• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

F-104 Starfighter Projects

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
392
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
First up: L-227-14, one of the designs leading to the F-104. Clearly not the direction Lockheed decided to take. (Note: on the original, the dimensions are illegible).

Second: CL-351-10 AKA F-104X, an F-104 with big inlets, a J-79 and the ability to get to Mach 3.2 at 69,000 feet.
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
392
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Next: the L-252 series from 1953. Starts off with the -1, which was an F-104 growed bigger to serve as a long-range interceptor, with jettisonable airturborockets on the wingtips. Then the -2 comes along, ditches the airturborockets in favor of a second turbojet and swaps the straight wing for a delta. Then the -5 comes along and swaps out the turbojets for turboprops. However, it's shown packing a bomb, so it's probably not an interceptor anymore...
 

Attachments

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,670
Reaction score
110
Those are cool, I've never seen any of those before. That last turbo-prop version is one of the oddest out crowths I've seen, considering it's source (The F-104).
 

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,492
Reaction score
392
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Sundog said:
That last turbo-prop version is one of the oddest out crowths I've seen, considering it's source (The F-104).
Wait till you see the swing-wing and three-engine/five-seater versions. Or the *really* big long range interceptor....
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
Second: CL-351-10 AKA F-104X, an F-104 with big inlets, a J-79 and the ability to get to Mach 3.2 at 69,000 feet.
Lockheed marketing has always been great, even on paper planes... ;) ::)
 

Tophe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
1,151
Reaction score
20
Website
cmeunier.chez-alice.fr
Orionblamblam said:
First up: L-227-14, one of the designs leading to the F-104. Clearly not the direction Lockheed decided to take. (Note: on the original, the dimensions are illegible).
Thanks a lot for this twin-boom Starfighter, completing the German twin-fuselage double-Starfighter. Great ! ;D
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
Lockheed CL-1010-2 Starfighter

Apparently this lost to the F-4E in the Japanese F-X competition. Anyone got details?
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
CL-901: air superiority version with J79-GE-J1F engine, increasing speed to Mach 2.2, new flap system.
CL-958: as above with larger wing for increased manouverability and takeoff/landing performance.

Source: Flying Review International, August 1965
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,883
Reaction score
1,672
Hi,

a more information about CL-901,it was a multi-purpose version
of the F-104G and the basic modifications were carried out by
Lockheed at the request of the Italian Air Force on two F-104G
produced by Fiat.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,883
Reaction score
1,672
By the way,

The CL-901 called F-104S.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
29
Not exactly....

Lockheed F-104S , developed by Locheed as one of its CL-980 design studies.

S- for Sparrow.

source: Wings of Fame Vol.2. Aeospace Publishing Ltd-London 1996
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,883
Reaction score
1,672
My dear lark,

In the book of American fighter from 1917 to the present
and in that site;
http://www.vectorsite.net/avf104_2.html
they said the Lockheed CL-901 was F-104S.
 

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
29
The increase in performance of the F-104S (CL-980) impelled
Lockheed to offer the new design for wider sales as the CL-901...
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,989
Reaction score
57
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the CL-1200 Lancer, where Lockheed really wanted to take the F-104 design.




Then there are these unusual proposals I came across at webpage



 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
You mean like this?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,832.0.html

:)
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,989
Reaction score
57
overscan said:
You mean like this?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,832.0.html

:)
No, I mean like in this context, as a development of the F-104, rather than as in the context of the X27.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
24,883
Reaction score
1,672
Hi,

And that project was for Ryan as VTOL F-104,but I don't
remember if we spoke about it before or not.
 

Attachments

lark

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,789
Reaction score
29
Shown to us by Jemiba on July 02,2006...
See also Lockheed CL-704 VTOL Starfighter.
 

Deino

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,570
Reaction score
194
In that booklet about the Taiwanese IDF-development there are at least three Starfighter-based designs ...
1. The X-27 Lancer
2. F-104M4 + J-79
3. F-104M6 +2x TFE-1042

... the other designs I will post at the Taiwan-projects tread !

Source: Scale Model Enthusiast - Military Series No. 1 / 15. Nov.1996 - everything else is written in Chinese !
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
The Model CL-1195 designs were started in 1969 for an export air-superiority fighter based on the "S". Primary market was Europe, to counter single-site version of the Panavia MRCA. First two iterations -1 and -2 used same "S" fuselage coupled with a larger wing and a strenghtened structure to support the higher loads coming from the larger wing itself. -1 used a GE J-79-19, the -2 a RR engine. The second one had better performance overall. Basic armament for air superiority were an internal M-61 and four Sidewinder, with two wingtip tanks, 2 X 220 gals. The plane sported a total of eleven stations for external charges: one centerline,
wingtips, four pylons per wing. Combat envelope was to be .8 to 1.6 Mach.
Drawing: Bill Slayton via Scott Lowther.
 

Attachments

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,170
Reaction score
34
Hesham,
Fascinating drawings - I detect Gunston's hand in finding them so long ago.
And I like the piece from the story about the Mirage III being undone by Lockheed's "brilliant salesmanship".
Which it was in a way - just not (cough) legal.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
The first, minimal change, versions of 1195 weren't projected to give a large enough performance increase in air superiority role, so Lockheed decided for more radical changes. Crucial was the use of the new GE engine developed for the FX (F-15) program. This naturally required much larger air influx and relocation of the wing to make room for the ducts. In turn , this required the relocation of the tail in a more traditional configuration with horizontal planes hinged on the engine exhausts. A further version was -3A, which used two derated FX engines to provide more resistance to battle damage. Performance was the best in both cases for all 1195 iterations, well exceeding Mach 2 and giving good air combat. The 3 and 3A required the most development work, since the only components left from the original F-104S was fuselage aft to station 358 (this for scratch modellers who want to give this a try... ;) ). And this was not good for European license builders.
 

Attachments

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
Fascinating drawings - I detect Gunston's hand in finding them so long ago.
Well, actually the Model CL-242 isn't part of the Starfighter evolution, but more the reverse. CL-242 designs were schemed by Lockheed answering the BuAer (US Navy) OS-130 requirement for a carrier based high performance day fighter for point defense. The developments went in parallel, with the Cl-246 (Model 83) work ending before the 242. The definitive project submitted (called, rather incongruently CL-242-1) to the Navy ended up in being a navalised Model 83 with neutral diedral wings.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
And even more fascinating if you look, for example, Model L-227-14 from the above...
All drawings are credited as the first I posted.
 

Attachments

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
Assuming the CL-1195-2 RR engine is a Spey, you'd expect better range and worse high speed characteristics than with J-79.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
In the original drawing it is given as R-R R.Sp.5R
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,713
Reaction score
1,434
Spey 5R then. Not sure how that relates to RB.168-25R, etc.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
Last iteration of CL-1195 was the -.5 (-4 not used). Trying to develop a less radically changed "S" for the European licensees to build, Lockheed drafted this last design using two GE1/J1A2 engine, the same that had originally selected for the Northrop P-530 Cobra (for more infos see here http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1970/1970%20-%200032.html ). The new engines were smaller than the derated FX-ones, so the rear fuselage and the inlets could be very similar to the original. Only major difference was the moving cone inlets. Stations and armament like the other versions, performance in the same realm of the -2. European interest was not forthcoming, so Lockheed concentrated on F-104G derivative Export Fighter competition (CL-1200 and later CL-1600)
 

Attachments

moin1900

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
457
Reaction score
6
F-104 CCV
http://www.916-starfighter.de/Historie_CCV-F-104G.pdf

Many greetings
 

cluttonfred

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,327
Reaction score
30
Website
cluttonfred.info
Since we're reviving this thread, I have a question. Skybolt's post above shows a remarkable twin-boom derivative of the F-104, almost a flying trimaran.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1529.0;attach=45651

Does anyone know what the rationale was for that configuration, or what the pros and cons might be?

I can imagine that it would provide a lot of volume for fuel (giant tip tanks) without for-and-aft CG issues as fuel is burned and the distributed weight would reduce bending loads on the wings. It might also be good for a strike fighter in that the boom ends make good places for radar, cameras, etc. I do wonder why they didn't use horizontal stabilers on both sides of the booms because of the twisting inherent in putting them just one one side.

But that's just speculation, does anyone know the rationale at the time?
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
Well, actually L-227-14 isn't a derivative but a precursor of the F104. L-227 was the model number assigned in early 1952 to rhe resumed studies for the USAF specification for a basic day fighter, with outstanding climb and speed performance but a limited combat range (a couple of hundreds of nautical miles or so, originally). These studies started with Model 224 and continued with Model 227 (that had slightly betterclimp and max speed performance and 50 per cet more combat range in clean configuration). So the rationale for the L-227-14 was: besic day fighter with 350 nautical miles combat range. The chosen configuration of this series was L-227-1, which was very similar and led directly to L-246, the true and original Starfighter.
 

Skybolt

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
48
Just to clarify... L-227-1 (already posted in small format).
 

Attachments

Clioman

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
129
Reaction score
3
An XF5V-1?

By great coincidence, the winter '08 issue of The Hook magazine (pub'd by the US Navy's Tailhook Association) has mention of what is claimed to be an XF5V. (Copy below) Yes, there were several F-104As at NAS China Lake; their website has photos of 3 different airplanes in the 1958-1960 timeframe, including pics of this aircraft (56-0757). But the website makes no mention of it being modified, let alone to the extent mentioned in the article. This is a new one to me, and I can find no other reference to it. Anybody have further info/confirmation. And, as the Hook editor asks, 'what happened to the F2V, F3V and F4V?' I've never heard of them, either...
 

Attachments

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,989
Reaction score
57
An interesting project for the F-104. Are there any 3 view plans which show the increased span wings? Anybody care to attempt them?
 
Top