F-104 Starfighter

[dy031101]

(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......

[tigercat2]

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.

[dy031101]

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.

[tigercat2]

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.

[dy031101]

Needless to say but I'll say again, I found david sMiGielski's Starweasel 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.

[tigercat2]

I agree; the Starweasel was fantastic; way better than anything I could attempt!!

Wes W.

[dy031101]

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)?

[tahsin]

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 .

[dy031101]

Under the wings, not under the fuselage.

[tahsin]

I am aware of the distinction and suggesting it was aerodynamically cleared to carry Sidewinders under the wings while the S was being developed .

[dy031101]

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.

[tahsin]

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 .

[tigercat2]

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.

[tigercat2]

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.

[Shasper]

Well the U-2 started out as a F-104 with the long wings . . .


Shas