F-104 STARFIGHTER Flies Again Over Italy, Awesome J79 Howl!
- Thread starter Ματθιας
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
fishwishin
Member
I love watching ol' smoky rip the air!
Dave.357
Member
Was this a US Plane? If so about what year?
The missile with a man in it.
Yes. US plane that was also flown by other countries. Entered service in 1958 and was used in Vietnam.
Yes, the Starfighter was a US produced plane. I'd bet that this particular plane is a license built one.
The USAF used them from the late 50's up to about 1967 when they were all phased out to NG units. They actually flew a bunch of missions, 5000+, in Vietnam.
Here's an F-104 walkaround video that can explain more:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB8l_fCKDSw&t=160s[/ame]
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
It has always puzzled me that the USAF and the USN put up with the J79 snorting its famous pillars of smoke as long as they did. I have read that later engines had a design change that made them smokeless, but I assume this is either untrue or the owners of this F-104 could not source an example.
Last edited:
My favorite as a kid. But one of the most unstable aircraft ever made.
I too loved that fighter as a kid.
LVSteve
Member
Canadian air force guy I knew told me a gag about the 104 and the effect its small wings had on turning. He cupped his hands so his voice sounded like it was coming from inside a pilot's mask and said, "Banking with intent to turn".
It’s 1/2 an F4. 
Didn’t a 104 take out a Valkyrie?
Didn’t a 104 take out a Valkyrie?
Rodan
SWCA Member
Yes. 1966... The F104 was flying on the XB70's right wing for a photo-op formation flight, and drifted into the XB70's right wingtip. Wake vortex then flipped the F104 over and it exploded, taking out the XB70's vertical stabilizers and damaging the left wing. The XB70 entered an unrecoverable spin and crashed.
The F104 pilot and the XB70 copilot were killed, the XB70 pilot survived, but was seriously injured.
Speculation is that the F104 pilot was looking for another aircraft that had been called out in the area, and this caused him to loose track of his position relative to the XB70.
Last edited:
Yeah, the F-104 was a Lockheed fighter. The reason for it's smoke trail is pretty obvious. Those two little intakes dump into one big exhaust - which means its can push more JP4 into its two engines than they can fully burn with the amount of air that can flow through those itty-bitty intakes.It’s 1/2 an F4.
Kind of like the idiots you see "rollin' coal" with their diesel trucks. They're pushing more fuel into the engine than it can burn, and the excess comes out the tailpipe as black smoke (soot). Which is in fact a total WASTE of fuel!
The F4 was built by McDonald Douglas, and they did their best to fix that smoke issue by giving each of the engines its own LARGER intake AND its own separate exhaust. This design created a more free-breathing configuration that allowed the engines to be tuned to burn ALL of the fuel they ingest to produce usable power - rather than just belching excess fuel out the tailpipe as black smoke. It is no coincidence that American fighter planes since then have used the same engine configuration as the F4.
It is certainly much more efficient - though maybe not quite as impressive to watch.
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
...and yet post-Vietnam confilct conversations with NVAF pilots revealed that the F-4 was easy to spot. It was the big black dot at the end of a pillar of smoke.
In the F-4 history book I have (somewhere!) it was said that the only fix was to run one motor at flight idle and the other at minimum burner.I think most turbojets of that era were smoky.
B-58s had 4 J79s and in some of the low level flights, there's a smoke trail visible - not as bad as an F-4, though!
The RA-5 Vigilante was smoky, too. I read that they mitigated the smoke by using minimal afterburner.
I have a picture of a NASA Convair 880 or 990 that had smoke trails.
They do look cool!
B-58s had 4 J79s and in some of the low level flights, there's a smoke trail visible - not as bad as an F-4, though!
The RA-5 Vigilante was smoky, too. I read that they mitigated the smoke by using minimal afterburner.
I have a picture of a NASA Convair 880 or 990 that had smoke trails.
They do look cool!
...and yet post-Vietnam confilct conversations with NVAF pilots revealed that the F-4 was easy to spot. It was the big black dot at the end of a pillar of smoke.
I'd like to read that book about the F4 that you're referencing.
My dad built phantoms during the 'Nam era, so most of what I know about them was passed on as word-of-mouth from him. Not saying he was 100% correct, just citing my source.
I don't doubt that he was at least a little biased in his opinions about this particular aircraft.
Last edited:
I read...
...that lacking attention from the procurement people (what else is new?) that putting the plane in minimum afterburner cleared up the smoke. Of course at a large expediture of fuel which was weighed against how dangerous the airspace was at that particular moment.
...that lacking attention from the procurement people (what else is new?) that putting the plane in minimum afterburner cleared up the smoke. Of course at a large expediture of fuel which was weighed against how dangerous the airspace was at that particular moment.
Ματθιας;141871059 said:
I have to find my copy to double check but I think this is the book that talked about minimal afterburner:
[ame]https://www.amazon.com/RA-5C-Vigilante-Units-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841767492[/ame]
Last edited:
LVSteve
Member
I'd like to read that book about the F4 that you're referencing.
My dad built them during the 'Nam era, so most of what I know about them was passed on as word-of-mouth from him. Not saying he was 100% correct, just citing my source.
I don't doubt that he was at least a little biased in his opinions about this particular aircraft.
That book is in a box somewhere in my garage. I am (finally!) trying to get my bookcases set up in this house.
As for jet intakes and engine issues, it does not take long to find that their development back in the day was as much cut and try as science. The F-111 was only right with the third iteration, the first fighter variant Panavia Tornado (the F2) had "disappointing" performance and the intakes were one area that required attention, and as we all know from Top Gun the F-14A intakes didn't suit the TF-30 engine in all circumstances. We can only hope the modern witchcraft of computational fluid dynamics get the designers pretty close first time.
I always loved watching the F-0104s flying at Luke AFB in the '70s by the German pilots. You could tell an F-4 from all the smoke coming out of the engine. It was amazing seeing such a small set of wings that were so sharp you could almost cut yourself on them
One crew chief tock suck pride in his Starfighter that he polished it after every flight. It was amazing.
Unfortunately my first assignment was to cover an F-104 crash. As a Public Affair's Officer all I could tell the media at the time was that a plane crashed and couldn't say it was an F-104 or that it was a German aircraft. Silly rules.
It was the fastest jet, flew the highest at it's time. I miss seeing them but now I watch the F-35s in awe..
One crew chief tock suck pride in his Starfighter that he polished it after every flight. It was amazing.
Unfortunately my first assignment was to cover an F-104 crash. As a Public Affair's Officer all I could tell the media at the time was that a plane crashed and couldn't say it was an F-104 or that it was a German aircraft. Silly rules.
It was the fastest jet, flew the highest at it's time. I miss seeing them but now I watch the F-35s in awe..
