Nothing sounds like a 104. Have always loved it. One landed at Cannon AFB NM when i was stationed there in 1973. We heard it's approach. We hurried over to the flight line to see it. i was a power lineman and also airfield lighting and power technician (TAC) F-111 training base. Thanks for this post.
I was station at Cannon AFB IN LATE 60'S. Was an avionics technician, SSGT in the 524th tac fighter Sq. Worked on the transit alert area of the flight line. Went to school on the F-111 and never got to even get up on one.
I was a Stinger MANPADS crew member back in the late 80's and we had to study the silhouette of this aircraft in VACR (Visual Aircraft recognition) while testing all of NATO and hostile aircraft even though they where non left in any air forces but just a few
I grew up with the CF104, which my father worked on as an avionics technician at 1 Wing Lahr Germany in the 1960s. But back then it was polished silver - a beautiful aircraft. When I returned to Canadian Forces Europe in 1977 to run the radio station at Baden-Söllingen, the 104s were painted army green like in the video.
Landing speed is about 170 to 180 knots depending on weight and conditions an touch down 160 to 170kts. You fly it at no less thar 83 to 85% power and use the speed brakes to adjust speed not the throttle. Cutting the power means you loose boundary air and will quickly stall. Was indeed flying a formula 1 race car. Pretty basic but fast and hard to see.
When it is parked, they have to put coverings on the wing edges so that maintenance people don't run into them and get cut. At one time this aircraft held the world speed record.
The only time I seen F-104's flying was when I was sent TDY to Edwards AFB from Norton AFB in the early 1980's, They were flown by NASA. I remember the whistling sound they made when they flew over head. Love that plane. Good video.
Well....when I hit the mega I'll have one for damn sure. The 104 had "blown flaps" to fool the wing that it was bigger for takeoff and landings, if those failed I think final was about 200 kts plus? THAT would be exciting.! Can you.imagine blowing a main right at touchdown??!!
Hhhh.. To fool the wing that it was bigger. Nah, if that system failed, in clean config (no external load) would add 20-25 kts. So, touch down at around 185 kts, no load an must be low on fuel. Unfortunately, famous for widowmaking, and numeous political scandals caused by bribes from Locheed. Scary plane
Bellissimo lo spillone che ritorna a volare grazie al norvegesi incredibile magari un vecchio TF104 rimesso a nuovo per la gioia dei nostalgici di questo velivolo immortale. Grandissimi.
One of the huge problems of the type. Due to the small wing area it stalled very early, and viciously. Even with everything working perfectly, landing speed was just short of 300 km/h. That's with the BLC system functioning properly; if the engine had problems or had stalled, you needed to go *much* faster than that...
The design of the flap and aileron in one piece on this plane would allow the plane to hold on to the air more during take off and land, it is now a legend in the past. Avionic And Oto Pilot Tekc.
I assume when you are taking off in an Airplane that does not glide well with no power, you want as much speed and altitude as possible until you get to 10,000-20,000 feet.
A starfighter always need to use afterburner on take off, due to high take off speed. The wings are very short, and that makes the take off speed high. (Altso makes a starfighter wery fast)
This is a CF-104D serial 104637. Purchased from Canada, and was based i Bodø / Norway from 1973. History of all CF-104 Norway bought from Canada here: starfighter.no/sq334-e.html
I grew up adjacent to Luke AFB in AZ and got to see them on final approach all the time. Glad I wasn't on the other end of the runway... How can you not like a plane who's wings are no longer than the fuselage is wide.
I own an original F-104 actuator for rear flaps, inside prepared to put a cognac bottle in it. Ideal for the desk of the boss! I want to sell it. Interested?
What i'm always wondering how it is possible to hold the bird on place while turning up the engine. There are only a few square niches which make contact from tire to tarmac and this is enough to hold it at place,
Friction is determined by f=-μF where f is the frictional force, μ is the friction coefficient and F is the weight of the object in question. This means it doesn't actually matter how much surface area is in contact with the ground. You just need very sticky tires.
@@cloudy7937 But most war birds today have more power as weight and i think, the tires are laid out to withstand the enormous acceleration at the landing so i don't think, that they are very sticky.
@@boogie153 "Sticky" as in high friction coefficient, not actually sticky and gooey. The F-104 weighs 6,350 kg empty and 13,166 kg at full load, so let's say the craft in question weighs about 10 tons or 10,000kg or about 100 kN. With the afterburner on the engine produces 69 kN of thrust, and friction coefficient of tires being around 0.7~0.8, the frictional force is about 70 ~ 80 kN, which is _just_ about enough to hold the plane in place before takeoff.
Its take-off acceleration was probably around 0.7 g, which isn't that much by modern standard. It took about 21-22 seconds for it to leave the ground. Compare with this F-16, also in Norway, that only needed 12 seconds: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EVYPj0t1tNc.html
@@spitfirenutspitfirenut4835 Many newer fighters, including F-16, have better thrust/weight ratio than the F-104, and are thus able to accelerate faster during take-off and at subsonic speed. The F-104 excels at supersonic speed because its streamlined, rocketlike fuselage and short, thin wings with almost knife sharp leading edges produces less drag than most other fighters, enabling it to beat many of them despite its lower thrust/weight ratio. Fighters that do beat or at least match the F-104's top speed (F-15, F-22, Eurofighter etc) generally do that by "brute force", i.e. higher thrust/weight ratio.
Not that much. Fighters are exposed to the highest g forces (up to about 9 g) when doing tight turns at high speed, not during a take-off like this. The net g force experienced here was hardly more than about 1.3 g when combining normal gravity and horizontal acceleration.
This is how they often looked in service outside the USA ....where the vast bulk of their service was. Their career in the usaf was short. Long live the 104, flaws and all. Love this plane specifically and appreciate the vid.
Jimbo- As stated by others, it’s the G.E. J79, which is a single spool turbo-jet. Modern engines are two or three spool turbo-fan. A turbo-fan will produce quicker takeoff acceleration. The J79 morphed into other aircraft and industrial engines, such as LM1500 and LM2500. It’s also the beginnings of CFM56 which is one of the most prolific airliner engines in use.
The RA-5 Vigilante also used J-79's. When I was a teen age, dad was a 104 IP at Luke AFB. Hearing the otherworldly shriek-howl of the J-79 could inspire goosebumps.
Yes. Norway bought second hand CF's from Canada. But Canada did not have a production line for two seaters, so this CF-104D i built by Lockheed in USA for Canada.
