2006 NAS Oceana Airshow - F-104 Starfighter Demonstration

[donkeyspamffs]

I could listen to that whistling sound all day lol. Awesome plane. Probably my favorite.

And guys...the F-104 I don't think was designed to be an air superiority dog fighting plane. It could dogfight sure, and did a great job of that but this plane was more an interceptor. Remember this plane was born in the 1950's when catching Soviet atomic bombers was the goal. This plane was basically a rocket. More than twice the speed of sound in the 1950s.

[Lionforever1860]

F104 still a beautifull plane

THX for Vid

[riderpoet]

I have found that the more an individual actually knows about a subject, the less he tends to shoot his mouth off...

[JAGO1314]

lol I know bloke there over xbox hes one of my m8s lol

[leylandcarsloverslea]

The F104 has to be the best looking plane ever!

[pbplaya5]

I play xbox with this pilot. bad asss

[Ddraig64]

I did hear this rumour too. Damn better avionics now would make the plane a lot better. Still my favourite US fighter / interceptor.

[WinchesterRanger]

And he's currently about half way through his max rate turn.

[derbbus]

I also heard on a TV documentry that one American aviation manufactuer was planning to challenge the F22-F23 contract with an upgraded F104.

Can anyone confirm this?

[WinchesterRanger]

@derbbus I believe that rumor originated from a conversation between Father Christmas and Bigfoot.

[derbbus]

@WinchesterRanger

Sorry, got my facts wrong. It was the F15 Eagle program that the new 104 was to compete in.

The new plane was to be called the Lancer.

Kelly Johnstone claimed it would run rings around an F15.

[WinchesterRanger]

@derbbus You're thinking of the CL1200 Lancer and it was in competition woth the F-5 not the F-15, and it lost. The aircraft was intended for export only. They tried again with a further upgraded CL1200-2 in the LWF competition but didn't even get to the prototype stage, losing out to the YF-16 and YF-17, with the F-16 emerging victorious of the 2. With a J79 or even worse the nightmarish TF30 engine, the CL1200 wouldn't have flown rings around anything.

[derbbus]

@xywza

There are clips on here showing German Mig-29's getting the better of Nato F16's.

The Americans have evaluated that it is supperior to the F16 in many aspects.

Its "helmet" firing system has now been adapted for the F16 to use.

The F4 did a good job. It was a very powerful machine at the time.

But again, I have heard American stratagists describe it as a heep of sh*t.

Hence the development of the F16&F15.

[n10103]

The puerto rico air national guard was the last unit to use them[in the air natiol guard].

[sihille]

Italy use F104 in fisrt gulf war, and one of them shot down by Iraqi, pilot was captured but safe back to Italy.

[ghm389]

You have to be superb pilot to fly this plane, there's hardly any lift with those wings, as you can see!

[shirishshah11]

I have a model rc one that goes about 160mph :)

[denmalski]

104 is still the fastest down in the weeds, that's why the Canucks originally got the the plane for, A one pass haul ass nuclear strike to hold off the soviet hoards which were supposed to be advancing through Europe. that's why range wasn't a factor.

[time23456]

Pakistan airforce had F104s in 1965

[Hvnscent]

The 104 is probably faster than most front-line fighters of today.

[wittmann]

Gotta love the F-104! the howl is just superb... could listen to it all day long

[stregaverona]

Hello Wittmann.

The Starfighter is a beautiful jet, in Italian Air Force is called "The Spillone".

In Italy the version is F-104 ASA-M.

Hello!

Max, Italy.

[wittmann]

I have sat in that exact jet last year, was a joy to sit in and have "Comrade" take me through the systems

[usm7j]

Wow! Some fantastic and well thought out comments. My dad was an IP for 6 years in the 104-he maintained what made it a great weapon was flying it the way it was designed to be flown. It was a very demanding A/C and demanded nothing less than total respect from those who flew it. But in the right hands . . . .Dad still says the F-86 is still his first choice with the 104 following a very close 2nd.

[YakAV8R]

xxwzaebd obviously you've never flown a F-4 against a MiG-29. They do not have the turn rate or AoA capability against the MiG. Their off-boresight aiming gives them the clear advantage in a close-in fight. Better ECM pods and jammer packages (A-50) take care of any BVR shortcomings. You sir..would be mistaken to make such an assumption.

[xxwzaebd]

Maybe the MiG29 has higher instantaneous pitch&roll rate than the Phantom but as a whole the MiG29 is not very maneuverable. As a weapon system, the F4 is more superior. Modernized Phantoms have better electronics systems.powerplants than MiG29. The systems which MiG29s are starting to be equipped with are roughly comparable with standard equipment of Western fighters 2 decades ago.Su30 MIGHT be able to barely match the F4 in a prolonged dogfight.

[YakAV8R]

Oh my, SU-30 might match F4 in a prolonged fight? It's clear that you're an admirer of the Phantom so I'll leave you to your illusions of a premier ACM platform.

[kai1100]

the phamtom is a nice jet

[robnob2]

My god!... I've heard it all now. The Mig29 isn't very maneuverable? An SU30 might match an F4 in a dogfight??!!!! what the hell have you been smoking...??!!

[xxwzaebd]

Then,why was the mig29 shot down all the time while the mig29 itself only shot down unarmed propeller aircraft? At higher speeds, the F4 is more maneuverable.

[robnob2]

I had thought that you must be joking, but you are actually serious!! I think you're thinking about the wrong plane mate. Mig21 vs F4 is worth talking about. Mig29 Vs F16 is worth talking about (Maneuverability). Mig29 vs F4..... Whatever mate....

[xxwzaebd]

The mig29 is only maneuverable at low speeds. The F4 is more maneuverable at higher speeds. There was even a planned Mach 3 version of the F4.

[robnob2]

I don't know where dou get your information....but wrong.. wrong and more wrong. Head over to f16(.)net and there is some discussion in the forums about the F16 vs the Mig29. No one would even bother with an F4 vs Mig29 debate except for you. Just because the Phantom happens to look very cool, doesn't mean it can compete with a jet that is 23 years newer (yes... 23..thats 23 years newer..)

[justforever96]

@xywzaebd- I know this has already been gone over, but seriously...are you on crack or something? The F-4 is a better DOGFIGHTER than the MiG-29? An Su-30 MIGHT be a match for one? That is fucking ridiculous...an Su-30 MIGHT blow 3 Phantoms out of the sky too. The Phantom wasn't designed as a dogfighter, it was a long range naval interceptor. It relied on missiles, radar, and speed to take out the enemy. It INCIDENTLY happened to be an OK attack and fighter plane, but come on! 2 different gens.

[Dogmeat1950]

yes and no F-4 had a lot of speed. it's all about pilot skill the aircraft just helps a bit.

hell in the Korean war a p-51 shot down a mig-15 and in Vietnam a A-1 sky raider shot down a mig-17

[xxwzaebd]

The A-4 Skyhawk and the slightly later developed F4 Phantom were better because they were very maneuverable. The F4 is still in service with many countries; it is much better than the MiG 29.

[YakAV8R]

I love the A-4 Skyhawk but it's not going to last long in a multible MiG engagement. A few Aussie & Kiwi birds were upgraded with air-2-air radars but none of those airframes can match the maneuverability of the MiG-29 OVT!! Many countries? Germany, Israel, Greece and they still fly em because they have better CAP support which hmmm...includes the MiG-29!

[atom2009]

I saw them Smyrna Tennessee airshow. They had 2 starfighters flying together. I really loved when they did high speed pass together and one went vertical.

[avwiz]

This is Kelly Johnson's mach 2 class hot rod. Sure, it had some flaws and various unpopular characteriestics. But overall she's a real beauty in an aerodynamic sense & you gotta love the deafening roar of the old J-79 AB. Glad somebody's still flying this cold war icon. Hopefully some other wealthy person will make an F-8 Crusader flyable for some knock out airshow performances.

[judgegixxer]

Did you know they still use J-79s...wait for it.....as pumps on the big natural gas pipelines up here in Northern BC and Alberta. Theres a place in Fort St John BC where they rebuild them. I've always loved F-104's. There is a group in Edmonton, Alberta who are restoring one and I think they might have finished it by now.

[justforever96]

They sure do, although I think they're called something else when they're operating in that capacity, not J79, although the internals like the compressor stages, flame-cans, and turbine stages are the same. Technically, they are no longer turbojets, they are "gas-turbine engines", sort of like a turboshaft. The "jet" part is missing...the energy goes into spinning a big-ass turbine, which pumps the NG.

[gerodinis]

The F-104 used to be one of the most dangerous to fly planes... Luftwaffe lost almost 200 in accidents!

[allanxxx99]

why were they dangerous (avionics?, easy stall?)

[gerodinis]

too high take-off and landing speed, great instability at high AOAs, troublesome landing (caused by the limited lift its wing provided), poor turning performance (induced drag became too high at high AOA) and some other reasons I'm unaware of.

[allanxxx99]

thanks gerodinis. That makes sense... Was the F-104 supposed to be a fighter? The way it was designed it seemed to be more of an interceptor and weapons (nuclear?) delivery.

[gerodinis]

exactly... it was much more an interceptor than a fighter. The F-104G version used in Greece was a multi-role fighter (which means it was the original F-104 with the ability to carry air-to-ground weapons). The -G version had the NASARR F15A-41B radar which could also track ground targets, and also included inertial navigation and infrared sight. It was also able to carry nuclear weapons. Anyway, this plane was never successful as a dogfighter because of its limited maneuverability.

[denmalski]

they were dangerous because they flew at 500-600 knots at 100 ft in the days before terrain following radar with the pilot doing the flying, navigating and target searching with no other aircrew member like an A-6 or F-111,Tornado,F-15e or any other dedicated strike plane.

[allanxxx99]

Your comment enforces my respect for the 'pre-digital' pilots of the 60's and earlier. I don't mean to disrespect the modern day pilot but, oh man, those were the days...

[justforever96]

@allanxxx99- The F-104 is considered "dangerous" because it is a very difficult machine to fly. Very high landing/takeoff speeds, high stall speed, at high alt/speed, excessive AOA would cause the plane to enter an unrecoverable spin, they were unstable at high AOA/low airspeed (i.e. landing). Basically, you could never, ever mess up or you'd crash. There were also over 20 pilots killed at low alt. by the downward-ejecting seat, which was replaced soon with regular Martin Baker seats.

[justforever96]

@allanxxx99 (P.S.) Oh, and the leading edges of the wings were so sharp that guards were installed while on the ground to protect the ground crew from injury. You could consider that dangerous, I suppose. That, and the F-104 was the leading cause of death among pilots being shot at by one! LOL.

[triggerfingas]

i love how it howls...this is my favorite of the older planes...i was at that airshow

[RKBrockstheworld]

rocket with a man inside !!!!

[johnnecron]

as we used to say in the air force

this plane has the glide factor of a tool box!

i always referred to it as the plane with razer blades for winge

[xxwzaebd]

F4 Phantom is not only bette than F104 but also better than MiG29 as well. But F4 is not as good as F16 or Su27.

[YakAV8R]

Dude, the F-4 was a great fighter for it's day..but there's no way you can compare it to a MiG-29. MiG-29's can best F/A-18's in the right hands. Time 2 climb, thrust to weight, AoA cababilities all favor the MiG. Off bore-sight weapons aiming all but eliminate the Phantom from comparison.

[gerodinis]

Of course. F-4 is out of date. Only the updated F-4E Peace Icarus 2000 may have a chance surviving in a modern battlefield. (APG-65 radar, new avionics, new self-protection system, MFDs, AMRAAM missile etc.)

[xxwzaebd]

No actually the F4s in service have better engines and radars. Only very few experimental MiG29s have digital radars but many Phantoms have advanced radars and are capable of BVR. The overall maneuverability of the F4 will be also slightly better than that of the MiG29. The M61 cannon is also much better than the GSh-301.

[YakAV8R]

Pick any model F-4 Phantom and I will be happy to point out it's weakness in ACM against a MiG-29! The Gsh cannon only needs 2-3 rounds on the target to break up the airframe. Point is..F-4's are old and need protection F-16/F-15 CAP's when used as SEAD. That's why the F-16 replaced it!

[pbednar71]

It's really up to the pilot, generally in a visual range fight, a Mig-29 would win, at BVR , a modern F-4 like the Luftwaffe F-4F ICEs with AMRAAMs are going to reign over any export Mig-29, and put up a very stiff fight for even the best Frontal Aviation types.

[guspech]

how can one not love the f-104. awsome

[Roadrage9]

The f-104 starfighter goes 1146 miles per hour, and has a wingspan of 21feet and 9 inches, its exiliary fueltanks hold 740 liters of fuel, and the wingtip tanks on each side are full with exactly 1257 liters of fuel,it has a General Electric afterburning thrust J79-GE-11A turbojet engine. ^^^^^^^^  Just some fact about the plane for you jet lovers

[CyberianHusky74]

All I know is that it has the sweetest engine whine, and you can practically feel the air being sucked from your lungs when it passes by.

[frankyspeaker]

CyberianHusky74,

It's a rocket with(to small)wings.

In the 50's and 60's it was all about faster

and higher and not about manoeuvrability.

That's the reason for it's shortcomings.

But it is beautiful!

[habinder]

the f 104 was also built under liscence in europe,the f104 programme also provided 1000s of jobs in europe and asia during the 60 and 70..(i still like the f104 for its good looks)

[xxwzaebd]

Actually the F-4 Phantom which was developed slightly later is better than the F-104.

[raitonrait]

killingmachine

[quarky1982]

widowmaker- but i like it!

[jesusabel715]

de los mejores aviones que se han hecho

[glentsai]

My country (Taiwan) had used both F104 & F5. In fact, Taiwan used F5 as red team to against F104. We found F5 has no chance to win unless F104 pilot is stupid enough to dog-fighting with F5. F104 is designed for implement a simple winning tactic which US F4F/P40 used to hunt Jap's Zero in WWII. It call "SHOOT & RUN". F104 is excellent for it!

P.S. Taiwan lose 62 pilots & 114 F104 because of accidents. F104 & Their pilots are the real heroes of Taiwan's democracy & freedom.

[aquaristic]

too bad they had such a short range or they could have met up with the Mig 21 over Vietnam. What amazing ariel combat it would have been, would have made Kelly Johnson proud I am sure and Anton Mikoyan just a bit flustered :) No Insult to Mikoyan, but you were relieved as well.

[frankyspeaker]

aquaristic,

It's a great looking aircraft but it's overall performance and safety were dramatic. In a dogfight it simply would not stand a chance against a Mig-21.

It's not agile enough.

It lacks the stability at lower speeds.

That's also a reason why so many crashed.Very tricky!

Why do you think the U.S Airforce only used

it for 9 years?

grtz,

[iowa61]

In short, bullpucky.

The F-104, when flown my pilots trained to used tactics specific to the plane, was vastly superior the MIG 21.

USAF accident rates in the F-104 were not unusually high at all.

[frankyspeaker]

iowa61,

bullpucky??? haha.

It would have to use tactics like the U.S airforce used against the Zero in the war with Japan.

Other than that it will not have a chance against

the way more manoeuvrable Mig-21.

The U.S Airforce only used it for 9 years. Should say enough.

In Europe it crashed many times.

A beautiful but very tricky airplane indeed.

[KoobYajLis]

Agreed, It was a beautiful plane; however, if you look at the history of USAF aircraft, you could say this was probably the most useless aircraft the USAF employed into its service. Against the Mig 21, it wouldn't have stood a chance. The Mig 21 was more manuverable and armed with the most advance missiles the russians had to offer. Even if it ran, it was barely fast enough to outrun the Mig21, giving the mig enough time to launch a missle at it.

[pbednar71]

No, against the Mig-21 it would be par, for every chronological variant. Everyone generalizes 'This is better this is worse' way too much.

The F-104 could out accelerate and out maneuver at supersonic velocities any Mig-21. Whereas the Mig is better subsonic. AA-2 Atolls were just reverse engineered AIM-9Bs and about as reliable. AA-8 / AIM-9M (generous) It's all how you play the strengths of the aircraft.

[pbednar71]

The Mig-21 is not notably better than the F-104 in combat maneuvering. The F-104 has superior acceleration and sustained climb, and supersonic maneuvering. It was designed for supersonic slashing attacks, ie boom and zoom. One on one with equally experienced pilots it would be a draw.

[1bearcatf8f]

@iowa61 this plane wasnt suppior it lacked a good turn radias wich the MiG-21 kinda lacked to,But the F-104 was shot down by a miG-21,but other than a few loses no air to air kills were claimed with the F-104 so its pretty much usless for air to air fights.

[iowa61]

@1bearcatf8f With equivalent pilots, the F-104 was far superior to the MIG-21. Faster, faster acceleration, vastly superior supersonic performance. Not close...

[1bearcatf8f]

@iowa61 Its still wasnt designed for dogfighting,Only bomber intercepting.The NVA were kicking our asses with MiG-17s and that was barley supersonic and it still managed to shoot down,F-8s,A-4s,F-4s etc.The MiG-21 wasnt a good plane to use in a turning dogfight same with the F-104 but in a close quarters dogfight the miG-21 would win.

[iowa61]

@1bearcatf8f There are lots of reasons (beyond the scope of this discussion) we had trouble with the NVA at first that go far beyond aircraft match-ups. And you're correct. The Starfighter was not designed to be a close in dogfighter. That doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't be successful employing tactics that leveraged its strengths. I didn't fly. But I've had the priviledge of interviewing several USAF Starfighter pilots who were extremely confident in their ability to engage and defeat MIGs

[1bearcatf8f]

@iowa61 The only fighter that easily killed MiGs was the F-4,Even that wasnt enough so bassicly all those lessons learned from Vietnam led to creating the F-15.

[iowa61]

@1bearcatf8f Huh? The F-4 wasn't designed to be a close-in dogfighter either... and like I say, we did not have our traditional air superiority for awhile for reasons that went far beyond aircraft capabilities. The F-8 Crusader owned the MIGs from the get-go, establishing a wide kill ratio and was probably the best pure dogfighter of that era...

[1bearcatf8f]

@iowa61 I said the only plane we had at the time to tackle the MiGs was the F-4,So it wasnt designed as a close combat dogfighter,it still proved usefull in that type.

[iowa61]

@1bearcatf8f Hey man. I love chatting with you, but do you read the postings? Not to be disrespectful, but your claim that the "only plane" we had to tackle the the NV MIGs was the F-4 is simply ridiculous. The F-8 Crusader had the best kill ratio of any fighter in the Vietnam war. Hello, McFly, did you hear that? The F-8 would have had an even bigger impact had it been present in larger numbers.

[1bearcatf8f]

@iowa61 The F-8 is even worse to use,Dont get me wrong as a fighter bomber its size and payload are good but as a fighter not even close.The F-4 has a better up and down manuverbilitly.But i think the F-100,And A-4 would have been good anti MiG killers,sence there both sub sonic and very agile.The F-102 wich saw limited action is another planed that did claim any Mig kills but losing one in the process.

[iowa61]

@1bearcatf8f Dude. Are you high? No, really. Are you one toke over the line? The F-8 was designed from the outset as an air superiority fighter. it was the most maneuverable plane in the sky. It had the best combat record of any plane in Vietnam. It had GUNS. It was designed to get in close, mix it up and win. Which it demonstrably did... Though it was capable of carrying bombs and did effectively, that was strictly an afterthought... Look it up.

[1bearcatf8f]

@iowa61 High??? Forget it im not gonna bother talking to an ass

[riderpoet]

@iowa61 In what ways, exactly, was the F-104 "vastly superior" to the Mig-21? The only actual engagement between the two (during the Indo-Pakistani war in 1971) was a 2 - 0 victory for the Mig-21s. Admittedly, individual pilot skills during that encounter can't be evaluated, but Erich Hartmann was disgusted enough with the F-104's handling near critical angle of attack to resign over it. I'm not saying the 104 isn't beautiful or fast, but it's combat potential is honestly an unknown.

[iowa61]

@riderpoet I don't believe my comments were subliminal. When flown by US Air Force pilots, trained to the specific performance parameters of the aircraft, the MiG would be outclassed, Erich Hartmann's opinion notwithstanding.

[pbednar71]

Iowa61 is right. Bullpucky. ACM is not about two idiots pulling 9G turns on each other. The F-104 was designed to work in coordinated teams, using supersonic gun passes on slower targets such as period Migs. Basically like the Thatch weave, but doing supersonic loops. At best it was superior, (particularly too the overweight later mig-21s) and par to the earlier Mig-21s.

[gerodinis]

Luftwaffe lost more than 270 Starfighters (out of a total of 770 between 1966-1967 due to accidents. We used it in Greece too. That plane was a killer... for its pilot

[pinchecabron666]

cool

[Gromit801]

Erich Hartmann was against the Luftwaffe buying the F-104. He knew the transition form the subsonic F-86 to the Mach 2 F-104 would create problems. Boy did it. Hartmann wanted them to get the F-100 first.

[Praetor69]

She is a beauty. Here in Germany we say "widdowmaker".

[LuaySuay]

Stupid paint job. Takes away from the beauty of the starfighter.

[xxwzaebd]

The F5 and A-4 were much much better.

[iowa61]

For what task? The F-104 has far superior performance to both. In the hands of a trained pilot, neither would stand a chance against the Starfighter.

[xxwzaebd]

F5 and A-4 are much better maneuverable than the F-104. This is very important in air combat.

[iowa61]

That's not the way the Starfighter fought. Once again, it the hands of a pilot trained on the F-104, neither the F-5 or A-4 would stand a chance. The A-4 didn't even pretend to be a fighter; it was an attack bomber.

[philmonster]

Starfighters ruled in certain aspects of top end performance, but only for a few minutes before the fuel ran out. I thought they had a poor combat record in Vietnam and in Pakistan. Didn't Indian Hawker Hunters beat them hands down? I thought they were much more useful as strike aircraft. The A4 and F5 are still being used now in large numbers which says a bit about their practicality.

[iowa61]

Training. Tactics. The Pakistani airforce did not use the right tactics for the plane. They were withdrawn from Vietnam before they had a chance to fight. Prematurely as it turns out...

[Chuckjagermeister]

With those stubby wings the F-104 had to be clipping along pretty good to even pull 4.5 to 5 g's. Not like an FA-18 which can pull 6 or 7 g's at 300 knots.

[kawai484]

F-104s are one of the most beautiful fighters ever built!

Nice flying! In the next time I just want to see a little beat more Gs, rolls and vertical action!

Nice paint job! Congratulations!