onthe german RFs and the Luftwaffe RFs didn'thave a radar altogether. Marine birds did, however.

The Canadians also ran tests with a CF.

The Canadians flew mostly above same hilly terrain (out of Baden-Söllingen, Lahr and Zweibrücken) in clouds and lost a higher percentage of their fleet than ze Germans.

I'm quite sure it was a valid loadout. Whether it was favoured in operation is another matter for sure. For more pics of the different underfuselage and cheek-station setups, see this thread: https://combatace.com/forums/topic/95486-f-104s-centerline-bomb-loadout/ Somebody claims the cheek-stations caused a lot of drag, which looks entirely believable.

It seems like the wing-stations were either a mod or not procured by many users. There's no reason why the S could not also field the mod, however it wasn't pursued, since the outboard station was introduced for this task, so that four tanks could be carried plus 'winders or Sparrows (or a mix of the two). Modding the 'winders onto the wing-stations on the two-seaters makes sense (if you think about it), as the aft-retracting NLG prevents a catamaran installation, so underwing Sidewinders are the only way to go with tip-tanks installed. In the Luftwaffe, initially JG71 seemed to favour tip-Sidewinders and wing-tanks, while JG74 seemed to have preferred cat 'winders and tip-tanks. Variations also apply. The german Navy seems to always have carried the Sidewinders on the catamaran. Fun fact: I once saw a picture of Sidewinders on the cheek-stations on the F-104S, which is probably the reason why there's no catamaran installation for those jets. Seems like it hasn't been used all that much, though. I'll try to dig up a pic. Edit: Took me a second of google search

There's a good chance that RoNAF were the only users of this mod. But after all, it's mostly just a bit of wiring modification, so not actually rocket science. Pun very much intended. Edit 1: Managed to find a pic with actual missiles installed: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-B.htm Edit2: So the RDAF also toyed around with that - a CF-104D with underwing Sidewinders: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wD664.htm Edit3: RDAF TF-104G with Sidewinder stations under the wing: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wD684.htm Edit4: ROCAF TF-104G: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wR179.htm

In theory, six would be possible on the G (tips, wing-stations and launchers below the fuselage). The S could bump that up to eight with two additional outboard wing-stations. Not sure if those configs were ever flight-tested at all, though. I certainly have never seen six or eight Sidewinders on the 104. Even four would normally be a stretch, though possible using the 195gal under-wing tanks and winders on the cat and tips. Most users never used the underwing stations for Sidewinders, so it would be a toss between tip stations and the catamaran launcher. The cat-launcher was better for supersonic flight, but tip winders were better for flight performance. RoNAF F-104G with underwing 'winder stations: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-T.htm The belly/ catamaran racks were standard loadout. Italy didn't use them on the S, as they'd have additional stations on the wings for the AIM-7/ Aspide and AIM-9. They also never seem to have used the inboard wing-station with 'winders. http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wA5-37.htm RoNAF jet with 'winders on the cat: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wNFN-K.htm

null The seat looks like a Martin-Baker seat, which would narrow it down to not being an A, but a later G (SpAF heritage) or possibly an S. Many users didn't even upgrade to the MB seats and retained modded C-2 seats. Here's what a souped up A would look like (notice the long engine nozzle of the J79-GE-19 motor) - MAP jets of the ROCAF: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wR256.htm http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wR253.htm Both are ex 319FIS jets, which was the only unit to put the motos of the S into the airframe of the A. They'd also mod the flaps to G/S standard, which gave them ~50% higher flap-limits. Nope. Kelly Johnson built them to be air superiority fighters with a secondary ground attack role - based on Korean War experience. Everybody thinks it was supposed to be an interceptor, because the F-104A was hastily introduced into ADC, when the F-102A failed big and didn't meet specs by a long shot, so the 104 was used as stop-gap. It was a Mach 2 jet, after all. With a sh1tty radar and no frontal attack capability. The gunsaight was good, though. If the gun worked. But that's not what the aircraft was designed to be, which in turn was the F-104C for TAC. TAC, however, was all in on the F-105, so the 104 got sidelined and Lockheed went on a rather aggressive sales-tour. With known results.

That one's already announced as a module. Two weeks, be sure

The BE is going to be next, which is also very close to the CE and hence has less programming effort (unlessconsidering the whole multicrew aspect). The M has different systems-architecture (HUD, NAV/Attack computer, etc), so some additional programming effort will need to go in there.