F-104G Starfighter - Inside The Cockpit

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@cingo19]

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

[@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.

[@5555petros]

@Lawofimprobability Those guys must have been true chads.

[@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?

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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...

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@peternewman3487]

German people used to say that if you wanted to own a starfighter, Just buy a piece of land as a starfighter was bound to crash into you piece of land sometime soon.

[@annirish784]

My grandfather hated that plane, he saw half his squad die in flight tests. Until he also crashed but managed to survive and broke his legs. Then he retired from the luftwaffe

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@leonardopinto3021]

When i was in the military in 1978 we called it .......flying coffin. Many pilots lost their lives, difficult and dangerous aircraft.I remember a friend of mine named Bruno Benzi who fell in Taranto/Italy/ during a flight....R.I.P

[@lewiscole5193]

With all due respect your friend, while the F-104 pilots killed many German pilots, a lot of those losses of pilots and aircraft were due to it being an especially "difficult" or "dangerous" aircraft, but because it was a quantum leap over what the German Air Force and Navy had experience dealing with before. Many German pilots (as well as pilots of other nationalities) regarded the F-104 is being one of their favorite aircraft to fly, in effect saying that it was an "honest" aircraft albeit an "unforgiving" one.

[@verycreativ233]

@@lewiscole5193 Nah most of those llosses were because lockheed salesmen were lying sacks of shit. they got sold to them as a multirole fighters and the F-104 is anything but that.

[@lewiscole5193]

@@verycreativ233 > Nah most of those llosses were because lockheed > salesmen were lying sacks of shit. Well, being lying sacks of shit is pretty much the definition of any salesman, whether one belonging to Lockheed or not. But more importantly, that does NOT mean that the product they are trying to sell is also a sack of shit. > they got sold to them as a multirole fighters and the > F-104 is anything but that. The [West] Germans asked for a single aircraft that could perform recon, interception, and ground attack ... and was available right away or pretty close to it (meaning preferably with examples already flying). The F-104 wasn't able to do the ground attack bit, but the salesman from Lockheed said that would have them modified so that they could do what the Germans wanted them to and thus was born the "Super Starfighter" AKA the F-104G. During the modification process, the Germans sent some of their pilots (actual WWII pilots, not the relative newbies that infested the reconstituted _Luftwaffe_ at the time) and they flew the F-104G examples that Lockheed produced. So the Germans knew exactly what they were getting. Now at the time, there was really only one alternative to the F-104 and that was the Mirage III. The Germans judged the Mirage as being a better dog fighter, but the F-104 was better at ground attack. You can claim (as many like to) that this was due to bribes, but IMHO, it could and did perform the three roles it was tasked to do at least adequately. If you have some evidence to support a contrary claim, I'd love to hear about it. But if you're just another one of countless clueless dipshits who just likes to repeat the popular mythology, you can save us both a lot of wasted time by just going quiet right now.

[@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.

[@nickbayer7847]

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

[@tofton1977]

My grandfather flew one in Belgian airforce, he crashed the 26-01-1973 due to engine failure during take off.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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

[@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.

[@KitKabinet]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@nephilimcrt]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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!

[@Xtariz]

Very fascinated by the high tech tool "Stick and Strings"

[@ronjon7942]

Ha, beat me to it.

[@filrut]

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

[@mattblom3990]

They have one of these Starfighters are the Langley Museum of Flight outside of Vancouver, BC where I live. The Museum has no security and isn't in the best of shape...The leading wing guards have mostly fallen off and you can touch the wing. If you believe it's exaggerated out sharp they are, think again, like a razor, any pressure will cut your skin as it did mine (I had a recent tetanus shot though!).

[@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.

[@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?

[@daskurka]

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

[@kimbonzky]

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

[@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.

[@boletus104]

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

[@knightonwarbeck1969]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@fibboobbif]

That "widow maker" scandal in Germany: 916 Star fighters in service, 269 crashes, 116 dead pilots and some more fatalities. There was a bad joke in the 1960s about the Lockheed F 140 G, translated: "How do you get to own your own Starfighter? Just buy some farm land and wait"... Kai-Uwe von Hassel (CDU), the German defense minister at the time, commented: "Every air force in the world must expect a certain loss rate even in peacetime. Four years later, his son Joachim died in a Starfighter crash. Guess what? After this loss, the german F 140 was modernized, and equipped with a better ejector seat. That plane was expected to be an allrounder as fighter-bomber, reconnaissance aircraft and interceptor, but it never was. Most fatal accidents happened in very low flight, and/or bad weather... Even at my hometown we had a fatal crash in the early 70s. So the plane itself is not to blame... The US versions were quickly updated... The responsibility for those dead pilots in germany is mostly political incompetence, and some even blame the one who bought those F140 G as corrupt. Interestingly, most pilots loved this airplane more than others. I think cos it was a challenge to fly it, even after security updates were made.

[@lewiscole5193]

> That "widow maker" scandal in Germany: > 916 Star fighters in service, 269 crashes, > 116 dead pilots and some more fatalities. I don't think it's possible for anything to be put out about the F-104 without someone eventually using the expression "widow maker" and referring to the losses in Germany. Interestingly (for me) is that no one mentions that the F-104 in German service had a lower accident rate than the F-84 aircraft they replaced. > There was a bad joke in the 1960s about > the Lockheed F 140 G, translated: "How > do you get to own your own Starfighter? > Just buy some farm land and wait"... There was a similar joke made about the English Electric Lightning (which many armchair pilots seem to like to think would have been a better alternative than the F-104) only in the Lightning version, all one had to do was stake out an area of the North Sea. > Kai-Uwe von Hassel (CDU), the German > defense minister at the time, commented: > "Every air force in the world must expect a > certain loss rate even in peacetime. Four > years later, his son Joachim died in a > Starfighter crash. Guess what? After this > loss, the german F 140 was modernized, > and equipped with a better ejector seat. The Lockheed C-2 ejection seat was not a true zero/zero ejection seat and so its replacement with one that was (the Martin-Baker) did indeed save lives. But let's be clear here: the ejection seat wasn't the reason for the high loss rates of the F-104, at least in the early days, when the rates were at their worst. This is clearly the case because after Steinoff took over the _Luftwaffe_ in 1966 and grounded all of the F-104s, he let them back into the air WITHOUT any changes to the aerodynamics or structure and the accident rate came DOWN. (If there had been a problem with the design of the F-104, the accident rate should have remained high until the design flaw was corrected.) > That plane was expected to be an allrounder > as fighter-bomber, reconnaissance aircraft > and interceptor, but it never was. The F-104 was originally designed to be a daylight air superiority fighter and was pressed into service in the USAF to be a point interceptor. Even so, Lockheed needed to make more money and so offered it to the Germans who were trying to modernize their air force and navy aircraft so they could be fully functional members of NATO. It was the Germans who demanded a single aircraft that could perform three roles, namely the three that you mention. Lockheed said that they could get there from here with the F-104 if they strengthened the airframe, which they did and the result was the F-104G. And despite what you may think, it was a decent enough recon, fighter bomber, and interceptor. > Most fatal accidents happened in very low > flight, and/or bad weather... Ummm, no ... I think not, at least not after the early period when pilots started flying a lot of hours in the F-104. Overall, about a third of all accidents were "pilot error" meaning that the pilot became disoriented and flew into the ground or failed to pull up early enough while diving on the target. About a third were "aircraft" (compressor stalls, hydraulic failures, ... , etc.) which doesn't correlate well with altitude or bad weather and about 20-percent were "other" (bird strikes, FOD, ... , etc.). About 10-percent were "weather" (lighning strikes, ... , etc.). FWIW, here's what former F-104 pilot Wolfgang Czaia had to say on the subject: By 1966 the accident rate was unusually high, and a lot of it was weather-related. Quite often small technical problems would -- due the pilots' inexperience and lack of proficiency -- be the trigger for chain reactions resulting in accidents. Once the wings began flying steadily and pilots were getting the required flight time the accident rate dropped to 'normal' (ten accidents per 100,000 flight hours) - but the public still perceived it as a dangerous machine, with names like the _Witwenmacher_ ('Widow Maker') or _Fliegender Sarg_ ('Flying Coffin'). Compounding the problem was that every subsequent ground or flight accident continued to make major headlines. We had just as many accidents in F-84s and F-86s, but these stories would be buried on page 3 or 4. > Even at my hometown we had a fatal crash in > the early 70s. As one American general said, the problem with Germany is that all of the towns are just two kilotons apart. > So the plane itself is not to blame... Glad to hear you admit that. > The US versions were quickly updated... I have no idea what updates you think were applied to the U.S. F-104s that weren't updated in the case of the German F-104s. The USAF replaced its F-104s with F-4s and F-102s/F-106s because that's what they wanted/had the budget for. They did update some of the F-104As they had with the same J-79 engine used in the Italian F-104Ss which made them into the hottest F-104s around, but the USAF had its mind made up and the F-104s had to go. But the USAF's F-104s weren't the F-104Gs that the Germans bought which was heavily modified compared to the ones used by the USAF. And the Germans were not ignorant of what they were buying as they were got to see what Lockheed did along the way to turning the U.S. F-104 (the A/B or C/D) into the F-104G. > The responsibility for those dead pilots in > germany is mostly political incompetence, > and some even blame the one who bought > those F140 G as corrupt. I would agree about the political incompetence. The F-104 was an incredibly hot aircraft that was a quantum leap compared to what the German military had had before with the result that they weren't ready to deal with its care and feeding. As for political corruption, I think that's a bit of a stretch. There was only one real (i.e. non-paper airplane) alternative to the F-104 in the competition and that while the Mirage III was a better dogfighter than the F-104, the latter was otherwise superior in terms of performance. > Interestingly, most pilots loved this airplane > more than others. I think cos it was a > challenge to fly it, even after security > updates were made. A challenge to fly? Well sort of. I'm sure that different pilots loved it for different reasons, but more often than not, the words that best seem to describe it are an "honest" aircraft, but an "unforgiving" one. IOW, it just did what you told it to do, but if you told it do something you shouldn't, it could kill you in an instant. Belgian F-104 pilot Jan Govaerts said/wrote the following: The F-I04 used to be the hottest fighter for so many years and she could truly be flown high, wide and handsome. Some of her shortcomings were doubtless the result of inexperience on the part of those who designed and tested her, and the political pressure that was exerted in the early years. In the hands of a capable pilot the Starfighter could chalk up respectable gunnery scores on towed targets. It was a good, stable, weapon, platform and handled well under instrument flying conditions. Accidents happened, but they never made us professionals dislike the Starfighter. One thing is certain, many genuine tears were shed into many a beer when the old gal's wheels were chocked and her big turbine wound down for the last time.

[@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.

[@donaldparlettjr3295]

I love how the cockpit is simple and straightforward. I'm an old pilot and glass cockpits can be confusing with to much information and you can't wear certain sunglasses that could cancel out colors and sun glare could wreak havoc. Steam gauges is my comfort zone.

[@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!

[@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.

[@Riccardo_Silva]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@dougwickstrom9870]

The colored lens over the radar indicator is not meant to be removed by the pilot. Its function is to filter the bright blue of the indicator tube surface display to bake it more easily visible to the operator. That it comes off is for cleaning and and for replacing the bezel illumination. Most such filters are only removable in a repair shop, though maintenance crews would often carry the specific tools to remove them while still on the aircraft. The easy removability of this particular filter is unusual.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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).

[@ronniefranks4351]

Beautiful aircraft! I was stationed in Memmingen, Germany at a German Air Force base from 1883-1986. The Germans flew the F104G. It’s like a missile with wings. Love it!

[@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.

[@Robin6512]

one of the most beautiful aircraft.

[@iainbagnall4825]

"I love a good airbrake" someone find this man a Buccaneer!

[@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.

[@b.griffin317]

The wing leading edges have red covers on them since they were notoriously sharp enough to cut yourself on. The wings were very, very thin.

[@praetor678]

Actually while the leading edges were seen to be sharp, the covers are not to protect you, they are there to protect the wing from dents and nicks that would effect the flow of air over the wing.

[@eottoe2001]

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

[@trekaddict]

Ah yes, the most expensive gardening tool in the history of the nation. :D

[@scottyfox6376]

Looks like an effective "Lawn Dart".

[@Bartonovich52]

Pretty sure the B-2 has it beat.

[@subbywan1422]

The "Death Blossom" feature is absolutely phenomenal in this model!

[@larrydugan1441]

An interesting note on the blown land flaps was that there was a separate valve for each wing. As power was brought to idle they did not necessarily close at the same time leaving a significant difference in lift between the two wings. Nasty on landing. If I remember correctly we had to land with a minimum of 85% power on to avoid this effect. Another interesting flap statistic was that when heavy we could use take off flap to 520 knots indicated to avoid stall stick shaker when turning. Very nice video. Thank you.

[@FlyNAA]

Thanks, this was very interesting. On landing, was there a soft stop/detent or anything like that that let you know you were at that 85% without looking, or did you have to pay attention to the RPM to make sure?

[@larrydugan1441]

@@FlyNAA Because of the exceptional high drag when slow power settings were always very high. On a pitch out and turn to final it required full military power in the turn unless the air was cold. No soft detent. Just were careful. Interesting when you got good just above touchdown you could sneak the power back and get very soft landings as the blown air decreased. Very nice airplane to land.

[@raynus1160]

@@larrydugan1441 Were you RCAF?

[@larrydugan1441]

@@raynus1160 Yup. Mostly 421 squadron but I did a year with 441 and a year with 439 when I was in wing standards

[@raynus1160]

@@larrydugan1441 Very cool. I visited a (distant) relative at Baden in 1987 - he was a Hornet driver with 421 Squadron. More recently, I met a former 441 104 driver (and later CF-18 Alert Force Commander) at Calgary's Military Museums cold war hangar - fascinating discussion - really enjoyed his take on both aircraft - especially the 104. -Cheers

[@fellforit]

"Anybody want to buy a Starfighter? Buy an acre of ground and wait"

[@lewiscole5193]

You are aware, aren't you, that there was a similar joke made about the English Electric Lightning only instead of some area of land, the Lightning joke involved some area of the North Sea.

[@fellforit]

@@lewiscole5193 I am definitely aware that this is a quote from an album "Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters" made by Robert Calvert, produced after the German Luftwaffe purchased 916 of these and then crashed 246 of them, losing 116 pilots in the process.

[@lewiscole5193]

@@fellforit I've only listened to the album once or twice and so I'll defer to your knowledge of what's on that album. Nevertheless, I don't recall there being any mention that the Spanish lost no F-104s in seven (7) years of operation for an attrition rate of zero (0). I also don't recall the album mentioning that the _Luftwaffe_ of the F-104 days was *NOT* the same as the _Luftwaffe_ of WWII, since the latter was disbanded more than ten (10) years before the first F-104 arrived in (West) Germany. As a result, German pilots and ground crews were relatively inexperienced especially with regard to high performance jet fighter aircraft (for many German pilots, the F-104 was their first high performance ride) and due to lack of available F-104s in the early days, German pilots had to go back to flying their old obsolete aircraft just to remain current. I'm sure you can point out where this is mentioned in the album though. OTOH, since the subject of the ablum is the F-104 in Germany, I doubt that it mentions that in U.S. hands, the F-100 was lost more often and killed more pilots than the F-104 in the latter's short period of USAF service.

[@fellforit]

@@lewiscole5193 Do you work for Lockheed? If you're trying to sell me an F104 I'm afraid I can't afford one. In fact the album does refer to the out of date practices in the Luftwaffe that contributed to the casualties, while also commenting on the fact that Lockheed sold the F104 to the Germans as a viable all weather, low level ground attack fighter bomber, which it was incredibly unsuited for, with a high wing loading that was worsened by external munitions. I do notice that you quote the perfect Spanish safety record, without also going on to mention the safety record of Canada which lost 46% of its F104s, Belgium which lost 41%, Australia 34% and Italy who lost 37%. Surprisingly, the loss record for the F100 in USAAF service was actually 16.2 per 100,000 flying hours, while the F104 was 25.2. I presume you're a fan of the F104 trying to make a point, but at this stage I think I'm done.

[@lewiscole5193]

@@fellforit > Do you work for Lockheed? Nope. > If you're trying to sell me an F104 > I'm afraid I can't afford one. I'm not trying to sell you anything. > In fact the album does refer to the out > of date practices in the Luftwaffe that > contributed to the casualties, while also > commenting on the fact that Lockheed > sold the F104 to the Germans as a > viable all weather, low level ground > attack fighter bomber, which it was > incredibly unsuited for, with a high wing > loading that was worsened by external > munitions. Well, actually, it was an incredibly well suit low level attack fighter bomber as is demonstrated by the fact that you're still alive to bitch about it. You see, even before NATO was formed, the U.S. made it clear that rather than trying to compete with the Soviet Union in terms of conventional weaponry, if push came to shove, it was *ALWAYS* going to be a case of *WHEN* the U.S. went nuclear, not *IF* it went nuclear. Because of that position, that meant that WWIII wasn't going to be like any previous war where there would be long drawn out battles for air supremacy, but rather one great air battle at the start of the war where nuclear armed bombers and fighter bombers tried to sprint past Soviet air defense to drop their bombs before the inevitable full scale nuclear exchange took place. There was no need for an aircraft that could out dogfight some other aircraft as any aircraft that was willing to engage in such a battle obviously wasn't carrying a nuclear weapon that needed to be blocked. What was needed then, and what history shows is what Europe got, was an aircraft that was able to do its part in being able to threaten the delivery of nuclear weapons without blockage in order to deter a conventional engagement from escalating to an all out nuclear exchange. And the F-104, with its small size and high wing loading was incredibly hard to see and rode like it was on rails as it screamed across the ground was able to do that. OBTW, the F-105 was slightly faster than the F-104 at low altitudes as was demonstrated in Vietnam, but then the Germans weren't offered the F-105s to buy. > I do notice that you quote the perfect > Spanish safety record, without also > going on to mention the safety record > of Canada which lost 46% of its F104s, > Belgium which lost 41%, Australia 34% > and Italy who lost 37%. I didn't mention the "safety record" of the F-104 by other European operators, because what you're talking about is *NOT* the "safety record" of the F-104, but rather it's *ATTRITION* record, that is, how many F-104s were lost as a percentage of how many the operator had to start with. That this isn't the same as an aircraft's safety record should obvious from the fact that aluminum eventually fatigues to the point of failure if it's not replaced, and so given some hypothetical population of aluminum aircraft, all of the aircraft will eventually be lost unless they are replaced (i.e. a 100-percent attrition) regardless of how many pilots are ever lost. If you really want to talk about *SAFETY* , then you have to take into account how many hours an aircraft was flown compared to how many crashes/injuries/fatalities occurred (i.e. it's accident rate). In the case of Canada, for example, they did indeed lose close to half of all their F-104s ... eventually ... but their *ACCIDENT* rate was actually better than the aircraft that the F-104 replaced, namely the F-86. In the 25 years that the Canadians flew the F-104, there were 110 class-A accidents (basically a complete loss of an aircraft or an accident that results in the death or permanent disability of a member of the crew) resulting in the death of 37 pilots. By comparison, in the 12 years that the Canadians flew the F-86, there were 282 class-A accidents with a loss of 112 pilots. IOW, the F-104 was "safer" than the F-86 in the hands of the Canadians. As for the other *ATTRITION* losses that you mention, I notice that you also didn't mention the other European operators which were lower (on the order of 25% or less) attrition which is more comparable to other types of aircraft like Norway or Denmark, the latter being climatically very similar to Germany. Again, though, attrition isn't the same as safety as you are mistakenly trying to suggest. > Surprisingly, the loss record for the F100 > in USAAF service was actually 16.2 per > 100,000 flying hours, while the F104 was > 25.2. I don't know where you came up with your figures, but the ones I have come from the "Accident comparison at first 750,000 flight hours (cumulative)" chart on page 21 of Martin Bowman's book "Lockheed F-104 Starfighter". This chart shows that the F-100 had 471 accidents in 750,000 flight hours where 287 accidents involved the loss of the aircraft and 85 accidents resulted in fatalities, compared to the F-104 which had 95 accidents in 600,000 flight hours (it didn't accumulate 750,000 before being pulled out of service) with 160 accidents resulting in the loss of the aircraft and 58 accidents resulting in fatalities. Normalizing the above figures for 100,000 flight time, this comes out to 471/7.5 = 62.8 accidents per 100,000 flight hours for the F-100 compared to 195/6 = 32.3 accidents per 100,00 for the F-104. IOW, the accident rate per 100,000 hours flying time for the F-100 was almost twice that of the F-104. > I presume you're a fan of the F104 trying > to make a point, but at this stage I think > I'm done. Well, yes, I am a "fan" of the F-104 and I think I have made my point namely that you are spreading misleading bullshit. With any luck, you'll realize that you actually are done and won't try to spread any more.

[@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.

[@williamdykes2750]

I fought a 2 v 2 against Luftwaffe F-104s in the late 70s in one of the Yuma, AZ ranges. Finding them visually was like trying to see two razor blades flying sideways. Their turn radius was nothing to brag about, but they were fun to fight.

[@LiamE69]

The size difference between the F-104 and Tornado is hilarious.

[@TLTeo]

Yeah, I visited a museum in the US and they had a 104 sitting next to an F105 and an F111. The size difference was even more funny :D

[@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.

[@dcikaruga]

Surprised you mentioned the head designer, Clarence Johnson, he did quite a few aircraft for Lockheed over the years.

[@twnetf]

When someone build something for his friends to ride on, but decide not to go along with it - you know how bad it is.

[@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!

[@Sleepy_potato-o2y]

An older variant used to have the pilot ejecting down right?

[@spitefulwar]

Two main reasons: 1 - early ejection seats had questionable efficiency in clearing the tall tail of the 104 at all speeds 2 - Nato doctrine realizing the necessity to fly low in order to avoid SA-2 systems came way after the 104 went into service

[@nackdibby7960]

Beautiful walk through on a beautiful jet!

[@ronjon7942]

Eye candy from every angle. I can't see enough of it.

[@adglennon]

Takes me back... These were the principle aircraft at the Air Base I was stationed at in Italy in the 80's, so I spent quite a bit of time around them. Not many realize that the F-104 was as fast or faster than the F-16's at that time. They just had no turning radius once above Mach 1 according to the pilots I spoke to. Just bloody fast in a straight line.