F-104 Starfighter Ideas

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm not 100% sure why the F-104 so disliked by the USAF, but the plane did have great potential

• Excellent acceleration
  
• Excellent climb-performance
  
• Superb roll-rate
  
• Ability to fly for protracted periods of time at Mach 2
  
• Excellent supersonic maneuverability
  
• When fitted with maneuvering flaps, it had an excellent sustained-g capability that would even exceed the F-106 & MiG-21 (admittedly performance rapidly fell off below the corner velocity)
  

and more than most would give it credit for.

I was thinking of a couple F-104 concepts/ideas/whifs which center mostly around aerodynamic differences, though in some cases armament is also modified.  I'd like to hear your opinions

The first idea is really the most no nonsense: Configure the plane with maneuvering flaps right from the outset

• When flaps are deployed on a straight-winged aircraft, the lifting characteristics generally improve substantially over that of a swept-wing
  
• Lockheed seemed to understand the effect of using flaps from the P-38's days (it would appear at least)
  
• The F-104G would later be fitted with rapid actuating flaps: They could be deployed to the takeoff position up to 450 kts/Mach 0.85
  

The jet was far better from the standpoint of turning radius and sustained agility when the maneuvering flaps were out at the appropriate speeds.

The second idea is based around a modified F-104 used in a 1959 record setting flight, and the NF-104A: The differences are basically a modified inlet, a larger wingspan, and modified flaps/control-surfaces

• It was stated once that had the F-104 had a wing-area 15% larger, it would have had Ps figures that would have exceeded that of every other plane in the USAF
  
• The NF-104's wing wasn't quite 15% larger (it was 8.5%), it was more than halfway in the right direction
  
• The F-104's wings had anhedral to correct for a tendency to roll when rudder was applied; for all I know less anhedral might be necessary if the wing was larger in span (the NF-104 was based on the existing design and had to work around it)
  
• The flap and aileron could be replaced with a flaperon: This would overall increase the flap-span and allow greater lift for subsonic flight; such flaps should be designed for extensions at speeds up to 450kts/Mach 0.85
  
• The modified inlet would allow greater top-speed, which may very well be limited to the aircraft and engine temperature limits; supersonic acceleration would probably be improved and this would probably offset the drag from the larger wing
  

.
The third idea is merely an armament change: The F-104A only had provision for two GAR-8/AIM-9.  When the F-100 was fitted with Sidewinders, it carried four of them.  While the early F-8's only carried 2 x AIM-9 (then called the AAM-N-7), they later went to four

• The F-104A had an armament position on the wingtips which was fine, except it also was a spot where one could place a 170-gallon fuel-tank which may very well have delivered better performance (due to drag reduction) over the 190-gallon tank under the wing
  
• It doesn't appear all that hard to have wired the wing-pylon to carry a Sidewinder under it (or designed an appropriate pylon for the task)
  
• This would allow 4 x AIM-9's to be carried max; or two AIM-9 with tip-tanks
  

The F-104C did ultimately carry 4, but it couldn't really haul them if a centerline store was mounted: Plus those could be added anyway.

[McColm]

Lockheed presented updates of the F-104, with the L-205.This had a dorsal intake just behind the canopy similar to the North American F-107.
The L-227 with a larger wing and different tail.
CL-288-1, a larger version of the F-104. Engines were placed in mid-wing nacelles, similar wing to the B-57.

[Weaver]

1. Like all big airforces in democratic countries, the USAF doesn't like anything that might give it's political paymasters the idea that it can the job with 200 cheap aircraft rather than 100 expensive aircraft, because they suspect they'll end up with only the cheap aircraft and then the numbers will be pared back to 100. The same thing happened with the Gnat and the F-16 (to an extent). So basically, the USAF didn't like the F-104 becuase it wasn't as big and expensive as an F-105.

2. The F-104 had some truly nasty handling characteristics that you don't see by just looking at wing-loading and performance figures. It's stall was vicious and unforgiving and the high tail, blanked by the forward fuselage at high AoA, couldn't help: in fact it produced the pitch-up that contributed to the stall in the first place. The aircraft also had a nasty tendency to dutch roll. Non-Lockheed test-pilots who flew the Starfighter criticised it roundly, and combat experience, both mock and real, showed it to be a poor dogfighter. F-104 pilots basically just kept their speed up and did high-speed slashing attacks with no serious attempt at maneuvering combat.

Re the NF-104A, note that ALL Starfighters had anhedral, and quite a lot of it.

[Dizzyfugu]

The F-104 was highly specialized - totally focussed on high rate of climb and speed, coupled with a short range and payload. The USAF had no real need for it, so they did not order it in great numbers.
The later, more common export version (the "G") was a totally different aircraft - a fighter bomber, not an interceptor, and, honestly, not really suited for that job. Imagine that the German Marineflieger wanted the Buccaneer... but they got the F-104G. Can you imagine how ill-suited that thing must have been for the job? beyond innate troubles like handling flaws?
Building and introducing them was more or less a political desicions and the result of Lockheed's lobby work in the Cold War era, esp. in Germany.

[rickshaw]

"Lobby work"?  A nice euphemism for outright bribery, Dizzy!   

[Captain Canada]

The CDNs mopped the recon world's floor with the things back in the day. I could see an enhanced recon bird.

[Weaver]

The F-104 was highly specialized - totally focussed on high rate of climb and speed, coupled with a short range and payload. The USAF had no real need for it, so they did not order it in great numbers.
The later, more common export version (the "G") was a totally different aircraft - a fighter bomber, not an interceptor, and, honestly, not really suited for that job. Imagine that the German Marineflieger wanted the Buccaneer... but they got the F-104G. Can you imagine how ill-suited that thing must have been for the job? beyond innate troubles like handling flaws?
Building and introducing them was more or less a political desicions and the result of Lockheed's lobby work in the Cold War era, esp. in Germany.

In some ways the F-104G was actually more suited to the strike role than the interceptor/fighter one. The small wing made it very stable when travelling fast at low altitude in dirty air, and the high-alpha problems were less of an issue than they were for a fighter. Since the primary mission when it was ordered was delivery of a tac nuke, the limited pylon space didn't matter that much either, at least as far as the Luftwaffe was concerned, but the Marineflieger must have longed for more pylons. Of course, the Bucc would have been WAY better for both roles.

[Captain Canada]

That's why she was a great recon bird in that theatre. But knowing the two a/c, it's pretty hard to argue with a Buccaneer in the Strike role !

[rickshaw]

The 104 was NOT a dogfighter.  It wasn't even a fighter.  It was an interceptor.  It went bloody fast in a straight line and turned like a barn door!   Johnson intended it to be the American answer to the MiG-15 when that aircraft was shown in some ways to be superior to the F-86.   However, unlike the MiG-15/17/19 it's wing was too small for sustained turning at altitude and the T-tail was, as Weaver has pointed out, poison for manoeuvrability and in some ways damned dangerous.

When it got turned into a low-level strike aircraft it found a niche where it could excel.  Going bloody fast, down low, it was pretty damned rock solid.  That mall wing as Weaver suggested was excellent in the "dirty air".  The reasons why the Germans (and other European nations) lost so many was 'cause their training regime wasn't up to handling such a hot ship.  They were turning out basically sub-standard pilots for their aircraft and so they had large numbers of crashes.   Once the training was improved, the crash rate fell off.

As a tactical recce bird she was also, as Captain Canada has pointed out, very good.  Fast and as steady as a rock at the low altitudes where they had to operate, they could bring back the pictures.

Overall the 104, despite the numbers built and flown cannot IMHO be considered one of the most successful fighter aircraft.  It was found to be dangerous and difficult to fly.  It was forced into roles which it was never designed for and did well.   It filled a gap which had to be filled in the West's armoury.   If one looks at the surprisingly small numbers of encounters between 104s and Soviet designed aircraft its obvious that it didn't do very well at all against any of the MiGs it encountered (but the counter-claim could well be that the MiGs didn't do that well against the 104, which because of it's speed and acceleration could dictate the encounter usually).   Lockheed used bribery to get it accepted by so many air forces, which suggests it was often the second or even third choice in the competitions it took part in.    This of course leaves open so many Whifferies of the alternatives!   

[Weaver]

The Ginter book on the F-11 Super Tiger is mostly Corky Meyer's recollections, and he relates several instances where foreign air forces evaluated the Grumman plane positively, then they got a visit from Lockheed, then they came back and evaluated it negatively....

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

1. Like all big airforces in democratic countries, the USAF doesn't like anything that might give it's political paymasters the idea that it can the job with 200 cheap aircraft rather than 100 expensive aircraft, because they suspect they'll end up with only the cheap aircraft and then the numbers will be pared back to 100.

I had a feeling that was the case but never had any confirmation.  It doesn't surprise me though: Regardless, why not either

• Push for 300 when you need 200 knowing it'll get knocked down by 100?
  
• Claim you need 150 expensive planes; then get 300 to replace them, so it gets widdled down to 200
  

In procurement you always ask for more than you need; then try and see if you can push for more.  It follows my natural model of exercise: Push until you get what you want, then push harder -- then why not a little more HAH! *sticks her middle finger up in the air*

2. The F-104 had some truly nasty handling characteristics that you don't see by just looking at wing-loading and performance figures.

I'm aware of most of it's hairy handling characteristics

• Violent pitch-up, deep-stall which could be powered out of if you had 15,000 feet of altitude to spare
  
• Tendency to spin which may be unrecoverable (had to do with engine gyroscopic forces -- usually not an issue with jets though the F-100 and F-104 both were affected to some extent at lower speeds)
  
• Roll inertia: You have to stop the roll 15 degrees short because it would keep on rolling
  
• At supersonic speeds you'd get a tendency for the tail to kind of wag back and forth as it would go
  
• Power off landings were a wild-scene.
  

I didn't know about the dutch-roll, but I can't say I'm all that surprised.

Non-Lockheed test-pilots who flew the Starfighter criticised it roundly, and combat experience, both mock and real, showed it to be a poor dogfighter.

It wasn't the best, but it was better than the F-105 (and F-4 as it had a gun)

F-104 pilots basically just kept their speed up and did high-speed slashing attacks with no serious attempt at maneuvering combat.

Once maneuvering flaps were fitted they could turn about as good as the F-4 (sure not if that's rave-performance) at about the same speeds.  It seems some pilots really weren't as well versed in using this (my opinion is that fighter pilots should be taught how to squeeze every last ounce out of the plane while purposefully flying it and not killing themselves).

Re the NF-104A, note that ALL Starfighters had anhedral, and quite a lot of it.

I must have either misspoken or been misunderstood. The F-104 had 10-degrees of anhedral to correct a tendency for rudder-rolls; had the wing been longer from the outset it might have had less.  The NF-104 had 10-degrees like all the others because frankly you'd redesign the whole wing.


Dizzyfugu

The F-104 was highly specialized - totally focussed on high rate of climb and speed, coupled with a short range and payload.

Firstly, I don't know where that short-ranged thing came from

• The aircraft had a good fuel-fraction
  
• The engines were fuel-efficient
  
• The L/D ratio was better than the F-4 (ironic)
  
• Pilots who flew it said it's range was about the same as the other century series fighters
  
• The F-104 was preferred as an escort for the F-105: The F-4 could fly as far only by flying slower
  

.
As for the specialized capability: It was designed to accelerate and fly faster, climb quicker and higher than the MiG-15 true; the pilots and designers almost certainly wanted agility: The F-104 despite being a full generation ahead of the F-86 was designed to some extent around the same mentality the F-86 was designed around

• Altitude and speed allows you to remain untouchable giving you the ability to pick and choose when and where to fight
  
• Horizontal and vertical acceleration allow you to disengage at will and stay outside of gun-range
  
• Acceleration and speed allow you to run down enemy aircraft
  
• Climb rate allows you to avoid getting left in the dust by a plane flown by a pilot who wants to remain breathing
  
• Maneuverability clearly is obvious: It allows you to outmaneuver and destroy aircraft and escape attack
  

.
Early on, requirements for aerial intercept capability against bombers were stipulated

• Admittedly almost all early jet aircraft were interceptors: The F-80, the FD/FH-1, the F-84 as intended, the F2H/F-2, and the F-86 all qualified
  
• This requirement stipulated a radar, as well as the ability to accelerate and climb quickly, fly at high altitude, and fly at high speed
  
• The acceleration, speed, and climb performance were already sort of in the requirements but it's possible that they increased the speed/acceleration requirements somewhat
  
• The requirement for maximum speeds in excess of Mach 2, extended operation of speeds at least Mach 2, ultimately interfered with qualities that would have yielded superior agility.
  
• Missiles were also now a requirement
  

Missiles kind of threw a monkey wrench into the formula: They could outrun, out-accelerate, and out-climb aircraft; they could also fly further than bullets/shells coming out the barrel of fighters.  The Chinese figured this out abruptly when their MiG-17's (previously able to fly higher than the F-86's they flew against, thus allowing them to choose where and when to fight), suddenly fell prey to these F-86's which were now fitted with the AAM-N-7 (Now AIM-9) Sidewinder.

Maneuverability became even more important than before.

The later, more common export version (the "G") was a totally different aircraft - a fighter bomber, not an interceptor, and, honestly, not really suited for that job.

Actually, the F-104G had a multi-mode radar/fire-control system which could do air-to-ground, air-to-air intercepts, and provide ranging and lead-computtional data to the cannon.  Truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised if the Autonetics NASARR had more air to air modes than the F-104A's radar.

Imagine that the German Marineflieger wanted the Buccaneer... but they got the F-104G.

I'd be pissed

Building and introducing them was more or less a political desicions and the result of Lockheed's lobby work in the Cold War era, esp. in Germany.

Lobby work?  More like bribery...


rickshaw

It wasn't even a fighter.  It was an interceptor.

Actually it was developed as a lightweight fighter, then as a lightweight fighter/interceptor: Most all early jet-fighters were interceptors as they could fly faster and higher their propeller driven predecessors.

Johnson intended it to be the American answer to the MiG-15 when that aircraft was shown in some ways to be superior to the F-86.

Correct, especially early on

• The MiG-15 could fly higher than the F-86
  
• The MiG-15 could climb faster than the F-86
  
• The MiG-15 was more maneuverable at most speeds
  

As time went on, of course the F-86's climb-rate improved either to parity with the MiG-15, possibly better: I don't know how the F-86F compared in agility to the MiG-15 exactly.

• The F-104 was heavily designed around being faster, higher flying, faster accelerating, faster climbing and so on
  
• Agility was almost certainly a desired goal, but might not have been the most valuable criteria on the list
  
• When the requirements for performance in excess of Mach 2, and the ability to hold Mach 2 for extended periods, maneuverability never really given the chance to increase
  
• Comical as this sounds: Had the aircraft had a wing area 15% greater, it would have achieved Ps figures that would have beat any plane in the USAF inventory
  
• I don't know if this is an increase in just wing-area, or wing-area and aspect-ratio
  

.

The reasons why the Germans (and other European nations) lost so many was 'cause their training regime wasn't up to handling such a hot ship.  They were turning out basically sub-standard pilots for their aircraft and so they had large numbers of crashes.

Yeah, if I recall a lot of the pilots either were given minimal training and weren't proficient with high performance supersonic aircraft; the older pilots while skilled, hadn't flown in awhile and didn't understand modern planes as well.

Other issues included

• The J79's nozzles: Mostly their tendency to get stuck in the full-open position; early on there wasn't a means to force the nozzles closed
  
• The Luftwaffe had more F-104's than any other Air Force: If you have the same percentages of crashes as every other Air Force (not the case), whatever Air Force has the largest number of planes will suffer the highest total loss rate.
  

.

Overall the 104, despite the numbers built and flown cannot IMHO be considered one of the most successful fighter aircraft.

No... ironically it was in some ways better than the F-4B/C/D

[Weaver]

Non-Lockheed test-pilots who flew the Starfighter criticised it roundly, and combat experience, both mock and real, showed it to be a poor dogfighter.

It wasn't the best, but it was better than the F-105 (and F-4 as it had a gun)

That doesn't show up in the results. The F-105, despite "obviously" not being a dogfighter, actually did surprisingly well in Vietnam: more MiGs were shot down by F-105s than F-105s were shot down by MiGs. That's more than the F-104 can claim.

[zenrat]

...Power off landings were a wild-scene...

Is this a quote or do you, like, talk like this man?

Just wondering.

[rickshaw]

Non-Lockheed test-pilots who flew the Starfighter criticised it roundly, and combat experience, both mock and real, showed it to be a poor dogfighter.

It wasn't the best, but it was better than the F-105 (and F-4 as it had a gun)

That doesn't show up in the results. The F-105, despite "obviously" not being a dogfighter, actually did surprisingly well in Vietnam: more MiGs were shot down by F-105s than F-105s were shot down by MiGs. That's more than the F-104 can claim.

Except F-104s didn't engage in any air-to-air combats over Vietnam so that is a little disingenous.   Might be better to look at how well the F-104 went over the Formosa Straits or the Indian sub-continent.   Didn't do very well in either place IIRC.

I agree the F-105 was a surprisingly good dogfighter but we should always remember that the ROEs over Vietnam severely hampered modern fighters by making sure that visual ID had to be acquired before missiles could be launched so the primary air-to-air weapon - BVR missiles - couldn't be used for the most part, which put the USAF's and USN's (and I suppose Marines') fighters at a disadvantage, which the North Vietnamese took advantage of and which allowed their MiG-15s and -17s to excel.

[sandiego89]

[/quote]

Except F-104s didn't engage in any air-to-air combats over Vietnam so that is a little disengenous...
[/quote]

Agree, it would be like saying the F-5, F-100, F-102 and A-37 did poorly in Vietnam as the results do not show them with bunches of MiG kills.  Some of these aircraft never encountered a MiG, and many pilots on these and other aircraft went an entire tour without seeing a MiG. 

IIRC more than one properly flown f-104 surprised adversaries in exercises.