F-104 Starfighter Project 1/16th scale

[lphan]

My next project will be a pusher prop F-104 Starfighter (no cheating on wing area).

1/16 th scale would bring the:

Wing Area to 110 sq in
Length: 41.0625 in
Wing Span: 16.4375 in

Flying weight goal: 17 oz
Wing Loading: 22.3 oz/sq ft

Stay tuned !

[lphan]

Top View

[Matthew Allen]

:eek: I hope you're a good pilot!

Power?

Matthew

[lphan]

Matt,

Here's a link to my previous project.
I'll be using the same powerplant on the 104

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111585&highlight=f16

Le

[NateDog]

I admired your F-16 control system, and posted my question there first. I'll try again here - what would happen if you abandoned moveable tail surfaces altogether, and went with all-moving wings? Increase AOA = climb, decrease AOA = dive, opposites for roll. This would move all weight to the center, allow really sturdy/simple tail (particularly as the F-104 is a T-tail).

I'm most interested in this as an aerodynamic point. For aircraft with small structural loads like models, why wouldn't this be a much more efficient system? I seem to remember an old slope-soarer that flew this way, was scary as all hell...

Hmmm. I'd try it, but I'm working up a Super Decathlon...

[Matthew Allen]

Iphan,

I remember that F16 - I was impressed.

Will this one be foam or balsa?

Matthew

[Thomas Nelson]

Best wishes - should be a fun challenge. Balsa construction?

[vintage1]

If you end up with any free drawings? :)

[lphan]

NateDog,

Now I understand what you're talking about. Yes, I've thought about the same controls, having a totally fixed tail and moving using both wings as controls. I'll give it serious consideration. My only concern is the F-104 has anhedral, the wings are very close to the ground, I'm afraid they might rip off on landing, especially if I have to pivot them.

For now I think I'll stick with standard ailerons and elevator.

Matt and Thomas, it will be standard built up balsa like the F-16.

Le

[lphan]

Dear Vintage1,

Like the F-16 I will post the .dxf file on my website after I'm finished. There's a link from the F-16 discussion mentioned previously.

Here's my progress so far for the F-104.

Cheers,

Le

[lphan]

Side View

[vintage1]

Looks great. Is that balsa planking on a crutch-and-former?

I don't thing the small wing matters, as long as the rest is light.

It will just be a bit draggy with that relatively huge fuselage.

I reckon a DF would work in that with an extra air intake under the fuselage.

Plenty of exit diameter.

Should be spectacular in the air anyway.

[DBlum]

Le, looks great! Can't wait to see how it works out on the scale wing area.

[lphan]

Model update

[lphan]

Update 2

[lphan]

Update 3

[Matthew Allen]

Looks great. One thing though - it appears to have upthrust?

Matthew

[Chas]

I loved the comment from one of our German contributors :-

"How do you get a full-size F104?
- Buy a plot of land and wait.".

:-0

Chas

[lphan]

Matthew,

Like in real life, the direction of the thrust needs to go through the CG of the aircraft. This prevents any awkward behavior when thrust is varied. You may have seen pics of the F-104 being launched using a rocket assist. Note the angle of the rocket nozzle, it points to the aircraft's CG.

I found that for high wing loading models like this one and my F-16 (24oz/sq ft) it's very sensitive. I won't really know where the CG of the F-104 until I finish it. The thrust angle is the last thing I have to set.

My F-16 had a wing span of 18.75 inches and a 5.5 inch dia prop.
I had to also give the motor lots of right thrust (for rear motors, it points to the left)

This F-104 has a wingspan of only 16.5 inches with a 5.5 inch dia prop. I'll need even more right thust.


I love this hobby. It teaches me so much about aerodynamics, and building techniques.

Cheers,

Le

[vintage1]

rather than right thrust, which won't really counteract torque rolling, its better to mix in left aileron with the throttle if you can. Right rudder will also give a rolling moment to the left, but its unbalanced and will cause yaw and unnecessary drag.

The real problem with these pseudo jets is that torque becomes most noticeable at low airspeed, and the ruddy things will tend to roll right out of the stall badly. Frankly you just have to fly them I feel.

Nigel Hawes found that his little Hawks went best when the motors were truly zero zero. he built a 'shaft extender' rod so make it easy to set the motors up. It was in a UK magazine a few months back.

I would avoid sidethrust entirely, and maybe just tip the rear of the motor up a degree or so at best.

There is enough fin area there to make it very sensitive to sidethrust I would think.

Anyay, at the speeds its likley to fly, you will be 'on the sticks' the whole time surely :)

[stumax]

Looks cool :) . I'm doing one for EDF, hoping for 1.1kg thrust, 1.2kg or less AUW - should really get up and go! Here's a link to what I've done so far:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147450

Stu Maxwell
StumaxAircraft
stumax@hotmail.com

[vintage1]

Mmm. The starfighter held teh world speed record briefly at 1400mph.

Sacle on that is about 90mph+

haha. Will you even SEE it before its gone?

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Thanks for the input about thrust. The F-16 is hand launched and almost rolles left completely without any right thrust. Since the F-104 will be bungee launched, I may not need quite as much or any right thrust. Yet, torque on a 5.5 dia prop on a 16.5 in wing span is something to contend with.

You're right, by the time I get up to speed, I'll have to start turning the F-104 around :) or I'd loose sight of it.

Stumax,

The F-104 looks great ! What scale is it?
You thrust to weight ratio sounds impressive. My F-16 weighs 17 oz and has a thrust of about 8 oz. It even does loop to loops. So, your's will cook !

Looking forward to it !

Le

[lphan]

Formers 1

[monkamarm2000]

Looks cool Iphan, you should be able to get away with scale wing on a pusher setup.


Barry

[lphan]

Progress

[vintage1]

Boy is that pusher prop going to be noisy. Operating in the fin slot :)

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Yes, I may have to vut the rudder out some more.
Well, next step is to make drawings.

Le

[lphan]

Progress

[lphan]

Progress 2

[Matthew Allen]

Looking good. Aren't you going to need to open up the formers a bit more to allow different battery placement?

Matthew

[lphan]

Matthew,

You are correct. Since I'm using the crutch method for the fuselage construction, I need to cut the battery access after I'm planked most of the fuselage.

Should be cutting the balsa this weekend !

Le :)

[Jet builder]

Hello,

i have a question
Which program are you using to make the x-sections of the F-104.
is it possible to download a trail version some where to look how it works.

greetings

[lphan]

Jet Builder,

I'm using a 3D CAD software called I-DEAS. The company that makes it is called EDS.

My work here at has always had it. I've never tried to get a trial version of it.

Le

[The Max-Q]

You're crazy man! A Starfighter! That is really high on the "holy cow" list. Good luck building and flying her. Looks like you're well on your way with those very detailed CAD drawings!

Good Luck

[lphan]

Last minute edites to the compueter model. I decided to do the F-104A version where the rear of the rudder is straight up. This would be ideal for the prop clearance.

[lphan]

Crutch made !

[lphan]

CG crutch

[lphan]

Fuse1

[hubdave]

impressive!!

[vintage1]

This is one plane I want to hear the flying report on!

I think it wll be fabulous if the wing loading is low enough.

[Thomas Nelson]

Very nice indeed!

[lphan]

Construction 9-22-03 A

[lphan]

Construction 9-22-03 B

[ED209]

Even if that thing doesn't fly, you'll still have one hell of a nice display model. Great work!!

[Mickey]

Looking good! Keep the pictures comming.
Mickey

[lphan]

Construct 9-26-03 A

[lphan]

Construct 9-26-03 B

[lphan]

9-29-03 A

[lphan]

9-29-03 B

[Billy Haynes]

Your 104 looks great! What are you predicting the wing loading to be? (if already posted, sorry I must have missed it, or forgot it :) )

[lphan]

Billy,

1/16 th scale would bring the:

Wing Area to 110 sq in
Length: 41.0625 in
Wing Span: 16.4375 in

Flying weight goal: 17 oz
Wing Loading: 22.3 oz/sq ft

It looks like I'm gonna hit the Flying weight goal of 17 oz.

[lphan]

Construct 9-30-03

[Warren Jones]

Nice looking build.

Cheers

Warren

[lphan]

Warren,

Thanks for your encouragement :)!

Attached is the lastest pic.

Next, to build a bungie launcher for the "Glide Test".

Any suggestions anyone?

For the "Glide Test", the F-104 weights 9 oz, with little receiver battery. It looks like the full up flying weight will be 18 oz instead of the projected 17 oz.

Le

[lphan]

Construct 10-6-03 A

[lphan]

Construct 10-6-03 B

[Mickey]

Looks very nice indeed!!!
Scares me....looking at those tiny wings :)
Good luck on the glide test!
Mickey

[rogwinger]

Is that white piece on the bottom your bungee hook? If it is I would say it is too far aft. From my experience with my Aggressor, I would say it needs to be about where your fuselage insignia is.

Great build by the way, I've been enjoying your project.

[redtiger]

Iphan -

It looks great! Very nice finishing.

I'd be afraid to maiden it. Stall speed has got to be around 30mph... Any ideas on actual numbers?

How are you going to power it?

-jim

[vintage1]

I've been plugging motocalc and can't get your weights to add up.

what is the weight with motor receiver, but no pack?

If she's is going up at 18oz with that wing loading, sp400 may not be enough - may need a long can 480 to have decent performance, or better still mega 16/15/4.


My rough figures on 8x600AE indicated the gunther is a good prop to start with - sp400 is lousy speed and climb - barely flies.

Permax 'long can' 480 instantly better - 700fpm climb and 60mph top speed. Similar to mega 16/15/4 but draws more current.

Stall at around 25mph is lousy! no chance of a hand launch here.

She will NEED to fly at around 40mph

Can you confirm all up weight with radio but without motor pack and ESC is around 10oz?

If only you could get AUW down to 12oz or so...:(

BEST power train I could find quickly was MPjet 25/25 on 3s1p e-tech 1200 and a 7x6 prop. Knocks 3 oz off the weight, bringing the stall speed down to 22mph, and enough thrust to hand launch.

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Thanks for doing this for me. I'm currently using a speed 400, with a Graupner 5x5 prop.
OK.

Flying weight, minus battery pack (8cell, 600AE), is 12.8 oz.

Battery pack weighs: 5.5 oz

Total flying weight now is a whopping 18.3 oz !!

Le

[vintage1]

Definitely chuck in a long can (permax) 480. It will be a little over pitched on that prop - Gunther is better. You are going to lose efficiency with the 400 at the sorts of draws you need to fly it.

If there is ANY way you can get the weight down...it will be good news tho.

How come it came up so heavy?

PS I want to build one later on, thats why I am being so inquisitive :D

Got loads of 480's and gunthers and 8x600AE's.

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Thanks for the info.

Why so heavy?
I sheeted the entire fuse with 1/32 balsa; even the formers are 1/32. The longest distance between formers is 3 inches. Even that gives, the "starved cow" look to the fuse. There are 16 formers in the fuse, and 1/32 stringers. I covered it with silver UltraCote. It has a 2 inche solid balsa nose. The rudder is hollow. The elevator stab is solid 1/8 balsa. The canopy is carved foam layered with fiberglass 1/5 oz cloth.

In my F-16, the formers were ate 1.75 inches apart, and the fuse looks great, having 20 formers !

Well, we'll have to give this F-104 a go !
There's no point just buliding it and let it sit there.

Le

[vintage1]

*shakes head sadly*. must have been very rough old balsa then, or is it like my 109, mostly CA held together by balsa :)

I'd have bult it in two halves, laminated a hollow nose, and dremeled out the formers afterwards....


Still think it needs a 480 :D

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Currently, my goal in this hobby is to push the standard speed 400 to it's limit.

I'll try the speed 400 first. It that doesn't work, I'll go for speed 480.

Next, the bungee lancher.

Cheers,

Le

[vintage1]

You will push the standard 400 over its limits, and still have a rotten rate of climb. :) Its really a 12-16 oz plane motor in DD format. You need darn near 100W/lb to fly that wing loading with authority. At best on 8 cell pack you will get 75W in 50% eficiency out of a 400 can. the 480 will do 100W in at 60% Possibly up to 130W.

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Thanks for the info.
If I can get it to fly with a speed 400, turn around and land, l'll be happy. But, you're right, who wants a F-104 park flyer :)

Cheers,

Le

[vintage1]

The problem will be not so much SPEED as ACCELERATION. And worse still. staggering arond just above a stall afraid to turn in case you stall it in, and lose that lovely nose.

Its gonna need to do 30mph to FLY at all. 40mph to fly SAFELY. It will land at about 30mph - stalling it into the ground is optional if you try and land much less than that.

MotOpinion - F104 starfighter
300ft above Sea Level, 101.3kPa, 12°C

Motor: Multiplex Permax 400 6V; 3026rpm/V; 0.7A no-load; 0.357 Ohms.
Battery: Sanyo 600AE; 8 cells; 600mAh @ 1.2V; 0.01 Ohms/cell.
Speed Control: RipMax Xtra 12; 0.0055 Ohms; High rate.
Drive System: Graupner Cam 5x5; 5x5 (Pconst=1.18; Tconst=0.995) direct drive.
Airframe: F104 starfighter; 110sq.in; 17.9oz; 23.5oz/sq.ft; Cd=0.05; Cl=0.37; Clopt=0.44; Clmax=1.04.
Stats: 70 W/lb in; 34 W/lb out; 24mph stall; 37mph opt @ 65% (9:43, 41°C); 41mph level @ 68% (8:53, 44°C); 384ft/min @ 6.7°; -423ft/min @ -7.4°.

Power System Notes:

The full-throttle motor current at the best lift-to-drag ratio airspeed (9.1A) falls between the motor's maximum efficiency current (3.6A) and its current at theoretical maximum output (9.5A), thus making effective use of the motor.

Possible Aerodynamic Problems:

The diameter (5in) to pitch (5in) ratio is less than 1.5:1, which will result in reduced propeller efficiency at low speeds (the propeller is stalled). Although this is not likely to affect flying characteristics, it may make take-off or hand launching difficult.

Aerodynamic Notes:

The static pitch speed (65mph) is within the range of approximately 2.5 to 3 times the model's stall speed (24mph), which is considered ideal for good performance.
With a wing loading of 23.5oz/sq.ft, a model of this size will have a very high flying speed, requiring the undivided attention of an expert pilot. The high weight will provide good penetration, even in strong winds.
The static thrust (6.1oz) to weight (17.9oz) ratio is 0.34:1, which will result in medium length take-off runs, and no difficulty taking off from grass surfaces (assuming sufficiently large wheels).
At the best lift-to-drag ratio airspeed, the excess-thrust (2.3oz) to weight (17.9oz) ratio is 0.13:1, which will give slow climbs and low acceleration. Some piloting experience would be beneficial.

General Notes:

This analysis is based on calculations that take motor heating effects into account.

[Billy Haynes]

"The problem will be not so much SPEED as ACCELERATION."
but if he use's a launcher, & dont let out of the throttle, why wouldn't it fly? "(65mph) is within the range of approximately 2.5 to 3 times the model's stall speed (24mph)" Yes, if you slow it down & try to speed up agin I could see a prob, such as an aborted landing. How hard could it be to land anyway...... lol... just kidding.
lphan, best of luck & hope it all works out for ya.

[lphan]

Vintage1,

I'd knew you'd see it my way :)
But as always, thanks so much for you input.

I had bought a plastic model 1/48 scale of an F-104. Come to find out, my computer model has some inaccuracies in it. For one, the engine intakes are .5 inches too big in diameter. My elevator is 1 inch short, etc....

I'll have to update the model and drawings.


Cheers,

Le

[lphan]

Billy,

Thanks for the encouragement.

I finally designed the bungee launcher. Will start laying it out this evening.

Le

[vintage1]

Yep. Bungee is absoultely essential IMHO.

Also, don't even try to lift the nose till its almost out of sight, and then turn flat out as gently as possible.

If you need more than 1/16" control movement I'd be surprised. Be terribly careful about pulling too much elevator as well ..at that speed its easy to bleed speed off in the turns and go into a high speed snap. I'd say 100m diameter turns.

Do you remember the refrain..after a series of crashes in Germany with the overweight 'all weather' version..

"catch a falling starfighter
Put it in the pocket of your jeans
You can use it for a weapon
Or to open a can of beans"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000011L7/ref=pm_dp_ln_m_2/104-7091416-1875164?v=glance&s=music&vi=samples

Captain Lockheed and the Starfighter. Robert (ex Hawkwind) Calvert. Heavy metal with satirical punk overtones.

Listen to the clips. They are quite good.

Better still, get the album, and drink a bottle of 'wild turkey' before maidening it :D :D And don't forget the mascara and lipstick. Apparently mandatory for the pilots before flying :D :D

[Hippo]

Hi Le,

Wow, it looks great with the covering on now. Don't even think of trying to maiden it without inviting me...;) I volunteer to hold the video camera.

Great work, as always...

-Dan

P.S. I still think 3S2P 1200 Lithiums would help here...

[lphan]

Vintage1,

You had me in stitches !
That's scary :)

I read up on the Starfighter crashes. In one article, it says that the crashed were more of maintance problems than an unstable airplane.

But, mind you I will keep an eye of the plane at all time. I'll get a friend to stick close as another set of eyes.

Now remember, I'm taking this slow. First the glide test at 9 oz.

Le

[lphan]

Dan,

That friend I was refering to was YOU !
I can't make the R/C meeting tonight, something came up. I'll ask you to come for the maiden after I build the buingee for the "Test Glide".

Le

[vintage1]

Originally posted by lphan
Vintage1,


I read up on the Starfighter crashes. In one article, it says that the crashed were more of maintance problems than an unstable airplane.


That the one written by Lockheed. :D The way I g=heard it was that it was a good plane when light, and teh Lockheed salemen loaded it up with so much radar and heavy weponry that it flew like a dog...they did it to get the business


But, mind you I will keep an eye of the plane at all time. I'll get a friend to stick close as another set of eyes.


I hope he has plenty of mascara on as well. I still bet its out of sight before its going fast enough to turn :D



Now remember, I'm taking this slow. First the glide test at 9 oz.

Le

Nothing about this plane will be slow, except the rebuild :D :D

I built a jetex 50 one once...it ALMOST flew. It went about 50 yard getting faster and faster and faster...and then landed :D Should have catapulted it, but Jetex is damnned hot to hold in yer hand :D

[lphan]

10-8-03 A

[lphan]

10-8-03 B

[lphan]

Bungee Launcher 10-8-03

[lphan]

Opps, here it is.

[Thomas Nelson]

Best Wishes ... fly smooth!

:D

[redtiger]

GOOD LUCK!!!

I'll sacrifice a propeller for you :)

Let us know if you break Mach :D

-jim

[U812]

Iphan,

First very nice work you've done there;)

At 23 oz. per square foot you should be fine. I speak from experience because only this Monday I did the maiden flight on my fiberglass 104.

The wings are enlarged to a square foot. The AUW is 23 oz. It also has fixed landing gear.

In less than 60 ft. it rotated and climbed on power alone. I had 330 watts on take off but I didn't need it. I have now reduced it to 240 watts with hopes of saving the Hacker b20.

This is an EDF model too. Not as efficient as a prop like you have.

My point is here I think it will fly and fly well if you keep the wing loading where it is. It quite light really for a jet.

Best of luck to you on the first flight. F-104's rule!!!

Steve

[lphan]

Steve,

Thanks for the encouragement!
I saw your F-104 discussion. Your fiberglass job is beautiful.

How does your plane fly with anhedral?

Le

[Helge Sondresen]

Iphan,
Very good looking F-104..
Good luck..I hope it flies good .The wing loading is not that high.
This is a Fighter..and fly it like that..
Helge

[Matthew Allen]

:cool:

That's a real looker - don't crash it!

Matthew

[bipeflyer]

Very nice!
I love the scale size wings,should fly fine.

Matt.

[vintage1]

Did you get it to crash scale like yet?
You should have used Mascara. :D

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Not yet. I haven't gotten a change to launch it yet. I', at a conference for work this week. I hope to launch it this coming Saturday !

Question though.

I have 17 feet of bungee, how much string should I use? I figure 17 feet of string also?

Le

[vintage1]

Don't think it will make much difference. Just mean you have to walk furher to pick up the pieces :D

[lphan]

Vintage,

This makes me want to fly it even sooner :)

Le

[vintage1]

Actually, with the bungee right, it will fly a complete circuit with the motor off. Putting the motor on it should do two :)

Just don't do any crazy stunts like lifting the nose.
:D:D:D

[RookieOne]

I've followed the thread from the begginning. Still umbealiable how the real thing could fly with those tiny wings.

Nice design. Good luck with maiden flight!!!

Michele

[vintage1]

Well half the point was, when it acquired too much weight of weaponry, it didn't :D

There was a very interesting program about high speed flight and the problems of fuel consumption and agility at supersonic speeds.

The lack of real success of te F104G when adapted for European requirements was one of the factors behind Germanys push to get the Eurofighter projects going. The requirement has always been for a single plane to undertake defensive and ground attack work -particularly low level ground attack. The USA went for stand off smart weaponry - Europe has tended to want to use tough heavy planes capable of 'under the radar' attacks that would carry a huge load of equipment. The Phantoms were far more adaptable to that role than the starfighters.

Now the Eurofighter itself represents the latest in that line of thinking, after the Tornado.

Whereas the stealth technology and smart weaponry represents the latest (that we know about) development in the US philosophy.

Apropos of nothing really. Starfigher is a very exciting looking plane. Did it ever see any use in anger anywhere though? I can't remember...

[lphan]

Vintage1,

Yes, here's a link to the first F-104 fights in the Pakistani-Indian war.


http://babriet.tripod.com/articles/art_f-104.htm



Le

[vintage1]

I find it impossible to use Tripod. So covered with pop up adverts ...

I have always given up on the site, since I have never ever managed to actually find what I was looking for.

Got halfway there this time, text was obscured with a box telling me I'd won something, couldn't get rid of it...ended up closing teh whole window.

Tripod is a waste of time, sadly.

[lphan]

At PAF’s request, all its F-104As were refitted with the M-61 Gatling 20 mm gun, whereas its counterparts in the USAF had been divested of their guns on the assumption that all post-Korea air combat would occur at high speeds where only the wing tip-mounted Sidewinder missiles would be effective. The PAF’s foresight was amply rewarded in actual combat and the USAF too reverted to having machine guns as mandatory equipment on all its fighters in due course. The newer GWE- J-79-11 engine was also installed on the aircraft. This made the Pakistan F-104s somewhat unique: they had the gun and being the lightest of F-104 series with a more advanced J-79 engine enjoyed the best thrust-to-weight ratio.

The only PAF unit to be equipped with the F-104 was No 9 Air Superiority Squadron. The squadron flies the F-16 today. The in-commission rate of the F-104 during the first five years of service was over 80 % and all its systems performed with high reliability. The fighter was employed in the air-to-air role by the PAF and was used extensively for aerial gunnery against both banner targets and the Dart targets with excellent scores. In strafing attacks the M-61 gun was superbly accurate.

The F-104 Starfighters remained in service with Pakistan Air Force for twelve years and flew 11,690 hours. During the 1965 Pakistan-India War, the F-104s flew a total of 246 hours and 45 minutes while during the 1971 War, the F-104s flew a total of 103 hours and 45 minutes.

1965 Pakistan-India War

During the 1965 War, PAF was forced to rely on its small force of F-104A Starfighters as high altitude interceptors and in its night fighting role, using the radar of its AN/ASG-14T1 fire-control system, in conjunction with Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

After 1 September, the F-104s were extremely active in Air Defence and Air Superiority Operations, but of the 246 missions flown by F-104s during hostilities, 42 were at night against the IAF Canberras. The rudimentary fire-control radar met the Soviet high altitude bomber threat of the Cold War era for which it was designed but it could not illuminate small targets against ground clutter. The standard high speed intercept tactic employed by PAF’s F-104 pilots was to approach their targets from below, with a typical height differential of 2-3,000 feet, against a target they wished to acquire at a range of 10-15 kilomenters. This limitation was well known to the Canberra jet bomber pilots of IAF who attacked targets in Pakistan during the 1965 war. They adopted a standard hi-lo-hi profile to minimize the threat of interception. During most of their inbound and outbound flight over Pakistani territory the IAF Canberras would stay below about 1000 feet during their approach and exit phases. This posed a difficult night intercept problem. The PAF’s F-104s had in these circumstances to be used in an unconventional low-altitude intercept profile that severely challenged the capabilities of its airborne radar. To pick up the low flying bombers on their scope the F-104 pilots had to get down to about 300-500 feet above the ground to point their radars upward and clear of ground clutter at the enemy bombers. The problem was aggravated by the Canberra’s tail warning audio alarm that would go off the moment an F-104 got to a near astern position, and enable the bomber to take timely evasive action to shake off its pursuer.

The F-104s were highly dreaded by the Indian Air Force (IAF). On 3rd September, 1965, even before the War began, an Indian Gnat surrendered to an F-104 which forced it to land at the abandoned airfield of Pasrur (in Pakistan). Its pilot Squadron Leader Brijpal Singh Sikand became a POW.

On 6 September, two Starfighters were sent on dawn patrol from Sargodha. They were vectored by Sakesar Radar towards 4 IAF Mysteres engaged in bomb and rocket attacks against a stationary passenger train at Gakkhar railway station. One of the F-104 pilots was forced to return to base with a radio failure but the other pilot, Flight Lieutenant Aftab Alam Khan dived his F-104 with full after burners, going supersonically through the Mysteres formation which promptly scattered. The Indian aircraft tried to escape at about 50 feet above the ground but they were no match for the Starfighter. Aftab destroyed one Mysteres with his Sidewinder missile thus achieving one of the world’s first air victories by a mach 2 combat aircraft.

The other F-104 pilot, Flight Lieutenant Amjad Khan, who had missed his chance the previous day, made amends on 7 September. He was scrambled in an F-104 at about 05:15 hours and directed by Sakesar radar towards an incoming raid at Sargodha. He made visual contact with the IAF Mysteres and headed towards them. By the time he caught up with them, the Indian aircraft were 6-8 miles away from Sargodha, flying at 150-200 feet on a south-easterly heading towards India. As the Mysteres jettisoned their drop tanks, Flight Lieutenant Amjad Hussain positioned himself behind one of them and released a GAR-8 missile, which went straight into the ground. The Mystere then began to dogfight with the Starfighter, which used its superior climb and acceleration to lift the combat from ground level to about 7,000 feet to gain room for manoeuvre. Hussain fired his cannons and was delighted to see the shell hit the Mystere. The Mystere pilot showed commendable courage in staying with the F-104, and despite being mortally wounded, scored several cannon strikes on the Starfighter. Flight Lieutenant Amjad Hussain managed to eject safely and reached his Base. This was the first and only Starfighter to be lost through enemy action in the 1965 war. The Indian pilot Squadron Leader A.B. Devayya was posthumously awarded the Maha Vir Chakra in 1988, twenty three years after the war, when Indian authorities learnt of the IAF pilot’s valour through an account of the encounter published in John Fricker’s book Battle for Pakistan, published in 1978.

On 21 September, Squadron Leader Jamal A Khan, intercepted an Indian Air Force Canberra at about 33,000 feet and shot it down with a Sidewinder near Fazilka, inside Pakistani territory. The bomber’s pilot, Flight Lieutenant Manmohan Lowe ejected and was made POW while its navigator, Flying Officer A K Kapor could not bail out and was killed in action. The British made Canberra, unlike its American counterpart the Martin B-57, had no ejection seat for the navigator. This was the first kill achieved by an F-104 at night after a number of near misses due to factors described earlier.

F-104s were also used during 1965 for low level, daylight reconnaissance missions over the IAF air bases. The speed of the Starfighter gave the Indians no time to react. The F-104s were also employed as escorts for the slow Lockheed RT-33 reconnaissance fighters on photographic missions deep into Indian territory, the presence of Starfighters virtually guaranteeing that no air opposition would be encountered. Six F-104 pilots received gallantry awards during the 1965 War.

1971 Pakistan-India War

Air operations in 1971 Pakistan-India War commenced with a preemptive strike by PAF. In the 1971 War the F-104 was also used for deep penetration strikes against enemy airfields and radars. Two F-104s each attacked Amritsar and Faridkot Indian Air Force Radars. The attack on Faridkot Radar was led by Wing Commander Arif Iqbal, who not only damaged the Radar but also shot down an IAF Krishak aircraft.

On 4 December, Squadron Leaders Amanullah and Rashid Bhatti attacked Amritsar Radar. They met with stiff resistance but managed to shoot down two aircraft, an Indian Gnat and an Su-7. The pilot of the Gnat, Flight Lieutenant J Preira was Killed in Action. On 08 December, Flight Lieutenant Manzoor Bokhari intercepted an IAF Canberra and shot it down. On 10 December, Wing Commander Arif Iqbal, while attacking the Indian Harbour of Okha, shot down an Alize aircraft of Indian Navy. Its crew members, Lieutenant Commander Ashok Roy, Lieutenant H S Sirohi and AC O Vijayan were killed in action. PAF lost two F-104s along with their pilots, Wing Commander Mervyn Leslie Middlecoat and Flight Lieutenant Samad Changezi both were awarded gallantry awards of Sitara-e-Jurat (roughly equivalent to the British Distinguished Flying Cross). Flight Lieutenant Bharat B Soni, a MiG-21 pilot was credited with having shot down Wing Commander Middlecoat while Flight Lieutenant Arun K Dutta, another MiG-21 pilot was awarded the claim of having shot down Flight Lieutenant Samad Changezi.

The US Government imposed an embargo on arms sales to both India and Pakistan as soon as the 1965 war began. No consideration was given to the fact that India, a long-time ally of the Soviet Union, hardly used any American military equipment and the sanctions exclusively degraded the combat potential of only the Pakistani Armed Forces. The PAF fleet of F-104s was particularly hard hit by the arms embargoes. Eventually it became impossible to maintain a reasonable in-commission rate on the F-104s and the PAF decided to phase it out of service in late 1972. This ended the era of Pakistan Air Force’s first mach-2 combat aircraft.

[vintage1]

EXCELLENT.

[Eddie P]

Originally posted by U812
In less than 60 ft. it rotated and climbed on power alone. I had 330 watts on take off but I didn't need it. I have now reduced it to 240 watts with hopes of saving the Hacker b20.

F-104's rule!!!

Steve

WOW! At 229 watts per pound you have created anti-gravity! :D