Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: nuchpatrick on March 13, 2006, 01:36:11 PM
-
I was at the TICO air show this past weekend.. I couldn't believe what I hear was going to be flying but not only a F-86 but a one of kind a working & flying F-104 Star Fighter! I have a crappy sony digital camera which isn't good for long range stuff I'll post some shots later..
Seems that the owner is planning on 2 more aircraft to do a full air demo team! All I can say is SWEET!!!
:D
Heres the website for the F-104..
http://www.starfighters.net/index.html
-
That is very cool :)
My Father spent quite a bit of time with the CF-104 when he was in the airforce. I as well spent a small time with it before we re-equipped with the CF-18.
Nothing sounds like a 104. It's a sound I will always remember.
cheers,
RTR
-
Beautiful!
Silver arrow with wingstubs. :)
-
I love the F-104 (thus the avatar). They make a very distinctive sound.
If you surf patrick's avaition, there are some nice movies from Italy's Air Force who just retired them.
-
Our first 13 came to Norway in 1963 with the carrier USS Croatan. One of them were taken out of the museum in 2002 to become airworthy again. It does shows now I belive.
-
Some old photos of them in service here
(http://www.starfighter.no/web/gallery/oppst1.jpg)
(http://www.starfighter.no/web/gallery/oppst2.jpg)
(http://www.starfighter.no/web/gallery/7X_01.jpg)
(http://www.starfighter.no/web/gallery/spit.jpg)
(http://www.starfighter.no/web/gallery/gal-3.jpg)
(http://www.starfighter.no/web/gallery/gal-4.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Our first 13 came to Norway in 1963 with the carrier USS Croatan. One of them were taken out of the museum in 2002 to become airworthy again. It does shows now I belive.
I'm something of a carrier buff.. never heard of that one! I'm assuming they came over as 'cargo'.. even so, would be one heluva neat pic to have a shot of an Essex Class with a Starfighter on deck!
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html
-
what a stupid looking plane, why didnt they design it with wings?
-
Yeah those stub wings would cut a guy too.. The old guy that works for was a jet engine tech in the 50's-60's. They would put covers on the ends of the wings so people wouldn't get cut by them.
He's got some great storys..
-
i read somewhere that the wings were so sharp that they needed covers to protect the engineers:eek: :O
-
Originally posted by nuchpatrick
Yeah those stub wings would cut a guy too.. The old guy that works for was a jet engine tech in the 50's-60's. They would put covers on the ends of the wings so people wouldn't get cut by them.
He's got some great storys..
bastige you beat me to it!:p
-
Originally posted by nuchpatrick
Yeah those stub wings would cut a guy too.. The old guy that works for was a jet engine tech in the 50's-60's. They would put covers on the ends of the wings so people wouldn't get cut by them.
He's got some great storys..
Originally posted by Pooface
i read somewhere that the wings were so sharp that they needed covers to protect the engineers:eek: :O
OMG!!!! i read the same thing... i have no idea where i read it though???!?!!!?!!?! :confused: :confused:
-
Originally posted by Furball
what a stupid looking plane, why didnt they design it with wings?
Later on, Kelly Johnson did add wings to the plane. You would have known it as the U2.
-
admit it poo, you just wanted us to think you knew that already :)
-
Originally posted by B@tfinkV
admit it poo, you just wanted us to think you knew that already :)
:rofl :p
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm something of a carrier buff.. never heard of that one! I'm assuming they came over as 'cargo'.. even so, would be one heluva neat pic to have a shot of an Essex Class with a Starfighter on deck!
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/carriers/cv-list1.html
hehe yes... they came as deck cargo. From what i have heard they arrived at night and were unloaded quickly.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
hehe yes... they came as deck cargo. From what i have heard they arrived at night and were unloaded quickly.
you sure you are not getting confused with Cuba?
-
Originally posted by Furball
you sure you are not getting confused with Cuba?
:D
I am sure.
-
Id heard "stories" of the sharp wings...is this for real or embellishment?
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Id heard "stories" of the sharp wings...is this for real or embellishment?
yup. it had a really odd wing shape too, like a double edged razor.
i'll see if i can find a cross section of it:aok
-
from wikipedia:
"The wing design was radical. Most jet fighters of the period (and to this day) used a swept-wing or delta-wing planform. This allowed a reasonable balance between aerodynamic performance, lift, and internal space for fuel and equipment. Lockheed's tests, however, determined that the most efficient shape for high-speed, supersonic flight was a very small, straight, mid-mounted, trapezoidal wing. The wing was extremely thin, with a thickness-to-chord ratio of only 3.36%. Its aspect ratio was 2.45. The wing's leading edges were so thin (0.016 in / 0.41 mm) and so sharp that they presented a hazard to ground crews, and protective guards had to be installed during ground operations. The thinness of the wings meant that fuel tanks and landing gear had to be contained in the fuselage. Equally the motors to drive to the control surfaces had to be only one inch (25 mm) thick to fit."
-
That's amazing, a little wing holding up all that weight
Thanks
-
These guys took off the wings and are going for the World Land Speed Record.
(http://www.landspeed.com/images/archive/boeing.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
These guys took off the wings and are going for the World Land Speed Record.
(http://www.landspeed.com/images/archive/boeing.jpg)
Why am I not surprised.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
These guys took off the wings and are going for the World Land Speed Record.
Ouch, it has a certain Darwin Award potential!
Hope it'll turn out ok.
-
They better not remove the ejection seat :D
-
I think on some 104's the ejection seat fired downwards.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think on some 104's the ejection seat fired downwards.
Prolly a good thing... the "car" will flip over :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think on some 104's the ejection seat fired downwards.
Nope, and thank goodness. Canada used them as extremely low alt strike aircraft.
-
Yup.
In the early days of the XF-104 program, it was decided due to the limitations of the available ejection seat catapults, the ejection seat should fire downwards. This allowed for the best capability of clearing aircraft structure, including the vertical fin at higher speeds. It also effected the windblast on the pilot.
http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm (http://www.ejectionsite.com/f104seat.htm)
-
Me = Wrong
-
Yep, it originally fired the seat out through the bottom. I believe that once in production it was changed to eject the seat out through the top.
A pretty remarkable aircraft, although not very forgiving. It earned its reputation as the "widowmaker".
RTR
-
wasn't supposed to be 'forgiving'. was supposed to be the fastest fighter/interceptor on the planet, not a freakin piper cub.
the single engine/small wing setup + engine failure = world class aww-chit.
-
Don't misread me Hang.
The 104 did its job and did it very well. All I meant by that statement was that from a pilots perspective, when things went wrong, they went wrong quickly. It was a pretty unforgiving aircraft, and often didn't leave many options.
We used to mount the stick on a plaque for those pilots who had to eject from the 104. One of my CO's had 3 of them.
Not meant to be a criticism, there wasn't an aircraft in the world that could do what the 104 did during its time.
cheers,
RTR
-
I belive it was a very good fighter until the germans wanted to put a radar in it or something. That messed up sometihng and they lost many of them. As far as I remeber it was not intended to have a radar when it was designed, but to be guided by ground based radars for its original role.
-
Originally posted by RTR
Don't misread me Hang.
The 104 did its job and did it very well. All I meant by that statement was that from a pilots perspective, when things went wrong, they went wrong quickly. It was a pretty unforgiving aircraft, and often didn't leave many options.
We used to mount the stick on a plaque for those pilots who had to eject from the 104. One of my CO's had 3 of them.
Not meant to be a criticism, there wasn't an aircraft in the world that could do what the 104 did during its time.
cheers,
RTR
LOL... 3 ejects from 104's!
I take it the guy wasn't real popular among the maintainers. ;)
Considering the radical wing and that the 104 flight control system was all pilot/hydraulic (no computers) I'd call the damn thing a brilliant design to have been flyable at all!
Damn thing was an amazing aircraft; and those that flew it were by simple process of elimination mighty good sticks. ;)
-
LOL Hang!
He was actually a great CO and was very popular with all of us.
I gotta admit though, we think he was maybe getting a bit of a complex about the 104! hehe
cheers,
RTR
-
Heard that if you thought of ejecting it was already too late.
Some guy was decapited while diving by a 104 which was being towed on a road near Trenton when Canada was flying them.
Remember one day one took off from Uplands. Heard the engine then nothing, then an almighty roar and this a/c going vertical till out of sight. Found out later the engine quit but some how the pilot got it re-lite and went AB. Glad he did or I might have had a 104 in the yard (flight path was over the house).
-
Hangtime,
He might have been WILDLY popular with the maintainers. After all when you have a bird that can't be fixed and counted on to run right, let the "old man" fly her. That will take care of the problem!
-
LOL Maverick!
RTR
-
wasn't there one of those at the air museum we went to at the last Con?
-
(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d172/BUG322/Afbeelding-011.jpg)
Remembered them as kid when they where still allowed to fly low.
-
Even 4 decades after they first flew it still looks like it belongs in a sci-fi movie.
Awesome fighter.
-
Originally posted by RTR
Not meant to be a criticism, there wasn't an aircraft in the world that could do what the 104 did during its time.
cheers,
RTR
Just out of interest, how did it compare to the Lightning?
(http://www.studenten.net/customasp/axl/image/foto/15-3-2002-8-50-BAC_Lightning_Firebirds_display.jpg)
Specifications (F.6):
Engines: Two 13,200-pound thrust Rolls-Royce RA34R afterburning Avon 310 turbojets
Weight: Empty 28,000 lbs., Max Takeoff 50,000 lbs.
Wing Span: 34ft. 10in.
Length: 55ft. 3in.
Height: 19ft. 7in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at 40,000 ft: 1,500 mph (Mach 2.3)
Ceiling: 60,000 ft.
Range: 800 miles
Armament:
* Two 30-mm Aden guns in ventral pack
* Two Firestreak or Red Top air-to-air missiles, or
44 50.4-mm (2-inch) rockets, or
Five Vinteen 360 70-mm cameras and linescan equipment and underwing flares
* Up to 144 rockets or six 1,000-pound bombs on underwing/overwing hardpoints
-
Originally posted by Furball
Just out of interest, how did it compare to the Lightning?
How bout F-104 is definitely better looking than the Lightning:t
-
i wouldnt say either were particularly attractive ;)
just sounds like the Lightning and F-104 were designed to do similar jobs.
-
The F-104 does what the Lighting did with only 1 motor.. and had a bit more range and less weight.
F- 104
SPECIFICATIONS
Span: 21.94 ft.
Length: 54.77 ft.
Height: 13.49 ft.
Tread: 8.79 ft.
Weight: 19,800 lbs. gross takeoff wt. with no external load (includes full internal fuel, 725 rounds of ammunition and pilot).
Armament: Basic armament consists of two AIM-9B air-to-air guided missiles, carried one on each wing tip in place of the tip tanks. Aircraft also incorporates a M61 20mm electrically operated gun located on the lower left side of the forward fuselage. Its ammunition supply of 725 rounds is fired at an average rate of 4000 rounds per minute.
Engine: One General Electric J79-GE-7A of 15,800 lbs. static sea-level thrust with afterburner.
Crew: One
PERFORMANCE
Maximum speed: 1,320 mph. (Mach 2)
cruising Speed: 575 mph.
Range: 1,250 miles
Service Ceiling: 58,000 ft.
-
Story of the XB-70 taken down by an F-104 during a test flight. Interesting and sad story.
Mid-Air (http://area51specialprojects.com/xb70_crash.html)
-
Originally posted by kevykev56
Story of the XB-70 taken down by an F-104 during a test flight. Interesting and sad story.
Mid-Air (http://area51specialprojects.com/xb70_crash.html)
Sad story indeed.
Tell me though, am I freaking out or does it say "A Special Welcome to Our Visitors from Hamilton, Bermuda" at the top of the site? Is that because my IP comes from here or something?
-
Originally posted by Curval
Sad story indeed.
Tell me though, am I freaking out or does it say "A Special Welcome to Our Visitors from Hamilton, Bermuda" at the top of the site? Is that because my IP comes from here or something?
Must be Curv, I clicked the link and its says special welcome to our vistors from austin Tx
-
It is deriving that information based on the ARIN database. No biggie and can be quite wrong as well.
-
For those of you who fly FS2004, Captain Sim's F-104 is OUTSTANDING. That booger will definitely challenge your flight sim abilities. Every second you are in it, it is trying to kill you.
Members of the DHBG are currently flying the 104's around the world in real time, real weather.
Here is our map
DHBG World Tour (http://www.skunkbunker.com/3rdworldtourmap.html)
and some pics of the 104
Pics (http://www.skunkbunker.com/gallery1.html)
This is by far the best add-on available hands down.
VERY CHALLENGING!!!!!
Tapakeg
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is deriving that information based on the ARIN database. No biggie and can be quite wrong as well.
Hell i'm in the south bay area and it says "Hello New York"
Granted i'm from New York, but wrong - hell yes.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Hell i'm in the south bay area and it says "Hello New York"
Granted i'm from New York, but wrong - hell yes.
maybe its software is sofisticated enough to read your mind and determine you're actually from New York :noid , your not wearing the tin foil hat are you :t
-
Originally posted by RTR
Not meant to be a criticism, there wasn't an aircraft in the world that could do what the 104 did during its time.
cheers,
RTR
There were many aircraft that could do what the F-104 did “in its time” (unless “its time” was just 1958). They all had a top speed of Mach 2+. I’ve listed them in order of my personal preference.
#1 (by far)
F-4 Phantom II – in operational service 1960
(http://www.holloman.af.mil/photos/f-4/F-4%201.jpg)
#2
Mirage III – in operational service 1960
(http://www.planepage.com/Photo_Gallery/photos/Mirage%20III/mirageIII.jpg)
#3
Mig-21F – in operational service 1959
(http://www.ocean.univ.gda.pl/~silver/f7air.jpg)
#4
SAAB J35 Draken – in operational service 1959
(http://avions.legendaires.free.fr/Images/Gdraken.jpg)
#5
F-104A Starfighter – in operational service 1958
(http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/f104.gif)
#6
F-106A Delta Dart – in operational service 1959
(http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/f106.jpg)
#7
BAC Lightning F. Mk.. I – in operational service 1960
(http://www.whiteplanes.com/images/military/military23.jpg)
The F-104 is undoubtedly the most beautiful though.