F-104
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
What was wrong?
Why no love for Starfighter-chan here? :"<
>>29844059
Those stubby as fuck wings. That bitch could zip but damn did it take the whole AO for it to turn.
Those wings were razor thin by the way, as in dangerous. They were built so it slices through the air, and ground crews if they weren't cautious. They put rubber guards on them when maintenance was being done.
The West Germans loved the shit out of that thing.
>>29844059
>What kind of stability you want?
J U S T
>>29844059
>b-but sir this plane sucks
>ORDER 1000 OF THEM
>>29844204
This is what happened with the F-35, right?
Nothing
It's just that nobody like Lockheed
Love me a good starfighter thread.
>>29844611
>>29844642
>>29844611
This picture has more starfighters in frame than the modern Luftwaffe have aircraft in inventory.
>>29844647
>>29844059
Because it was from a generation of jets where engines tended to fail a fair bit, and a jet with a dismal glide ratio and no second engine was seen as bad. It was still a rocket ship though.
>>29844059
Its problem mostly stems from it being forced into roles it had no place in doing. As an interceptor it was brilliant. As a low altitude fighter-bomber... Well...
Speed record that will probably never be broken alone is a reason to love Starfighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Hartmann#In_the_Luftwaffe_of_the_Bundeswehr
http://www.i-f-s.nl/red-baron/
>>29844080
>the Germans loved them?
Didn't they crash a ton?
>>29844080
>The West Germans loved the shit out of that thing.
So much that they named it the "Widowmaker"
Though in all fairness they did use it wrong. They tried to use the plane for dogfighting when it was a strict straight-line interceptor.
>>29844059
>What was wrong?
Lockheed designed an aircraft with an emphasis purely on performance while ignoring any and all operational factors including
>payload
>operational radius
>takeoff and landing performance
>handling
The result was an absolutely amazing aircraft that didn't fit into NATO doctrine all that well. They tried to expand its role to become a fighter-bomber, but it generally lacked the range to be operationally feasible outside of a point-defense aircraft.
Oddly enough, however, it's an excellent analog to the MiG-21 - had the Russians somehow developed the F-104, you'd have probably seen anyone who'd had even the slightest commie inclinations getting F-104s thrown at them like the Soviets did with the MiG-21. Alternatively, you'd see the same "MiG-21 a shit" posting had the MiG-21 somehow been a Western design.
>>29844059
>What was wrong?
Using something designed as an interceptor (which it was bretty gud at) for ground interdiction. It's interesting that the Germans had such trouble with them while other countries that used them in a similar role didn't have anywhere near as many accidents.
>>29844059
lawn darts are not /k/ related.
>>29846876
MiG-21 was actually a good fighter that could be adapted to other roles. That is a major difference.It was a fast and agile short range fighter... while F-104 was just fast.
Closest western equivalents for MiG-21 are Mirage III, Draken and F-5.
Late 50s/early 60s jets are the sexiest.
>>29844059
Because it was a piece of shit with horrible flight characteristics. I mean, it's not subtle or anything. Just look at it. Does that look like enough wing for a plane?
