Why Germany had so many accidents with the F-104 Starfighter

West-Germany was the by far the largest operator of the F-104 Starfighter but both the German Air Force and Navy had a disproportional accident rate with this airplane that made the F-104 gain a reputation it didn't deserve. In this video I analyse why Germany purchased the F-104s and why its operations went so wrong to the point Germany lost almost a third of its aircraft in accidents.
One important thing to mention is in this video I only considered accidents that resulted in total loss of an aircraft. It is of course evident that Germany had many more incidents that resulted in at least a damaged aircraft.
✈✈ Recommended Videos and Playlists ✈✈
Military Aviation History playlist: goo.gl/NviWbR
Know Your Plane series: goo.gl/AxUngZ
✈✈ Sources ✈✈
German Starfighters: The F-104 in German Air Force and Naval Air Service by Klaus Kropf - amzn.to/2mfIKb8
WarbirdTech series vol. 38: Lockeed F-104 Starfighter by Jim Upton - amzn.to/2qU7UBG
Final interview with Erich Hartmann: www.migflug.com/jetflights/fin...
✈✈✈✈✈✈✈✈✈✈✈✈✈
Follow me on social media for more Ace Combat!
Twitter - / ace_combat_fan
Twitch - / ace_combat_fan
Patreon - / acecombatfan
Facebook - / acecombatfan

[@AceCombatFan]

Correction for a mistake in the video: The German F-104s initially had the C2 ejection seat (which fire upwards) instead of the C1 (fires downwards) as I mentioned. However the C1 was eventually replaced by the Martin Baker seat which had zero-zero capability (able to eject the pilot without minimum airspeed or altitude limitations). Also as some people pointed out, the F-104 was purchased by Germany also thanks to Lockheed's bribes, but I share the opinion that the corruption was not a direct cause of the accidents - it was rather the misuse of the aircraft, poor maintenance and the elements mentioned in the video

[@Dermisc]

The German experience with the F-104 is a textbook example of what happens when you choose the wrong equipment for your job. If the product you bought doesn't fit your requirements, then just about every design can be a flaw. Is it the plane's fault? Of course not! It was never designed for the tasks you needed it to perform. Germany needed an all-purpose fighter-bomber, which the F-104 clearly was not. When you try to press a high-speed interceptor into service as a fighter-bomber, you get "accidents". It works fine when you are dropping tactical nukes, but the Germans needed an aircraft that drops conventional bombs as well. Back in the day, you needed to slow down to drop conventional bombs effectively. Do that in an F-104, and you can kiss your ass goodbye. The German pilots knew it, but they dutifully performed their peace-time exercises nonetheless. The pilots already paid with their lives, so don't smear their good names defending a bad purchase.

[@artlee2285]

Great film. I will be subscribing. I was wondering if you have access to any operational records other than accident related reports ? I am looking for an incident that was related to me by a guy in the USAF when I was a kid on Guam.

[@WildBillCox13]

I could add to this special emphasis on the weather in the operational area, which was nothing like the USA southwest, being wet and cold, or wetter and colder, by degrees. Heavy clouds, lots of rain, snow, and hail, and much turbulence, almost 300 days a year, seriously affect a marginally maneuverable aircraft when it's flying in the troposphere. And the F-104 was at best a marginally maneuverable plane. It was a "Hot" plane, and in those days that meant high take off and landing speeds, not to mention a complete lack of ground effect while landing.

[@AceCombatFan]

Unfortunately no, I only have books on the F-104 and I live outside of the US. I'd recommend checking out the International F-104 Society, there may be someone that can help you.

[@alexanderthereacter8760]

Ace Combat Fan Thank you SO MUCH, for such an incredible video, truly, at only a little under 15 minutes, this video covers a LOT of ground, and tells a lot about a GREAT little Supersonic Air superiority fighter jet, that really would have given the Migs, and Sukalovs a run for their money.

[@GermanTopGameTV]

"So yeah, we got you a new plane" "Great, what does it do?" "It flys Mach 2, it can intercept almost anything the soviets can throw at you" "Sounds good" "Here, take a look" "Ohh, nice. The engine looks good! When will they come to install the wings?" "Those are the wings" "..."

[@kevinmalone3210]

lol

[@user-ld7vl9sk4s]

lol

[@SvenBolin]

Q: Why Germany had so many accidents with the F-104 Starfighter A: They used them

[@Serkay64]

This is beyond science

[@colinw7205]

That's a good one!

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@colinw7205 Actually also true, Spain had no accidents but hardly ever used theirs and got rid of them very quickly. Italy, Canada and USA had bad losses.

[@AvengerII]

@@barrierodliffe4155 The USA never bought that many F-104s and they quickly retired the plane from frontline service; USAF operated the plane for less than a decade. It was better known in the Air National Guard and in NASA service (as an astronaut trainer and chase plane). It was out of service with the American military by the mid-1970s. Again, not a very popular plane with the USAF. The F-104 had a longer service with NASA! The USAF didn't like the F-104 because it was short-ranged and didn't have much in the way of avionics. Sure, they set records (climb, altitude, acceleration) with the plane but it wasn't of much use for anything else -- too limited, bad handling (excessively high take-off and landing speeds, twitchy handling at high angle of attack), and there were other planes that could do various jobs better and didn't have the handling issues the F-104 did. The Luftwaffe itself operated the F-4 Phantom twice as long as they did the F-104 and to my knowledge never had the atrocious accident record with the F-4 that they did with the F-104. The German F-4 itself replaced the F-104 in the air superiority and reconnaisance roles. The F-104 continued in Luftwaffe as a strike plane into the mid-1980s until the Tornado IDS took over that role. The Italian F-104S was the most sophisticated and most capable of the F-104 variants. The Italian Air Force loved the plane but it was limited. You can't get around the short range, lack of maneuverability, and limited airframe space for any kind of decent radar. The Italians still figured out a way to fit in a radar that could guide AIM-7 Sparrows but I think they may have been the only Air Force that had BVR-capable F-104s; even then they had to remove the M61 cannon to fit in the radar until they miniaturized the radar unit! Those modded F-104s only came into service in the 1980s as everybody else in Europe was getting out of the F-104 game and transitioning (mostly) to the F-16.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@AvengerII The Italian F 104 S was the best version but even that had a high loss rate and only Italy and Turkey used it.

[@Swissair171]

West Germany wasn't the only country to suffer unacceptably high accident and mishap rates with the F-104. Canada lost a shocking *46 percent* of their F-104s due to accidents. Canadian pilots even nicknamed it the Lawn Dart and the Aluminium Death Tube.

[@SVSky]

Italians and the Japanese did well with them

[@stormthrush37]

WOW. I never knew that. Crazy.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@SVSky The Italians called it Flying Coffin, the high loss rate is hardly a good thing.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@Doc Savage 46 %. of the F 104's in Canadian service were lost.

[@ser43_OLDC]

@@SVSky Ho do the best with the f104 we're the Spanish any acident in 20 years of service

[@maxsmodels]

Using an F-104 for ground attack is insane.

[@JohnHill-qo3hb]

Canada was one of the Air Forces that used the 104 in this role, there were quite a few funerals too.

[@conroypawgmail]

Remember the time frame the Luftwaffe was working in. In the mid 1950s, there really wasn't many aircraft to choose from. Perhaps, they might have done better with the Mirage III, as the IDF was able to successfully press them into ground attack as well as dogfighting, despite clearly being a high speed, high altitude interceptor.

[@kenoliver8913]

Of course. It only happened at all because of MASSIVE bribery.

[@CoIdHeat]

Hindsight is such a pleasant point of view to spit out wisdom, isn't it?

[@zeitgeistx5239]

They tested several aircraft and F-11F-1F Super Tiger was better than the mirage 3, but in the end Lockmart bribery supplanted everything. Because the Starfighter didn't actually meet the requirement for all weather operations.

[@miaththered]

Simple answer, thou shall not use a dedicated high altitude interceptor as a low altitude fighter-bomber, something it was not at all designed to do.

[@billgund4532]

Astrid Wells Here! Here! My dad was a 104 IP in the 60's. He absolutely loved that AC. He always maintained if you were willing to respectfully take charge of the Zipper, you could take on just about anything short of a SR 71. Many times he would "unofficially" get into a fireball with the F4 Phantom and the results did not bode well for the Phantoms.

[@PorscheGTRSWeissach]

Astrid Wells Exactly! Just a complicated Interceptor... Germans wanted too much that time...

[@billgund4532]

Kevin Koeberling Actually, the 104 was a very simplistic design. The problems arose when everyone started trying to make it into a multi role A/C.

[@thetruthhurts4054]

Astrid Wells 100 percent correct. It was designed from day 1 to be a high speed high altitude interceptor not a dog fighter or aerobatics stunt flying.

[@SvenTviking]

It should never have been in service as an interceptor, the wing was too small and the wing loading too high, even with just two sidewinders and drop tanks as load. It needed blown flaps to land and if the engine failed, as successful dead stick landing could inly be accomplished from 20,000 feet directly over the end of the runway, into the wind! Plenty of the Starfighter’s competitors had bigger wings, similar performance and much better dead stick performance. But they didn’t have Lockheed’s bribery.

[@pasodeminick]

I know that you're specifically talking about the Luftwaffe, but lets have a mention for Canada that lost 110 of its 235 units (46%).

[@jthunders]

Well there goes the excuse of untrained pilots due to 10 year flug verbot

[@gajiraanorimaki]

Like other nations..

[@GeneralLee2000]

They also flew the planes much more than other nations, the accident rate was roughly the same per hour

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@GeneralLee2000 USAF losses of the F 104 were higher than other fighters, Italian losses high too and countries with better aircraft had much lower losses.

[@mylanmiller9656]

@@GeneralLee2000 When your record is 46% crash rate who needs an enemy, The aircraft will take it self out. Even in WWII the Crash rate was not that bad!

[@marbleman52]

I was in a Navy air squadron from 1971-75. Some of us were in Puerto Rico for exercises and I was out at the fuel pits waiting for our planes to come back from a mission when an F-104 came in for a landing. It taxied back to the fuel pits and I got my first live look at the f-104. I was amazed at just how small it was. But what a beautiful plane it was.

[@dennislock3415]

Always thought its looks were above board.

[@EAS_Hyperion]

One of the Starfighters crashed in a forest near our grandparents' house in 1968. You can still see the overgrown crater today.

[@BoarhideGaming]

Friend of my father and his sister were playing in their front yard when two Luftwaffe colleagues of their Father approached. Mother knew exactly what had happened. Such an idiotic decision to keep running these planes in roles they were not made for, so many people lost

[@vk3139]

When you look at a high altitude, high speed interceptor with the aerodynamic properties of a ballistic missile and think: "Yes, we should overload it with bombs and use it for tree top height tactical airstrikes". What could possibly go wrong?

[@noname-wo9yy]

R Kvist Well imagine the surprise of the enemy when a starfighter rams into one of their tanks at mach 2

[@RCAvhstape]

Fix a bayonet to the nose and use it for close combat.

[@manuelsilva8640]

Loved your comment Helium...

[@unclejoeoakland]

Not so bad if they were dropping retarded bombs from level flight a la Vietnam, instead of diving in...

[@WildBillCox13]

When your wing has minimal lift already, it's a sad mistake to further interrupt its airflow with fuel tanks and other underwing ordnance. Every combat pilot knows that.

[@Dr.K.Wette_BE]

Widow maker... in Belgium we called it "the flying brick" Pilot error... unsuccessful pull ups ! What a surprise ! (See design) McDonnell Douglass managed to do the opposite : the F-15 can fly and land without wings !

[@duartesimoes508]

Without one wing, yes.

[@kimarykorlumiose7728]

@@duartesimoes508 Buddy moment

[@Messerschmitt_BF_109G_10]

@@kimarykorlumiose7728 TOO BAD BUDDY, THIS TWISTED GAME NEEDS TO BE RESET, WE'LL START OVER FROM ZERO WITH THIS V2, AND ENTRUST THE FUTURE TO THE NEXT GENERATION.

[@sideshowbob5237]

I can't help feeling that a lot of it's flight envelope limitations and intolerance to marginal pilot skills come back to unusually high wing loading - and were, with hindsight and maybe with foresight, predictable. If it were possible to take out the g-stalls how many accidents would remain?

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@sideshowbob5237 Some very experienced pilots had trouble with it.

[@spreadeagled5654]

Veteran WWII German ace Erich Hartmann warned of the dangers of the F-104s as unsuitable for Luftwaffe service, but was ignored and forced to retire. Then later, the Luftwaffe found out the hard way. 🇩🇪

[@jj-eg5up]

Amazing you said exactly what the video said.

[@guts-141]

Erich Hartmann rolling in his grave when Ace Combat made F104 useful

[@MrUzminiNu]

​@@guts-141so true 😂

[@TimmyBoyAZ]

My Dad had over 5,000 hours in the F-104 over 22 years...primarily in the USAF and on exchange with the RCAF. He never had a single incident while flying the 104. He absolutely loved flying it, but admitted it was rather unforgiving compared to flying the F100 and F4. He trained dozens of Luftwaffe pilots at Luke AFB and thought they were meticulous and generally solid pilots. He felt that stretching the mission scope in an attempt to make the 104 an all-purpose plane might be a significant factor. Secondarily, maintenance and tough terrain in Europe should be considered significant. He spent eight years flying the 104 in Germany and it was a completely different flying environment than in Arizona. Hard to say why the Luftwaffe lost so many fine men...such a shame...and a waste.

[@Tigershark_3082]

Does your dad have any experience dealing with the "Sabre Dance" in the F-100?

[@TimmyBoyAZ]

@@Tigershark_3082 He did...he flew the Hun for 3 years at George AFB (where I was born) prior to moving to the F104.

[@Tigershark_3082]

@@TimmyBoyAZ That's so cool, yet also pretty scary. I could only dream of being alive in that era, and getting to see flyable F-100s, F-8s, F-105s, F-104s, and F-4s

[@whisthpo]

Agree Tim Luke AFB- Arizona-Best Flying weather in the World N.Germany -Worst Flying Weather in the World

[@fps079]

@@Tigershark_3082 and "the six"

[@diyar5184]

Old german joke: How do you get a Starfighter for free? Just buy a big Plot of land and wait!

[@clearingbaffles]

Captain Niveau with those short little wings it doesn't have the great glide ratio like a Phantom

[@arsenbalunovic388]

Captain Niveau bay land in Germany 😁

[@anonymousli4204]

Gene Murphy causing it to have high takeoff and Landing speeds and it loses altitude if you don't maintain high speeds

[@thetruthhurts4054]

Captain Niveau bwahahaha good one guy good one and I'm American and laughed at that. Those things were flying coffins.

[@TheTomBevis]

ha ha. I guess a brick does have a better glide ratio than an anvil. When I was in the USAF, we would joke about the F-4 being the triple threat: Shoot them, bomb them, or fall on them. It was actually a fine aircraft. Still in limited use today.

[@L1011Widebody]

I actually got to meet Gunther Rall when he was touring with Chuck Yeager on the book circuit. Yankee Air Force Museum, Ypsilanti Michigan, man I will never forget that. Gunther gave a good talk, about how it was all fellow airmen and honor and such, he said he would never shoot a pilot in a parachute, I remember that. I think he was one of the chivalrous air knights if I remember right, he told a story about how he escorted a badly-damaged B-17 back to England to make sure the boys in the fortress were safe. Chuck and Gunther were like old pals, sorry about the war and all, and it was just great hearing their respective war tales. It was awesome, and having Gunther Rall's name show up just reminded me of such a wonderful memory. Thank you.

[@mitsos306ify]

Although I agree with you , I need to point out that this attitude was for aerial combat. Pilots dont show same compassion when it comes to ground attacks...

[@samarkand1585]

If he really said that story about escorting an American bomber, then he was full of shit ( which wouldn't be surprising from a German WW2 officer), or maybe you just remember wrong, cause it simply was not him. I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying through his teeth cause of the whole 'chivalry' BS, German top aces, of which he was a part of, didn't get their mind-boggling kill claims fighting honourably, they got 'em ambushing from behind and taking out undertrained and isolated soviet planes, mostly IL-2 Sturmoviks, pretty defenseless against fighter planes even with a tail gunner

[@ronaldvankuyk908]

@@mitsos306ify dresden

[@Siddich]

@@samarkand1585 so you risk your weapon, your mission and your life to have a fair fight? like americans using nightvision against ppl without it? 🤔

[@samarkand1585]

@@Siddich what?

[@Frankestein01nl]

A phrase well known in germany at the time was: If you want to have a starfighter, buy a piece of land!

[@CallsignYukiMizuki]

*Clicks on the title* *Hears a familiar voice* Wait, this isn't Military History Visualized

[@djyppo]

lol It was the same thing with me! I was like: Wait a second, I know this voice.

[@furry_groyper]

i believe you are mistaken i believe you mean Bismark

[@arcticviper252]

understandable, yes, that is good. But saying "forty eight" in stead of "thirty eight" and " ... a turd of their sarfighters..." Go get another job where you don't have to actually speak, this is terrible.

[@legodude45678]

He doesnt even sound like MHV or bismark, like at all

[@152mmapfsds]

SAME

[@erictaylor5462]

Sadly, Eric Hartman was not the only person who got fired because he was right.

[@derpanzerkommandant4641]

General Johannes Steinhoff had to cope with the Starfighter crisis. But he managed that well.

[@harrigersack5027]

He had problems adjusting to the New Luftwaffe as a whole. You can tell He was still in his WW II mindset if you look at the paintschemes of his Planes and didnt really fit into the newly established structures. Not surprising, when one considers that He came back from russia in 1955, just the year before german rearmament.

[@Mr9Guns]

The Luftwaffe also had easy pickings of inferior Soviet aircraft of WW2. by the 1950s the Soviets had almost caught up in aircraft technology and it would no longer be a turkey shoot.

[@Mr9Guns]

Yeah they had some decent aircraft given to them through the commonwealth air training plan too but they made up a very small percentage of total aircraft in use.

[@joseveintegenario-nisu1928]

Ja! They told doc Klaus Knapp-Boetticher left Germany 'in a hurry', and landed as Pediatric Radiologist in 'La Paz', a major Madrid, Spain, University Hospital, apparently in coincidence with having some involvement in warning about the connection of Thalidomide to severe birth defects.

[@handeekin6778]

My father is one of the 2 time ejected f-104 pilots. His last one is at 1983. We lost too many friends to this machine. It’s so weird that although all the pilots knew how dangerous to fly with it, they also obsessively loved it. In Turkish we also call f-104 as “flying coffin”

[@sargesacker2599]

For a second I thought I was watching Bismarck.

[@AceCombatFan]

Inspired by Bismarck-senpai

[@lancel6149]

Ace Combat Fan U need 2 stahp

[@majormissile5596]

Brazilian Bismark. Try and make yourself seem a little different though.

[@mladtheimpaler]

It reminded me most of military history visualized.

[@Rizkyace118]

Max W. Yeah, the way ACF presented it closely resembles that channel. Still, it's a brilliant video.

[@erictaylor5462]

It was a very difficult plane to fly. Hell, even Chuck Yeager crashed one.

[@AlmightyDude420]

Eric Taylor He tried to nearly go to space with it

[@erictaylor5462]

Yes, but it was part of a highly regulated test flight. Don't let the movie fool you. He didn't steal the airplane.

[@AlmightyDude420]

Eric Taylor Well, he didn't exactly steal it in the movie either. Regardless, I've read about the incident-he used a modified F-104 (NF-104) and got high enough up that the control surfaces lost their effectiveness, but still deep enough in the atmosphere, that the reaction control system was ineffective as well. The point is that the reason the NF-104 piloted by Yeager crashed was because he took it to over 100 000 feet, which the plane OBVIOUSLY is not designed for, with rocket engine or not, meaning this incident is no example of any flaw in the F-104.

[@AlmightyDude420]

Willie Eckerslike Chuck Yeager himself just wanted to beat that Russian altitude record. He had confidence that this plane could do it- Nothing wrong in that. However, I don't know what you're getting at here, I'm talking about the plane, not the pilot.

[@erictaylor5462]

I didn't realize that you were there, in the cockpit, with all the thousands of hours of experience in flying airplanes that Yeager had. How many hours *DO* you have?

[@bogomir67]

"purchased" - most of the German F-104Gs were built under license in Germany. The Engines were imported, though. The prerequisite that the AC needed to be at least in preproduction was a fake reason not to value the pre-contract with British to buy the SR- 177 hybrid - Lockheed massively bribed German officials to buy the product. My SO back in the service was a former F-104G pilot who had to bail out twice (which grounded him permanently) due to engine flame out. The F-104G was the last single engine jet fighter Germany bought. Just a thought: Someone makes a great fighter aircraft, but some political moron decides to put bombs on it. Sound familiar?

[@waltrohrbach2459]

yup, now here's the kicker, what is almost unknown, they did in fact have a bomber back then, the arado (234?) same two engines as the 262. 1.100 built, flew recce missions over UK unbothered. 1st jet ever with autopilot and ejection seat.

[@richardvernon317]

I would have though that the Germans would have thought twice about using a HTP/Kero rocket powered fighter after the fun they had with the Me-163. The RAF only put a Nuke and HTP together in the shape of the Blue Steel Stand Off Bomb and then realised it was a bad idea.

[@clevelandaeromotive]

RE: Erich Hartmann. Tragic how those people who are most often right become the sacrificial lambs to what will ultimately be proven and corrected.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

There were people who did not want the truth to come out, they were bribed to get Germany to buy the Lockheed F 104.

[@RickyJr46]

In his autobiography "More Than My Share Of It All", Lockheed's Kelly Johnson touches upon the high accident rate of Luftwaffe Starfighter pilots and the lessons learned. Besides being a major leap in performance it was demanding to fly, and the challenging terrain and frequently bad weather conditions in Germany made it difficult place to become proficient. In contrast, USAF aviators learning Stateside had better weather and more forgiving terrain in which to train, which let them focus more on flying the airplane and acquiring flight hours. When a decision was made to begin training the Germans in the desert Southwest the Luftwaffe's F-104 safety record improved markedly, and he goes on to say it became an excellent one over time. Johnson also pointed out the Luftwaffe's high turnover of experienced ground personnel as being a contributor to their accident rate, including the previous high loss rates of the much lower performing F-84 jet fighter. Changes made which improved the retention of experienced staff also helped overall safety.

[@SpartanA054Moose]

I used to know an old gentleman in town who flew in the CF-104 for several years, he watched his brother crash in one and die while both were on takeoff.

[@KKM57P]

Some instruments did not work on the first machines. Failure landing flap flexible driveshaft (unsynchronized). (The flap drive were installed longitudinally in the fuselage, because there was no room in the thin wing.) Failure in the flap bleeding (boundary layer control BLC) cause a chrash. The angle of attack limiter causes many accidents. Was installed because of the T-tail to avoid a super stall. Caused a series of crashes and was later removed. Very inaccurate navigation system (Fair-weather airplane). Stalled turbines due to errors in the inlet guiding flap control unit. After burner „open nozzle failure“. Caused thrust loss and engine stall. The restarting took too long or not at all. Was fixed late with the mechanical emergency closing device. If you shot the Vulcan canoe, all the fuses dropped. The first time the Vulcan was tested in Starfigther, the test machine lost its tailplane. Many pilots who had to get off the plane were killed by the tumbled C2 ejector seat. The C2 did not have zero-zero capability. Retractable landing gear blocking during retraction. Grounded several times by the USAF. The USAF reduced its order from 722 to only 277 Starfighters and did not use it for very long. etc.etc.

[@1225KPH]

Pulling up from a dive close to the ground in a 14,000 lb. airplane with 21'9" wingspan, 196 sqft of wing area and a airfoil section so thin the leading edge needed ground covers to protect crew from cuts. What could possibly go wrong?

[@guts-141]

I made that same mistake in War Thunder just enough to know that the Luftwaffe had messed up horribly

[@Winterx69]

It is noteworthy that the 1962 accident was lead by an American instructor and comprised a mostly inexperienced wing. Apart from this, in fact, the German Navy did form an Aerobatics wing in 1983 with the "Vikings" - interestingly using F-104G aircraft. Your video as well as some comments below sum the factors up nicely.

[@rustykilt]

Like the English Electric Lightning, it was designed as an Interceptor, and using it in any other role was a crime. Both were HOT and fast, and not intended for any other role, and excelled in their designed roles.

[@paulgracey4697]

I served in the US Navy in the early 1960's aboard one the first anti aircraft missile ships to be equipped with computerized air combat control equipment, the NTDS. As such we had informal discussions about the nature of the newest fighters, including the StarFighter. Like the Soviets, our systems at that time were meant to guide the fighters to intercept the enemy from the surface.The individual radars on the fighters we knew were beacons for our ground based radars, and we also knew that the turning radius at those speeds meant that the fighters in interceptor mode had only one chance to encounter their foes. In combat mode they also had no drop tanks, and so had just enough fuel after interception in many circumstances to return to base. This was especially so for our carrier based aircraft. The other factor was that these fast jets were supposed to be invincible due to their speed. Because the German airspace was so confined the StarFighter was used in those other modes, despite being designed for high altitude, high speed interception. Hiding in the radar ground clutter wasn't even considered in its design. The aircraft radar as unintentional beacon along with many other radar recognition signatures led to the changes in the philosophy of fighter aircraft that resulted in specialized subsonic ground attack aircraft like the Intruder and eventually the supersonic F-16 to do the work that the Germans tried to impose on the ill suited F-104.

[@antiochusiiithegreat7721]

Paul Gracey USS longbeach?

[@lukashei1870]

There is a German documentary that also looks at this crisis. Their conclusion was that everything said in this video was true, plus the procurement and strategy were done by old WWII veterans who had still a WWII mindset and did not realise how difficult the F104 was to control.

[@svenschwingel8632]

@@lukashei1870 Hartmann himself advocated the Mirage III over the F-104. Which is good enough for me. History has proven him to be more than right on that matter.

[@klesmer]

My uncle was bird colonel in the Air Force and at one time his job was to train the Luftwaffe in the F104. I ask him about the high fatality rate among German pilots and he said it was simple - the German's decided they knew more about the airplane then we did. After living in Germany for three years I understood what he meant.

[@markdavid4897]

Germans know everything about everything, until they don't.

[@klesmer]

@@markdavid4897 Sound like you have lived around Komrade und his Frau. There is the right way, the wrong way and the German way. If you don't believe me just try and tell one he is wrong.

[@LAG09]

No mention of the flying characteristics of the F-104? Because those were a major factor in the plane's bad safety record in German service. The plane had a high stall speed (i.e stall easily) and maneuverability issues at slow speeds, which meant you had to fly at dangerously high speeds at low level and still contend with an elevated risk of accidents caused by easy stalling and bad maneuverability. The reality is that the F-104 was a high speed interceptor built to shoot down high flying bombers and was simply unsuited for the German requirement, but chosen anyway thanks to bribes.

[@corneliusbracke3993]

. The massive 'bribery' and corruption (by Lockheed's inter-mediating agents) of the politicians who had to decide about the purchase of combat planes as minister / secretary general of defence. And who subsequently choose the F-104 Starfighter. Scandals about the Bavarian (German) politician Franz-Joseph Strauss, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands made press headlines in the sixties and seventies.. .

[@rwhunt99]

There were many issues with stability and they finally added downward air foils on the rear fuselage to stabilize it which worked very well.

[@LAG09]

Sure, they fixed a problem no production plane should ever have that killed quite a few pilots. However that still doesn't do *anything* to remedy the insufficient lift problem I brought up that was caused by the stubby little wings. The wings simply didn't provide enough lift for the plane to fly at safe speeds in low level flight and forced pilots to fly both dangerously fast and close to stall speed at low level. When you go too slow for your plane and stall, which is extremely dangerous at low level and even more so with the downward firing ejection seats the plane originally had, additional stability is useless. When it comes down to it, nothing would completely fit the luftwaffe requirement until decades after the requirement was issued, but of the planes chosen they went with one that only fit the mach 2 speed requirement. If it wasn't for that requirement, they would have been pretty much spoiled for choice with choices like the Dassault Mirage III, Saab 35 Draken, Blackburn Buccaneer, English Electric Lightning, Convair F-106 and as an off-the-wall choice, the MiG-21.

[@ausintune9014]

L_A_G lmao they wouldn't buy a russian plane.

[@andrewp8284]

L_A_G how the fuck would they get Mig-21s or any Russian plane (at least in any quantity), during the COLD WAR?

[@bobian414]

I see a 'Bismarck' inspired format for this information. Cool to see the information. Great job on the research There are some inherent design features (T Tail, etc.) and others that made flying the "missile with a man in it" a challenge Would love to help with the next episode!

[@graycloud057]

For one thing, the stall speed was insane. It had tiny thin wings, and speed had to be kept high. It was a dart.

[@eurobaka573]

I love those historical videos. They are so educative and fun to watch! Thank you, ACF!

[@darkspinspard4258]

you know...I was never an airplane sim guy until I stumble on this channel and saw the trailers of ace combat 7...and now we have awesome presentation and trivia about airplanes?! keep up the good work man !

[@lovecchio420]

Go play Il-2 or DCS, skip ac7.

[@skyscall]

Airplane sim? Ace Combat!? *Ha!* Go to a proper sim like IL-2: Battle of Stalingrad or DCS. Or at least a dirt cheap light sim like War Thunder or IL-2 1946

[@NuclearSavety]

The F104 was such a great aircraft that it was brought by every politician who accepted Lockheets bribe money, including the West German defence minister Strauss, who had his greasy fingers in all kind of shady buisneses

[@Cl4rendon]

Yeah, but he knew how to build an airport in acceptable time ( Munich II ) and he might now be laughing from hell watching how Berlin struggles to finish theirs.

[@JeeGee114]

And let's not forget (German)Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.

[@nks406]

Europeans just need the will to create an aircraft and it will be better than anything that lockheed can hope to come up with. Also kind of hilarious that lockheed just offered japan a better version of the f-35 because they are scared at the thought that the domestic stealth fighter program of japan can end up being better.

[@Gentleman...Driver]

FJS did not build the airport by himself, didnt he? ;)

[@Gentleman...Driver]

Europeans tend to overdoing it (as the americans do as well sometimes). Also the Eurofighter came with bribe money as well (Austria for example). I think in this business you have to fight for your contracts and for your success.

[@chuckfinley6156]

hey I got an idea. lets use 80% of the F-104 fuselage, put on some really long and thin wings, put some cameras on it and fly it at 70,000'. gotta love the Skunk Works.

[@jme36053]

Once while riding eastbound over central Germany in an OH-58C at

[@falkmachtsachen]

You are missing some points. For example many of the accidents were related to the "Variodüse" (variable diameter exhaust) - both occured pilot error and tech failure with it. The barometric altimeter in the F-104 was neither speed nor temperature-compensated and gave wrong readings (The reason, why the MRCA had to have a radar-altimeter). But most: the first US-made F-104G did have no shelters on the airfields an tons of fragile electronics with vacuum tubes in them. They were designed as interceptor for large groups of bombers approaching from the west (which never occured, and that was the reason why the 104 were so cheap - Lockheed had the r&d done for a plane for a illconceived scenario) and thought to be based in the south of the USA (jetstream brings you south), so the manuals of the original F-104 stated the planes not to be placed in shelters as the risk of fires seemed to be too high. First Training was done in the US mostly in TX, were you can see for miles. Those pilots came back and weren't fit to use their training as the German airspace is much more dense and combat altitudes are much lower (we actually had russian radars and SAM next door) than trained in the US. These US-made planes absolutely weren't fit to accomodate german weather with temperatures averaging at 7 degree celsius and rain 1/4 of the year (which is much). When MBB started build F104Gs in licensed production in 1969, they used full-transistorized avionics, gave the planes rubber sealings everywhere and installed a hydraulic system with more redundancy. And they wrote a new manual, stating the planes to be stored in shelters. The second row of pilots was trained in bavaria and over the baltic sea.

[@jameshay7247]

Only the Germans and Canadians kept slamming them into the ground like that... what about the other 13 countries flying the same plane? ; )

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@jameshay7247 Like USA, double the accident rate of other fighters, Italy which called it " Flying Coffin " for good reasons. and some of the other countries which had high accident rates with them.

[@StellarGryphon]

Nice video! Reminds me of the style of "Military History Visualized" or Bismarks videos ^^

[@phodon129]

This was a really interesting video! Historical research like this is a great additional direction for your channel to take, since there are no small amounts of stories, misconceptions, and overall entertaining matters in the military aviation world. Would love to see more!

[@petemulhearn7787]

In the 1960s I was based at RAF Brûggen. While talking to a Luftwaffe pilot he said, "You need 3 hands to fly the F104 safely; one on the stick, one on the throttle and one on the ejection handle"

[@RanceTaggert]

Well researched and very informative. I didn't know that General Hartmann was pushed out of the Luftwaffe, that is news to me. In 1975 I was stationed at Coleman Kaserne; there was an airstrip but too short to land fighters. German F104s would do touch and go practice, and when they went full throttle they would shatter the barracks window. Awesome aircraft.

[@marienfeld07]

I read that Erich Hartmann did not like the "widowmaker" in a book about the "old" Luftwaffe, and for what said above I understand what happened.

[@fabianofonda6758]

In Italy we called It "the Flying Coffin". One of this fell on the beach of my Town.

[@yasirbhojani]

Super detailed! I love and appreciate the research that went into making this video

[@bobgreene2892]

This video is simply outstanding in its overall focus, factual authority, extremely thorough and logical analysis, and very enjoyable to view. Naturally, I subscribed quickly.

[@Exodon2020]

The Starfighter had many denouncing names within German public; Widowmaker, flying coffin, coffin nail and manned missile just to name a few. Ironically enough the pilots flying them actually loved these planes

[@rwhunt99]

Don't forget "Lawn Dart", and you're right, they were great planes when flown by competent disciplined pilots.

[@Exodon2020]

The Pilots received their Training in the US and when they left Flight School they were on par to their US collegues. They weren't the problem. Problem was German military command completely under-estimating the efford you'd have to put into maintaining a modern Air Force: -they let concripts maintaining the planes instead of professionals only -mainternance itself was often skipped due to a lack of spare parts -the planes were extensively field-modified and nobody kept a reliable record about which modifications were adapted to which plane causiing an utter mess -ejection seats used by the Luftwaffe were junk -Pilots didn't receive enough flying hours -the plane was also used as a low-altitude recon and as a bomber Once these problems were fixed the reliablity of this plane rose to international standards.

[@mikestrick30]

Almost lost it when you said " a turd of their fleet"

[@thewatcher5271]

Yeah, I Thought It Was Amusing Too & Accurate Considering The Planes Service Record . . .

[@tomryan914]

Spoken like a 'French-Canadian'. "Dese, dem and dose..."

[@earlwyss520]

I didn't catch that, but good call. A very appropriate description of the F-104, a "Flying Turd".

[@markdavid4897]

@@tomryan914 Eh?

[@danishpuma]

Dang, I stayed the whole vidoe through! And I'm glad I did. Solid work! ♥

[@yegenek]

292 planes and 116 pilots! That casualty is much bigger than most engagements in the cold war period after wwII.

[@MrDeathwingking]

Great video! It's so amazing how much effort you put into this research :)

[@christophermichael8010]

Salber Ns ACF Is DCS Aviation Powerpoint Presentation version.

[@user-qp3hd3cn8e]

LOL

[@Diemerstein]

My grandfather flew this plane and while it's a great looking plane, it was dangerous to fly, very unforgiving. Germany was not the only country using this plane with a very high rate of accidents, Germany ordered the wrong plane for what it needed.

[@koldaussie]

Great video. They should have taken the Mirage. I remember seeing my first one at 5 or 6 at an airshow in Australia at the airbase I lived near. The RAAF had them and they were loved a lot by the pilots. I remember the show, as soon as he got to the end of the tarmac, he pulled it up like a missile and just shot up into the sky like you wouldn't believe, and he was out of sight in under a minute. An amazingly beautiful plane! The F104, well I made a model kit of it once, and it fell apart when it fell off my ceiling, never built one again! LOL

[@mladtheimpaler]

This video reminds me of the style military history visualized uses. I like it! 👍

[@GeorgeSemel]

Simply put it was the wrong airplane for the Germans, for what they wanted and needed to do at the time.

[@dreamdiction]

They didn't need to do anything, the cold war was fake.

[@CoIdHeat]

All staged by the lizard men who nowadays run our countries having replaced our leaders with theirs and spraying chem trails to keep us obediend.

[@FXIIBeaver]

You two are stupid.

[@dreamdiction]

Cold Heat Look what America did to Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, it's obvious that America could have swatted Cuba like a fly anytime they wanted to. America deployed a million troops and dropped 4 million tons of bombs on South East Asia. What did they do to Cuba? - NOTHING. The CIA staged the bay of pigs fiasco to embarrass Kennedy who had advanced to dismantle the CIA. There was no Cuban missile crisis, Khrushchoff toyed with Kennedy on the phone, the Bay of Pigs was deliberately botched by the CIA to embarrass Kennedy to punish him for thinking he really was ruler of America. The job of the visible government is to trick the public into thinking the invisible government does not exist. "Democracy" is a trick to make voters think they run their own country. America had nothing to fear from the Soviets because there was never a time the Soviets could feed themselves. From 1923 to 1988 America kept Communism alive with multi-million ton annual grain and industrial shipments, which Russia never paid for. The Soviets only source of foreign currency was selling things they received as free aid from America, so all Soviet aid to Cuba was paid for by US Taxpayers. The Americans and the Cubans were working together all along, that's why America always had a Military base in Cuba called Guantanamo Bay. Communism in Cuba, Russia and China was a Wall Street creation. Read Antony C Sutton - 4 books: "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution", "The Best Enemy Money Can Buy", "National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union", "Survival is Not Enough: Soviet Realities And America's Future." Look for KZbin videos of the same names if you don't want to read. Sutton was Economics Professor at California State University and at Stanford University's Hoover Institute. Sutton was a historian and economist with a top level career and his primary sources have never been disputed or refuted by anyone. The so-called Cold War was a scam to suck a Trillion dollars of US taxpayers money into the pockets of the US Military Corporations and build America into a Technocratic Global War Machine to crush any remaining pockets of résistance to the New World Order, which is Global Feudalism, which is Communism. That's why America never did to Cuba what they did to Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, etc.

[@xcofcd]

George Semel the only thing that mattered to the guys making the decision for the new plane was which manufacturer would put the most money in their pockets (bribes) it happened to be Lockheed and the F104 was what they had at the time and that's how that deal was made...they would've bought a duck and put a bomb on it if the duck farmer would've paid them well...

[@taufiqutomo]

When the pilot with the most kills in history talks about aircrafts you better listen.

[@58fins]

The plural of aircraft is aircraft. Drop the "s" off the end.

[@em1osmurf]

he made a valid, and seriously ignored by the luftwaffe, statement and you troll him for his syntax (likely not his native language). shame on you.

[@58fins]

taufiqutomo no s in the plural of aircraft.

[@lebommjohnson8101]

Hey, all you linguists, how's your German?

[@hydorah]

It's not trolling. No one has insulted him. And he did make a good comment no one has critcised his point. All you babies who stand stand being educated can bugger off. Build your own idiotnet where you can talk in-educated gibberish among yourselves

[@MattH-wg7ou]

One of my civilian instructors in the USAF was a Luftwaffe F104 pilot and he was one of the many who had to eject. I think maybe twice actually. Awesome instructor!

[@victorkelley5097]

One of the best videos I've seen on youtube. Thank you!

[@DawnOfTheDead991]

It was the coolest looking jet of all time

[@MrLuvOldies]

I agree.

[@johnharris7353]

I agree!

[@DawnOfTheDead991]

@@johnharris7353 Danks

[@Kaiser_Waffel_XI]

I disagree

[@DawnOfTheDead991]

@@Kaiser_Waffel_XI That's not fair.

[@dezeekat]

i always thought F104 to be GeeBee of the '50s... little wings, big engine.. high take-off and landing speed.. not very usefull.. but looks cool

[@coreyandnathanielchartier3749]

Very interesting breakdown on the Luftwaffe 104 program. It's refreshing to see some factual information, that let's the viewer see that air warfare is a very complicated business, and requires a massive support effort to make it function smoothly. The 10 year gap in the experience of the Luftwaffe took a lot of time and effort to bridge, and had a high cost. Good video

[@wiwa23]

Very good and informative stuff. Thank you for covering this interesting item so well! To bad about the c2 ejection seat mistake(Germany only had upwards firing seats, like you corrected). But nonetheless, you deserve all good credits!

[@MrGilRoland]

The F-104 was in the Italian Air Force as well. In Italy, we called it “The flying coffin”.

[@bluecaptainIT]

Really? I'm Italian as well, but I've never heard of such moniker. Probably because I grew up with Tornadoes and Eurofighters!

[@Dailyinput244]

The f104 was an awesome aircraft both visually and in performance. The problems came from how the military chose to deploy it. And with performance specs like that it was very unforgiving.

[@genedavis1205]

I spent 2 years @ Bitburg AFB 1975-1976. On was on call one weekend towards end of 1975, and there had been 4 Italian F-104’s training in the area, and I had to test their ECM systems prior to departure. I watched them take off and disappear into the low hanging clouds. About 30 minutes later, the tower advised all 4 had crashed into side of a mountain.

[@Leptospirosi]

In 1968 Germany "Finally" decided to start building hangar shelters to keep their plane protected, where before, they were just stored on the sides of the runways, under any weather condition like BF109s. As the extremely sophisticated wing systems of the planes were finally serviced and kept protected from westher, the accident rate abruptly dropped to normal. Better ejection seats and skill building up into the pilots also helped. Keep in mind that in the middle of the Cold War, flying at tree top level at Mach1 in German weather is not "exactly" helping for safety statistics. You can see the huge differences in accidents and casualties in the long service of the F104 in the AMI, where fighters/inteceptors groups suffered accidents rates at order of magnitude lower then their fighter bomber counterpart. Perfectly normal service accident rates were archived both in Spain and Japan, where the F-104 were used exclusively as Interceptors, compared to any other kind of fighter plane. In Italy not all pilots, even veterans coming from the acrobatic teams on the F86K, were accepted for service on the F-104 as they couldn't adapt to the extremely high speed and limited reaction times that the Lockheed fighter brought on the table.

[@Grayghost04]

Yeah, it's a little bit unfair to say the plane has serious design flaws. However, F-104 still has the highest accident rate of USAF Century Series fighters(26.7 written off the frame accidents per 100,000 flight hours as of June 1977) even though they were used for its intended purpose of high-alt interceptor in USAF(Also, USAF employed about 450 F-104s, make it the second least used aircraft of Century Series fighters for USAF). It was definitely not safer plane than other competitors. Then, there was the "Scandal of Century" for F-104 deals where Lockheed paid $22 million in bribes to foreign officials including Germany's. Even apart from that, you failed to mention the Lockheed kept telling its customers that "Oh, this high-altitude, high-speed interceptor with the aerodynamic properties of a ballistic missile can totally be used for low-alt, low-speed CAS bombing missions regardless of weather!!! if you pay more money...." Though it is possible that Germans were more committed to this ill and stupid logic than Lockheed, the company still shares the blame. Overall, your vid was useful but I remind you that F-104 is still part of all these rotten fucked-ups of officials from various countries. Maybe the Widowmaker itself doesn't deserve its notoriety, but it sure teaches us many lessons about how the military acquisition and overall management can totally gone fuck to the realm of criminality. Germany should have bought far smaller amount of F-104s for high-alt interceptor purpose only. When they decided otherwise, they sealed its "reputation". PS: Actually, RCAF's CF-104 has the highest accident rate for F-104s, losing 110 airframes of 239 in class A accidents(46%).

[@jameshay7247]

The best AF pilots were being stuffed into F-105s. The Thud was a great ground-attack aircraft- but the devil to fly .

[@13stalag13]

They were using it in the same role as the Germans.

[@earlwyss520]

The USAF was even stupid enough to send the 8th TFW equipped with F-104Cs to Udorn RTAB, Thailand in or around 1966 and used them for CAS work in Vietnam.

[@earlwyss520]

@@jameshay7247 Funny, F-100s RF-101s & F-105s got shot down all of the time in Vietnam, yet the F-104 has a greater accident rate. Side note, of the century series jet fighters (F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, F-106, F-111 & technically the F-110 AKA F-4), only the F-106 didn't serve in Vietnam.

[@alphaadhito]

Additional Facts: The wing's leading edges were so thin (.016 in, 0.41 mm) that they presented a cut hazard to ground crews: protective guards had to be installed on the edges during ground operations. Also, Kelly Johnson was the designer of the aircraft a.k.a the designer of Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Lockheed U-2 and Lockheed SR-71

[@user295295]

The same Lockheed that said that the F-104 can be used for ground attack now says the F-35 can be used for close air support.

[@birgerkagan6087]

A most competent and in my view correct assessment of the situation. The only thing I would have added was the flight safety culture in the 60/70'ies where things like Human Factors was not part of the understanding until we got into the 80'ies

[@highspeedhawk]

This story was parodied in the rock album 'captain lockheed and the starfighters' by Hawkwind front man Robert Calvert.

[@sphinxrising1129]

F104 was a great plane in the hands of good pilots, but it had a unforgiving & steep learning curve. Fighters, by nature are unstable, which makes them very agile, but can also make them very lethal to inexperienced pilots.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

A Bad design that caught out some very good pilots. it was not agile at all.

[@andytaylor1588]

When you buy a disproportionate amount of Starfighters. you can expect a disproportionate amount of failures. We Canadians crashed many of them as well. My father was an airframe technician on them in West Germany during the Cold War. He had a ride in the back seat of a dual Starfighter and he said is was a good ride until the pilot put the engine at idle. The plane instantly sunk by the rear and threatened to fall out of the sky. It did everything well except take off, turn, land, and cruise. Then there was the moving map feature.... lol. What a hot mess.

[@danialkhan199]

I like your detailed analysis but also the enthusiasm in your voice.

[@freelancerf-14d46]

I still don't get why they included the lawn dart (Starfighter) on the roster for AC7. Personally I would have gone with the F-111C.

[@solowingborders3239]

Freelancer F-14D Fellow Aussie I assume? The F-111 would be great to see in Ace Combat.

[@AFarCryAway]

Freelancer F-14D I laughed so damn hard when I read "lawn dart" xD

[@Gentleman...Driver]

It was just for teaching the radar systems to new pilots. As the video mentioned you could teach up to three young pilots at the same time with just one plane (that was easy to fly - so they could concentrate on the radar systems).

[@anngo4140]

Hartmann didn't like the damn thing.

[@mladtheimpaler]

An Ngo he preferred the f-86, and you can't blame him.

[@conroypawgmail]

Hartmann also didn't like the Fw-190. Did that make it a bad fighter?

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@conroypawgmail The Fw 190 was good but the F 104 was bloody awful.

[@kub1061]

Pretty nice and instructive video ! Thanks for sharing

[@vuki]

I love how you made this video look like Military History Visualized video

[@BigCheese85]

"Almost a TURD of its starfighters" 😂

[@markdavid4897]

They were all turds.

[@pauljs75]

Designed as a high speed interceptor with stubby little wings, thus high wing-loading. Didn't these things not have that great a reputation in general? Thus the "Lawn Dart" nickname by the American pilots?

[@NotTheCIA1961]

It's an engine with guns and a bit of control surface. It has a function, and if you take it out of that function its dangerous.

[@spawnof200]

other aircraft of the same time period did it the same/better without this defficiency

[@g__wizz]

no they didnt... its a 50s human guided surface to air missile, the last and most finite version, nothing similar or comparable has come after it.

[@spawnof200]

bitch pls, the delta dart (1956) had a higher top speed and the english electric lightning (1959) had better acceleration and climbrate - both of these without having the handling characteristics of a brick

[@Mr9Guns]

@spawnof200 you can't just cherry pick a couple characteristics and say that plane X is categorically better. the Delta Dart and EE Lightning were both optimized for different missions. The dart was a long range interceptor with much slower climb rate and also had marginal handling. and the EE lightning was much slower than the F104 and also had a very short range. It was designed for shorter range interception for the smaller British airspace. The Dart and Lighting were great aircraft in for their tasks but the F104 was faster than either and still holds the low altitude speed record to this day. Not bad for an aircraft from the 50's

[@THE-HammerMan]

Quite an excellent presentation. Training, training, training. Nothing beats extensive training.

[@lowcalibremine3004]

great video! Have a happy new year ACF!

[@lancerthedemonace7581]

Ladies And Gentlemen...Ace Combat;Air Force and Airplane History Class!

[@MichaelMolli]

I fly the F-104 .... in FSX :D

[@ramironunezborjas967]

Is this Military History Visualized? or Bismark? jokes aside, cool vid, hope to see more of them on the run

[@WhereNerdyisCool]

Kelly Johnson, designer of the F-104 and SR-71 commented on this topic in his autobiography. He mentioned many of the points you made, including that Germany has some of the worst flying weather too. He mentions that once the pilots learned to fly in the United States (Arizona), that contributed to a lower accident rate.

[@sperlingsprinz4551]

0:23 almost a TUUUURD

[@jackofshadows8538]

Birth of Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters. "Zo... zer Shtarfighter?" "Yep.. er... Starfighter G..." "Der Shtarfighter 'G'?" " Yup! 'G' for 'Germany', of course!" "Ahhh.. zer Shtarfighter G fur Germany!! I like it! Ve'll order a zousand!"

[@oldschoolfoil2365]

yep its good bob calvert covered it way back then

[@ianwilkinson4602]

One of my favourite albums.

[@6346n]

Well done! Nice work. :D

[@a320nick]

Great narration. Very informative.

[@ratoeira8844]

STUKAs didn't had those problems...

[@jailbotmark1379]

Eduardo-Nov because they had a limiter mechanism that automatically leveled the aircraft from a dive even if the pilot passed out from the G force

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

Eduardo-Nov The Stuka wasn't a mach 2 jet.

[@jailbotmark1379]

John Doe that’s actually kind of irrelevant considering NATO doctrine for ATG maneuvering lists ~300km/h as the max speed during a gun run or rocket salvo, about the same speed a Stuka would dive at

[@taotoo2]

...and the starfighter stall at

[@blackbird8632]

Jailbot Mark 1 it is actually relevant, the 104 has very small delta wings for low drag and high speed flying, stuka had bigger straight wings that provided more lift at lower speeds.

[@Schnitz13]

"Almost a turd...". Very well said.

[@raymorley8241]

Great video. I remember seeing them fly over Soest when we lived there in the 60s.

[@RHPIC]

Distinctive "Whistling Willie" sound when they flew near us in the Ramstein AB and Landstuhl Hospital areas and called, indeed, the Widow Maker.

[@phantom4E2]

Some german pilots called It ground nail

[@PeterPaul-wz5db]

TROLLXDGAMER ... that is Bodennagel ... better known is Sargnagel .... coffin nail ....

[@jayusn-et2231]

Finally a F-104 video with the facts! The great majority of Luftwaffe F-104 loses was due to handing the Starfighter keys to very inexperienced jet drivers and next was that the maintenance crews were not well trained and their incompetence caused numerous mechanical failures. A well maintained F-104G driven by an experienced smart pilot was the top performing Interceptor/Fighter aircraft of it's class during it's day. Great Pilots who flew her almost universally loved the plane, while those with lesser skills risked their lives on every rotation and landing.

[@jwenting]

Correct. Dutch and Italian operations were relatively smooth. So were German operations once they got their training programs worked out and crews were up to standards.

[@Oldbmwr100rs]

The plane was designed and performed to the standards called out at the time for a bomber interceptor. Being a Kelly Johnson design it was going to be hard to master being as his designs tended to push the envelope of stability. Some of his aircraft earned reputations of being very unforgiving of mistakes. One thing "the missile with a man in it" was not was a multi role fighter.

[@TacticaLLR]

Great vid!

[@sameyers2670]

This is a really interesting video, thank you