Better F-104

[oldironside]

I've always found the story of the Starfighter to be rather depressing. Kelly Johnson designed what he thought the USAF wanted, they didn't like it and retired it as soon as possible. It would have remained a footnote to aviation history there if it hadn't been for Lockheed's creative payment of commission.

So, the question is this - what changes would you make to the basic F-104 design to make it a world beater? Is it possible? Is there anything to change except for that tiny, razor sharp wing?

 

[Just Leo]

I have a number of nice things to say about the Starfighter, and I will say them upon receipt of a new car. Metallic blue.

Just in case their listening. I know they've changed their style, but I don't know where their trough is located now. DC? I love pork.

 

[Riain]

I don't know if there is anything actually wrong with it compared to its contempararies like the Mirage IIIC, Mig21 and Lightning. Perhaps its real problem was that it didn't get a chance to do anything worthy of its performance until long after it entered service, and by then there were way better aircraft around.

If an air to air engagement with a supersonic adversary occured before say 1963 and the F104 did well then perhaps it wouldn't have such a bad reputation.

 

[NothingNow]

So, the question is this - what changes would you make to the basic F-104 design to make it a world beater?

I'd kill it with Fire.

Then replace it with an Improved Voodoo or Delta Dart with sidewinders and much friendlier handling.

I don't know if there is anything actually wrong with it compared to its contempararies like the Mirage IIIC, Mig21 and Lightning. Perhaps its real problem was that it didn't get a chance to do anything worthy of its performance until long after it entered service, and by then there were way better aircraft around.

There was the tricky handling and horrific accident rate, which counts for something. Especially considering that the Lightning and MiG-21 had comparable performance, with better maneuverability, and much safer handling characteristics.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

The main issue is that the F-104 was optimized for one thing, and one thing only. That was climbing to altitude fast and killing non-maneuvering targets. Trying to use the Starfighter for anything else, like low-level strike (I'm looking at you, West Germany, Canada, and others) is going to put you in a world of hurt. To fix the design, you'd need major changes, such as a massive increase in wing area. At that point, you're better off with something like the F-106 (or something like the 105 for the strike role).

 

[Simon]

There was the tricky handling and horrific accident rate, which counts for something. Especially considering that the Lightning and MiG-21 had comparable performance, with better maneuverability, and much safer handling characteristics.

Yeah. When something like 20%, I've seen figures as high as 25% in some places, of your planes crash you know that's there's something going on. Hence the old German joke - How do you get your own Starfighter? Buy a small piece of land and wait.

 

[LostCosmonaut]

Yeah. When something like 20%, I've seen figures as high as 25% in some places, of your planes crash you know that's there's something going on. Hence the old German joke - How do you get your own Starfighter? Buy a small piece of land and wait.

I think that it's accident rate was more due to the role they were used in; Spain had no losses in 17,000 flight hours when they were operating the Starfighter. However, they only used it as an interceptor, not in the ground attack or maritime strike role like the FRG did.

 

[NothingNow]

I think that it's accident rate was more due to the role they were used in; Spain had no losses in 17,000 flight hours when they were operating the Starfighter. However, they only used it as an interceptor, not in the ground attack or maritime strike role like the FRG did.

The US averaged ~26 write-offs per 100,000 hours while operating it in the same role.

The Spanish were the outlier of all outliers in this.

 

[oldironside]

The main issue is that the F-104 was optimized for one thing, and one thing only. That was climbing to altitude fast and killing non-maneuvering targets. Trying to use the Starfighter for anything else, like low-level strike (I'm looking at you, West Germany, Canada, and others) is going to put you in a world of hurt. To fix the design, you'd need major changes, such as a massive increase in wing area. At that point, you're better off with something like the F-106 (or something like the 105 for the strike role).

Or a Mirage III. If the Lw could have swallowed their pride and bouught a French kite they would have been in a far better ccondition. It would help that the engine was a BMW + 10 years of developmenty, and the airframe had far more development potential than ths F-104. Who knows? The Lw could have redubbed it Fata Morgana. Far better than Erdnagel.

 

[Archibald]

The big issue with the F-104 was the T-tail. It resulted in severe pitch-up issues that caused many accidents (the F-101 Voodoo had similar issue, the Trident airliner also suffered from that). It even nearly killed Chuck Yeager (remember the Right Stuff, it really happened)

Have Lockheed lower the tail (near the jet engine exhaust) and the F-104 will be a much saner machine to fly (as sane as a Mirage III, a Lightning or a Phantom)

The aircraft will tend to be much more prone to a dangerous deep stall condition, where blanking of the airflow over the tailplane and elevators by a stalled wing can lead to total loss of pitch control.[1] The F-101 Voodoo suffered from this throughout its service life.
The vertical stabilizer must be made considerably stronger and stiffer to support the forces generated by the tailplane. Unless expensive composite materials are used, this inevitably makes it heavier as well.
The T-tail configuration can cause several maintenance concerns as well. The control runs to the elevators are more complex, and elevator surfaces are much more difficult to casually inspect from the ground. The loss of Alaska Airlines Flight 261 was directly attributed to lax maintenance due to the complexity of the T-tail.
Because of concerns about being able to clear the tail, the first high-speed aircraft with a T-tail, the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, was at first fitted with a downward-firing ejector seat. For later models of this aircraft, capabilities of ejection seats improved, so it was changed to an upward-firing one, to overcome problems in low-altitude escapes.

Beside that flaw the F-104 was an excellent machine, except the USAF had no role for it: the F-106 kicked it as an interceptor, and as a fighter bomber it stood no chance against the F-105 nor the Phantom.

A mature, saner F-104 would very much look like the CL-1200

 

[oldironside]

I think it's also worth mentioning that the CL-1200 had a 7'-6" increase in wingspan and more than 50% more wing area over the F-104, which would suggest the handling problem was more than just the tail.

 

[wietze]

this was one the other option, pity it never got a chance, i think it would have been a much better choice than the 104.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F_Super_Tiger

 

[oldironside]

Wietze: Love your sig line.

 

[NothingNow]

this was one the other option, pity it never got a chance, i think it would have been a much better choice than the 104.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F_Super_Tiger

Yeah, give it the AN/AWG-7 and AN/APG-50 from the XF8U-3 and you've got a monster of an all weather interceptor. Give it something that'll feed more reliably, like a pair of M39s (used in the F-100, F-101A/C and F-5) and it's a good dog-fighter as well, without adding too much weight.

Of course, if you're just looking for a strike aircraft, you might as well just buy the Thud, and put some armor on it. Maybe 2000 pounds of armor distributed across the aircraft to make it less vulnerable to AA fire, while accepting the reduction in payload, (from 14,000 to 12,000lbs.)

 

[tchizek]

I suspect the way to have a better F-104 is to have the USAF write a spec that didn't focus on a single task, however that would have involved major POD's for the USAF at that point in time.

 

[phx1138]

To actually address the OP's proposal...

What about chin-mounted canards? Or extra ventral fins? I seem to recall an experimental "high maneuverability" 104... (The extra "tail" was a bit silly...)

Obviously, better ejection system was needed...

I suppose a turbofan, instead of the smoky J79, was out of the question?

 

[NothingNow]

I suppose a turbofan, instead of the smoky J79, was out of the question?

How about upscaling it to match the J75? Then you've got all the space and thrust to fit all of the needed safety features, like zero-zero ejection seats, a proportionately larger wing (or just a pair of decent sized LERX) and a safer tail design (with a much lower tail fin, all configured for docile, but responsive handling) while still retaining the absurd performance.

Later on, the Volvo Flygmotor RM8A/B could be fitted, since it was a pretty close approximation to the size of a J75, with some extra thrust to complement it's improved fuel economy.

 

[oldironside]

I seem to recall an experimental "high maneuverability" 104... (The extra "tail" was a bit silly...)

You may be thinking of the fly-by-wire development aircraft that is currently residing in the Wehrtechnik Museum in Koblenz. They added an extra tailplane forward of the c of g to make it unstable. Still, anything that adds a bit more wing area...

 

[Michel Van]

The main issue is that the F-104 was optimized for one thing, and one thing only. That was climbing to altitude fast and killing non-maneuvering targets. Trying to use the Starfighter for anything else, like low-level strike (I'm looking at you, West Germany, Canada, and others) is going to put you in a world of hurt. To fix the design, you'd need major changes, such as a massive increase in wing area. At that point, you're better off with something like the F-106 (or something like the 105 for the strike role).

For those who not understand this,
The F-104 was high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor design for Soviets slow mastodons Bomber
The NATO partner Germany Italy Belgium and Netherlands (also Japan) needed fast replacement for there obsolete F-84, F-86 and F-94.
but they needed a multi-role fighter-bomber and reconnaissance aircraft that can fly at very low altitude.
so they got the F-104G, Sadly Germany put there rookie Pilot after a very short theoretic briefing in a F-104G...
...in total 110 german pilots lost there life with Starfighter.

with the problem of F-104 in USAF and NATO partners
Lockheed overwork the design into advance CL-1200, the prototype flow as X-27

 

[sharlin]

Also you'd need to work around the huge bribing scandal the 104 dragged into the light of day.