F-104 Starfighter Projects

T. A. Gardner said:
Getting rid of the M61 on an early F-104 was to leave it virtually disarmed.
Click to expand...
The F-104A HM-55 test flight seemed to be in a similar fashion to the F-104C's Project Grindstone. Though Project Grindstone turned out to be draggy; how difficult would it have been to wire the underwing hardpoints for the Super Falcon?
 
dy031101 said:
The F-104A HM-55 test flight seemed to be in a similar fashion to the F-104C's Project Grindstone. Though Project Grindstone turned out to be draggy; how difficult would it have been to wire the underwing hardpoints for the Super Falcon?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure F-104 fire control system could work with them.
 
dy031101 said:
I was hoping the F-104 could take some derivative of the TARAN-18 instead...
Click to expand...
No, its far too big to fit inside. Reducing its diameter would essentially nullify all advantages.

What could probably be done is to modify the existing F-104 radar to work with AIM-9C radar-guided Sidewinder.
 
Checked the possibility with Gemini & Chat GPT. They seems to think, that it's possible - at least theoretically - to adapt the NASARR (F-104 main radar) to work with AIM-9C seeker.

The main factor is, that AIM-9C seeker is pulse one, not CW. And designed to work in X spectrum, as NASARR. So as long as you could synchronize NASARR pulses with AIM-9C seeker, it could serve as illumination radar for it.

Of course, the AIM-9C is far from Sparrow. And pulse system would work rather bad on low altitudes (due to ground clutter). But - it could give F-104 some much-desired head-on attack capability without massive redesing of the plane. And it could be fired from standard F-104 wingtip hardpoints, no need to fit massive Sparrow's under F-104 fragile wings.
 
TomS said:
LLMs have no actually technical knowledge and are primed to say "yes" to whatever you ask about.
Click to expand...
True, but they are good in catching obvious flaws, like "no, this radar is working on completely different frequency, it can't be done". Of course, I do not consider their answers to be definite; just that they didn't manage to find obvious flaws.
 
(for example, when I checked some other AH ideas, they rather comprehensively explained, that it can't be done because of factors I did not took into account - and both were quite coherent in explaining the same thing. So they are useful to checking the ideas)
 
Deino said:
In that booklet about the Taiwanese IDF-development there are at least three Starfighter-based designs ...
3. F-104M6 +2x TFE-1042
Click to expand...
Skybolt said:
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 - 0032.html ).

......

Only major difference was the moving cone inlets.
Click to expand...

While I understand that the two projects are unrelated, would the CL-1195-5 represent the kind of modifications the F-104M6 would have received if the development pathway were proceed with? They sound so similar although I am unfamiliar with the performance class of GE1/J1A2.

Also, would the moving cone inlets work like the one for MiG-21 except in halves?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
As a byproduct of a FD Scale project, here is the top view comparison between F-104M6 and CL-1195-5.

F-104_TwinEngineComparison.png

The CL-1195-5 has its fuselage lengthened, seemingly to accommodate a larger pair of wings. Its GE1/J1A2s are also mounted aft of where the J79 would be in a stock F-104.

The F-104M6 maintained the overall dimensions of the F-104G except for the rear fuselage due to having two engines. The TFE-1042 is in fact shorter than even the CL-1195-5's engine installation such that it can be mounted as far aft as CL-1195-5's engines and still seemingly maintain F-104G's overall length.
 
Last edited:
dy031101 said:
As a byproduct of a FD Scale project, here is the top view comparison between F-104M6 and CL-1195-5.
Click to expand...
Very cool!


dy031101 said:
The CL-1195-5 has its fuselage lengthened, seemingly to accommodate a larger pair of wings. Its GE1/J1A2s are also mounted aft of where the J79 would be in a stock F-104.
Click to expand...
That would be to maintain CG. IIRC the F404 was advertised as being half the length of the J79.



dy031101 said:
The TFE-1042 is in fact shorter than even the CL-1195-5's engine installation such that it can be mounted as far aft as CL-1195-5's engines and still seemingly maintain F-104G's overall length.
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on where the engine CG is.

Old school mechanic/engineer thing: Find CGs of both new and old engines, and where that point on the engine is relative to aircraft reference point. Old engine weight times reference point distance divided by new engine weight equals where the CG of the new engine needs to be.
 
Ignoring the Lancer rear fuselage, this little sketch from Air Enthusiast September 1971 shows the gruesome shape of the Marineflieger's short-lived MRF-104G proposal:

Caption was "Reconnaissance: radar, infrared, photographic"
 

Attachments

  • Cl-1200c.jpg
    Cl-1200c.jpg
    47.2 KB · Views: 136
Kiltonge said:
Ignoring the Lancer rear fuselage, this little sketch from Air Enthusiast September 1971 shows the gruesome shape of the Marineflieger's short-lived MRF-104G proposal:

Caption was "Reconnaissance: radar, infrared, photographic"
Click to expand...
Recon variants are always ugly.
 
Haven't found much info about stretched-nose RF-104 variants, just this snippet from Flight 22 Feb 1968 that mentions J79-19 engine and RF-104G-1 designation.
 

Attachments

  • RF-104G_Flight_1968_0287.jpeg
    RF-104G_Flight_1968_0287.jpeg
    503 KB · Views: 96
A few of Taiwan F-104s got big LOROP cameras in large noses. They were used to look into the PRC, I mean at least its coastal areas.
https://916-starfighter.de/F-104_RoCAF_serials.htm
Starting in 1984, under Project “Ali Shan No.8” the 41st Sqn, 42nd Sqn and 48 Sqn of 2nd Wing received 39 F-104G and 27 TF-104G, all of them ex-Luftwaffe (German Air Force).
2021: 63-13238 coded 4365, modified RF-104G LOROP "Stargazer", withdrawn from use, scrapped.
7015: 67-14889 coded 4397, modified to RF-104G LOROP "Stargazer", withdrawn from use, scrapped.
8068: 65-12751 coded 4392, crashed May 31, 1988 during practice of low altitude pass at TaoYuan AB carrying LOROP training nose (DBR), pilot Chung was safe.
8183: 63-13690 coded 4386, modified to RF-104G LOROP "Stargazer", crashed September 11, 1987 near the coast into the sea near Nan Ao Town, pilot ejected, but was missing.
8204: 67-14890 coded 4398 (modified to RF-104G LOROP "Stargazer"), displayed at Kang Le Recreation Park at Hsinchu City, near Hsinchu AB.
8230: 67-22517 coded 4400 (modified to RF-104G LOROP "Stargazer"), displayed in Xihu Military Aircraft Park, Xihu Town, Changhua County.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 4400.jpg
    4400.jpg
    127.3 KB · Views: 64
  • img_57.jpg
    img_57.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 67
  • RF-104GLOROP.JPG
    RF-104GLOROP.JPG
    42 KB · Views: 68
  • w2021.jpg
    w2021.jpg
    123.9 KB · Views: 81
Archibald said:
A few of Taiwan F-104s got big LOROP cameras in large noses. They were used to look into the PRC, I mean at least its coastal areas.
https://916-starfighter.de/F-104_RoCAF_serials.htm
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly these airframes shared two LOROP noses.

RAP said:
Some pages from a Lockheed report on the CL-1010-2 big wing -104.
Click to expand...
Question.png

I have a question. I attempted to incorporate CL-1010-2's wings into my rendition of the F-104M6 but found that this might place the wing leading edge flaps a bit too close to the position/navigation lights (circled in red), which would have also been the case should the CL-1010-2 have been built. I briefly considered moving the position lights forward until I realize that the spaces in front of the auxiliary intakes are where national insignias are painted. These lights are, however, apparently flush-fitted as far as I could tell from photos and War Thunder......

As I'm a noob who might know how things work but not necessarily how they work best, where should I move the position lights to, or are they still fine where they are?

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
"Could not", or "was not equipped to"? Because you can change equipment fits!

How much space did the SAGE gear take? You say it fit into F-89s, so it should be able to be stuffed into the space of the M61 cannon.

At the very least the F-101B/F-4D/E datalink should be able to fit into that space.
Click to expand...
You don't get to see too many F-89s these days, but if you ever find one - They're a lot bigger than they look, with a lot of fuselage.
The thing is - the SAGE Datalink tied in to the E- and MG- Series Radar/Fire Control Systems, and their descendants.
The F-104A and its simple radar, with no autopilot, didn't have the "bones" for SAGE.
Whether TARAN, which comes across as a somewhat shrunk MA-1 from the F-106 could be integrated is in interesting question. But then, you'd have to fit all the scopes and controls, etc. into the F-104 cockpit. It did fit in a Mirage, though.
 
P-STICKNEY said:
You don't get to see too many F-89s these days, but if you ever find one - They're a lot bigger than they look, with a lot of fuselage.
The thing is - the SAGE Datalink tied in to the E- and MG- Series Radar/Fire Control Systems, and their descendants.
The F-104A and its simple radar, with no autopilot, didn't have the "bones" for SAGE.
Whether TARAN, which comes across as a somewhat shrunk MA-1 from the F-106 could be integrated is in interesting question. But then, you'd have to fit all the scopes and controls, etc. into the F-104 cockpit. It did fit in a Mirage, though.
Click to expand...

I remember trying to match the drawing of the F-104 with that of the F-89H's wingtip pods...... and found each pod being almost as thick as the F-104's fuselage :p

I was partially inspired into asking about TARAN by the picture of F-104A test flying with the AIM-26 and by Lockheed having offered Falcon-armed CL-1010-3 to Japan. I wonder if there is any serious study being done and, since it's already more readily known that the F-104 is not compatible with SAGE (which Japan didn't have anyway) but would need automated fire control typically associated with the F-102/106 to effectively use the Falcon missiles, what part of SAGE the F-104 can do without so as to reduce the size of the FCS.
 
Higher-res. illustrations of F-104 derivatives studied during Indigenous Defense Fighter development. The first three are to be powered by a J79 whereas the M6 is to have two TFE-1942s.

From a book on F-CK-1 development published in 1997, ISBN# 9789578902206 (Traditional Chinese only though)

This study in fact took place prior to General Dynamics coming onboard. Apparently members of the design team responsible for the F-104 were recruited with the help of a "Daniel Consultant Company" ("丹尼爾顧問公司" as it was referred to by the book in Traditional Chinese; apparently it was formed to provide logistical support for F-104 fleets worldwide after Lockheed itself stopped doing so, and I'm curious about further information on the firm) because the F-104G more urgently needed replenishment/replacement. The proposals resulted from the study were likely derived from other projects posted along this thread.

F-104Mod.png
 
Last edited:
dy031101 said:
I remember trying to match the drawing of the F-104 with that of the F-89H's wingtip pods...... and found each pod being almost as thick as the F-104's fuselage :p

I was partially inspired into asking about TARAN by the picture of F-104A test flying with the AIM-26 and by Lockheed having offered Falcon-armed CL-1010-3 to Japan. I wonder if there is any serious study being done and, since it's already more readily known that the F-104 is not compatible with SAGE (which Japan didn't have anyway) but would need automated fire control typically associated with the F-102/106 to effectively use the Falcon missiles, what part of SAGE the F-104 can do without so as to reduce the size of the FCS.
Click to expand...
Japan had a SAGE Equivalent in BADGE (Base Air Defense Ground Environment) which performed the same Sensor Fusion, Battlespace Coordination, and Direction functions.
BADGE has been replaced by JADGE (Japanese Aerospace Defense Ground Environment) which has had its capabilities expanded into Ballistic Missile Defense, and today's more challenging electronic environment.
 
galgot said:
F-104 dogfighter project:
http://www.edwardsflighttest.com/pics/F-104-Dogfighter.pdfDon't think it's connected to the High wing Lancer project...
Click to expand...

The leading edge extensions would reach areas allocated for auxiliary intake doors on the original F-104.

Question2.png

I don't know how much study was done for this project and since I as mentioned before don't necessarily know how something works best, could someone suggest how I might approach about compensating for that? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
dy031101 said:
The leading edge extensions would reach areas allocated for auxiliary intake doors on the original F-104.
Click to expand...
Speaking as an airframe mechanic, my guess would be to rearrange the suck-in doors to split above and below the LERX.

Depending on what the structures look like inside the inlets that could be really easy or it could be really messy, I'd need to see pictures of an F-104 inlet without the skin on it.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Speaking as an airframe mechanic, my guess would be to rearrange the suck-in doors to split above and below the LERX.
Click to expand...

Got it.

F-104M6_Dogfighter.png

Scott Kenny said:
Depending on what the structures look like inside the inlets that could be really easy or it could be really messy, I'd need to see pictures of an F-104 inlet without the skin on it.
Click to expand...

A cursory search yielded this:

911-entry-2-1623526144.jpg
 
Last edited:
dy031101 said:
The leading edge extensions would reach areas allocated for auxiliary intake doors on the original F-104.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. They are access doors for allowing the maintainers the access to "duct dive" and inspect the J79 engine Inlet Guide Vanes and Compressor Rotor blades for Foreign Object Damage (FOD).

Note the multiple fasteners and the lack of any means of door actuation.

1786497014265.jpeg
 
aim9xray said:
Sorry, no. They are access doors for allowing the maintainers the access to "duct dive" and inspect the J79 engine Inlet Guide Vanes and Compressor Rotor blades for Foreign Object Damage (FOD).

Note the multiple fasteners and the lack of any means of door actuation.
Click to expand...
That actually makes it easier, since you can just add a small piece of the LERX to the access door and unscrew it.
 
aim9xray said:
Sorry, no. They are access doors for allowing the maintainers the access to "duct dive" and inspect the J79 engine Inlet Guide Vanes and Compressor Rotor blades for Foreign Object Damage (FOD).
Click to expand...

I stand corrected then. Thanks.

My initial belief of them being auxiliary inlet doors came from the CL-1010-2 promo earlier along this thread.

(So those auxiliary inlet doors are new addition to the CL-1010-2 and not just modified from base F-104......)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom