Several pics, and a couple with ord. Not enough ground ordnance pics in my opinion
But plenty of pics of thier deployment
Thanks again! I sent them an email…just waiting to hear back
Hi guys, new to the web site, but already found some interesting discussions.
A minor deviation from the topic, but still F-104 related.
I read some discussion on a Taiwanese web site regarding the wing color of of the all-natural metal F-104s. Some inststs that it’s white on upper surface but light gray un lower surfece, while another says an old F-104 crew chief is very sure that it’s white both sides, and says that’s the original color when they received then from US.
Any body can clarify this mystry?
Welcome to the site. I am sure someone can clear that up
Hi Warchtx,
The wings were Aircraft Grey (can’t remember the FS#) on the undersides, gloss white on top. There was a discussion on this very subject over at Hyperscale a few months ago, and somebody posted a great color photo taken as the plane flew over and you could clearly see the grey paint.
Trivia re. the wing leading edges: I read somewhere, maybe in Steve Pace’s F-104 book, that the curve of the leading edge had the same radius as that of a table knife. It always amazed me that that little wing could generate enough lift to get the F-104 off the ground in less than 20 miles!
Cheers!
Ben
Thanks, Ben.
[2c] Whoever was responsible for tasking the F-104 for air-to-ground, close air support had his head up and locked in a place that shall remain nameless. I sure would not have wanted to try a take-off in a 104, carring a couple of hard bombs, from any base in SEA. I watched many F-100’s taking off from Bien Hoa AB, RVN, with 4-750.s and no drop tanks whose main wheels finally broke ground one plane length from the beginning edge of the run-off area. The Huns’ wings were better designed for lifting those weights than the 104’s. The Starfighters were hardly more than a jet engine with an ejection seat. They were beautifully designed for their primary mission—high speed intercept of enemy A/C. The F-104’s fuselage and engine ( minus the after-burner ) were used by Lockheed Skunkworks for the U-2.
Well, as I’ve mentioned here so many times it’s become obnoxious to all of us, I have about ten hours as backseat ballast in the F-104D that was owned by the late Combat Jets Flying Museum, for which I worked part time as a flack and general go-to gofer. Obviously, we were not given any ordnance with all the spares that came with the Starfighter when CJFM acquired it from Norway. However, for cross country flights to airshows, we were able to take off comfortably with full tip tanks and underwing tanks, which weighed as much or more than a 500 lb. bomb under each wing. We did not use them, however, after the first or second time because the weight of the fuel and drag of the tanks cancelled out any additional range they might have provided.
I will swear to my dying day that taking off in a clean F-104 – the robust kick in the butt when the burner lights up, feeling the skin in your face tighten when the acceleration goes from nothing to faster than God in a single breath – is about the most exciting moment a human can experience, clothed or otherwise.
If anyone doubts that the F-104, especially the G and S models, could carry a wide range of air-to-mud ordnance, and put it on target, well, you’re just wrong, and thousands of people in NATO countries will tell you you are wrong.
As for the wings being razor sharp, that was 1950s PR crap. Those who said the plastic wing shields were used to keep the wings protected from clumsy humans are correct. In fact, the diameter of the leading edge of the F-104 wing at mid span is 1/16 of an inch, which is a bit fatter than the edge of a bread knife, though very, very sharp for an aircraft wing. But when we (I include myself here) get down to arguing which is fatter, the wing or a breadknife, well, then we’re just a bunch of insufferable rivet counters, aren’t we?
Now, as to the lethality of this wing, I have a story that pretty well illustrates how sharp it is in practical terms. One very hot day many years ago, just after owner Jim Robinson taxied the Starfighter up to our spot at Oshkosh, I was charged with dragging chocks up to the right main wheel from the front of the a/c. At this moment Mr. Sharkskin was unspeakably hung over, and the otherwise small wooden chocks felt like they were made of concrete. So to save a few steps I decided to duck under the wing instead of walking around. Putting the leading edge covers on was the next thing after chocking the airplane. The wing is about the height of the bridge of my nose at the root. That day, being in the state I was, I didn’t duck enough. You can still see the scar from the dent in my mug to this day. But it was a dent, not a razor cut. You’d have a helluva time shaving or cutting your enemies throat with the wing of a Starfighter. I carry the dent to prove it.
TOM
Hey Sharkskin— When landing the 104, which mainwheel had to touchdown first, the left or the right? Or did it matter? This question isn’t a joke. That’s the technique I saw in the mid-1960’s a Luke AFB when the Germans were learning to fly their Starfighters there. I was told that the main gear couldn’t take the stress of touching down on both wheels at once.
If it flew and it was in their inventory the Airforce hung a bomb on it in Vietnam.
The F-102 had some experience there too. I don’t believe the 106 ever strapped on Bombs but it did have a gun pack. Everything from B-58s to A-26s got into the act…
I have heard stories of F 104s making just sub Mach gun passes… Couldn’t see them until the passed over and were gone. The F-5 took this mentality of small hi speed strike aircraft to the max. The F 104 was actually a fair hi speed strike fighter. Many Euro airforces use or used it in this role.
Tinker: As I said, I was only riding in that F-104 as “ballast” (a back-seat passenger) and the only thing I’m rated to fly is single-engine lapdogs with the name “Piper” or something like it painted on the cowl (and the Citabria aerobatic trainer. I’m proud of that.) They would allow me to hamfist CJ’s CF-104D around the sky when we were high enough that I couldn’t do any damage the pilot couldn’t get us out of (our chief pilot and F-104 instructor at Combat Jets was the fabled NASA test pilot Eddie Schneider. Among other things, Eddie was one of NASA’s few SR-71 drivers, as well as an artist with a Starfighter strapped to him, and our chief MiG pilot was Space Shuttle Commander “Hoot” Gibson, so you can see I was pretty much less than a nobody when it came to the aircraft operations at CJ. My greatest contributions to the outfit were with a keyboard I’m afraid.). What I remember most was that instead of being extremely touchy on the controls, the high wing loading required some pretty strong stick inputs to, say, roll it. But once you got it rolling, it rolled very fast, didn’t want to stop, and my first few aileron rolls were memorable and quite sloppy. I mention this because, by comparison, a totally inexperienced jet jock like me or you has to fly the F-15 with his thumb and forefinger just to keep it straight and level (Though, believe it or not, I found all those hours flying “Falcon” with the stick on my PC actually helped considerably in the real thing. I’m not kidding.)
As for your question, I do know the F-104’s main gear was very tricky because, like the F-16, the wheels and the 104’s unique struts had to retract into the fuselage and thus were quite close together. This was due to the thinness of the wings, which was 4" at mid-chord (the fattest point) at the root. No place to stow the gear in there. Many Starfighters were turned over on landing, often fatally, by inexperienced pilots. It was terribly unforgiving in a crosswind.
Those gear WERE fragile, but the thing I remember most was how tough on tires and brakes the plane was, so I remember on rollouts we would go a long way before applying brakes, relying on the drag chute to conserve brakes and tires. We always carried a spare set of tires and wheels in the CJ “follow me” truck, and they looked no bigger to me, when off the plane, than very small, thin, motorcycle tires.
We have some F-18 pilots on this board who would know volumes more about this kind of thing than I, because for the same reasons stated above (I think), the Hornet also has narrow-chord gear that tucks into the fuselage. Landing approaches in the Starfighter were scary enough (it came over the fence at over 200 mph), and required plenty of concentration even under ideal conditions without having to do fancy tricks with the mains. But that’s only my very uneducated guess.
TOM
Thanks Black for the pics of the 104 in the SEA paint scheme. What a beutiful jet. I wish someone would build one and post it. I love that airplane, well I love all the century jets, bare metal or SEA camo.[8-]