"TF-104G Starfighter." Topic

"Finely Engraved Recessed Panel Lines And Rivets – Fully Detailed Engine, Cockpit, And Avionics Bay – Open Or Closed Air Brakes – 2 Huge Decals Sheets For 8 Versions – Instruction Sheet With Color Profiles (8x4 Plates) – 390 Parts (343 Plastic Parts, 47 Photo-Etched Parts).Decals for 8 versions from Belgium, Canada, Holland, Spain, Turkey, the US, Germany and Italy."

Tutorial here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Nice model. It's interesting how differently countries' experiences were with the Starfighter. Germany hated theirs as a widowmaker, but Italy loved theirs. The Italian Starfighter pilots saw themselves as hot pilots in a hot ride. They did have different doctrines that I'm sure played a big part in their evaluations of the aircraft. German crash numbers went down significantly after new training programs were put in place, but that initial lawn dart appellation never really went away with them while the Italians were hot on the craft from the get go.

I think the Germans had a couple of doctrinal problems to deal with. Inadequate training and using it for ground attack when it was designed to be an high altitude interceptor. Always an impressive beast to see both in the air and on the ground. Any static model needs the guards on the leading edges to stop people damaging them (or cutting themselves as I was once told).

Yeah, the F104 was the furthest thing from a ground attack plane. What the heck were the Germans thinking?!?

I understand the first ejector seats exited from the bottom of the craft. That was changed however.

I believe there was that whole bribery scandal where some officials bribed German officials- perhaps they pushed it as a ground attacker? The Japanese used it in that role as well but never had the same issues the Germans did.

A stubby winged dart that flies fast in a straight line. Kelly Johnson's aptly nicknamed "missile with a man in it."

And here's why it had a bad track record in the Luftwaffe: link

It was an interceptor which means that its main "weapon" is speed. Its job was to intercept bombers carrying nukes and it would have done that job very well. Turning it into a fighter-bomber, especially a low flying one, was a very bad idea.

Here's another account with some more details:

link

IIRC Lockheed found that they were missing out on the fighter-bomber market and didn't have a suitable airframe in production at the time and tried to turn the F-104 into a bomber with mixed results.

Knowing that they were facing stiff competition from dedicated fighter-bomber designs they started to bribe officials into buying the F-104G.

Of course no amount of bribery can cover for the fact that these planes were a very poor compromise at best.

The Japanese only used them as interceptors and had much lower losses than other nations that used them as bombers.

So it's no wonder they ended up with such a bad reputation.

Flying brick. Got buzzed once during maneuvers in Germany by a 104, he was very low and running with afterburner on. He left my antenna's swaying when he passed over.

I think Bob Dornan flew one.

Glad you like it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

German experience explained here:

link

No, the F101 (and the F4) were flying bricks, proof that if you put enough horsepower on something, even a brick can fly.

The F104 is quite sleek, but it's a bit too small. The F16 is the 104's successor. The F16 also had a horrible reputation at first.