CF 104 D takeoff 01.06.2018

[@timmotel5804]

Nothing sounds like a 104. Have always loved it. One landed at Cannon AFB NM when i was stationed there in 1973. We heard it's approach. We hurried over to the flight line to see it. i was a power lineman and also airfield lighting and power technician (TAC) F-111 training base. Thanks for this post.

[@bankshot3122]

I was station at Cannon AFB IN LATE 60'S. Was an avionics technician, SSGT in the 524th tac fighter Sq. Worked on the transit alert area of the flight line. Went to school on the F-111 and never got to even get up on one.

[@enricomandragona163]

No... Anything with A J-79 engine deserves that distinguish!! Phantoms Forever ✌️

[@SirensAndAlarmsOfNorthernIL]

The sound of a J-79 is truly something, especially that howl on landing

[@55pilot]

They put wings on that airplane because they had to put the ailerons somewhere.

[@peterdebrie]

Put wings and a cockpit on an engine.

[@ozcanertem4861]

Loved it

[@av8tore71]

I was a Stinger MANPADS crew member back in the late 80's and we had to study the silhouette of this aircraft in VACR (Visual Aircraft recognition) while testing all of NATO and hostile aircraft even though they where non left in any air forces but just a few

[@Reno_Slim]

The venerable F-104 Lawn Dart.

[@K-pop_froze]

😅

[@bill2p]

I grew up with the CF104, which my father worked on as an avionics technician at 1 Wing Lahr Germany in the 1960s. But back then it was polished silver - a beautiful aircraft. When I returned to Canadian Forces Europe in 1977 to run the radio station at Baden-Söllingen, the 104s were painted army green like in the video.

[@stevencordick6228]

5 years in Baden here. 73 to 78. Used to watch them from school

[@lockervomhocker9795]

From Söllingen was the one who went down at Frankfurt Air Show in 1983

[@slideryt]

Did you know Newbs?

[@varrunningtrains4112]

What a stunning aircraft! Starfighters forever!

[@kampa3531]

is it enough fast if u want to escape from home ?

[@32ndWolfhounds]

Audio gives me goosebumbs, I love this jet!

[@guyhermanson4108]

My father flew them and the old reel-to-reel from the cockpit is epic.

[@ShellMartijn]

@@guyhermanson4108 That's awesome!

[@Mr.Monta77]

Wolf-howl 😊

[@32ndWolfhounds]

@@Mr.Monta77 Yeah 👍

[@markcassel3392]

In my eyes, this is one of the most beautiful aircraft ever.

[@guaporeturns9472]

Absolutely top 5 or 10 beautiful jets.

[@ralphmadera4366]

One ☝️ of the most impressive and Beautiful airplanes ✈️ ever designed and built! One word “Ageless”

[@javacup912]

Incredible acceleration when the burner kicked in. Like theres no tmorrow. Amazing.

[@docnelson2008]

Marvellous to see this aircraft still flying, it's a great shame there are no Lightnings still flying.

[@roybakker1973]

Thank god they are not flying anymore, it were Widowmakers

[@ronnichols884]

I was privileged to see the Lightnings at Geuterslough Royal Air Force Base in Germany. We were guests of the 19th Fighter Intercepter Squadron.

[@kamo8073]

@@roybakker1973 you realise the f104 killed far more people due to alot of shitty design flaws?

[@roybakker1973]

@@kamo8073 thats why there were widdowmakers

[@moriver3857]

That acceleration after the burner was lit! Wow. Like there's no tomorrow.

[@flugjung]

It honoured its name. Truly looks like a missile with wings. Love it!!!!

[@ronnichols884]

When it is parked, they have to put coverings on the wing edges so that maintenance people don't run into them and get cut. At one time this aircraft held the world speed record.

[@pablopeter3564]

It is a GE J79 Engine with wings...Great sound ¡

[@kmfiz]

You need to listen to this takeoff with decent quality headphones....wicked.

[@andrelabbe5315]

Le son d un J 79 est exceptionnel surtout lors de la montée en puissance et allumage de la postcombustion qu'elle son merveilleux.

[@jaamachmal]

Sound of my childhood...never forget.

[@maxjanssen7872]

One word: FANTASTIC!!

[@josemoreno3334]

The only time I seen F-104's flying was when I was sent TDY to Edwards AFB from Norton AFB in the early 1980's, They were flown by NASA. I remember the whistling sound they made when they flew over head. Love that plane. Good video.

[@dirklerxstprof2112]

So that's where Spielberg got the sound for His Tie Fighters... nice..

[@jeffwalker9122]

The eerie howl of that Orenda powerplant is pure music for the ears.. such a great plane. The Missile with a man in it.🤣🙂

[@andrewtestin9080]

What does the back sitter do in non conbat

[@peanuts2105]

The wings are there to separate the nav lights

[@generfeld]

great footage. the 104 was a very hard plane to fly. that landing was fantastic

[@radarradford3839]

Landing speed is about 170 to 180 knots depending on weight and conditions an touch down 160 to 170kts. You fly it at no less thar 83 to 85% power and use the speed brakes to adjust speed not the throttle. Cutting the power means you loose boundary air and will quickly stall. Was indeed flying a formula 1 race car. Pretty basic but fast and hard to see.

[@kennethjackson7574]

Hence the nickname “Ground nail,” among many others.

[@spitfirenutspitfirenut4835]

Jackson… You are a idiot. You don’t know what you are talking about. Go eat at bowl of corn flakes.

[@autogyro333]

Is the afterburner take off necessarry or for show? (wouldn't it save tons of fuel when take off with dry thrust only?)

[@espenjoh]

A starfighter always need to use afterburner on take off, due to high take off speed. The wings are very short, and that makes the take off speed high. (Altso makes a starfighter wery fast)

[@slavabtomat]

The sound that J79 makes @ 2:15 sounds like something out of a Star Wars movie.

[@nathanc5778]

I think those are ex RCAF CF-104's

[@walhalladome5227]

The sound of a Starfighter is unreplacable.

[@bigredracingdog466]

Same engine as the Phantom except we had two of them!

[@sanfranciscobay]

I assume when you are taking off in an Airplane that does not glide well with no power, you want as much speed and altitude as possible until you get to 10,000-20,000 feet.

[@KeyserTheRedBeard]

interesting video espenjoh. I shattered that thumbs up on your video. Maintain up the exceptional work.

[@boogie153]

What i'm always wondering how it is possible to hold the bird on place while turning up the engine. There are only a few square niches which make contact from tire to tarmac and this is enough to hold it at place,

[@cloudy7937]

Friction is determined by f=-μF where f is the frictional force, μ is the friction coefficient and F is the weight of the object in question. This means it doesn't actually matter how much surface area is in contact with the ground. You just need very sticky tires.

[@boogie153]

@@cloudy7937 But most war birds today have more power as weight and i think, the tires are laid out to withstand the enormous acceleration at the landing so i don't think, that they are very sticky.

[@cloudy7937]

@@boogie153 "Sticky" as in high friction coefficient, not actually sticky and gooey. The F-104 weighs 6,350 kg empty and 13,166 kg at full load, so let's say the craft in question weighs about 10 tons or 10,000kg or about 100 kN. With the afterburner on the engine produces 69 kN of thrust, and friction coefficient of tires being around 0.7~0.8, the frictional force is about 70 ~ 80 kN, which is _just_ about enough to hold the plane in place before takeoff.

[@postoffice146]

Three spikes instead of tyres would have even less contact to the ground but better friction for the weight. A bigger surface area is not better.

[@gregbuck701]

Well....when I hit the mega I'll have one for damn sure. The 104 had "blown flaps" to fool the wing that it was bigger for takeoff and landings, if those failed I think final was about 200 kts plus? THAT would be exciting.! Can you.imagine blowing a main right at touchdown??!!

[@dennyilkov9341]

Hhhh.. To fool the wing that it was bigger. Nah, if that system failed, in clean config (no external load) would add 20-25 kts. So, touch down at around 185 kts, no load an must be low on fuel. Unfortunately, famous for widowmaking, and numeous political scandals caused by bribes from Locheed. Scary plane

[@lockervomhocker9795]

Beautiful plane still flying. WOW. Last Time i saw was in 1983 at Ait Show Frankfurt. One of them was coming down, but Pilot survived

[@fanussmit9441]

Is it the air intake or the turbine blades that causes the howling sound?

[@Albert4H]

Neither. I believe the current thinking is that it happens around the exhaust nozzle.

[@raymondclark1785]

I thought it was the pilot 😀

[@giuseppemonteleone308]

Bellissimo lo spillone che ritorna a volare grazie al norvegesi incredibile magari un vecchio TF104 rimesso a nuovo per la gioia dei nostalgici di questo velivolo immortale. Grandissimi.

[@mn5stoat169]

Good lord that was a fast landing.

[@DevSolar]

One of the huge problems of the type. Due to the small wing area it stalled very early, and viciously. Even with everything working perfectly, landing speed was just short of 300 km/h. That's with the BLC system functioning properly; if the engine had problems or had stalled, you needed to go *much* faster than that...

[@satishavasthi8906]

The most beautiful plane in the world.

[@Sunne11]

That's a high landing speed :-)

[@charlesnash4809]

Best looking aircraft - ever!

[@paulboswell5719]

Lockheed also made the most beautiful airliner with the Super Constellation, especially the L1649 Starliner model.

[@muammeryacob7690]

Starfighter F 104 I read about it when I was a kid that it called the flying coffin.

[@rrocky6220]

So9rry, NOT a Canadian Forces CF-104. It's someone's F-104 though. Anyone familiar with the national markings?

[@espenjoh]

This is a CF-104D serial 104637. Purchased from Canada, and was based i Bodø / Norway from 1973. History of all CF-104 Norway bought from Canada here: starfighter.no/sq334-e.html

[@ВалентинЦиос-т3ч]

Что за модель?

[@uphori1484]

0:56 i thought someone was playing some kind of flute with a potato in it

[@andrelabbe5315]

I love the particular sound of j 79 a real stovepipe

[@richardcleland6625]

Name that tune!

[@Firetalk112]

Best Pilots flying F104 in the sixties 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@whitecolor2553]

The design of the flap and aileron in one piece on this plane would allow the plane to hold on to the air more during take off and land, it is now a legend in the past. Avionic And Oto Pilot Tekc.

[@denizatakan9194]

True Legend! Wolf howling is amazing...

[@jimbogymbo6710]

What kind of turbine does it have?

[@espenjoh]

J79, same as B58, F-4 Phantom +++

[@jimbogymbo6710]

Thanks

[@Supernumerary]

Jimbo- As stated by others, it’s the G.E. J79, which is a single spool turbo-jet. Modern engines are two or three spool turbo-fan. A turbo-fan will produce quicker takeoff acceleration. The J79 morphed into other aircraft and industrial engines, such as LM1500 and LM2500. It’s also the beginnings of CFM56 which is one of the most prolific airliner engines in use.

[@billgund4532]

The RA-5 Vigilante also used J-79's. When I was a teen age, dad was a 104 IP at Luke AFB. Hearing the otherworldly shriek-howl of the J-79 could inspire goosebumps.

[@williamsimmons152]

Briggs and Stratton on nitro.

[@CP-012]

Love the parachute, just like a dragster

[@backpackerthrulife8497]

Fantastic! video and audio both.

[@barreclark6830]

Wow, how many G's is the takeoff?

[@fromnorway643]

Not that much. Fighters are exposed to the highest g forces (up to about 9 g) when doing tight turns at high speed, not during a take-off like this. The net g force experienced here was hardly more than about 1.3 g when combining normal gravity and horizontal acceleration.

[@MrClarkM]

Is this in Norway?

[@espenjoh]

Bodø, Norway ENBO

[@MHG1023]

reg. is LN-STF

[@turbocompound]

Ein schönes Flugzeug mit tollen Proportionen…🧐👍👍…!

[@nixon1634]

Where?

[@MHG1023]

Norway. Based at Bodo (BOO/ENBO) Civil registration LN-STF See: www.starfighter.no/indeng.html

[@saguarotreker]

I grew up adjacent to Luke AFB in AZ and got to see them on final approach all the time. Glad I wasn't on the other end of the runway... How can you not like a plane who's wings are no longer than the fuselage is wide.

[@alexrebmann1253]

Luke is now F-35 training base. Fly over my house all the time.

[@phmwu7368]

CF-104 with military roundel for Norway at air intake ? CF = Canadian

[@espenjoh]

Yes. Norway bought second hand CF's from Canada. But Canada did not have a production line for two seaters, so this CF-104D i built by Lockheed in USA for Canada.

[@raynus1160]

@@espenjoh Correct. Canadair built 200 CF-104's for RCAF service and the 38 F-104D's were built by Lockheed in Burbank.

[@Александрович-ф7щ]

Сколько смотрю и не понимаю для чего такая бестолковая машина была сконструирована???

[@堂皇黃]

帥氣

[@markrouse5819]

I like this kid. Great job young man. Don't stop now but with discretion.

[@verbeult162]

In Germany at that time, we called it the sound of freedom

[@barreclark6830]

After a woman's, creation's most beautiful curves.

[@siegfriedgreif1533]

Ein Starfighter, der 2018 noch fliegt zeigt doch, dass er gar nicht so schlecht gewesen sein kann, wie er bezeichnet wird.

[@playnidhogg9825]

Ne

[@ahmadtheaviationlover1937]

Woooooooow!!! What a cool looking jet

[@sanfranciscobay]

1:30 2 gallons per second burned when in full afterburner.

[@fromnorway643]

About 1.5 if my calculation based on the J79's specific fuel consumption is correct.

[@sanfranciscobay]

@@fromnorway643 I've read 1.5 - 2 gallons per second. Maybe altitude changes it?

[@fromnorway643]

@@sanfranciscobay The Wiki article about the General Electric J79 engine states that its specific fuel consumption is 1.965 pounds per pound of thrust per hour with afterburner. I did my calculation based on that plus the total thrust (17,900 pounds) and a fuel density of around 0.8 kg/litre. The article didn’t specify the altitude, but jet engines generally lose thrust with increasing altitude due to thinner air and they will thus burn less fuel due to less available oxygen.

[@nynthworld4152]

Love it!👍

[@FlyingRob1]

I own an original F-104 actuator for rear flaps, inside prepared to put a cognac bottle in it. Ideal for the desk of the boss! I want to sell it. Interested?

[@q95oldies57]

Yep, that big GE J-79 engine.

[@deanarupe73]

The 104 just isnt a 104 without the polished aluminum look.

[@ukspizzaman]

Perhaps, maybe, just possibly, the colour has something to do with the colour of the terrain here? Im just guessing.

[@x-Badb_Catha-x]

This is how they often looked in service outside the USA ....where the vast bulk of their service was. Their career in the usaf was short. Long live the 104, flaws and all. Love this plane specifically and appreciate the vid.

[@darrellbedford9925]

@@ukspizzaman I agree Nothing is like the natural aluminium CF104. Also my dining room table is bigger than the wing on the CF104.

[@superskullmaster]

Who’s here after listening to the Fighter Pilot Podcast?

[@marcopruna8458]

In U.S.A?

[@fromnorway643]

Bodø, Norway.

[@nickoekanugroho4582]

It even better with dual cocpit

[@RedArrow73]

That flame in the bottom of the hot section ought to have been of great concern. I'm afraid it wasn't.

[@Nana-rk2xn]

Music to my ears. 🤙

[@georgiostagaris6416]

A pretty good landing

[@GTfour01]

So cool. Only the Starfighter.

[@ВиРе-н2ю]

Terrific crying sound of nuclear apocalypse

[@BauerPauer]

sounds of ma childhood...awesome

[@4kpingu]

i cean hear the feeling of the afterburner thundering through his body

[@theronfarrer8974]

A giant jet engine with a couple of stabilizer slats sticking out the sides.

[@svens.5139]

From releasing brakes on the runway to 40.000 feet (12,2Km) altitute in under 2 minutes.

[@spitfirenutspitfirenut4835]

Nothing accelerates like a 104!

[@fromnorway643]

Its take-off acceleration was probably around 0.7 g, which isn't that much by modern standard. It took about 21-22 seconds for it to leave the ground. Compare with this F-16, also in Norway, that only needed 12 seconds: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4e8gZ1mqZanhMU

[@spitfirenutspitfirenut4835]

@@fromnorway643 A 104 will reach Mach 2 well before an F-16.

[@spitfirenutspitfirenut4835]

@@fromnorway643 And a 104 is still accelerating at mach 2 while an F 16 has run out of steam.

[@fromnorway643]

@@spitfirenutspitfirenut4835 Many newer fighters, including F-16, have better thrust/weight ratio than the F-104, and are thus able to accelerate faster during take-off and at subsonic speed. The F-104 excels at supersonic speed because its streamlined, rocketlike fuselage and short, thin wings with almost knife sharp leading edges produces less drag than most other fighters, enabling it to beat many of them despite its lower thrust/weight ratio. Fighters that do beat or at least match the F-104's top speed (F-15, F-22, Eurofighter etc) generally do that by "brute force", i.e. higher thrust/weight ratio.

[@postoffice146]

@@fromnorway643 But take-off speed of the minimal winged Starfighter probably is also much higher than the F-16's so that's why it takes more time.

[@drumdude46]

Thing has a Vref of like 160 - 170 on approach. lol! very, very Fast.

[@jmace5964]

Landing speed faster than most ga aircraft max speed

[@andrelabbe5315]

Une merveille mes cristy qui sont bruyant

[@Orcinus1967]

It's really more of a missile than a plane. Fuckin' A!

[@paulkelly8596]

Where the hell in gods earth is this?

[@agskytter8977]

Bodø, Norway

[@francescolanza1676]

Progettato dal grande Kelly Johnson!

[@carti9248]

wings are so sharp

[@williamsimmons152]

The landing speed was such that the wheels had to be spun up before touchdown.

[@kennylangley1997]

This is one wicked jet.😎👌👌

[@lewiskemp5893]

What a sound

[@3thedward]

German nickname „Witwenmacher or Erdnagel „

[@wirikuta14]

The landing speed is fucking crazy.

[@drigobarreto]

Boy.... that landing was toooooo way long. In my jet fighter times touching after PAPI was automatically Touch and Go... no way trying it further.

[@cherubiel1017]

Awesome

[@alanlake5220]

Got to love the Starfighter

[@rudigersiebels6919]

Incredible sound

[@ZOMb2010]

Lov THE WIDOW MAKER ..

[@jakobole]

When that afterburner turns on......

[@Yippiia]

This is like a 1950s f16!