F-104G Starfighter - Inside The Cockpit

The F-104 Starfighter is about as iconic as they get so let's not waste words and jump onboard!
- Get our Book -
Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
- Poster -
Buy your F-104G Starfighter poster: teespring.com/en-GB/f-104g
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
- Museum -
Big thank you to the Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim and the helpful staff
www.deutsches-museum.de/en/fl...
Thumbnail image: F-104G Starfighter at MHM Berlin-Gatow www.mhm-gatow.de/
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
- Sources -
Arthur Reed, F-104 Starfighter, Ian Allan Ltd, 1981
CCV-F-104G A Historical Cornerstone, M Forum December 2000
Klaus Knopf, German Starfighters, Midland Publishing 2002
Lockheed Report 1-14404-1, F-104G Flight Manual, Dec 1960, Revised June 1961,
Martin Bowman, Lockheed F-104 Starfighter: A Histroy, Pen & Sword Aviation, 2019
- Timecodes -
00:00 - Thank you
00:22 - Intro
01:35 - The basics
02:30 - Walkaround
11:49 - Engine
14:52 - Weapons
16:50 - Gear
17:10 - buy my stuff time
17:26 - Cockpit
26:16 - Conclusion
27:15 - Thank you
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

*Get your poster here* teespring.com/en-GB/f-104g Hey ya'll, the museums support on this episode was utterly fantastic - they are really proud of having this aircraft in their collection, take excellent care of it and love showing it off! Please put them on your list to visit - museums really could use the help at the moment. Also, filming this episode was a bit challenging because of various reasons I don't want to go into here (let's just say I learned my lesson) so apologies if it doesn't look as good (?) as usual.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I wish I could go back to Germany and see the museums. When I was a child I was there between 1962 and 1965. Part of the school functions were field trips to the museums. Even back then they were beautiful. I was fascinated by all of them. I was in Nuremberg and munchen. I can't name the museums I want to obviously it's been a little while. I wish I could go back but I never will get to. I was is even on one of the last few ships to carry dependents from Europe to the United States. The general Maurice Rose. I sailed from bremerhaven to New York in November. With a Mid-Atlantic full-blown Gale to add to the excitement. I really miss Germany. My mom and dad who were World War II veterans, my mom a veteran of the blitz in London, my dad was six Armored Division, they loved Germany and the people. In spite of carrying mental and physical scars from the war. That was behind them.

[@daretriever9108]

can only recommend, was the first museum i visited after lockdown was eased in may/june (?) 2020.. Hope i can go back to visit soon

[@frankbarnwell____]

mach 2. thanks

[@ColonelVermel]

I will definitely visit there again... when it is allowed. It is a little unfortunate that normal visitors cannot get this close to those beauties :-)

[@LtFalcon]

I love this museum, I like how they just let you walk around the MiG-15. That poster looks great! I'd love to see them done for other jets too

[@katiejackson3900]

Moving mechanisms?! I am absolutely amazed by this exhibit!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Oh man, this is 'THE' exhibit you need to see at the museum. If you are lucky, they'll even have their F104G specialist there on the day and he loves to show people how it works!

[@katiejackson3900]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory Well, the next time I'd even remotely be able to see it is Christmas (It'll all be over by Christmas, Round 2) since I have my uni course to deal with, but one day soon I want to travel to see Germany's museums and air shows - reckon I can schedule the specialist a few years in advance? ;)

[@APV878]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory you and the museum staffer looked like two kids in a candy store, you must have been giggling and nerdgasming all day.

[@jonahsmith2708]

An attestment to German love of mechanical engineering and keeping it in tip top shape

[@lewiscole5193]

@@jonahsmith2708 A piddly point of no real importance, but when the F-104s first arrived in (West) Germany, they didn't even have hangers to put them in. That was something that came later when the military managed to get the bucks they needed out of the German government.

[@tallperson9422]

I was stationed in Iceland , 75-77, when two F104s visited from Germany. When they left one blew a tire on takeoff and had to return and make an emergency landing. The pilot did a great job with minimum damage to the aircraft. We did notice that his flight suit was wet from sweat which was understandable given the situation. We all ended up at the officers club and did celebrate the safe return of the pilot.

[@TheSpoon369]

very cool, good job to the pilot that day

[@helischorsch9786]

...wet flight suit, I could imagine! They came in on a high speed and quite often the pilots were facing a wobbling at the small and sensible front landing gear...root cause were air in the hydraulic system and a slightly too high landing speed 😳...a beautiful beast 😎

[@UsoundsGermany]

F 104 having the range to Island ? Strange as he just explained F104 G did NOT have the refueling probe

[@lewiscole5193]

@@UsoundsGermany The ferry range of an F-104G (i.e. max internal and external fuel) is supposedly around 1800 miles. The distance from Germany to Iceland as the crow flies is supposedly around 1400 miles. So at least theoretically, you can get there from here without refueling and that's assuming that they didn't start out from some closer intermediate stop like Norway or the UK.

[@kermitlynotfound1129]

@@UsoundsGermany if the max fuel load with drop tanks will get you 1800 miles and the distance from Germany to Iceland is around 1400 mile's then there is no need to refuel, do some research before questioning someone's story

[@roadrunner6224]

I think Starfighter is still the best name ever for a "fighter" jet.

[@outdooradventureHungary]

yes definitly

[@GForce_Shutter]

With new avionics system, radar and electronic equipment make it nice recon plane. Plus with computer guided unit, from widow maker it will be widow producer

[@outdooradventureHungary]

@@GForce_Shutter i know german starfighter pilots ,it was a ver good plane ,it was a rocket with2 small wings ,you sit on a powerful engine.The pilots like to fly the plane becouse it was a lot of fun

[@PrograError]

well... so great it got a namesake in star wars....

[@LL-vy5bj]

Agreed! ”Thunderstreak” is a strong contender though IMO

[@TheRetu81]

I like how the warning label outside the cockpit specifies that the aircraft has an upward firing ejection seat. The first Starfighter models had a downward firing seat.

[@maxwellharris507]

All because of the tail.

[@infernosgaming8942]

That was the main difference between the A and B models, the A's had a downward-firing ejection seat, however, the loss of crew during emergency ejections before or during failed landings became a real issue due to a lack of manpower in the 50s.

[@martijn9568]

@@infernosgaming8942 I believe the upwards firing ejection seat came much later than the B-model, as the B-model was the trainer aircraft and variant of the A-model. I don't remember when the B-model entered service but it would probably be less than a year after the A-model, considering that the multirole C-model entered service in the same year as the A-model.

[@TLTeo]

@@maxwellharris507 The tail and the fact that early ejection seats were terrible, so it's not like there was much of a choice

[@TLTeo]

@@martijn9568 A, B, C and D all entered service in 1958. I think the first downward ejection seats were fitted to -G models, but I'm not sure. Some USAF jets may have also had them.

[@cingo19]

In Italy it was in service until 2005. Such an iconic plane ❤️

[@jayklink851]

Man, I miss the days of the 'Discovery Wings' Channel, thank god for Bismarck. Unfortunately, the (English) aviation community isn't catered to by production networks, Bismarck (and other private content creators) is a hero!

[@scullystie4389]

I had stacks of those early 90s episodes on VHS tapes, my dad would record them for me. Such a good show, probably not the most historically or technically accurate documentaries, but very entertaining.

[@jayklink851]

@@scullystie4389 Ahh, VHS, I feel a bit of nostalgia just mentioning it lol. 'Wings of the Luftwaffe/Red Army' were just a few of the good ole days. For a while anyway, they re-aired DWC programs on the Military Chanel. Sadly though, the MC transitioned to the mediocre 'American Hero Chanel' ; essentially gone the way of the History Channel. The Military History Channel will be deeply missed.

[@GrausamerKerberos]

I used to religiously watch airplane-themed documentaries every Sunday on satellite channel Planète back in the 00s. They must have accounted for more than 80 percent of my aeronautical knowledge when dial-up internet was a luxury.

[@tharos]

Great video, it's really an iconic aircraft, especially for those of us in countries where it stayed in service for a very long time. When I was young in the 90s and didn't know much about airplanes, I remember seeing a recently retired Greek F-104 and thinking "wow that's so modern!"

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Thank you! Hey, I saw a video of Greek F-4 the other day, I think it was from a few years ago but that was great.

[@5555petros]

Really? Pretty sure most of us have the F-5A and Mirage F1CG in much higher regard than the F-104. Even by 1993 we had kept it way longer than we should have.

[@tharos]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory Well, it's still in Greek service, so it could have been very recent, but it is one of my favorite airplanes!

[@tharos]

@@5555petros Yeah, I was probably about 8 years old when I first saw it, and the people I was with told me it was recently retired, and I was like "oh it looks so cool" and then they told me about the whole Widowmaker stuff. Still think it looks amazing though.

[@Lawofimprobability]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory I had met one of the last US F-4 pilots. He indicated that a very distinct culture had developed among later F-4 pilots than of the more conventional fighter bubbas.

[@lilpold9192]

Fun fact, I worked on this exact plane when I was an intern at the Deutsches Museum Schleißheim. It was in restoration for quite some time. I also got to stand on the wing of the Me262 and look in the cockpit. I remember that we weren’t allowed to open the cabin because of the radioactive colour that was used to make numbers visible at night.

[@cheesepuffguy]

Radium? Damn, so hot it radioactive.

[@VeraTR909]

@@cheesepuffguy Maybe tritium? that is more often used now for night sights etc. Short half life though, but not as bad for you as the old radium dials.

[@peterstickney7608]

@@VeraTR909 Radium. Nobody (Especially Germany) was making Tritium in the 1940s. It may seem like the dosage levels would be low, but with a closed-up museum exhibit, the decay products in the air in the cockpit would not be something you'd want to breathe.

[@cheesepuffguy]

@@VeraTR909 Glad to hear it! Since the Starfighter took over for "the last dogfighter" Sabre I was hoping those poor Radium Girls weren't still having to lick their paintbrushes to paint on number dials.

[@RaedwaldBretwalda]

I noticed one of the exhibits (the Bolton Paul Defiant, I think) at the RAF Museum in Hendon (London) had a radioactivity warning sign inside the cockpit. So, a common problem with some old aircraft, I guess.

[@Kevin-kf9ct]

I believe the West German joke ran along the lines of: How do you catch a Starfighter? . . . . . . Buy a big field and wait.

[@derekbowbrick6233]

Don't pick on the flying rock. lol

[@luisnunes2010]

Can't believe Germany kept that deathtrap for so long. It's not like we're talking about a poor country...

[@b.griffin317]

I wonder if East Germany ever caught on to that trick. "Air Defense Fields"

[@derekbowbrick6233]

@@b.griffin317 lol

[@robertlobianco8917]

Too accurate.

[@fraserhenderson7839]

As a child in the 1960s, at Cold Lake Air force base in Alberta, Canada, these spectacular aircraft filled my skies. The mighty, thundering J79 would rattle your windows daily and nightly. At an airshow, I watched an F104 "zoom", climbing vertically until it was out of sight in a clear sky in less than a minute but with the engine roar still audible. It was a purpose built aircraft that was misused and misunderstood by almost all (non flying) users. The actual widow makers were the officials who decided to make pilots operate the aircraft far outside it's flight parameters. It didn't deserve the bad press.

[@ghostdiaries369]

Damn good days

[@outerrealm]

Flight parameters? As in the thing was a missile with fins for wings and its flight parameters were "it barely flew". Unless you could fly a missile. There's a reason the US military dumped all its 104s on foreign countries. It may have looked cool and had a few impressive specs, but it was a major failure

[@fraserhenderson7839]

@@outerrealm Whatever you say. You are obviously an credible authority. Who could argue with your eloquent rhetoric? And why waste the effort?

[@lewiscole5193]

@@outerrealm > Flight parameters? As in the thing was a > missile with fins for wings and its flight > parameters were "it barely flew". At high speeds, you don't need a lot of wing area to generate enough lift to fly and so the F-104 flew quite well. > There's a reason the US military dumped all > its 104s on foreign countries. The U.S. military didn't dump all of it's own F-104s on foreign countries. All of its F-104s (i.e. F-104As, F-104Bs, F-104Cs, and F-104Ds) were originally foisted off onto Air Guard units as is the habit of the Air Force, before the were retired entirely from service. The F-104s used by foreign countries were "Super Starfighters" (F-104Gs), which is to say F-104s whose design was modified by Lockheed to satisfy the requirements imposed by the Europeans (in particular the Germans) when they (the Europeans) wanted to buy new aircraft to modernize their air forces. While many F-104Gs were produced by Lockheed in the U.S. for the Europeans, many of them were manufactured under license in Europe by the likes of Messerschmitt, Fokker, and Fiat while in Japan, they by Mitsubishi and Kawasaki from parts made in the U.S. by Lockheed. As for the reason(s) why the USAF gave up on the F-104, the main one was they wanted to get other fighters that were becoming available like the F-4. Even though the F-104 was originally designed to be a daylight air superiority fighter, they were bought by the USAF to be interim interceptors (point defense) until the interceptor they really wanted, the F-102/F-106, became available. The USAF was not happy with the F-104 in the interceptor role because while it could climb like crazy, its limited fuel meant that a very limited range to the point where a bomber flying at a high enough altitude couldn't be intercepted until the bomber was already over it's target. > It may have looked cool and had a few > impressive specs, but it was a major failure When flown the way it was supposed to be flown (i.e. in slashing attacks), the F-104 was able to best the F-86, F-100, and F-4 in aerial combat according to the results of Project Feather Duster (Feather Duster II, I believe). That doesn't look like a "major failure" to me.

[@TheKrakovv]

can u elaborate on the misuse of aircraft, what were they doing wrong?

[@DouglasJenkins]

I have a cousin who was a test pilot on a later version of the F-104 when a re-engine called for a lengthened fuselage. This was in mid-60's. In a flight test for aileron flutter in its new configuration, he was to put the test craft into a dive from 40,000' down to 20,000' (12.2 km - 6.1 km) going about 1400 mph (2254 km/h), report any flutter and pull up. As he got to the 20,000' altitude, he discovered that aerodynamic forces would not allow him to pull back on the control stick, until pulling with both hands on the stick and both feet pressing on the instrument panel! The aircraft began a VERY slow recovery from the dive, but my cousin doesn't remember it, as the G forces caused him to black out. The instrument recorder showed that even though he blacked out, he kept the back pressure on the stick, and the plane reached the lowest altitude of 1,500' (.46 km) before heading back up. He regained his senses going back up through 20,000' ! (edit) By the way, he refused to eject, as a test pilot friend just the week before had ejected at a similar speed and since the canopy had failed to blow away, had both arms cut off when he went through the canopy.

[@gort8203]

That must have been a different aircraft because aerodynamic forces cannot be transmitted to the control stick of the F-104.

[@DouglasJenkins]

@@gort8203 Correct, the direct forces were not felt in the controls, but the controls were given the affects of the forces on the surfaces so the pilot could "sense" their input and effects!

[@gort8203]

@@DouglasJenkins Sorry, but you must have misunderstood your cousin. First of all, you said: "the aerodynamic forces would not allow him to pull back on the control stick". That is not possible because there is no sensing of aerodynamic load by the control system, and no mechanism to provide feedback based on those not-sensed loads. The "artificial feel" system of the F-104 control stick was quite standard for its time, and consisted mainly of centering springs, with some cams and maybe a bobweight. The purpose of a bobweight is provide some resistance to aft stick movement proportionate to G load; requiring more backstick pressure to produce higher G makes fine control of G easier with less tendency to overshoot the desired G load. The additional stick force required has nothing to do with aerodynamic forces, and in absolutely no case is significant enough to prevent the pilot from pulling the stick to the aft stop with one hand. If an F-104 pilot ever had to brace his feet on the instrument panel to pull the stick back it was due to a control system jam or a foreign object physically obstructing movement of the stick.

[@DouglasJenkins]

@@gort8203 You may be right. And cannot check with him now.

[@gort8203]

@@DouglasJenkins Sorry to hear that he is no longer available. But he did get to fly the F-104, of which I am envious.

[@thejll]

When I was a kid in the ‘60s, and lying in hospital with a broken leg, my Dad gave me an F-104 kit. It had a small electric motor to make an ‘engine sound’. It was simply the best.

[@carlmontney7916]

The F104 also known as the "Missile with a Man in it". Very deadly when flown by a competent pilot.

[@lookythat2]

That appellation was never used by anyone in USAF service.

[@romainlerallut1409]

Also very deadly when flown by a rookie pilot. Though maybe not deadly for the same people. :)

[@kylematlock7499]

@@romainlerallut1409 there was a joke in the Luftwaffe at that time... What's the easiest way to get a Starfighter?... Buy a piece of land, and wait.

[@Andy-ub3ub]

​@@kylematlock7499catch a falling starfighter put it in your pocket, Save it for a rainy day.

[@jayklink851]

👍👍Thank you for traveling to create this brilliant content for your subscribers. And a special thank you to Mark, and other patrons.

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Thanks Jay, very appreciated!

[@AsbestosMuffins]

1940s japan: "make a missile with a man on it" 1950s lockheed: " write that down, write it down!"

[@stejer211]

Everything in your comment is incorrect.

[@stejer211]

@@kermitlynotfound1129 I'm sorry but that was an interceptor, not a missile.

[@kermitlynotfound1129]

@@stejer211 im sorry but you clearly didn't get the joke

[@stejer211]

@@kermitlynotfound1129 Because there is no joke ;) Jokes should be grounded in reality or they don't work.

[@kermitlynotfound1129]

@@stejer211 yeah tell that to all 133 people who liked his comment

[@Emre0lcay]

Aah yes, the first plane I saw close up, the school I went to for an exam in Turkey had an F-104G Starfighter which was exhibited next to it's engine, exam was horrible but man seeing this plane had made my day! Great video and as always it is a joy seeing you upload, thank you!

[@Idahoguy10157]

Kelly Johnson never intended the Starfighter to be an air-to-ground bomb truck. An unforgiving aircraft at low level. The Luftwaffe should have split their buy with an Attack aircraft. Perhaps with the A-4 Skyhawk. As a teen in Arizona I saw Luftwaffe training Starfighters flying around. Beautiful aircraft.

[@sargesacker2599]

Well you see the German government were dumb enough to accept bribes.

[@trekaddict]

@@sargesacker2599 Only the Minister of Defence. They should have gone with what Hartmann apparently suggested, a mix of Mirage IIIs and IIRC A4s or with something else entire, more F-4 Phantom IIs. Double Ugly ftw.

[@raynus1160]

From 'International Starfighter Society's website: "Contrary to popular opinion, the F-104 was not designed as a high-altitude bomber interceptor. The F-104 was designed as a daylight air superiority fighter, with secondary ground attack capability, to replace the F-86. The source of the interceptor misconception is probably the fact that the F-104 first entered service in February 1958 as an interim interceptor with the ADC in the form of the F-104A. The F-104C air superiority fighter did not enter service with TAC until October 1958."

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@trekaddict …. IIRC the Luftwaffe only bought F-4’s starting in early 1970’s. My recollection is that came without radar guided missiles. The original navy F-4 requirement was for fleet air defense fighter. Rather than as the multirole aircraft it morphed into. When NATO was looking for a new fighter the F-4 probably wasn’t being considered…. That’s my guess

[@skittlesbutwithchocolatein2274]

its like training in a golf and then jumping in a ferrari

[@loveofmangos001]

It would be awesome if this German guy worked out a deal with its American museum owners and got to show us the cockpit of the only intact Dornier 335 left in the world. Great video.

[@Tigershark_3082]

I hate to say that, but that's virtually impossible. The Smithsonian will let absolutely NO ONE, save for a restoration team, even near that thing. Same with most of the other aircraft in there.

[@1492tomato]

Since I was a kid, I've thought the F-104 was the coolest aircraft ever built. After this superb video - even more so. Thank you!!

[@57AO]

My sister was married to a Norwegian Air Force pilot, I had the opportunity to climb aboard his Starfighter and one thing I still remember is that it was very cramped even for a eight year old kid.

[@wkelly3053]

The best features of this museum display are the separate working components of the aircraft systems, such as the wing crossection detail with the BLC airflow demonstration. I also appreciated the demo of removing the avionics box and understanding how heavy (or dense) it is. This is where a museum visit teaches rather than merely being a place to see a cool airplane, but walking away with a bunch of question marks in your head. Great cockpit tour also.

[@lordphullautosear]

I was in West Germany in the early '70s. There were many Starfighters flying around then, most often in pairs. They often liked to fly supersonic and pretty low, the booms rattling all the windows in the village. You never heard them coming, but after the boom you heard that unique howling jet engine sound. Awesome aircraft...

[@KO-pk7df]

The placement of the "stores jettison" button in front of the throttle is there so the pilot could instantly push during take-off in case of emergency. At take-off and heavy this was critical. My father and stepfather were fighter pilots and I remember him describing this situation at the officers club while I listened. I used to hang in the background and listen to the pilots talk between themselves. Overheard many cool things. I used to photograph the German F-104s and F-4s at Bitburg AFB and Spangdalum AFB when we were stationed there. Good times.

[@peterstickney7608]

I was going to save this until the later video (Great job, Chris, This makes me want to book a flight to Germany to tour the Museum), but the question has come up in the comments asking why was the Starfighter selected as the standard NATO/German fighter? So I thought I'd give it some context. The only airplane airplane flying in an operational form that met the requirements was the F-104. The requirement was for an airplane that could act as an all weather Interceptor, requiring radar, missile armament, and speed/height of Mach 2.0+ and 50,000'+, and as a strike fighter, carrying a single nuclear weapon at low level, possibly at night and in bad weather. So - high subsonic cruise/supersonic dash at low level, and low gust response. Let's look at where the candidates were at the time of the selection. The Mirage IIIA prototype was still in its initial flight test,(First Flight May 1958). Flight envelope expansion took time, and there was no weapons integration. The combat capable Mirage IIIC didn't fly until October 1960. At that time, weapons consisted of 2 30mm guns, and a single Matra R.530 missile (The worst AAM ever produced). If you were going to fly your Mirage as an Interceptor, you needed to delete the guns to carry the rocket pack's oxidizer. It had no air to ground capability, and Marcel Dassault wasn't interested in adding any. The English Electric Lightning Was still the P.1B, not yet becoming the Lightning F.1. It was a fantastic point defense interceptor, carried the AI.23 radar (Fairly decent for its day, but very basic) and 2 AAMs. It couldn't carry any air to ground weapons, (No place to put 'em - the wing was full of the landing gear bays) and its range was practically non existent. It was limited by stability to Mach 1.7. (This is from the Pilot's Handbok) The F.3 was cleared to mach 2.0, but didn't fly until 1962. The Saro SR.177 - potentially fantastic - the same radar and weapons as the Lightning, and its fully integrated mixed powerplant (Afterburning turbojet and rocket) would have given it amazing high altitude performance. The only problem was, it only existed in Saunders-Roe's Drafting Office and the sales brochures. The Grumman F11F-1F - the tiny Grumman Tiger with a J79 engine replacing the original low-power J65. Flying at the time of the competition. It had, when it was running well, great performance, and outstanding handling. It suffered from structural issues - stabilator flutter was the worst, and potentially disastrous, and the prototypes had some teething issues that made performance testing a "Good Day/Bad Day" proposition. Weapons shapes were installed, but no drop tests or firing trials were ever performed, nor were any radar or tactical systems installed. The Super Tiger had great potential, but Grumman really didn't want to get into the export fighter market, using the competition to break in its international sales force. The F-104. The F-104A interceptor entered squadron service in January 1958. The F-104C Tactical Fighter went operational in November 1958. While these aircraft had systems more limited than the F-104G, they were demonstrating routine Mach 2+ performance, and were cleared for firing missiles and dropping bombs. Lockheed proposed a variant with a NASARR multimode radar, capable of air to air search/intercept, and ground mapping/terrain clearance, a Litton Inertial Navigation System, and more pylons. The prototype F-104G flew in Oct 1960. The NASARR radar and its weapon interfaces were also going into the F-105 (With a Doppler Navigator rather than the INS), and was flying in testbed aircraft. So - of the principal candidates, 4 actually existed. (Mirage IIIA, barely, EE P.1B/Lightning, Super Tiger, and the F-104) 2 could actually meet the required performance. (Super Tiger and F-104) 1 was actually in service, and was qualified to drop ordnance - (F-104) From that perspective, the F-104 looks to be pretty much the only choice. In terms of tactical utility, the F-104 brought great speed and climb, good range, and a weapons fit that provided the ability to act as an interceptor or strike/recce airplane. It had better supersonic maneuverability than any of its contemporaries, and was the equal or superior of anything at 550 kt+.(you wouldn't want to be knife fighting with a MiG-17 at 350 kts, but that's a sucker's game no matter what you are flying.) For carrying your bomb or camera at 600 kts+, 200', in any weather, it was unbeatable (If you don't count the F-105 and F-111), able to go anywhere without anyone doing much of anything about it. If you were a decision maker for your nation's military, you could watch a paper presentation on how the Mirage, or Lightning, or SR.177 or even the Super Tiger was going to be Really Awesome, Someday, Believe It!, or you could Climb into the back seat of 2-seat F-104 (Either a B or D), fly it up past Mach 2/50,000', drop some bombs, (or, more likely watch a firepower demonstration), and talk to the Line Pilots and Maintainers.

[@infernosgaming8942]

The thing I love about jets is that because most of them were made in the last 60 or so years and because all the components are light, you can just take apart the aircraft and then put it back together many times, you just can't quite do that with tanks. Lovely video, I personally really like the F-104, damn awesome-looking jet, right alongside the F-111 Aardy.

[@nickbayer7847]

One of my favorites as a kid and STILL is today👍👍

[@Kim-the-Dane-1952]

As a kid in Denmark in the 60ies you used to be able to watch these things go whipping by the coast of Falster at only a few hundred feet. Pretty impressive sight. I believe the Danish air force used to refer to them as flying coffins

[@knightonwarbeck1969]

Well done. My father flew the CF-104 in the early 70's. Cheers.

[@erpelschlut5092]

Main problem in use with the west-german Luftwaffe was it's use as a fighter-bomber, what it was never designed for and what resulted in all of the accidents and deaths of pilots leading to the nickname of a "widow-maker" ("Witwenmacher").

[@mattbowden4996]

I think a more accurate description was that it was miss-sold to the West German Luftwaffe as a fighter bomber... My recollection of events was that the Luftwaffe brass didn't want it and said that Lockheed had exaggerated it's multi-role capabilities, so Lockheed passed the people responsible for procurement decisions some suspiciously stuffed looking brown envelopes and hey-presto - the Luftwaffe got the F104 whether they wanted it or not.

[@robertpatrick3350]

The big problem was that they bought the wrong plane because of corruption

[@spartanx9293]

If they wanted a fighter bomber why didn't they buy the f105

[@laurencethornblade8357]

@@spartanx9293 Nuclear strike fighters are not for sale.

[@spartanx9293]

@@laurencethornblade8357 wasn't the f-104 certified for a nuclear bomb

[@tomscotttheolderone364]

Thanks for such a terrific tour of this remarkable jet. I was enchanted with the F-104 as a young boy, and remember laying on my back and watching them fly over. My greatest experience with the plane was flying in formation with a couple of them in 1971 after intercepting them at more than Mach 1 in an inverted dive!

[@billy.g3597]

I was serving at RAF Cottesmore in the late 80's. German and Italian F 104' s could be seen at the visiting aircraft section on a regular basis. Each 104 had an external tank on every pylon. You could tell they were old and worn . Because under each 104 was a 104 shaped silhouette of drip trays.

[@scullystie4389]

On a lot of these older jets, if it ain't leaking something is wrong

[@CheezyDee]

@@scullystie4389 If it ain't leaking, better add more fluid; the tank is dry.

[@brianreddeman951]

At the Chino, California Planes of Fame museum you can tell which ones are in running condition: Drip pans.

[@LukeBunyip]

"Big thank you to the Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim and the helpful staff" Seconded. Being able to look at some of the componentry in detail was an added boon.

[@Minong_Manitou_Mishepeshu]

In 1978 they had an F-104 at Flint's Bishop Airport for an air show. I was 3 years old and still remember my dad telling about how sharp those little wings were and how they could mess you up by hitting your head on that leading edge.

[@nephilimcrt]

That wink at 11:48 after 'and then we'll jump inside'... :D

[@KitKabinet]

The tell-tale Starfighter howl was one of the coolest jet engine sounds ever.

[@DavidRamirez-ww5kv]

Bad ass aircraft. My favorite jet fighter of the Cold War. Fast, excellent climb rate and well armed. A pilot with the right stuff could out match any other aircraft of its day. Thank you for posting.

[@kimbonzky]

Love the 104, first aircraft I worked on in high school

[@boletus104]

I had my last flight with the F104 the 30th October 2004, it was amazing flying the "Chiodo.

[@themodernwarfarehistorian825]

This makes me so happy, the F104 is one of my favourite modern planes!

[@TheDevicemanager]

lmao a modern aircraft this is a second gen fighter. we are currently on 6th gen

[@captaincurd2681]

F-104 was far ahead of its time. Its an honor for me to have flown for hunderds of hours over germeny. It saved my life eight times. Strike Fighters : Project 1.

[@thunderace4588]

Thank you for taking the time to do the research on the F-104 Starfighter, and then making this interesting and informative video for us Bismark. Thank you for sponsoring this video Mark.

[@filrut]

Man, I really gotta get me one of those sticks with strings.

[@Robin6512]

one of the most beautiful aircraft.

[@cannonfodder4376]

It's in beautiful shape I must add. And the moving controls and systems!! Oh that's just wonderful. A fantastic video on a often overlooked aircraft Bis. Excellent work.

[@edwardmarshall5295]

Hey Bismark, another great video on the Starfighter. Thank you for keeping these reminders alive. They bring back some real memories, especially your diplomatic breezing over the euphemistic reference to nukes as "special weapons". They were indeed special. We had them on our RCAF base at Baden-Baden. One incident comes to mind. We were subject ("SW") to surprise tactical evaluation ("TacEval") checks by NATO HQ. Every available flight worthy 104 was lined up for a SW loading drill. There are certain sounds you don't want to hear at certain times, like "Oops" in brain surgery. On one occasion during the SW loading drill, I heard a "Thud" followed virtually simultaneously by pandemonium! A SW had rolled off the fingers of the loading vehicle when the operator mishandled the clutch, resulting in a jerk of the vehicle!! OMG!! Well, obviously it didn't go off because I'm telling the story. Maybe it was even a training dummy, who knows. But we all laughed it off, except for the TacEval personnel of course. Still, we passed the test. Not quite a Broken Arrow, but a near miss to be sure.

[@brealistic3542]

Erich Hartman ,ww2 leading ace and Luftwaffe pilot reenlisted in the new Luftwaffe after the war as a senior officer. He recommended that the Luftwaffe not buy the F-104 because he felt the new service wasn't ready for such a advanced fighter and he was right.

[@pclayton5063]

When I was stationed at Luke AFB in Arizona in the early 1970's I worked in the flight simulator shop where we just happened to have an F-104 simulator. We also had an F-100 and two F-4 simulators. I was there two years and spent plenty of idle time in the cockpits of the simulators and the F-104 was the only one I couldn't land without crashing. No glide path whatsoever.

[@KO-pk7df]

Also cool was the F-104 pilots wore 'spurs' on there flight boots. They connected to ejection seat to pull there feet back instantly during ejection. It was cool seeing them walk around the flightline cafe, Im sure they wore them proudly!

[@nervo6321]

You must be psychic i was only thinking earlier this week how great it would be for you to do a video on the iconic Starfighter...and here it is...fab.

[@robertlobianco8917]

I actually used to have pics of the 109 and 262 from a visit to the Deutches Museum in 1970 while on a study tour in Germany. It is a great museum, although the 104 wasn't there yet because they were still in active duty with the Luftwaffe. I saw 104s every morning from our dorm in Kleiningersheim when they flew a morning patrol along the Neckar River--sometimes transonic which would shake you out of your bed. Terrific experience all the way around

[@TheWeatherbuff]

Make your hobby your profession. That's what my grandfather used to say. Thanks for another great episode, Chris!

[@erpelschlut5092]

I assume/hope he is doing already.

[@dmh0667ify]

I "flew" the SF2 flight-model in the Strike Fighters 2 Desert Storm Mod, and it was an interesting experience. Apparently, the Italians had a squadron there of UNARMED F-104s that was used for Reconnaissance missions. Things could obviously get a bit scary, if there was a Iraqi MiG-23 or 25, and there was no Allied fighter cover. Great to see the plane!

[@daskurka]

"Banking with intent to turn" best quote ever on this aircraft.

[@markfrommontana]

As you aptly put it, the F104 was/(is) one Badass airplane! As always, I learned a lot from your production. Thank you. And oh man, would I love to the Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim. That museum is fabulous!

[@philp8872]

Geez, I love those early Mach 2 Jets! Especially the century series: The (shy of Mach 2) F-101 with its twisted development, leading from the goal of an escort fighter to the F-101A/C fighter-bomber and the F-101B interceptor. This mighty F-104, which was clearly an interceptor only but nevertheless got its second role as a fighter-bomber The brutal F-105 fighter-bomber. The beautiful F-106 interceptor which was essentially a F-102B. It was a time when only speed counted, and it was only about 10-15 years after WWII when those machines were developed, just incredible! A crazy time when it was about striking first with nuclear bombs delivered by ac before there were ICBMs, and intercepting those bombers. And retaliate with nuclear armed fighter-bombers, even if your country had ceased to exist - pure madness! Also the Saab Draken, Mig-21, Su-7/9/11 and British Lightning were similar fascinating machines. Even after 60 years they are more fascinating than, let´s say a F-35.

[@LaCorvette]

Oh yes! I've been waiting for this one.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

"spillone" forever! Thank you Chris, can't wait for other f-104 related contents! 😊👍🏻

[@evelynkondrusik5404]

Fantastic video! Thank you!

[@TysoniusRex]

I cannot say how much I enjoyed this video, Chris. While I've always been fascinated by the F104, this was the first walk around that I've seen, and most definitely the first cockpit tour, as well. I was very impressed at how well you explained all of the different instruments in the cockpit: When an untrained person first looks at a modern cockpit, it appears incomprehensible. However, walking through each area and the associated instruments, it quickly becomes very clear both where a pilot would find the most important indicators, but also in which areas to reach the controls to adjust communications, weapons systems, etc. This museum looks simply incredible; hopefully I can visit some day.

[@saamkapadia]

its hard to Believe that this calm intelectual man is the same guy who screams at Bo to get on his gun and trolls everyone by bailing out without telling anyone. xD love you Bis and great video!

[@eottoe2001]

Surprised how advanced they were. TY for the video. TY you, Marc.

[@b.elzebub9252]

22:34 That means that has happened to some, probably several, pilots at some point. Imagine that.. You go slam on the afterburner to go full balls to the wall and *boop* all your external tanks and weapons suddenly pop off. Must have been a major 'woops' moment.

[@martentrudeau6948]

That's a crazy airplane, it's bad ass for sure, but super dangerous too, Germans and Canadians lost a lot of pilots and planes flying it. It's another Kelly Johnson design, and he designed it for speed. The Italians operated them until 2004, they loved it. In the 1950's It's perhaps the best was a Cold War interceptor, IMO, but IDK? It's a very interesting plane, great video, thank you.

[@hansvandijk1487]

Not the best one, but definitely the most beautiful fighter ever built. Greetings from the Netherlands 🇳🇱.

[@1barnet1]

Depends on how you look at it. If the airforce needed an cost effective fast interceptor. It was utterly brilliant. The thing it was sold as a jack of all trades. Which it just isn't

[@hansvandijk1487]

@@1barnet1 Agree! Greetings.

[@gordonwallin2368]

You missed the Canadair version, which I think was the fastest. I had a friend who flew every Canadair ever made, across the Atlantic to West Germany.

[@lewiscole5193]

The Canadian F-104 (AKA the CF-104) was basically an F-104G, but powered by their (Orenda) version of the J-79GE-7 rather than the J-79GE-11 used on the F-104G. The Orenda J-79GE-7 (the J-79-OEL-7) generated 10,000lbf dry (without afterburner) and 15,800lbf wet (with afterburner) which is basically the same as the ratings for the J-79GE-11 used in the F-104G, however. But while these figures are around 10-percent more than that of the J-79GE-3 used in the F-104A, they are also about 10-percent less than the figures for the J-79GE-19 which are 11,800lbf dry and 17,900lbf wet which was used in the even heavier F-104S. And it just so happens that these more powerful J-79GE-19s were put into some of the lighter F-104As that were used by the 318th FIS in Florida The lighter weight and higher thrust should have made these re-engined F-104As the hottest (i.e. fastest) ever. I think it's important to keep in mind though that the F-104s were generally not allowed to fly all out as thermal reasons (IIRC, the temperature at the face of the J-79 would rise above the engineers wanted and eventually, there was some risk that the canopy plastic would soften from the heat as well).

[@argusflugmotor7895]

I’ve been waiting for this

[@marineboy6033]

A really enjoyable video! Many thanks!

[@nackdibby7960]

Beautiful walk through on a beautiful jet!

[@timearll266]

My favorite itc so far, danke!

[@benjaminrush4443]

Excellent Review ! Thank you.

[@wertywerrtyson5529]

The Starfighter is one of the best looking planes. It has that 1950s futuristic look and name. There are other cool planes of the era too like the F 106 Delta Dart but the 104 is my favorite plane of the era.

[@kikass666]

really looking forward to your video on the famous F104G !!!!! FANTASTIC :)

[@itisme314]

Many, many thanks for this one! I love this aircraft!

[@navex4786]

Oh, that brings back memories of my time in the RAF in Germany in the 60s! Luftwaffe F104s often howled their way across the skies at that time. I also recall a cartoon on the wall of an F104 squadron crew room. It showed the said aircraft in flight with an angel holding up each wingtip while the pilot was out of the cockpit, on the fuselage, with a screwdriver and panels off! Can't remember which squadron or where as it must have been 50 or so years ago. Regarding it's bad reputation, it's accident rate wasn't that much different to the EE Lightning we operated. The numbers for the F104 may have been double those of the Lightning but we had only half the number of aircraft producing them! Anyway, great video, keep them coming. Thanks, D.

[@adaw2d3222]

Damn, I've been waiting for this after reading so much about the controversy.

[@christophern1302]

Awesome, thanks for posting.

[@dmforsyth]

In Canada, we used to call them the "Aluminum Death Tube"

[@duckow1]

called it the flying coffin and the widowmaker in Germany

[@irvhh143]

That's why the U.S. bullied, bribed Diefenbaker into cancelling the Avro Arrow, so they could force Canada to buy the 104 flying tu r d.

[@irvhh143]

@Phil Collins what they should do is set the record straight. Of 36 f104 crashes, 33 were blamed on the pilot. Obviously to coverup the deficiencies of the jet.

[@irvhh143]

@Phil Collins history repeats itself with the 737Max. Blame the pilof.

[@irvhh143]

@Phil Collins dead men don't talk. Pawns were made to be sacrificed.

[@lookythat2]

One bit of information that is seldom mentioned is the fact that the plan view of the F-104 Starfighter is almost identical to that of the X-3 Stiletto research plane from 1952. The X-3 was specifically designed to explore the aerodynamics of supersonic (Mach 2.0) flight, but the limitations of existing powerplants (and other issues) resulted in its failure in that mission. Kelly Johnson and the Skunk Works are credited with the design of the F-104, as if they started with a clean sheet of paper, working in a vacuum, without the benefit of any prior research, to produce the first production US Mach 2.0+ fighter. I think it's inconceivable Lockheed was ignorant of, or disregarded, the research done for, and by, the X-3 -- especially given the obvious resemblance. I would really be interested in some commentator addressing this question.

[@luciusvorenus9445]

Fantastic and detailed video

[@johnpaterson4163]

Fantastic video, thank you.

[@DeadBaron]

I hope we see this in DCS someday, because holy hell is it done dirty in War Thunder. Not modelled well, maps too small, and faces far superior forces. (Not to mention the grind needed to buff its stats, done with free to play mechanics)

[@FallenPhoenix86]

Theres a very good series of F-104's available for FSX/P3d. The same studio (SSW) also made a G91, which is currently being ported into DCS by a 3rd party (with the blessing of SSW as I understand it). Fingers crossed that the G91 goes well and the 104G/S follows.

[@DeadBaron]

@@FallenPhoenix86 yeah but FSX and P3D don't have combat or anything right?

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@DeadBaron No, but my point was that the studio that made it appears to be moving into DCS. Still worth a look, even in FSX/P3d. Unlike most developers they have real world experience of the types they model, the lead developer was an AMI F-104S pilot.

[@philismenko]

@@DeadBaron actually yes, the company made a freeware weapons manager called vacmi but it also uses takpack if you have it, the saw f104g is my pfp as well

[@sylamy7457]

Its modeled well in the game? Or do you mean its flight performance modeling?

[@Dreadnought33]

I love how much access they have given you to the aircraft. Increible video!!!

[@gort8203]

Glad to see some respect for another one of Kelly Johnson's innovative designs. But I wonder if there is a German to English translation issue because I don't understand this statement at around time 6:20: "but it wasn't supposed to be a turner, but it was still very maneuverable; don't think that turning and maneuverability is the same thing because it is not; the aircraft was quite maneuverable"? That requires some explanation because maneuverability is the ability to alter the velocity vector (flight path) of the aircraft, which is done with lift produced by the wing, also known as turning. What do you mean when you use the word maneuverability: controllability or stability perhaps? Unsure what you are trying to say. I just want to add that I am not critical of the performance of the F-104 in any way. It was a great design that delivered exactly what had been asked of it, which was speed and climb superior to any other fighter in production. Back when this airplane was designed, superior speed, climb, and altitude were seen as the decisive advantages in combat rather than turn radius.

[@visionist7]

I wonder how it compares to the Lightning

[@vaccuumrolls7243]

Visionist they were pretty much made for the same purpose, so I would wager similar.

[@bug1701]

I was thinking that myself ... Maybe it had great Pitch and Roll authority, but blead airspeed quickly in a protracted turn? That would be my guess with such a short and highly loaded wing.

[@magoid]

I believe he must be saying the aircraft was very responsive to the controls, after all, some fighters can have problems at high speeds, were the 104 was quite happy to be in. Also, the Starfighter can't turn well only at low speeds. At transonic speeds it is said to do turns surprisingly well, after all, at such speeds the airflow is so high that it small wings represent less drag in the turn. I remember a Canadian pilot telling how they surprised a couple F-15 pilots in a mock dogfight that way.

[@gort8203]

@@visionist7 The Lightening was more powerful and a bit faster, but the biggest difference between them was combat radius--the lightening had very little to speak of. The F-104 was designed for the traditional air superiority role, but the Lightening was a single purpose point defense interceptor, built to defend the UK V-Bomber bases against a preemptive strike by Soviet bombers because the Surface to Air Missiles being developed for that specific purpose were not yet ready. The Lightening carried just enough fuel to quickly fly out and launch its missiles at an incoming bomber, and immediately fly back to refuel and rearm to prepare for a second wave. Ironically, in terms of role it was more 'the missile with a man in it' than the F-104, which was meant to perform more traditional fighter roles. The F-104 was not considered a long range aircraft either, but it had significantly more range than the Lightening.

[@1983jarc]

Oooh, the widowmaker!👍

[@patricktillmanns3949]

Excellent presentation, thank you.

[@lessharratt8719]

Outstanding. Thank You.

[@shannonwittman950]

What a futuristic aircraft for its time. And that stick with strings ... amazing! Just kidding. Thanks to the museum for their helpfulness with this episode and for their terrific exhibits. Man, its great to see you sitting in the cockpit of this particular plane. Its a place unknown to most people.

[@divarachelenvy]

thank you, very informative...

[@3ducs]

There was a rock opera sort of record album about this craft, death played a big part in it. Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters, 1974, nerd rock.

[@spudgunn8695]

I remember some lines from an old song. "Catch a falling Star Fighter, you can use it as a cigarette lighter!" Can't remember whether it was Here and Now, Daevid Allen or Gong that did that song. Think it was H&N. Gods, I'm getting old!

[@DickHolman]

Robert Calvert & a few friends.

[@spudgunn8695]

No, I remember now, it was captain Lockheed and the Starfighters, Bob Calvert, yeah. My mate had some really odd albums for a punk rocker!

[@DickHolman]

@@spudgunn8695 Well, from memory Viv Stanshall & Jim Capaldi, Arthur Brown, amongst others.

[@spudgunn8695]

@@DickHolman eff me, you must be older than than my 50 yrs old!

[@spudgunn8695]

And I thought I was an old fart!😂

[@davidmeek8017]

Aloha; well done! Very informative video. Keep up the GREAT work! Mahalo

[@EitanRieger]

cool museum! so glad Im moving to Bavaria soon

[@timmotel5804]

My favourite fighter aircraft. Great video. Thanks. Nothing else sounds like it. I was stationed at a F-111 base in New Mexico in 1973 and a F-104 landed for a while.

[@888jackflash]

Nice presentation... very informative and enjoyable

[@danielgonzaleztejedor9486]

Super detailed for us aviation lovers. Thanks.

[@lancecorporaltoby8391]

I witnessed one of these F-104G Starfighters crashing in Gottschied, Idar-Oberstein in June 1978. When I was eleven years old from my Grandparents Balcony.

[@daszieher]

Growing up in the 80's, I consider myself having been slightly geeky, as nobody around me shared my passionate interest for war aircraft. Little did I know, how the marvels of the internet would connect me to so many like-minded people. Not only that, the 21st century even brought me "my own personal television programme". I am very thankful to all circumstances and to the work that individuals put in, so that unknown people like me, can thoroughly enjoy videos like these. It is very much appreciated!

[@claus2427]

My grandfather flew 104's in the Danish airforce and loved them, though it was a difficult to master aircraft compared to F-86 and F-100 in his experience He described the 104 as a engine with wings that could intercept everything the Soviet flew over Danish airspace.

[@sheeplord4976]

I had no idea how large those flight computers were!