AERGES announces the F-104

sirrah · August 25, 2023

30 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

To bad the video is ruined by that alarm bell or whatever it is in the background.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

That's typical for Dutch military airfields. It is a small bell (similar to a railroad crossing bell) to alarm airfield traffic that the runway is in use. On all Dutch mil airfields there's a small road going around the entire field and it's prohibited to drive through when these "crossroad" alarms ring.

If you go for aircraft spotting at any RNLAF airbase, you'll get used to it (or at least, you'd better do )

MAXsenna · August 25, 2023

That's typical for Dutch military airfields. It is a small bell (similar to a railroad crossing bell) to alarm airfield traffic that the runway is in use. On all Dutch mil airfields there's a small road going around the entire field and it's prohibited to drive through when these "crossroad" alarms ring.
If you go for aircraft spotting at any RNLAF airbase, you'll get used to it (or at least, you'd better do )

Ah! That's what it reminded me of, a railroad crossing. Kinda smart I must admit. When my dad was a kid, they made a hole in the fence on the old Oslo Airport, Fornebu. And played chicken when there was fog...

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Beirut · August 25, 2023

I hope they release the Enterprise to go along with it.

I think this is where I fell in love with the F-104.

snocc_ · August 25, 2023

hace 37 minutos, splash dijo:

Please, explain it a bit.

you can go check their facebook page and see stuff like 4 sidewinders on the F1 or see old posts on the 101 saying we'd get mavericks/laser designators/countermeasures, none of which are a thing on the versions of the planes we're getting/got

dont get me wrong im happier with what we've got, but they're still mistakes they've made and i wouldnt be surprised if they made similar mistakes again

Edited August 25, 2023 by snocc_

Vettefan · August 25, 2023

An absolute insta-buy! Totally hyped and can't wait!

TLTeo · August 25, 2023

Holy crap this is so awesome!

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

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.

After doing a bit of digging around, I think for the S the very theoretical limit would still be six missiles - two on the wingtips, two on the outboard stations (which potentially could carry AIM7/Aspide) and in theory two on the catamaran rack (which in practice wasn't used). The inboard stations on the S only carried tanks, not missiles.

Regarding the catamaran rack - other -G users did carry it; there are lots of pictures of Dutch, Norwegian, Japanese and Taiwanese aircraft hanging AIM-9Bs or Ps from them.

Edited August 25, 2023 by TLTeo

Bremspropeller · August 25, 2023

16 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

After doing a bit of digging around, I think for the S the very theoretical limit would still be six missiles - two on the wingtips, two on the outboard stations (which potentially could carry AIM7/Aspide) and in theory two on the catamaran rack (which in practice wasn't used). The inboard stations on the S only carried tanks, not missiles.

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

Edited August 25, 2023 by Bremspropeller

algherghezghez · August 25, 2023

6 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

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

I’m not sure if the plane ever flew in this configuration or it was only for static display. What I am pretty sure of is it never flew operationally in this configuration. The usual configuration for the S version was one aim-7 on one side and one aim-9 on the other, plus the two tip tanks

Get_Lo · August 25, 2023

4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Actually, they were interceptors, not air superiority fighters like we know them today ... the first true air superiority fighter was the F-15A.

Wrong

HawkEXO · August 25, 2023

I'm thrilled to have a new module from Aerges. This is an instant buy. Exciting news for sure.

Rudel_chw · August 25, 2023

9 minutes ago, Get_Lo said:

Wrong

So you say ... meanwhile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter

Yes, I know that wikipedia is not a definitve source ... but it certainly beats a single word from an Internet unkkown

Bremspropeller · August 25, 2023

25 minutes ago, algherghezghez said:

I’m not sure if the plane ever flew in this configuration or it was only for static display. What I am pretty sure of is it never flew operationally in this configuration. The usual configuration for the S version was one aim-7 on one side and one aim-9 on the other, plus the two tip tanks

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.

algherghezghez · August 25, 2023

19 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

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.

The six missile load out was never used though. In the 104 external tanks are a must, especially with that additional weight and drag, otherwise you are bingo fuel at the gear up. The 1x7 + 1x9 + 2xtip tanks was the standard load. They tried with 2x9 on the tips + 2x7 + 2xpylon tanks under the wings but this made the plane sluggish and added tons of drag.

Edit: I just asked a friend who knows better than me and the 6 missile loadout never flew. It was used to train the ground crew and it could theoretically fly but it never did.

Edited August 25, 2023 by algherghezghez

jocko417 · August 25, 2023

4 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

I want that sound
https://youtu.be/wdUKeDyNT28?t=83

0:25 and 2:20

303_Kermit · August 25, 2023

God I hope It won't be the "S" variant. I don't care how many Sidewinders it takes, but without M61A1 it's not the part of the F-104 pedigree. The only cool fighter without cannon is F-4
I also hope it won't be the "G", cause they were quite heavy ones, but at least they had a Vulcan gun.

algherghezghez · August 25, 2023

4 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

God I hope It won't be the "S" variant. I don't care how many Sidewinders it takes, but without M61A1 it's not the part of the F-104 pedigree. The only cool fighter without cannon is F-4
I also hope it won't be the "G", cause they were quite heavy ones, but at least they had a Vulcan gun.

The S can have the gun.

there are two S variants, the fighter, with the gun removed to make space for the sparrow tracking and launch computers, and the fighter bomber variant, with no sparrow, a basic radar with no ability to lock a target, but retaining the gun

TLTeo · August 25, 2023

My understanding of (Italian) missile loadouts is that the 1xAIM-7 + 1xAIM-9 + tip tanks was used for QRA, while 2xAIM-7 2xAIM-9 + wing tanks would have been an option in war, together with 2xtanks plus two AIM-9s (I imagine on the wing tips?). It would be interesting if anyone has any info on the aircraft that flew CAP during the intervention in the Balkans actually, iirc 104s flew a few combat missions then.

But also, the endurance/range issue for the 104 is kind of overrrated (especially in DCS when we fly comparatively short sorties - look at how little fuel F1s fly with for instance). I remember reading that as a nuclear strike aircraft (so 4x tanks plus centerline nuke) it could actually outrange an F-4 in the same role for instance.

1 hour ago, algherghezghez said:

a basic radar with no ability to lock a target

How sure of this are you? I remember reading an F-104G manual that said the a2g jets had a radar that didn't have automated/ACM type modes, but that could still lock targets manually. I imagine the -S radar would be the same since it was just a small upgrade over the G.

Edited August 25, 2023 by TLTeo

Backwards · August 26, 2023

How the F-104G radar worked. A nice article written by a former Norwegian Starfighter pilot.

Quote

The F-104 radar had several functions:

It could be an aid to navigation and draw a map of the terrain ahead of the aircraft. It could also be used for terrain avoidance during low flying.

It was a search radar that could search for targets.

It was a means to tracking and intercepting a target.

It was an aiming system for the aircaft´s weapons.

https://www.starfighter.no/radar-e.html

The site also has some other nice articles to read to get the Starfighter hype up and running.

https://www.starfighter.no/life331.html

https://www.starfighter.no/hi-alt.html

https://www.starfighter.no/dagmy-e.html

ThorBrasil · August 26, 2023

3 hours ago, jocko417 said:

0:25 and 2:20

I hope the engine sound is recorded from the real aircraft because the F-104 without this sound is not F-104.

https://youtu.be/wdUKeDyNT28

Edited August 26, 2023 by ThorBrasil

MAXsenna · August 26, 2023

0:25 and 2:20

If this doesn't set off your dog, I don't know what does.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

algherghezghez · August 26, 2023

6 hours ago, TLTeo said:

My understanding of (Italian) missile loadouts is that the 1xAIM-7 + 1xAIM-9 + tip tanks was used for QRA, while 2xAIM-7 2xAIM-9 + wing tanks would have been an option in war, together with 2xtanks plus two AIM-9s (I imagine on the wing tips?). It would be interesting if anyone has any info on the aircraft that flew CAP during the intervention in the Balkans actually, iirc 104s flew a few combat missions then.

But also, the endurance/range issue for the 104 is kind of overrrated (especially in DCS when we fly comparatively short sorties - look at how little fuel F1s fly with for instance). I remember reading that as a nuclear strike aircraft (so 4x tanks plus centerline nuke) it could actually outrange an F-4 in the same role for instance.

How sure of this are you? I remember reading an F-104G manual that said the a2g jets had a radar that didn't have automated/ACM type modes, but that could still lock targets manually. I imagine the -S radar would be the same since it was just a small upgrade over the G.

Pretty sure, this comes directly from the pilots themselves. I will try to find something on the manuals.

Edited August 26, 2023 by algherghezghez

Fromthedeep · August 26, 2023

I really hope we're getting a proper air to air focused USAF/Guard variant with (for its time) eye watering performance. An upgraded, overweight ground attack variant of an iconic fighter would be missing the mark for me.

303_Kermit · August 26, 2023

2 hours ago, Fromthedeep said:

I really hope we're getting a proper air to air focused USAF/Guard variant with (for its time) eye watering performance. An upgraded, overweight ground attack variant of an iconic fighter would be missing the mark for me.

Couldn't agree more. I'd like to have F-104C, if it's not possible F-104J since it's last pure air superiority variant. But TBH I love F-104G for their history. I visited 2-days ago Luftfahrtmuseum in Unterschleißheim to see one of those beauties. Slick, sexy beast I have advert for Aegres: "A module which makes your puberty hair grow"
Anyway I'll fly any of them. I am finally in heaven. F-104, F-4, A-1, A-7, MiG-23, MiG-19... A shame that there's no proper MiG-21... The one we have is full of bugs and simplifications. It's kind of half - fidelity...

@edit: here is the reason why I think that MiG-21bis is half fidelity:
SAU not working properly, ARU not even in slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m) pulling hard with ARU in manual mode set in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G, while it shall cause a lost of control, due to excessive AoA and stability lost.
Other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting unguided rockets with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy. It gives you precise hit point for FAB's with wind correction. A ballistic table for manual bombing with various dive angles and sight deflection angles doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since I play DCS, Letherneck / Magnitude never attempted to correct these issues.
Lowering gear makes your nose ... pull up instead of drop down. Aerodynamical moments are modelled upside down and nobody cares.
Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie).
RSBN - Is not modelled. Curent work is based not on RSBN/PRGM net, but ...after FC3 MiG-29 module! Every AF has RSBN/PRGM if you fly MiG-21bis. And channel doesn't match the F10 data. ARK-not correctly modelled (some stations are missing ), also ARK landing approach is not possible.
That is why I say it's half fidelity. True- learning to fly it - I used original Polisch flight instruction, but if you set up the plane to take off according to instruction (SAU - Aileron and Elevator stabilisation on) - you will deeply regret it. SAU destabilise a plane and is nothing like its original design. One shall fly MiG-21 with SAU applied at least to ailerons, but actually it's hardly an option in magnitude half fidelity module.
There are also some funny "easter eggs" - like "1,5Ma Test button" - literally nobody knows what it's made for. Including MiG-21bis real pilots (I know and asked 2 of them) and the devs.

Anyway. I gathered all the nicknames of the "104" after wikipedia:

"missile with a man in it"
Super Starfighter" these was used by Lockheed
"Oh-Four", but when the F-100 Super Sabre began to be referred to as the "Zip-Zilch" (for "zero-zero"), the Starfighter acquired the similar nickname
"Zip-Four"; this was eventually shortened to "Zipper" or "Zip"
Eiko (Kanji: 栄光, "glory") The Japan Air Self-Defense Force
"Gustav", "Witwenmacher" ("widowmaker") or Fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin"), Erdnagel ("ground nail") - Germany
The reputation of the Pakistani F-104 was such that the Indian Air Force referred to it as Badmash ("hooligan"), "Scoundrel", and "Wicked One"
Spillone ("hatpin") Among Italian pilots
Vestfjordoksen ("the Vestfjord bull"), due to the immense roar of the aircraft based in Bodø, at the southern end of Vestfjorden.
"Lawn Dart" "Aluminium Death Tube" and "Flying Phallus" In the Canadian Forces, due to its shape.
"Silver Sliver" and simply "Starfighter"
NASA's F-104B Starfighter N819NA acquired the nickname "Howling Howland".

Edited August 26, 2023 by 303_Kermit

Rudel_chw · August 26, 2023

7 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

shame that there's no proper MiG-21... The one we have is full of bugs and simplifications. It's kind of half - fidelity...

that’s cheap talk, I was able to use the manual of the real aircraft to perform almost all the steps and checks of a full cold start … didn’t seem half fidelity to me

algherghezghez · August 26, 2023

2 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

that’s cheap talk, I was able to use the manual of the real aircraft to perform almost all the steps and checks of a full cold start … didn’t seem half fidelity to me

It’s not half fidelity, it’s a forgotten full fidelity. A payed rework might bring it back to its greatness.

Sign In

AERGES announces the F-104

Recommended Posts

sirrah

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Rudel_chw

kontiuka

Rudel_chw

MAXsenna

Beirut

snocc_

Vettefan

TLTeo

Bremspropeller

algherghezghez

Get_Lo

HawkEXO

Rudel_chw

Bremspropeller

algherghezghez

jocko417

303_Kermit

algherghezghez

TLTeo

Backwards

ThorBrasil

MAXsenna

algherghezghez

Fromthedeep

303_Kermit

Rudel_chw

algherghezghez

Recently Browsing 0 members