(I did not find any F-104-specific topic beyond the occasional profiles.)
With respect to venerable jet planes such as F-104s and F-105, I normally only go so far as to thinking about an avionics upgrade or specialized equipment suite (like those for SEAD duties)...... in case of the F-104, that's be pretty much like what the Mainland Chinese did to produce the J-8F- a modern fire control radar to go with active-radar-guided BVRAAMs, a semi-glass or glass cockpit, advanced dogfight missiles (with helmet-mounted display?), as well as the capabilities to use modern tactical and anti-ship missiles (I need to find an excuse for the ROC to be able to build the F-104 like the PRC did the J-8II though)......
Until I came across a fan-made video commemorating 20th maiden-flight anniverary of ROC's Indigenous Defense Fighter.
One of the first designs, designated as the XF-6, shows a forward fuselage that looks almost identical to the F-104...... doesn't surprise me much, considering the efforts that ultimately led to the F-CK-1 actually began with major tweaking of the F-104 for more manuverability (the AIDC team reached a conclusion similar to the various iterations of the CL-1200 Lancer at the end of the small independent brainstorming, which revealed the necessity of outside help)......
The design is a bit shorter (46.62ft) and has the intakes assembly moved a bit forward, probably in anticipation of a modern, less bulky turbofan- although the difficulty of getting one led the team to consider settling with the J79 turbojet and eventually to abandon single-engine arrangement altogether- and the control surfaces layout was replaced with canards and tailless delta-wings (wingspan 26.34ft)...... the tail is a different swept-back design but maintains the single-fin configuration.
Which led me to think: if the J79 was an option right from the start, wouldn't this XF-6 design just have been a F-104 with canards, wings, and tailfins of the Kfir/Cheetah? Would be nice if this whole arrangement leaves more room for more ordnances, too......
Kelly Johnson had some pretty good ideas for advanced '104 versions in the 60s; bigger wings, fan engines and the ultimate '104, the Lancer. Any of these designs would have extended the life of the F-104 for many decades, IMHO.
Wes W.
I'm rather interested in the Lancer variant with box-like intakes but never had a good look at it.
The line drawings that I have don't seem to do it much justice, either......
Hey, come to think of it, F-104 with canard, tailless delta-wings, and the box-like intakes might be interesting enough as well.
There was a thread several months ago about converting a 1/72 F-104 to a Lancer: http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,23717.0/highlight,lancer.html
Also, I posted one about an easy way to make a "poor man's Lancer" by combining an F-104 fuselage with F-16 wings and tail:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,24052.0/highlight,f-104.html
Wes W.
Needless to say but I'll say again, I found david sMiGielski's Starweasel (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,24447.0.html) to be a brilliant piece of work......
For an operational machine, however, would the AGM-78 be too heavy? I mean, two AGM-78 under the wings, two wingtip fuel tanks, the obligatory inflight refuelling probe, and maybe a centreline ECM pod.
I agree; the Starweasel was fantastic; way better than anything I could attempt!!
Wes W.
I remember seeing the F-104G (to be more precise, the two-seater TF-104G) and F-104ASA carrying AIM-9 missiles under their wings.
Does anyone know which variant of the F-104 is the first one to be able to do so (provision of Sidewinder racks for under-wing pylons)?
Project Grinstone circa 1963 or so added underfuselage racks to C/D . I believe Germans had them in that style as well . So it could be S variants .
Under the wings, not under the fuselage.
I am aware of the distinction and suggesting it was aerodynamically cleared to carry Sidewinders under the wings while the S was being developed .
Quote from: tahsin on June 19, 2009, 02:37:05 AM
I am aware of the distinction and suggesting it was aerodynamically cleared to carry Sidewinders under the wings while the S was being developed .
Oh, I see......
Well, then is there a difference between the project Grindstone pylons and the pylons for use by the F-104G/J?
Grindstone pylons are said to be unpopular for generating too much drags, but ROCAF F-104Gs/Js are very often seen flying with under fuselage Sidewinder pylons.
Had I been engineering the Super '104s , I would have used something like the 370 US gallon tanks of the Phantoms to match the 4 tanks ( two tips , two underwing ) accepting any weight penalty resulting from it as that would clear the wingtips for missiles .The rationale for underfuselage pylons seem to be that the Starfighter needs those tanks and the tiny wings would be too crowded if everything was hung under them . Can't comment on the pylons' difference , but the non-S variants with their fewer pylons have to accept the penalty .
I just finished building a Hasegawa 1/72 Mirage F1, and did not realize how much this looks like a Lancer variant of the '104. I finished mine in USAF markings, in NMF with white wings, '104 tip tanks and a few underwing stores, and it looks very similar to a Lancer. If you were to put a 6 foot (1 inch in scale) fuselage plug in just ahead of the intakes, it would be a near twin of a Lancer.
Wes W.
The other day I ran across several photos (can't remember where) of an F-104 with a U-2 nose. This really looks interesting, and since I have an Airfix U-2 kit unbuilt and a few spare '104s, I may try this seemingly simple conversion.
Does anyone know the story behind this '104?
Wes W.
Well the U-2 started out as a F-104 with the long wings . . .
Shas 8)
Quote from: Shasper on June 24, 2009, 12:28:12 PM
Well the U-2 started out as a F-104 with the long wings . . .
Shas 8)
I know, the U-2 was sort of the ultimate derivitive of the F-104. It will be interesting to get both the '104 and the U-2 and see how much commonality there is in the forward fuselage. At first I thought just slice off the U-2 nose forward of the canopy, but it might be better to use the U-2 fuselage back to near the intakes. In fact, I might use the wings and tail from an F-16 (I have done 5 of these lately) to give it a very different look.
Wes W.
Quote from: tigercat2 on June 24, 2009, 01:17:57 PM
In fact, I might use the wings and tail from an F-16 (I have done 5 of these lately) to give it a very different look.
Why not then take the wings from the U-2 and do a U-2 version of the F-16? I've not seen one of those before.
Cheers,
Logan
Brilliant idea!! I was not looking forward to pitching the majority of the U-2, but to mate the wings with an F-16 (I have several of these in stash to use in the F-104/F-16 hybrid project) is very do-able, and should make a great what if. Or, I may stick the F-104 nose on the U-2.
Wes W.
Yeah, I just figured if the U-2 was derived from the original 1950s lightweight fighter, why not do it with the modern lightweight fighter? It's single-engine and has the same basic layout with the exception of the tail and intake. Lengthen the fuselage maybe and give it a different nose profile. Now that I think about it, a U-2 version of an F-35 would be awesome. A stealth U-2, essentially, optimized for long-range, high-altitude operations to replace both the U-2 and Canberra PR.9.
Cheers,
Logan
There has been this long-wing F-16 based UCAV concept floating around since the late '90s:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi729.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww291%2Fjoncarrfarrelly%2FF-16_UCAV_01.png&hash=7c60f2970869a4d566f39c79d24f3de347e2430b)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi729.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww291%2Fjoncarrfarrelly%2Ff16ucavfoas_001.jpg&hash=c0b5b010235695fb6acf7c3b4bd0e17299b46370)
From a 1998 paper by Major Kenneth Thompson, USAF
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-282.pdf
I recall that pics of a model based on the illustrations was posted on Hyperscale some years back.
Jon
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 24, 2009, 10:06:44 PMThere has been this long-wing F-16 based UCAV concept floating around since the late '90s .
The wing arrangement is interesting and from the overhead view it looks as if you could take the wing from an S-3 Viking minus engines and adapt it to fit the F-16 fuselage. You get the added benefit of folding wings with that kit bash, another benefit if you are to park the aircraft in an aircraft shelter when it is not in use.
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on June 24, 2009, 10:06:44 PMI recall that pics of a model based on the illustrations was posted on Hyperscale some years back.
Was that the UCAV model built by John Chung?
I did one some years ago in 1/72 scale, and used Su-25 wings. You then get the benefit of all the hardpoints.
Has anyone ever seen a F-104S/ASA/ASA-M carrying Sparrow/Aspide missiles AND wingtip tanks at the same time?
And if there is a picture depicting the afore-mentioned loadout, would anyone post it? Thanks in advance.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=39447&page=12 is currently the last page of a thread I particularly like , where you can get such gems as F-104s outturning Phantoms or Alfakilo , an F-104 pilot telling how they once got F-15s . And naturally it is also the source of pictures
A thought: what if Iran had acquired F-104s instead of F-5s and then developed the HESA Saeqeh (see pic below) based on the f-104 rather than the F-5?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fe%2Fee%2FSaeqeh-fighter-plane-test-Tehran1_300.jpg&hash=801c2d4a6d8eaab43471e213404c11e735242989)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: GTX on October 10, 2009, 02:24:34 PM
A thought: what if Iran had acquired F-104s instead of F-5s and then developed the HESA Saeqeh (see pic below) based on the f-104 rather than the F-5?
Lancer coming true somehow?
=====================================
Here are a couple of modernised F-104s I imagined along the lines written down at the beginning of this thread.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D15168.0%3Battach%3D41899&hash=5c32b3c958beb45ca2f7d2e9d01f3ee615368057)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatifmodelers.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D15168.0%3Battach%3D41845&hash=d49b9fa95b705ace0b00aa1e7975ab570e31048f)
ElectrikBlue had the idea of CFTs here (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,15168.msg388084.html#msg388084).
Now I think technically it would be even better to combine the CFTs with Lancer/X-27...... but I have a hard time figuring out where to put them on an aircraft with high-set wings. Maybe along the sides of the intakes?
For the Lancer, consider conformal tankage similar to teh F-15's FASTPACs, perhaps with the addition of LERX to the Lancer?
Quote from: elmayerle on November 02, 2009, 10:25:49 PM
For the Lancer, consider conformal tankage similar to teh F-15's FASTPACs, perhaps with the addition of LERX to the Lancer?
Already done. ;D
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww37%2Fjmsfbip%2FF-104-CFT-Tank.jpg&hash=5a2c28850b8d414c816e5cbeb2460acf577aa1ae)
Quote from: ElectrikBlue on November 02, 2009, 11:28:16 PM
Already done. ;D
Actually I'm thinking about the CL-1200/X-27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1200), which is indeed an evolved F-104 with high-mounted, increased span wing and low-mounted, enlarged tailplanes......
EDIT: Previously included elmayerle's post for the sake of completeness. Now removed.
Quote from: dy031101 on November 03, 2009, 07:08:11 AM
Quote from: ElectrikBlue on November 02, 2009, 11:28:16 PM
Quote from: elmayerle on November 02, 2009, 10:25:49 PM
For the Lancer, consider conformal tankage similar to teh F-15's FASTPACs, perhaps with the addition of LERX to the Lancer?
Already done. ;D
Actually I'm thinking about the CL-1200/X-27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1200), which is indeed an evolved F-104 with high-mounted, increased span wing and low-mounted, enlarged tailplanes......
Like I said, the Lockheed Lancer
Speaking of which, which engine air intake is better for the purpose of the Lancer? The semi-circular intakes with shock cone (on the military proposals) or the rectangular onces (for the X-27)?
Quote from: dy031101 on November 03, 2009, 01:08:56 PM
Speaking of which, which engine air intake is better for the purpose of the Lancer? The semi-circular intakes with shock cone (on the military proposals) or the rectangular onces (for the X-27)?
*shrug* Properly done, there's not a lot to choose since the rectangular ones very likely have internal variable ramps that make them as efficient as the semi-circular intakes with shock cones. I'd go with whatever you find most aesthetically appealing.
Something I just threw together:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2FF104-3.gif&hash=502ec91bea9740c31f3eab1edddc67dda76d5163)
Regards,
Greg
Very elegant silhouette Greg, almost a Mirage III V! :mellow:
With that long fuselage it is possible to move the intakes (increasing the internal volume for fuel
or a bigger powerplant) and add some canards 'à la' Viggen!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww37%2Fjmsfbip%2FF-104-GTX-plusCanard.jpg&hash=6945b5440b3ec4e3e93f6c11d42970dbca4f6306)
Patrick H built a Mirage-winged Starfighter last year, which I liked very much. Unfortunately, the images are now coming up with red Xs:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,20538.15.html
^^^^^^
;D this project began that way ;D
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,14610.0.html
Quote from: GTX on November 03, 2009, 11:51:39 PM
Something I just threw together:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FCAC23%2FF104-3.gif&hash=502ec91bea9740c31f3eab1edddc67dda76d5163)
Add a pair of Kfir-style canards and it would be very very similar to the Taiwanese XF-6 design, which the F-CK-1 started its life as. :cheers:
Let's remove the man from that missile:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FMore%2520Creations%2FGAM-104.gif&hash=304a5795bcd9e16dd959b6bebb73d868771b0e23)
Regards,
Greg
Greg,
Like that one but would the missile version need tip tanks? It isn't like they have RTB.
Can you modify it for me, please?
Who said the tiptanks carried fuel? I could see some appropriate mixture placed there to enhance the blast when the missile strikes. ON the other hand, since it's a conversion of an existing airframe, mayhaps that's just a way of extending the missile's range.
I thought of removing the tanks but figured extra fuel = extra range - always a useful attribute on a missile.
Regards,
Greg
Side view of the F-104/Mirage with canards à la Viggen...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww37%2Fjmsfbip%2FF104-Mirage3-Viggen.jpg&hash=d81950960f91cf226fd55706f5a3bf5b92424e9b)
^^^
Looks like a Mirage III, Gripen and Viggen that had a night out.
Those kinky so and so's... ;D
Love the StarViggage
Regards,
Greg
Just a rough preview of the StarViggage for Greg...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi703.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww37%2Fjmsfbip%2FGTX-EB-StarViggage.jpg&hash=4588dc3298d1125f23bf4a0f72bc137992f9eae8)
That's beautiful, ElectrikBlue. Very, very nice.
Cheers,
Logan
Nice.
Regards,
Greg
Here is my first posted wiff! Just threw it together in a couple of minutes based on an idea. I thought that it looked all right so here it is.
The f (21)04
Hi Caveman. Nice one - it's a perfectly solid and interesting idea. In fact, MiG actually did a study of a MiG-21 fuselage fitted with a Starfighterish wings and tail in real life!
Can anyone point me in the direction of photos or descriptions of Luftwaffe (not Marineflieger) Starfighters with air to ground loadouts. I've found these on Airliners.net (can't identify all the weapons) but otherwise I can't find anything apart from recce pods. Also, did they carry anything with them such as ECM or flare/chaff dispensers? Whose GP bombs did they use?
This Starfighter has BL755 cluster bombs under the left wing, something else on the right which may be Rockeye? I know the Luftwaffe used BL755
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FF-104GGermanywithBL755.jpg&hash=a8b1e30bb90ad40c82bb6bcc144728d1be0069dd)
This one carries a seven shot rocket pod & a practice bomb dispenser. Can anyone identify them?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FF-104GGermanywithRocketPod.jpg&hash=67b5aa9efd8e47c4497698c677ab4b4e92684e68)
Thanks for looking guys!
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv57%2Fmorgil99%2FSigs%2Fst_compaired1-1.jpg&hash=830c7bede6833900b2cca9654ba5f8992547ddf2)
;)
^^^^
WOW! :thumbsup: :blink:
F-104 fuselage + F-8 wings, tail fin, tail planes and aft fuselage + F-4 downscaled intakes
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1080.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj340%2Fysi_maniac%2FDrawing%2Ff104_f8_1.jpg&hash=bbe018c0f32a10d17cd96dc3743dd6ca6a52b731)
Quote from: Mossie on June 23, 2010, 04:18:02 PM
This one carries a seven shot rocket pod & a practice bomb dispenser. Can anyone identify them?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FF-104GGermanywithRocketPod.jpg&hash=67b5aa9efd8e47c4497698c677ab4b4e92684e68)
Thanks for looking guys!
Those would be CRV-7 rockets in an M260 7-shot pod. They pretty much became the de-facto standard NATO unguided rocket, and are much more powerful and accurate than the US Mighty Mouse or Hydra-70.
The practice dispenser is an MN-1A (in Canadian service) or SUU-20.
Cheers Jeremey! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Mossie on June 23, 2010, 04:18:02 PM<...>
This Starfighter has BL755 cluster bombs under the left wing, something else on the right which may be Rockeye? I know the Luftwaffe used BL755
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FF-104GGermanywithBL755.jpg&hash=a8b1e30bb90ad40c82bb6bcc144728d1be0069dd)
<...>
Think those may be Matra SAMP 25 250kg retarded GP bombs.
Thaks Mortitz, not one I know anything about.
Can anybody do a drawing of an F-104 without a horizontal stabilizer and a rhomboid wing like the AQM-60 Kingfisher?
Good enough?
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.mediafire.com%2Fimgbnc.php%2F21831762b49f971f3643d67bbb1d0b2d15d473dfce5e697a710fb8087ce084195g.jpg&hash=c7eeabd21c37b0cb1c00e624b320989f236cc784)
^ Neat! :thumbsup: Would look wild with a rhomboid V- or even an X-tail! :wacko:
Mossie, check out THIS LINK (http://www.rolfferch.de/F104G/html/beladeschema.html). Albeit in German, there's a heap of info on German Zipper load-outs. Also seems to validate the Matra SAMP 25 bit.
Thanks Moritz, excellent link! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
And here I was, led to believe that the F-104 didn't have any serious weapon-toting potential. That link seems to blow that idea out of the water.
Quote from: Jschmus on May 30, 2011, 06:00:08 PM
And here I was, led to believe that the F-104 didn't have any serious weapon-toting potential. That link seems to blow that idea out of the water.
Not surprising, as getting close to half a century on the F-104 is still surrounded by a lot of sour grapes. ;)
tomo
QuoteGood enough?
Preferable if it had a greater wingsweep more like the AQM-60
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on May 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
Can anybody do a drawing of an F-104 without a horizontal stabilizer and a rhomboid wing like the AQM-60 Kingfisher?
And the advantages of such a planform would be, apart from the coolness factor?
Quote from: rickshaw on May 30, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on May 29, 2011, 07:23:51 PM
Can anybody do a drawing of an F-104 without a horizontal stabilizer and a rhomboid wing like the AQM-60 Kingfisher?
And the advantages of such a planform would be, apart from the coolness factor?
It would look like an X-7, and they were super cool. ;D
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=369
Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on May 30, 2011, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: Jschmus on May 30, 2011, 06:00:08 PM
And here I was, led to believe that the F-104 didn't have any serious weapon-toting potential. That link seems to blow that idea out of the water.
Not surprising, as getting close to half a century on the F-104 is still surrounded by a lot of sour grapes. ;)
I have a fantastic self-published book ("Ron's Book", by Col. Ron Holden, CAF (ret)). Col. Holden flew everything from CF-100s to Arguses and ended his career commanding VP870 at CFB Summerside in 1988. He also headed the Canadian Forces crash investigation team with NATO when he was a pilot with 427 Squadron at the height of Starfighter ops in the 60s. He is actually really complimentary about the Starfighter, especially about how well it flew at low level and high speed. According to him, most of the accidents with the Starfighter were due to the demanding circumstances in which they were flown in NATO service, i.e. fast and low. He compares Canada and Germany's loss record (52% of out CF-100s were lost to crashes) with Norway's (ised over open ocean, no losses in 56,000 flying hours). When you are flying by dead-reckoning navigation at Mach 0.9 at 500 feet altitude in the hilly, hazy terrain of West Germany, there is not a lot of room for error of any kind. He notes that the 1 Canadian Air Division maintained a 95% serviceability record, so it obviously wasnt mechanical...
There are two awesome stories in the book regarding his time at 427: in one instance he was "shadowing" a new pilot on a low-level training sortie. The idea was that he was to fly in loose formation with the rookie, a couple of hundred feet above and a little way back to confirm the rookie's navigation. He was paying attention to the other Starfighter, and noticed that the ground was going by a little faster than usual, the training speed being set for Mach 0.85-M0.9. He checked his airspeed and, yep, they were going M1.1 at 500' AGL through the hills of Bavaria.
The second is somewhat more exciting, and would make for an awesome diorama or shadowbox. Col. Holden was doing a training sortie himself, clipping along at low level and at speed. He looked up from his instruments to see an army helicopter (the book doesn't say whose) in his flight path. In a split second he had to decide whether to go over or under the chopper. He made the choice to go under, and just as he committed to that the helicopter disgorged a stick of paratroopers. He flew under the helicopter, right through the group of falling paratroopers at just under Mach 1... :o
Quote from: rallymodeller on May 31, 2011, 12:18:21 PM
The second is somewhat more exciting, and would make for an awesome diorama or shadowbox. Col. Holden was doing a training sortie himself, clipping along at low level and at speed. He looked up from his instruments to see an army helicopter (the book doesn't say whose) in his flight path. In a split second he had to decide whether to go over or under the chopper. He made the choice to go under, and just as he committed to that the helicopter disgorged a stick of paratroopers. He flew under the helicopter, right through the group of falling paratroopers at just under Mach 1... :o
:blink: :blink:
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on May 30, 2011, 09:24:26 PM
tomo
QuoteGood enough?
Preferable if it had a greater wingsweep more like the AQM-60
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.mediafire.com%2Fimgbnc.php%2Ffa231f607dee6b8b2365d30dc22d967a90a7e57c120394d8708ea46b4f5643315g.jpg&hash=daa95661d407dd57115ee7dc7b2b2717f7b6a791)
http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/x-7.gif
More like this...
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.mediafire.com%2Fimgbnc.php%2F8fc92df7696490a281d01d1b763d5e2b4a194e2e6256c771b86d72b3b555a2c95g.jpg&hash=34d06ee1419be557554357d61fa71517f11185a6)
Tomo Pauk
Now that's what I call a slick looking aircraft. What kind of tail should it have? Cruciform or T-tail?
T-tail, (either diamond-shaped, or regular, with similar sweep). But I'd go for tail-less; seems brutally elegant that way :)
Nonononono, he went to great lengths to take the T-tail OFF! :banghead:
Butterfly tail, the same shape as the wings?
PR-19 Kit
You're right... however the wing doesn't cover enough of the length of the plane to be tailless...
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on June 04, 2011, 09:32:14 PM
PR-19 Kit
You're right... however the wing doesn't cover enough of the length of the plane to be tailless...
Yes, I know that, and HE knows that but are we concerned with the niceties of aerodynamics here? No, this is WhiffWorld where the laws of aerodynamics may not be in force...... ;)
The problem could be solved with thrust deflection. Perhaps four paddles around the exhaust?
.....or thrusters, NF-104 style.
Edit: I had an idea for a subtle F-104 whiff with a blunt nose and an aerospike to test out the theory for Lockheed's UGM-96 Trident I SLBM, see here: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-96.html
Did Lockheed have house colours circa 1974?
2D nozzle from F-22?
Quote from: tomo pauk on June 05, 2011, 06:39:52 AM
2D nozzle from F-22?
Nah, 4D paddles. If you're going to go doolally why stint? :mellow:
In X or cross layout?
I'm thinking use a horizontal stabilizer similar to the AQM-60 Kingfisher, and use either a delta or rhomboid style vertical stabilizer
Dedicated Recon version:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe68%2FGTwiner%2FRF104.jpg&hash=2f1667ff06fad2ac2e99c40183e1652eff3bbcdc)
Regards,
Greg
Would the camera nose be considered an upgrade to the RF-104G?
Quote from: rallymodeller on July 23, 2011, 03:25:30 PM
Would the camera nose be considered an upgrade to the RF-104G?
Not quite sure what you mean.
I mean like giving the RF-104G a LOROP camera. Alternately, your fit allows the RF-104 to retain its gun (which is always good).
It's like ROCAF's LOROP nose for their RF-104G because it's not as restricted as the former gun bay.
Interesting source of info: http://www.i-f-s.nl/index12.htm
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: rallymodeller on July 23, 2011, 03:42:48 PM
I mean like giving the RF-104G a LOROP camera. Alternately, your fit allows the RF-104 to retain its gun (which is always good).
I think of mine as a alternate to the podded cameras from a RF-104G. The platform thus might be somewhat better in the recon role, but at the same time, less useful in the multi-role function...unless of course the nose was interchange-able.
Regards,
Greg
A quick-change nose section is an interesting idea. Combined with the easily-accessible electronics bay behind the cockpit, one could imagine a variety of different noses that could be "plugged in" and the associated electronics set up as LRUs in the bay, with common wiring for all. There could be a recon nose like yours, one like the LOROP Taiwanese nose, an attack nose with LRMTS and so forth, and several different radar noses like interceptor (standard NASARR or Cyrano), ground attack (the Canadian version of NASARR that had no air-to-air capability) and maritime strike (Agave)...
Gives new meaning to the idea of "multimission".
Sorry to revive the thread, I was going to start another but since we already have an F-104 topic.
What about the F404 engine for the starfighter?
The F404 is shorter than the J79, has a smaller diameter, and weighs almost 1,600 pounds less. It has more dry thrust and afterburning thrust than the early and mid J79 design evolutions (though not the late ones) and a TW ratio of almost 8:1 versus 4.6:1.
I have no idea how they compare reliability and maintenance wise though... but would there be a noticeable improvement in performance?
Maybe if (in our whatif universe) they were flying into the 90's, the engine could further be upgraded to the F414 (though I'd imagine the intakes would need to be redesigned).
Also look at the PW1120 - it was meant to be a drop-in replacement for the J79 in the Phantom, so it would certainly fit.
Even better, didn't know about that one
Always thought the Starfighter was a prime candidate for a twin fuselage – like the Vickers type 582.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-blueprints.com%2Fblueprints-depot-restricted%2Fmodernplanes%2Fmodern-uvw%2Fvickers_supermarine_type_582_twin-28537.jpg&hash=315338dfd428587ba56a595dca75bcda4b16ae09)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i-f-s.nl%2Ftypes%2FLW3.JPG&hash=d687b6890a3917c5239299d45f6124104d63c27c)
so did the germans!
That'd be an F-208 then? ;D
So, I'm concepting a WHIF...
What If the NF-104A and F-104N were further developed into an astronaut-trainer, like a reusable version of a Mercury-Redstone, but still having some vestigial combat capability? And What If it were a two-seater version? And What If a prototype were built from selected parts cherrypicked from the best Starfighter variants around the world and built by an eccentric genius for his personal use, with as many improvements as say 2005-2010 rebuild-date technology could offer, while still keeping as much of the original airframe as possible other than reconstructing it out of lighter, stronger and more heat-resistant materials?
Something like a TF-104G front-half and tailgroup mated to an ASA-M rear, with a new booster/thruster pod on each wing based on the old tiptanks, and an F414 shoved up its backside? Maybe combine the ASA-M and original ventral fins like on the CL-901 prototype?
By "vestigial combat capability", I mean just enough to defend itself, not go looking for trouble--its mission is to get its two occupants up to 125,000 feet and safely back to the ground, but I figure at least a couple AIM-9X or IRIS-T, maybe keep the internal gun.
BUMP:
Working on an RAF F-4M Phantom FGR.2, i found inspiration for another whiff build.
i was thinking, since the RAF installed the RR Spey 202 engines of the F-4, is it possible to do the same thing on the F-104 (replacing the j-79).
and if so, would the Starfighters fuselage need any modification?
Quote from: Nils on November 10, 2015, 03:27:29 AM
i was thinking, since the RAF installed the RR Spey 202 engines of the F-4, is it possible to do the same thing on the F-104 (replacing the j-79).
and if so, would the Starfighters fuselage need any modification?
I would say yes to fuselage modifications. The Spey is wider by about 4.6 inches, which may not sound like a lot, but the F-104 did not have inches to spare. Also the Spey sucks more air, so you may need larger intakes. Just like the UK version of the Phantom which needed significant mods to fit the Spey, which detractors labelled as the slowest, most expensive Phantom, but it had impressive low level performance/thrust which was desired for the Fleet Air Arm operating off carriers smaller than the US carriers. Engine weight and length are less of factors.
So realistically I would think a fatter fuselage and intakes would be needed for a Spey F-104- which may impact overall aircraft performance quite a bit- not sure it would be worth it for a modest increase in thrust, but if it fits your backstory of needing a UK engine it could be a good WHIF. Or you could ignore and declare close enough for a WHIF model and keep the standard fuselage and intakes for a WHIF.
Sounds like a plan Nils ! Not sure you would need any mods at 72nd or 144th scale, as it would already be close enough. The fuselage widening could be lied about, as the intake size. But having two intakes and a single engine might be enough ? Would defo look cool with a new burner can and maybe a fin top RWR :thumbsup:
Cap, that a great idea to add the RWR on the tail.
as for the intake, i can remove the devider cone, allowing more air to enter the inlet.
the idea came to me while building a Phantom, thinking if the EE Lightning got cancelled, would the UK not consider an F-104K.
aside from the RR Spey engines, i was thinking maybe adding a Firestreak or RedTop AAM as its main armament.
Love it Nils ! Excellent idea. The problem is, you'd have to build at least 2, one camo and one gray :thumbsup:
From Secret Projects, CL-1195. -1 has a J79-GE-19 like the F-104S, -2 has a Spey (R.Sp-5R is a RB.168-25R Spey as used in the F-4M), both within the same airframe.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,966.15.html
QuoteThe Model CL-1195 designs were started in 1969 for an export air-superiority fighter based on the "S". Primary market was Europe, to counter single-site version of the Panavia MRCA. First two iterations -1 and -2 used same "S" fuselage coupled with a larger wing and a strenghtened structure to support the higher loads coming from the larger wing itself. -1 used a GE J-79-19, the -2 a RR engine. The second one had better performance overall. Basic armament for air superiority were an internal M-61 and four Sidewinder, with two wingtip tanks, 2 X 220 gals. The plane sported a total of eleven stations for external charges: one centerline,
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi176%2FMossie105%2FAircraft%2FF-104%2520CL-1195%2520with%2520J79-GE-19%2520and%2520Spey.jpg&hash=ef7a9c462cc4f82fbd1b1da1322e80b66c079ea3) (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/Mossie105/media/Aircraft/F-104%20CL-1195%20with%20J79-GE-19%20and%20Spey.jpg.html)
So you might be able to get away with it in the standard airframe, it's up to you if you add the bigger wing of the CL-1195-2 or leave it the same. There where other CL-1195 variants with more changes.
Quote from: Captain Canada on November 10, 2015, 06:02:47 AM
...... and maybe a fin top RWR :thumbsup:
Been there, done that. ;D :lol:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg908.imageshack.us%2Fimg908%2F7808%2FXznFZb.jpg&hash=41e8ee31e09702b6d83d790ebf6cd15b68a862cd)
My first ever Whiff, back in 1972.
Gorgeous. I just saved that pic to my model picture folder, so hopefully I won't forget it. Again.
:cheers:
I would quite like to do a Speyfighter. The Academy 1/72 F-104G is cheap and plentiful...
Quote from: KiwiZac on November 11, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
<...> The Academy 1/72 F-104G is cheap and plentiful...
It's also utterly, utterly horrible! :o I suppose it's to jets what the Starfix Spitfire is to props. Really, you'd be better off investing a couple more quid in an ESCI/Italeri, Revell or Hasegawa kit. They're all miles ahead of Academy's abomination!
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on November 12, 2015, 07:03:58 AM
Quote from: KiwiZac on November 11, 2015, 05:20:10 PM
<...> The Academy 1/72 F-104G is cheap and plentiful...
It's also utterly, utterly horrible! :o I suppose it's to jets what the Starfix Spitfire is to props. Really, you'd be better off investing a couple more quid in an ESCI/Italeri, Revell or Hasegawa kit. They're all miles ahead of Academy's abomination!
Second that. Crude thing, cockpit and canopy are especially ugly. The old ESCI kit is cool (raised details, though), as well as the Heller kit which comes with alternative single and two seat cockpits. Compared with the Academy thing even the simple Matchbox F-104 is gold!
Quote from: ChernayaAkula on November 12, 2015, 07:03:58 AM
.....you'd be better off investing a couple more quid in an ESCI/Italeri, Revell or Hasegawa kit. They're all miles ahead of Academy's abomination!
While insuring it's
not the early Hasegawa kit, which has a canopy wide enough for a side-by-side 2 seater!
Quote from: Dizzyfugu on November 12, 2015, 07:22:08 AM
Compared with the Academy thing even the simple Matchbox F-104 is gold!
But tarnished gold. That's the one I started with to build the F-104K pictured above, and it's a Whiff just because I didn't reckon it was good enough to build a decent RW model from!
Yes I'll agree with the above sentiments......don't waste your time on that 'thing' you'll be disappointed :-X
But if you already have an Academy F104G then what better fate for it than to be Whiffed?
It all fits together fairly well, it's accuracy where it suffers. That and having nothing inside the wheel bays. OH, and a deformed pilot IIRC.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi70.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi82%2Fgavinmaillardet%2FPDRV%2FGully-Lomax%2520GuL29-PR%2520Boobook%2FGuL29-PRBoobook015_zpsfcefc705.jpg&hash=cbc683674b665fd70fb7ce7e04e6be0f038dddce) (http://s70.photobucket.com/user/gavinmaillardet/media/PDRV/Gully-Lomax%20GuL29-PR%20Boobook/GuL29-PRBoobook015_zpsfcefc705.jpg.html)
Excellent job there Fred. :thumbsup:
I'd be a real PITB to plug into a tanker with the probe underneath the nose!
What's the backstory on it?
Kit, it's on the side. You were a consultant on this one.
This (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,39626.0/highlight,boobook.html) should nudge your memory.
Quote from: zenrat on November 14, 2015, 01:42:52 AM
Kit, it's on the side. You were a consultant on this one.
This (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,39626.0/highlight,boobook.html) should nudge your memory.
Duuuhhhh, I remember now, sorry. :banghead:
That was the 'Pru Blue' aeroplane of course ;D and now I look at the pic above I can see the line of the probe against the fuselage (just...)
Anyway, I have a Chinese interceptor design in agenda that never left the real drawing board, but looked a lot like a Starfighter with low wings and tail. Maybe an Academy F-104 might find a good use in this case: looks similar, but just like a crude copy of the real thing... :rolleyes:
I was thinking about a couple of things: From what I remember, the aircraft was given 10-degrees of anhedral because of a pronounced wing on rudder effect. If the wing-span was a bit larger would the dihedral be reduced?
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 14, 2015, 03:03:30 PM
I was thinking about a couple of things: From what I remember, the aircraft was given 10-degrees of anhedral because of a pronounced wing on rudder effect. If the wing-span was a bit larger would the dihedral be reduced?
The size of the wing(span-wise) would not change the effect on the rudder where the angle of anhederal would. Lockheed would have had a very good reason for coming up with the solution that they did.
Gondor
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 12, 2015, 07:23:07 AM
While insuring it's not the early Hasegawa kit, which has a canopy wide enough for a side-by-side 2 seater!
Hmmm
Man oh man, I wish I'd read everyone's comments BEFORE paying for an unbuildable Academy kit that looks nothing like an F-104 and ending up with this POS (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,41461.0.html):
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa388%2FZacYates%2Fjust%2520models%2FACA98A5A-31A4-43E2-A1AB-F3DA6C1CBE2F_zpsaijkoreq.jpg&hash=8c63efcdd36777840c9e5a4e35e4f1f84e0276a7) (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/ZacYates/media/just%20models/ACA98A5A-31A4-43E2-A1AB-F3DA6C1CBE2F_zpsaijkoreq.jpg.html)
In my defence:
- it was cheap
- it was one of only two F-104s in the shop, the other being an Academy 1/72 F-104G
- the night before my future father-in-law had given me a lecture about the perils of not having a career, told me he wouldn't hire me, and generally stated he had no respect for me when it came to my haphazard employment history, so I was feeling genuinely depressed and just wanted to buy some models
(I have a suprisingly emotional attachment to this kit now thanks to this last point)
No matter, it looks GREAT! :thumbsup:
The canopy stands rather high, was it out of the box or a what-if part?
Quote from: KiwiZac on November 17, 2015, 02:13:54 PM
<...>
- the night before my future father-in-law had given me a lecture about the perils of not having a career, told me he wouldn't hire me, and generally stated he had no respect for me when it came to my haphazard employment history, so I was feeling genuinely depressed and just wanted to buy some models
(I have a suprisingly emotional attachment to this kit now thanks to this last point)
Do keep the -104! :thumbsup: If push comes to shove, you can always stab the stoopid f**ker with it! :wacko: Seriously, what a bast**d! :angry:
As said elsewhere: silk purse made from a sow's ear! :thumbsup:
Quote from: tahsin on November 18, 2015, 01:11:27 AM
The canopy stands rather high, was it out of the box or a what-if part?
OOB. I rather like it, actually!
Is that the boxing where there's something odd going on with the missiles in the box art?
I once had a similar lecture from a boss. He had inherited me with the job and didn't appreciate sarcasm or indeed any of the lower forms of wit or the fact that I had no respect for him as he was a bully. He was later fired when it turned out he was an alcoholic. Something which didn't go down well with Railtrack where everyone had to meet the same drug/alcohol requirements as train drivers. Stupid dick got spotted leaving the pub opposite the office after having his liquid lunch, got tested and got shown the door.
I'm not complaining. We knew what you were getting into when you bought it, and you've done a great job of it ! love the camo and markings bro :cheers: :bow:
Thanks bro :)
zenrat - this is the one (https://www.scalemates.com/kits/107321-academy-1619-lockheed-f-104g-starfighter). I see what you mean!
Yep. Starboard wing is possibly longer than the port one as well.
(https://s1.scalemates.com/products/img/3/2/1/107321-b.jpg)
Quote from: KiwiZac on November 18, 2015, 12:26:29 PM
Quote from: tahsin on November 18, 2015, 01:11:27 AM
The canopy stands rather high, was it out of the box or a what-if part?
OOB. I rather like it, actually!
Well, so do I. A what if straight from the box, too... As for bad kits, I still remember the day when I bought that Airfix 104. I was at high school and this puts the event into 1987 or thereabouts and a couple of classmates and I were simply reduced to looking at the box and its contents, left speechless. Turkey is the country of PM, the rudimentary modelling legend, but have that kind of Airfix? Oh, my...
Quote from: tahsin on November 20, 2015, 12:49:15 AM
Quote from: KiwiZac on November 18, 2015, 12:26:29 PM
Quote from: tahsin on November 18, 2015, 01:11:27 AM
The canopy stands rather high, was it out of the box or a what-if part?
OOB. I rather like it, actually!
Well, so do I. A what if straight from the box, too... As for bad kits, I still remember the day when I bought that Airfix 104. I was at high school and this puts the event into 1987 or thereabouts and a couple of classmates and I were simply reduced to looking at the box and its contents, left speechless. Turkey is the country of PM, the rudimentary modelling legend, but have that kind of Airfix? Oh, my...
At that point in time the moulds could well have been older than yourself. It's only in recent years that Airfix have replaced several of their moulds with state of the art technology. At the moment the best 1/72 F-104 in my opinion is the Hasegawa kit followed by the Esci/Italeri kit.
Gondor
Quote from: tahsin on November 20, 2015, 12:49:15 AM
Quote from: KiwiZac on November 18, 2015, 12:26:29 PM
Quote from: tahsin on November 18, 2015, 01:11:27 AM
The canopy stands rather high, was it out of the box or a what-if part?
OOB. I rather like it, actually!
Well, so do I. A what if straight from the box, too... As for bad kits, I still remember the day when I bought that Airfix 104. I was at high school and this puts the event into 1987 or thereabouts and a couple of classmates and I were simply reduced to looking at the box and its contents, left speechless. Turkey is the country of PM, the rudimentary modelling legend, but have that kind of Airfix? Oh, my...
1987 Eh! That Airfix F-104 would be 24 years old (it came out in 1963).
Back in my youth, Airfix was the dream thing if you were into modelling. I watched a Series 5 Lancaster in a shop window for almost 4 years until somebody had enough money to buy that. Don't know, was surely expecting the 104 to be like that F-5E I had bought previously. And you know, to top that I think I also lost my umbrella while out to buy the kit!
GondorQuoteThe size of the wing(span-wise) would not change the effect on the rudder where the angle of anhederal would. Lockheed would have had a very good reason for coming up with the solution that they did.
I think we misunderstood each other: The tailplane mounted atop the vertical stabilizer resulted in rudder application rolling the plane in opposition to the direction of yaw. The anhedral made the airplane tend to roll into the direction of yaw and negate the wing on rudder effect.
The effectiveness of the wing's anhedral would appear to me to be the angle of dihedral as well as the span of the wing (if the wing is larger in span, for the same dihedral, more of the wing is below the "waterline", so to speak): So I figured if the span was longer you'd still need dihedral, but possibly less of it.
Are you in the right thread Hannah? there are models in this one.
zenrat
Well, it had to do with an idea for a longer winged F-104
Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on November 21, 2015, 03:52:02 PM
zenrat
Well, it had to do with an idea for a longer winged F-104
Isn't that a U2?
Zenrat,
Not THAT long
Flight International, 29 April 1986
QuoteBrazil is looking closely at a Swiss-led offer of 50 F-104 Starfighters...
SPICE, a Swiss company, has organised a package of 50 ex-Netherlands and Belgian Air Force Starfighters.
If this offer is accepted, SABCA of Belgium and Fokker of the Netherlands would overhaul and upgrade the aircraft for a further 2,000 hours of service. An upgrade of the avionics -- to F-16 standard -- is an option and complete overhaul of the Starfighters' J79 engines would be carried-out by CELMA of Brazil.
That would be an interesting build
Ryan proposal for a lift-fan VTOL F-104G.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.smugmug.com%2FBTS-2%2Fi-gpPdmW2%2F0%2Fa3af6e4f%2FXL%2FLOCKHEED_RYAN_MODEL190_01-XL.png&hash=d2f8ac700fb06021dcbdfdda56da2e77f4de5a03)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.smugmug.com%2FBTS-2%2Fi-Q94Z2xq%2F0%2F3d042160%2FM%2FLOCKHEED_RYAN_MODEL190_02-M.png&hash=b9a65fff7a4e2d809653c0b8746c5c973b07a1be)
And just where would the fuel be carried? In a tanker flying just in front I suppose........
Internally and the wing-tip tanks.
As they're lift-fans rather than lift-jets the fuel usage may not go up too dramatically.
Proposal to fit the Rolls Royce Avon in the F-104 Starfighter as an alternative to the Mirage IIIO. From Secret Projects:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/f-104-starfighter-projects.966/page-3#post-303962
(https://i.imgur.com/96Nfltq.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/krmsEKP.jpeg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7878/46801379224_1e3421e397_o.jpg)
:thumbsup: :mellow:
Yeah, that one should be done in plastic, and it surely can't be all THAT difficult, can it?
Actually yes, you can bet it'd take a TON of PSR to do it properly!
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/924/ki0dBy.jpg)
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq90/924/6mxOAo.jpg)
StarFitter
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/StarFitter.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/4ccb2745-6906-42ae-a335-3952cb51871c)
StarLightning
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/StarLightning.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/3f9e832c-1b90-4f1d-9904-1958670c8447)
You could always kitbash the F-104 with the Yak-38 to get a V/STOL.
Quote from: McColm on February 05, 2022, 12:02:08 PM
You could always kitbash the F-104 with the Yak-38 to get a V/STOL.
Probably run out of fuel before it got 3 foot (1 metre) of the ground ;D
Harrier wings on the left and MiG 29 vertical tails as wings on the right.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49145239058_e4ca355ebe_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hSNcnU)Gully GuL-38 Currawong - 19 (https://flic.kr/p/2hSNcnU) by Fred Maillardet (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156376527@N06/), on Flickr
StarSabre
F-104 (Viggen intakes) with F-100 flying surfaces. Alternative tail fin: 2nd one looks a F-100 with lateral intakes
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/StarSabre.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/a320438c-0df9-476f-8cc7-94f9ae6d0800)
Quote from: zenrat on February 06, 2022, 03:28:36 AM
Harrier wings on the left and MiG 29 vertical tails as wings on the right.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49145239058_e4ca355ebe_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hSNcnU)Gully GuL-38 Currawong - 19 (https://flic.kr/p/2hSNcnU) by Fred Maillardet (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156376527@N06/), on Flickr
Oh very nice sir :thumbsup:
Can't make my mind up if the Blue Bird should be at Farnborough or in Thunderbirds ;D
The F-104 could have been the inspiration for the X-29 or the F-16. ( two more whiffs to build)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51866662833_da30c78211_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51867234550_c3b24a6a9c_o.jpg)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Mirage-F104.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/90ce4280-e0e1-442e-8e7f-862ddc283470)
Quote from: Zero-Sen on February 06, 2022, 03:27:09 PM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51866662833_da30c78211_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51867234550_c3b24a6a9c_o.jpg)
I thought that the top one looks more like the Saab Dragon than the Mirage.
Love this canard Starfighter!
Small F-104 (with Mirage-F1 nose)
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-104_F1.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/624a6d98-7136-4fc0-a590-a564a5700dc0)
Anyone whiffing a Starfighter is recommended to start with a 1/72 Academy kit...
...because they don't look like one BEFORE you start cutting.
... and the Academy thing come from FROG, which is even worse. I created those drawings thinking in my Frog Starfighter :banghead: :banghead:
:thumbsup:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51887997478_57cd2561d2_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51886949207_3dc940c140_o.jpg)
:wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
New look for Starfighter
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-104_F4.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/d17f3103-4d1c-44f2-be27-e360546823b7)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52139767384_3f9e7681a1_o.jpg)
Wow, that's worth a whiff!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52220280219_d2f91cf35c_o.jpg)
I thought that was a Starfighter with folding wings at first, then I put my glasses on ;) :thumbsup:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52218947077_9e9f7a54b8_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52219955558_58090e1266_o.jpg)
StarDragon's cool! :mellow:
Quote from: Old Wombat on August 03, 2022, 08:50:34 AM
StarDragon's cool! :mellow:
Certainly is :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: Old Wombat on August 03, 2022, 08:50:34 AM
StarDragon's cool! :mellow:
I see a slight issue with it though, the canards will deflect the airflow into the intakes, looks nice though :thumbsup:
Gondor
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91n1a-KpedL._AC_SY606_.jpg)
Reportedly an image in a magazine in 1957.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Low tail plane Starfighter
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F104-tail_sp_nCTjHpMrZ96BAi2hkkY5a4.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F104-tail_sp_nCTjHpMrZ96BAi2hkkY5a4.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds"")
Neat looking airplane :thumbsup:
Well done on the low mounted tailplane F-104 ysi_maniac
Redesign the F-104 in a way that's similar to the JA-37
Quote from: ysi_maniac on March 13, 2023, 10:22:55 PMLow tail plane Starfighter
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F104-tail_sp_nCTjHpMrZ96BAi2hkkY5a4.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"http://"http://"http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F104-tail_sp_nCTjHpMrZ96BAi2hkkY5a4.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds"""")
Very sexy!! :thumbsup: I have got to have one of those!
Chin intake Starfighter
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-104-chin_jxkMzPU7hE9aL4iEqrcPyk.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/F-104-chin_jxkMzPU7hE9aL4iEqrcPyk.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)
Screaming out for a shark's mouth :thumbsup:
Oooooh I like that Hornet one ! The chin intake is a great idea also, as well.