An F-104 question

Early A's had no tip tanks, but had them added later in their service life. But they could be seen with the wingtip mounted Sidewinder rails. Early F-104As also had the downward firing ejection seat. After several fatal low level ejections an upward firing seat was developed for the 104. I do not know if it was retrofitted to older surviving early aircraft.

The C version had changes such as the ability to deliver air to ground weapons with a hardpoint added to each wing, and an air refueling probe. It also was built with only the upward firing ejection seat. Once the tip tanks came along, the under fuselage Sidewinder rails were added.

The prime visual difference for the G was a wider chord rudder. They were not usually seen with the in flight refueling probe.

In 1/48 for an early A, you may have to go to the Testors kit, which needs a LOT of work to bring up to speed as it is over 50 years old and rebox of the Hawk kit. It has the downward firing seat set up. But the kit is essentially a bare canvas for serious detail work. It is listed on the box as a C, but is more correct for an early A. Or you could backdate a Monogram or Hasegawa C kit.

Thanks Stik!  I guess I was hoping to go with the Monogram kit only because a store in my area is unloading major amounts of old Monogram kits for pennies on the dollar.  I've been contemplating if I should get one of the two Monogram F-104s that they're offering.

Thank you for the information.  Oh...As I think about your info and what the store has to offer, I don't think the Monogram kits offer the wingtip Sidewinders.  I'll have to check it out today after work.

All Iknew about the -104 was that it was pointy.  I just learned some new stuff today!  Now I'm affraid to see what I just forgot as a result.  Ha-ha-ha!

Eric

The Monogram kit can be modified to have the wingtip sidewinders without too much fuss. The tip tanks are optional. I am building a Vietnam F-104C (currently sidelined) right now using the Monogram kit. If you leave off the IFR probe, do some research on the seat, and modify the kit part as needed, and probably do some scribing/filling work on the lower forward fuselage, you can have your A.

Eric, I don't think Hamilton had the A's long enough to get tip tanks.  Here is a jpg that has a little history as well as a nice formation shot.

John!  That is a phenomenal picture!!  I think I saw that picture a while ago but it was a VERY small picture and I think it was in black and white.  Thank you so much for posting the picture.  

You guys are making me wonder if I could actually do the scratch work needed to have the Sidewinders on the tips.

Is it bad when thoughts such as that actually make your heart beat faster?  It's either that or the marshmallow Peep I just ate.

Eric

The original Monogram kit had the option of the wingtip missile rails. The current release should still have that option. But it is a G with the wider rudder. You will need a C kit.

Glad you liked it Eric.  Here is the best picture I've found of the launch rails installed, they are hard to see if the missiles are attached.  This is a Hamilton airplane.

John, I can't thank you enough for those pictures.  They are beyond awesome.  We're talking like into the realm of "Chuck Norris" awesome.

Stik, I'm so glad to hear you say that.  Yesterday after work I stopped off at my local ma-n-pa hobby shop and picked up the C-version for $7.

On a side note, I can't remember if I mentioned this or not but some guy had brought in about 115 plane kits from his stash to the hobby shop for them to sell off for him.  I was under the impression that the guy might have been up there in years and figured there was no way he was going to get around to them all.  He had discarded the boxes and simply kept the bagged parts in order to save some room.  About 98% of them were/are Monogram U.S. jets.  He even had a 1/72 B-52 "with authentic jet sounds!"

I bought five kits from the place for $49.  I can't believe I got five kits for less than what I paid for my last Hasegawa kit!

Eric

You're welcome, Eric.  They are both photos that others have posted on various Yahoo groups.  One thing to note in the second picture is the covered gun port.  I read that when the sidewinders were used, the gun was removed and a fuel cell was put in that location.

Belay that about the covered gun port. I have found some photos of the A with the gun port and the wingtip 'winders. I will see if I can post them later on.

From what I've recent'y read on the internet, the early F-104s (especially the Hamilton ones since the 83rd FIS was the first group to get the F-104) were delivered without the cannon.  Apparently the early cannon suffered from jamming issues, excessing vibration and even the occasional premature detonation of cannon shells.  It wasn't until the Vulcan rotary cannon came out that the -104s were retrofitted.  The Vulcan was far more reliable than the cannons that initially armed the F-104s when they first came out.

Eric

F-104A in Taiwan w/Sidewinders and Vulcan during the Quemoy crisis. I guess when your targets are smaller than a bomber, they wanted missiles and guns.

More F-104A's, same place and time

Here is the article where these photos come from

http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_USA_Quemoy.htm

and this is why the F-104 gained tip tanks, wet hardpoints for wing drop tanks, and an IFR probe- for strategic deployability

and a nice teaser shot of a pair of F-104As over the Bay from Hamilton 

Stik, I don't think that having the tank or the gun was a permanent change, they must have been interchangeable.  Those are airplanes from the Hamilton squadron in Taiwan.  

I remember reading way back when, that the 104 without external tanks had about 30 minutes duration if any supersonic time was involved.

Yes, I am sure it was an interchangable option. I can imagine it must have been something of a bear for the mechanics to do and not a quick piece of work either with the plumbing and wiring involved. I have been looking at phbotos of the Hamilton 104s in Taiwan, and it appears that the unit markings were stripped off soon after arrival, but in some photos you can see the "ghost" of where they had been.

IIR the Lindberg 1/48th F-104 was an A model, or a prototype. That kit is also very old and would require a great deal of work. Was there an article in FSM on an F-104 conversion to  an A model? Maybe it was on the Aircraft Resource Center website. I know I saw such an article recently and if I find it i'll  post the information.

The 78th Fighter Wing operated the F-104A from 1958 to 1960. I've been digging around and the F-104A was not armed with Sidewinders in USAF service or ANG service until later. I don't believe that the USAF adopted the AIM-9 until the F-4C entered service.

[EDIT] Strike through retracted. AIM-9B procured by USAF as GAR-8 after 1955.

Crow taste nasty

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html

Yes, the F-104As were armed with Sidewinders during the Quemoy Crisis, during their deployment to Taiwan in 1958. The photos that I posted earlier of AIM-9 armed F-104As are from there. And again during the Berlin crisis in 1961/62. I will look when I get home and see if they were involved with Cuba as well in October 1962.

Guys, sorry to but in here, but it seems the right place to ask the following question.

I have the 1/48 Hasagawa 104C with decals for 479th USAF George AFB 1963 and tail # FG-910 adn for tail# FG-891.

Would either of these planes heve been in the "less bold" Vietnam NMF atall?

Sorry again.

Theuns

It's possible. I will look into it and see what I can find for you.

stikpusher

F-104A in Taiwan w/Sidewinders and Vulcan during the Quemoy crisis. I guess when your targets are smaller than a bomber, they wanted missiles and guns.

More F-104A's, same place and time

Here is the article where these photos come from

http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_USA_Quemoy.htm

and this is why the F-104 gained tip tanks, wet hardpoints for wing drop tanks, and an IFR probe- for strategic deployability

and a nice teaser shot of a pair of F-104As over the Bay from Hamilton 

Theuns

Guys, sorry to but in here, but it seems the right place to ask the following question.

I have the 1/48 Hasagawa 104C with decals for 479th USAF George AFB 1963 and tail # FG-910 adn for tail# FG-891.

Would either of these planes heve been in the "less bold" Vietnam NMF atall?

Sorry again.

Theuns

According to these articles, FG-891, was not seen in DaNang in the the NMF scheme

http://www.i-f-s.nl/da-nang-aircraft-part-1/

but FG-910 should have been there. It was seen in Taiwan, where the 479th rotated to and from DaNang during their time in 1965

http://www.i-f-s.nl/da-nang-aircraft-part-2/

So to change FG-910 from the kit markings to an "in country" bird you will leave off the gaudy unit markings, the "buzz" numbers, and use a TAC lightning bolt shield on the tail along with the a/c serial number. Look at the photos in the two links there for great reference.

jeaton01

You're welcome, Eric.  They are both photos that others have posted on various Yahoo groups.  One thing to note in the second picture is the covered gun port.  I read that when the sidewinders were used, the gun was removed and a fuel cell was put in that location.

Here is a quote from Joe Baugher's research page on the F-104A regarding the Vulcan cannon installation

The M61 Vulcan cannon initially fitted to the YF-104A suffered from excessive vibration during firing and from occasional premature detonation of its 20-mm shells. The cannon also had a problem with handling high-G stresses during its early development stages. Things got so bad that on November 1, 1957 the Air Force decided that these cannon should not be installed in any more production F-104As and should be removed from existing F-104As until the problems could be fixed. Consequently, for a long time USAF Starfighters actually served without any cannon armament being installed, relying on the wingtip-mounted Sidewinders as their sole armament. In 1964, after the improved and vastly more reliable M61A1 was made available, the F-104As finally got their full armament.

Here is a link to the entire page on the F-104A

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_3.html

Thanx for the info Stick !

I will go have a look at the links now.

It would be nice to do a 104c in less than "bold" markings for a change, maybe just airframe allu alclad.

Last question, would they have flown with tip tanks when in country? For me a 104 without them just seems wrong LOL

Theuns

It seems to have varied on the NMF birds from looking at the photos. In many photos they have wingtip Sidewinders and  drop tanks on the wing pylons. In others, tip tanks and ordnance on the wing pylons. IIRC, by 1965, there was no bare metal on TAC fighters, but instead they were in Aluminum lacquer as a corrosion control measure.

Oh darn, that puts a spanner in the works!

I will have to re-think my plans then.

Anyone used the kit supplied "bold"  decals that is in the hasagawa kit? If they work OK then I might have to do a pollished plane then.

Thanx

Theuns

I sometimes hate reviving older discussions but I thought, for those who were posting here, it would be of interest to know that I actually found a YouTube video of the F-104 and their early teething problems.  They covered at length the issues surrounding the cannon armament.  They actually showed the camera footage from the test firing of the cannon.  The camera was attach pretty close to the gun fairing and it showed it being fired and all the spent casings tumbling out.  Then, all of sudden, you'd see a puff that just didn't seem right.  That was the shell detonating inside the gun compartment.

Apparently when the shell detonated in the compartment, it punched a hole inside the housing and severed some crucial components further inside the fuselage.  This resulted in certain systems shutting down which led to, of all things, the engine shutting down.

When this first happened, the pilot was able to "glide" the plane back with a dead engine and no assisted flight control for a safe landing.  In the video, they showed the hole inside the gun compartment.

When this happened during the second test, the same thing happened but the plane became uncontrolable and the pilot had to eject (safely, thank goodness).

If I can find the video again, I'll post it here.  I just thought it was an interesting tid bit of info that we might find interesting.

Best wishes to all,

Eric