Notice on the F-104 in *Vietnam* - The USAF figures here include the F-104s lost over Vietnam, which are generally considered to be 9-14 depending on how we count. Regarding *flight hours* of different F-104 users, there are various websites out there that show these (e.g. Italy). I know a few of those but it is not always clear where the info comes from. Official sources that have published this data themselves into the public domain are best (just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is in the public domain )
Don't you have to exclude combat-related losses from these figures, since none of the other Starfighters (with the possible exception of Taiwan) ever saw combat?
@@Ensign_Cthulhu My uncle served in the China Air Force, the name for the air force in Taiwan. Two F-104 engaged and shot down one MiG-19, but one of them never returned. That is the only combat record for the 104. Furthermore, there were 114 F-104 crashes in which 66 pilots died. There's no getting around the F-104 is a terrible aircraft.
I've got an old book somewhere where they stated that the F104 over Vietnam never really had enemy contact due to range problems. So the 104 figures i think aren't skeewed much by it's presence in vietnam. Yes, one could argue that under wartime use safety measures often loosen up a little, but the same would be true for the F86 and the F4. Both of which saw extensive enemy contact.
In his book, Royal Navy test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown, stated that flying the F-104 was like piloting a missle and noted the US required a lot of flight hours before allowing a pilot to fly it, but other users of the type didn't have the luxury of that.
@cessnadriver6813 I said flight hours, not training. The US chose very experienced pilots to fly the F-104 who had a lot of flight hours in other jets. The US operated several other jet airplane types that were easier to fly in which to gain experience. Most nations only had a few airplane types so they put in pilots who had a lot less flight experience, as they didn't have enough other types of jets to gain experience with. The F-104 was a unforgiving aircraft to mistakes, so being more experienced in flying helped.
@cessnadriver6813 Money. If training costs were too high, some air forces could be tightfisted. And this decrease in the needed training could be possible also because some armies have a strange sense of duty: When a unit is provided less than the needed means to achieve a mission, the commanding officer feels forced to try anyway. Perhaps because that strange thing some people call "honour" (old euphemism for social pressure), that in risky situations it's an error leading to disaster.
@cessnadriver6813 The comment attributed to 'Winkle' (an exceptionally gifted Test Pilot) is absolutely accuarte. If you dig around on UA-cam you will find quite a number of documentary compilations featurinm him, including that observation. WHY did other nations not train as well as the USAF? You'd have to ask them BUT it is a well known fact Lockheed's behaviour was incredibly corrupt at that period - as indeed was that of buyers taking kick-backs - Its entirely possible Lockheed misrepresented the training requirement. [*] Had they not done so, AND had the US not put financial pressure on them to 'buy American' if they wished to continue benefiting from wider US military support / backup ........... Most buyers would have followed Saudi & bought English Electric Lightnings. [*] Anyone who has ever had to commission computer systems will tell you: 'Sales people lie'
Here is the actual quote from Brown's book, Wings On My Sleeve, "Starfighter was virtually a flying missile and totally unsuitable as a naval aircraft... The Starfighter is a ‘hot ship’ and has to be flown every inch of the way. In bad weather, or with an on-board emergency situation, it is a real handful to cope with. The USAF had recognised this and required pilots assigned to the Starfighter to have at least 1,500 flight hours’ experience. The new breed of German military pilots had been trained in the blue skies environment of Texas, then returned to Europe and its fickle weather with about 400 hours total flying time. To put such raw pilots into a Starfighter was asking for trouble, especially as the German F- 104G version had become a multi-mission aeroplane, weighing 2,000lb more than the standard F-104. Trouble they got in plenty...the decision to choose the Starfighter was, in my opinion, influenced by the German aircraft manufacturing industry. It had been dormant in the post-war years and now saw a golden opportunity not only to rise phoenix-like from the ashes by building the F-104 under licence, but also to leap straight into the supersonic league in one big bound. In this situation it was almost inevitable that the industry would lobby the Government for the Luftwaffe and Navy to have the same aircraft for financial and logistic reasons, and this resulted in a total requirement of 750 Starfighters for Germany. The price paid for this political intrusion was the loss of 164 Starfighters in operational service with some 50 per cent of their pilots killed."
Lots of hearsay (and how I remember it from more than a decade ago) here: I met someone who was in the Luftwaffe in the Starfighter era, and he also defended the Starfighter. He said the Luftwaffe was an air force in the making, lacking experience, and the jump from a Fiat G-91 to the Mach 2-Starfighter was gigantic. And apparently that was too much, and they had impressive accident numbers. But once they understood that, they sent the pilots to extended trainings in the US, and the accident rate fell drastically. He also said that in this early jet age, the accident rates were anyhow rather high, and so it was not thaaaaaat much higher than other types.
In that time was the high time of the Cold War. The Starfighter was the bomber the germans had to provide to carry US nuclear bombs. He told they were in ready alert at the end of the runway, nuked up,, sitting in the cockpit. He said they never drank so much as in that time. For the sobering (lol, that had to be) reason that nothing mattered in that situation. When they got the go for their sortie, and they should make it to their target and back, there would not be a home left. Just a nuclear desert.
Take this with a healthy dose of salt. All from memory, but the guy had no reason to tell us from our model airplane club total nonsense to show off. I only think the small stories should live on, contribute a little to the overall picture, and it would be sad they would simply disappear.
It may be hearsay but it has been heard from multiple sources and documented in multiple studies: For Germany the F-104 was a big step up, and it flew a risky mission profile in European weather.
My uncle served in the China Air Force, the name for the air force in Taiwan. Two F-104 engaged and shot down one MiG-19, but one of them never returned. That is the only combat record for the 104. Furthermore, there were 114 F-104 crashes in which 66 pilots died. There's no getting around the F-104 is a terrible aircraft.
@user-dc1ud6px3s I think there is a Cult of Kelly Johnson that can not admit anything he touched did not turn into aviation gold. He designed some terrific aircraft but the 104 wasn't one of them even if the accident rate is ignored.
Indeed: The Luftwaffe also was lacking shelters for the planes, which were left in the open in cold winters, like they used to do with the Sabres. After 1969, when proper shelters were built, the accident rate dropped significantly.
When I was a child I had a F-104 Starfighter. It was a blue plastic toy with no country identifications, but after watching this video I think it could be Spanish, because It never crashed or suffered any damage. 😅
In Taiwan the F-104 was our first line of defense against any PLAAF aerial campaign and for a time our only all-weather fighter prior to F-CK-1's entry into service. The F-104 pilots were literal poster boys of the ROCAF, the finest in the service, and the initial groups even have physiques as part of the selection criteria. Unfortunately late in the Starfighters' service, unlike Italy, Taiwan had to rely on second-hand airframes to beef up numbers, with non-airworthy ones for spare parts.
My dad’s old best friend’s brother was a Starfighter pilot. My dad was at his friends house sitting in lawn chairs in the front yard when a car pulled up, and two men in blue got out to tell my dad’s friend the news that his brother died in a crash. Even though it wasn't my dad who lost a loved one, seeing a friend learn the news of his brother, and possibly best friend his entire life pass away was really tough for my dad. For being there for him, my dad received a round the brother fired from his 104 from his friend. It’s possibly my most valuable possession when it comes to meaning.
My dad said it liked to roll over and play dead. He had a few incidents, including 2 dead stick landings in the 104. The 104 could be dead sticked, unlike the F-4 he flew in Vietnam, which could not be. There was no window in the F-4, where you had enough airspeed to run your hydraulics, but not blow your tires on landing.
The losses of F-104 Starfighters in service with the Danish Airforce are (afaik can find out, at least) 12 planes and 6 pilot fatalities: the explanation given, for the relative low losses, was that it entered service later on, with the danish airforce, so they were able to restrict the flying of the plane to more experience pilots. Also, the role of fighter-bomber was given to other aircraft types to keep the Starfighter in it's imagined role as interceptor and thus (possibly, at least) also helped with keeping losses low (again, relatively speaking). Edit: if memory serves, it served with the Danish Airforce from the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's.
It's a similar story for the Norwegian Air Force. We didn't even really use bombing, so there was even less of a reason to use the 104 as anything other than an interceptor
You didn’t take into account the type of mission flown. Germany (amongst other EU NATO counties) used the F-104 as a fighter bomber (a role for which it was not designed) flying low in European weather, an inherently more dangerous mission than high altitude interception.
@@MilitaryAviationHistoryyou screw up at low level with the 104 you're gonna lose the plane and very likely the pilot. There are many sources that specifically mention the Germans crashing them using them as low level fast intruders
Yes, however, superficially the data doesnt seem to support that theory. After all, the Americans had more airframe losses than Germany. You can make the argument that the US used the F-104 in Vietnam, but it didnt actually see much action there, IIRC it didnt get any kills.
The idea that using the F-104 in roles it wasn't designed for caused it to crash more often is misguided logic. There wasn't anything inherently wrong with using the Starfighter as a fighter-bomber or low-level strike aircraft. Except for range and payload, it flew and performed at low level about like the F-105D, which had similar all-weather avionics and bombing systems. Starfighters crashed at low levels for typical reasons - bird strikes, engine problems, crappy weather, or good old "pilot error", not because it's wings were too small or some other such nonsense. If the Germans had used the Mirage or the Super Tiger in the same fashion they would have had similar losses.
@@dukeford8893 The F-105 had a more reliable engine and less complicated flight charachteristics. It was huge for the time, and with much bigger wings (better wing loading). And had quite good high angle of attack performance and wouldnt easily stall. The F-104, besides technical and engine issues that got somewhat fixed, had very difficult flying charachteristics. For example, it had tiny wings, outright horrible wing loading. But the T-tail means that more Angle of Attack than 15 degrees causes it to very quickly stall. And its very easy to pull AoA when you are heavily loaded with bombs. Its just a bad combination. Meanwhile the Mirage 3 is a delta with huge wings, which is much more forgiving.
F104 was probably excellent for a scenario that never happened: super fast zoom to interception height of non-maneuvering soviet bomber fleet, and engage it with its relatively meager armament of two sidewinders. For most other applications including air combat maneuvering it was probably garbage compared to the F8.
Well, that IS what it was made to do. It was a rapid response bomber interceptor that was pressed into other roles it wasn't suited for, either by the necessity of the conflict or by the operator (Germany) deciding that a difficult to pilot fighter with limited payload was a great option for a low-level close air support role.
@@Robloxman01I do agree forcing equipment into roles it's not meant for invites accidents and issues, though I wonder how wise it is to invest in military equipment that focuses so completely on one single role when cross use seems pretty much inevitable in combat situations.
You might show up some useful data by counting the accident rate per-flight, i.e. the chance of getting back safely each time you get into an F-104. If most accidents are during takeoff and landing this would put the F-104 at a disadvantage compared to fighters which fly longer missions, when only measuring flight hours.
this is very true in any situation that does not involve war, the majority of accidents will always be takeoff and landing, since there is a nice hard obstacle just meters away to greet you if you make any mistakes
Tbf, on the other hand it might help the F-104 because accidents are close to basis and medical support is readily available, if the ejection seat works.
I've always had a soft spot for the Starfighter. It's one of those aircraft that manages to still look like it's from the future all these decades later, kind of like a less-janky looking MiG-21 in some ways.
As a comparison, Saab 35 Draken in the swedish airforce, in service between 1960 and 1994: 615 manufactured and delivered between 1954-1990 (including prototypes, and conversions). 135 written off due to accidents of all causes. 70 of which occured in the first 12 years (60-72). In these 70 accidents; 22 pilots did not make it, there was 38 successful ejections², and 10 survived during start/landing. So half of the accidents happend during the first decade out of a 35 years service. Mostly due to faults in the engine¹, avionics¹, and of course pilots learning to flying a Mach 2 fighter. For the entire service in RSwAF, the Draken has a "frequency of destruction" from 18,4 down to 15,9 per 100,000 flight hours, depending on what you include as causes, and the timescale. This is 5,435 FH/Destroyed up to 6,289 FH/Destroyed. During the period of 1986 to 1994, "only" four aircrafts were lost, one pilot. ¹) fuelpumps breaking, hydrolic servos not being strong enough etc. ²) On at least four occations there have been mid air collisions during training "air combat manouvers", ie mock dog fighting. In three of these, the Drakens involved returned to base, landing. In the other, one pilot did not eject. For the other pilot, the canopy didn't open properly, making an ejection impossible (links to the ejection seat). He did however manage to squeeze out, and parachuted down safely. His aircraft landed on a rail track up side down. When rescue found the aircrafts, the canopy was closed, the ejection seat still there, but no pilot... Source: ISBN 91-971605-4-7 (1995) SAAB 35 Draken, Bo Widfeldt
I knew a former Canadian forces pilot and he said that as long as you didn't screw up on take-off or landing, and used the 104 as a high speed, high altitude interceptor it was a fantastic aircraft, easily one of the best in the world in it's time. Using it as a high speed, low altitude bomber was "completely idiotic but we did it anyway".
Then why did America have so many lost 104s (they saw almost no combat in vietnam)? Why did the engine have such a bad failure rate? Why was Lockheed Martin selling the 104 as a fighter/bomber from the beginning?
@@termitreter6545 "Then why did America have so many lost 104s" As I recall the majority of USAF losses were due to engine failure. "Why did the engine have such a bad failure rate?" Because it was a new engine that pushed the performance limits of the time. The reliability issues improved with time. "Why was Lockheed Martin selling the 104 as a fighter/bomber from the beginning?" They were not selling it as a fighter bomber from the beginning, they sold it to USAF as an air superiority fighter. But most USAF tactical fighters eventually get fighter bomber capability, and the 104 was no exception. The high wing loading of the aircraft was suitable for the high-speed low-altitude attack profile of the NATO nuclear strike role. The F-105 designed outright for the role had similar wing loading.
Former co-worker, National Guard A-10 pilot, came back from Red Flag one year and told me of the time that he was cruising along at what for him in his A-10 was low altitude, and this streak went _under_ him, with the pilot reporting that he was "down on the deck doing 800 knots". He concluded from this that CF-104 pilots were insane.
And having a nuclear bomb strapped to it with a one way flight path, and ultimately a low level ejection on successful mission completion, followed by 4 intense days of hide and seek in a possible fall out zone. Yeah idiotic might not be the word I would use.
Say what you like, of the 200 Canadair CF-104 and 38 Lockheed dual-seaters. 113 were lost and 37 pilots died flying it. While only four fatalities were caused by aircraft system failures, the rest were the dangers of flying at high speeds at low altitudes sometimes with the poor visibility. IMO the aircraft was unsuitable for the role in which it was used and considering that every casualty was non combat, I regard the CF-104 to be one of the more a tragic failures of Canadian aviation.
"IMO the aircraft was unsuitable for the role in which it was used" - that is fair. However that isn't airplane's fault. That is doctrinal issue, especially since not every country had that magnitude of a problem. It doesn't make 104 a safe fighter, but it wasn't that terrible. It just really was used, marketed and for some reason accepted for such dangerous use that didn't suit it.
The CF-104 was an excellent interceptor, however both us and germany decided to fly them over treetops in a ground attack roll. Also I don't remember the exact numbers but I know that Canadian CF-104 pilots got more flight time than our german counterparts, which is how we had lower losses even though we were both flying the same low altitude missions over Germany at the time.
@@Sman16 There was a big push by Lockheed to convince users that the aircraft would be useful in multirole and keep them in contracts for maintenance and such. They realized they were going to be outdated for scramble interception (the original intent) and were pressured to find an alternative to keep the aircraft relevant. I'm sure the bean counters were interested in a plan to keep using them since they were already paid for and they were hoping to delay buying new replacements for high speed ground attack jets. I'm sure the experiment was seen as cost saving and worth pursuing at the time and lessons were learned.
I seem to remember reading ( many years ago, true) that when used as a straight interceptor it was a brilliant plane. Unfortunately, it was then forced into multi-role usage, (which is was never designed for) and thats when things went majorly wrong!
Thats a bit of a myth. Engine failures and difficult piloting was an issue even as an interceptor. It also suffered from very limited range and payload, which is why eg America didnt use it for very long. Also, the 104 was never 'forced' into multirole usage, it was literally special variant developed for the job. Both american 104Cs or the export 104Gs.
My father was a starfighter pilot for Canada stationed in Germany. His opinion was that the 104 was not a bad plane, but used for missions for which it wasn't suited, i.e. low level flight. While the widowmaker had a high fatality rate, he mentioned that they lost more pilots to drunk driving.
There's a documentary on belgian F-104 pilots. The thing they stated was the following: the german AF was much younger than theirs. Hence they had more accidents. Overall experience in having an AF, besides flight hours, has to be taken into account as well. Belgian pilots loved their F-104's. They even had a stunt team pulling of stuff Lockheed deemed impossible.
Some lift is generated by the aircraft's body. the wings performed best at supersonic speed (drag lift ratio was very favorable), but at high AOA they were quite draggy. Maneuver flaps helped a bit to improve. At least compared to some contemporary aircraft like some F-4 variants.
From my understanding part of the F104's bad reputation came from the Luftwaffe, which had a horrendous series of crashes and had a far worse safety record than the type did in other nation';s service. The reasons for this were only partly due to the aircraft. It was the 1st really modern high tech aircraft the Luftwaffe had after the war. The Luftwaffe ticked pretty much every box in the options list resulting in pilots being task overloaded German pilots entering the F104 training programme had far fewer flight hours than those from other countries The pilots were trained in good weather in places like Texas and had little training to cope with European conditions The Luftwaffe lacked trained mechanics and facilities like heated hangers to maintain the aircraft, resulting in low availability and many aircraft flying with "problems" increasing pilot workload even further. Result was that every 2nd field in West Germany had a starfighter or two poking out of earth. When the Luftwaffe improved their training and fixed the maintenance issues the accident rate dropped by over 70% down to the level of other operators. It is still taught to accident investigators as a textbook case of systemic operator failure.
Correct. German pilots didn't just have fewer flight hours; their prior experience was in subsonic fighters and they went straight from that into a high strung Mach 2 airplane.
There are now more questions that need addressing: 1. What effect did the operational environment have on loss and fatality rates? 2. Did the switch from downward to upward firing ejection seats have any significant effect on fatality rates?
Form what I have read the operational environment had a big effect on loss rates. The J-79 was powerful, but not very reliable early in its maturation cycle. When you lose the engine on a clear day at high altitude over the southwestern U.S. you have a chance to dead stick it to a runway, and you at least have some time to work out your options. At low level in murky European weather if you lose the engine you will have little time to chose between the available options of slim or none. Best case outcome is likely a fully successful ejection. This is the nature of this inherently risky operation, not this specific airplane. Same outcome in an F-105, with the caveat that I think it had a more reliable engine.
The USAF had about as many successful downward ejections out of the Starfighter as they did unsuccessful ones, but going to the C2 seat undoubtedly saved a lot of lives. The Germans replaced their C2 seats with a Martin-Baker zero-zero seat that was a bit of a lash-up.
My uncle piloted the CF-104G at Metz and Geilenkirchen. I remember as a young lad my parents asking about the "widow maker" reputation it had. He had previously crashed into somebody's garage when his Sabre jet (F-86) had a flame out at altitude too low to eject. He attributed the accidents to keen pilots pushing the envelope too hard and not to the aircraft which he loved to fly flat out at full throttle. He said you always had to fly it in a zigzag pattern or you would always overfly your destination.....WOAH MULE!!!
Would be much interested in the existing commentary about F-104 ("The Widowmaker") performance by Erich Hartmann, Johannes Steinhoff and Gunter Rall.. (and others) "A missle with a man in it.."
I lived in a town in north germany where some of the crashes happend. Together with my father I found a strange square sea in the middle of a forest. My father did a bit of research and its possible that we found the remains of one of the crashsites.
Just from my general reading, the USAF didn't really know what to do with the 104. The Air Force wasn't used to a pure sir superiority fighter, and the training reflected that in the same way contemporary training for the P-38 resulted in pilots who had trouble when an engine was lost.
Reading Data as in this video "can" be misleading. Usage of the Starfighter is key: Spain, Taiwan. Jordan and Japan employed the F104 as Interceptors, flying high and only major technical issues could create an accident, may be landing errors, but that's unavoidable. All these countries also enjoy hot weather and usually very good visibility. Belgium, Germany, Canada and Italy employed the Stafighters as Low level tactical bombers with nuclear capabilities, flying very low at high speed in central Europe, where weather is no ideal. I know, even acrobatic team pilots in the IAF were denied licence to fly the Starfighter, proving unable to react fast enough, as being supersonic at tree level means there is no room for error. Generally speaking, the accident record between the IAF fighter bomber units, compared to interceptors, is about 10 to 1. It drastically improved with the Tornado, due to Radar offloading the pilot of keeping above the ground, something the F104 from the sixties was worrisomely lacking. The F104 also was an analogic, very high performance fighter plane, which could bite the pilot hand if not properly treated. For the same reason, the F16A was also often referred as the widow-maker. There were errors in Germany, mostly, on servicing the plane: Until 1969, they were left sitting in the open, like Sabres, instead of inside shelters. After 1969, this changed and the accident rate dropped significantly. In Italy the Starfighter flew too far from the intended servicing life: the last F-104 was withdrawn in 1999, 40 years after the first purchase. There were also reports that known issues were not addressed due to lack of funding. What stands is a Fighter able to intercept a fast moving target 5 minutes from cold, at 30K feet (something only the F-20 could replicate), able to fly at mach 1.2 at treetop level, with a nuclear bomb underside, bring it further and faster then any other plane, except the F-105 and the F111A, until the Tornado became available. It was dangerous, but the only tool able to get the task done for small budget countries on the verge of a total war.
Another possible caveat! The F-4 (and possibly others on the list?) carried 2 crew, which probably inflates the casualty % for that aircraft. I'm not qualified to say if that's fair or not. I'd also like to point at mission profile, as briefly mentioned at 11:23. If F-104s were mostly used as interceptors, this likely means that they burned through their fuel quickly, right? This would result in relatively few flight hours. Plus a relatively larger part of these flight hours would be spent doing slightly more dangerous stuff, such as landing, flying fast, steep climbs etc. Then again, judging from the WT footage the thing could carry bombs, so my line of thinking might be 100% wrong.
It depends on the user. Some users as Germany used is s FB others as USAF or Spain as day interceptor. Spain lost 0 Starfighters while Germany using them as all weather interceptor and Fighter-bomber a lot. Pe The Netherlands and Belgium AF losses fell when they Choose CF5 and Mirage 5 and used them as FB instead of the F104.
Chris as a retired engineer, that spent his career in US defense work, I applaud your ethic and emphasis in origional data. Please keep up teh great work.
I wonder if there is any good way to get flight hour/incident data mapped to mission role. After all, even in peacetime training. a nation that uses a particular airframe for NOE tactical fighter bomber roles most of the time is going to have a much higher incident and fatality rate than someone who spends a significantly higher proportion of their flight hours using it as an interceptor. And a force that spends more time doing strike misaion training in the Alps has a different risk profile than their allies who live on a mostly flat desert, even if they technically train for the same type.of missions in roughly the same proportions. And that's without even allowing for differences in average force skill level with that airframe. A force that gets the minimum flight hours is going to have more incidents per flight hour than an otherwise identical force that spends so much time flying aimulated missions, their kids are born with feathers.
My cousin was a test pilot for the later stretched version of the F-104. In an aileron flutter test where he was to dive from 40k ft to 20k (12200 m ro 6100m) to report on any flutter. As he flashed by 20k ft he pulled back on the control stick, only it didn't move! He was heading down at Mach 2, and he desperately pulled, even putting his feet up on the instrument panel. He finally felt the stick move, but the G forces caused him to black out. The recordings showed that he got within 1500 ft of the ground, and he gained awareness going back up through 20K ft! When we asked why he didn't eject, he said that he had lost a test pilot friend who had ejected at a similar situation just the day before. He decided to stick with the jet! He liked the 104...
I have my old vinyl record 'Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters' by Robert Calvert of Hawkwind fame, from 1974 a great record good artwork too. The record outlines the dubious way the German and US went about getting it into service, and a little of the outcome ie "if you want a Starfighter, buy an acre of ground, and wait"
I may have missed it, but do the aircrew fatality rates (e.g. for the F-4) include the crew size? Also, in the case of F-4, F-35, etc. are these just USAF numbers or also including USN and USMC?
Can’t find Soviet figures, but the loss rates of Warsaw Pact MiG-21 users (Poland, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary) seem similar - for instance, East Germany lost 126 out of a fleet of 556 aircraft. Bear in mind though it’s almost impossible to find out total flight hours of the fleet. My *assumption* is that this was usually way lower, seeing that most East German MiG-21s that can be seen in museums had been retired with an average of about half the flight hours of the average West German F-104G of similar vintage.
I remember reading somewhere that folks in Germany used to say that if you wanted your own F-104 and didn’t care what condition it was in, all you had to do was buy yourself a random plot of land and wait. Certainly exaggerated, but entertaining in an “It’s always funny if it happens to somebody else” kind of way.
My uncle dropped out of high school and joined the U.S. airforce in 1970 at age 17. He was stationed in the Philippines from 1970-1972. He mostly served on rescue helicoptes or on C130's doing the bottom rung guy jobs because he was always the lowest rank guy. They sent the Germans there to train in F104's. One of my uncles most hated memorable from his time there was having to walk the field at the end of the runway with a zip lock bag to recover pieces of a German pilot who nosed in after blacking out. He absolutely loathes that plane. Spent about a half hour talking about how deadly it was when we went to the Museum of the USAF.
I remember being at a flightshow as a kid where they had Phantoms. Some older pilot or so said that "in the starfighter time" people were buying patches of fields behind the airstrip, in the hope of being able to tell their friends that an airplane came down in their "backyard". Probably just a tale, but it shows how they viewed the Starfighter.
The U.S. hours are unsurprising since the U.S. operated the earlier models. I REALLY wonder what the heck was up with Belgium and Norway though? I mean did they not operate conversion trainers? I googled that Belgium bought 112 F-104's and lost 42 (!). I still think it's a great little interceptor but it had it's limitations and vices, especially when used at low altitudes.
The F-104 starfighter has to be the most strangest American jet fighter design in US aviation history. great video. Have you heard the news of Hawker tempest Mk.ii MW763 first flight in Sywell airfield.
There was a common meme (before memes were a thing) when I was much younger, that if you lived in West Germany and you had a garden big enough, sooner or later you would find an F-104 Starfighter in it. Interesting that the data in this video sort of suggests there was a kernel of truth in this (33% of airframes lost), but as in a lot of these types of meme, it was exaggerated for effect.
Thanks Chris, that's very interesting. I recall the general view in the UK during the sixties of the F104 as being most dangerous aircraft of its type. However, I recall one commentator saying that the English Electric Lightning was statistically worse. I can't recall the source of that comment, but F104 vs Lightning would make a very interesting comparison when subject to your rigorous approach.
Coolest name ever for a fighter jet though.... I remember being at an airshow at one of the US air bases in the UK as a young boy with my dad. There was a Starfighter there and an old vet called it "A flying coffin"
It was an early jet fighter, at the very bleeding edge of technology. Things weren't nearly as well understood back then in terms of design, and pilot training also didn't keep up with aircraft advances. Germany eventually solved its accident rate with improved training; after that its yearly accident rate was no worse than any other fighter. And consider its performance: it literally could supercruise, in 1958. That was simply unheard of. It was an excellent aircraft for its time, whose reputation is marred by looking at it through the modern lens without fully considering all the factors.
Also, beyond the statisics: Germany had high initial losses due to inadequate training and using the plane outside its comfort zone as all-weather low-flying fighter bomber, which caused some media attention. When Germany accepted this and changed the training, the rate of crashes dropped dramatically - but media only likes bad news, of course. Another factor is how fast the "bugfixes" were implemented by the respective airforce, which can for example explain why certain airforces had much worse experiences. For example, the nozzle of the engine liked to fail open, resulting in very poor thrust at military thrust and much worse during landing. Later the planes received a lever to manually close the nozzle for safe landings. Also, like the MiG-21, it had a BLC system to blow engine bleed air over the wings at low speeds, which required some training to be used to it.
From 1982 to 1984 I was serving in the Hellenic, Greek, air force, as a mechanic in the 104s. During this time there was only one accident when a TF-104 made a heavy landing and was damaged. The problem with the 104 was that having a very small wing area, it was obliged to fly at 90% thrust. Less than that it could lose lift and fall. Landing speed was also very high and always deployed a parachute to assist braking. On the other hand it was very fast, up to 2,2 mach, with the highest, at the time, ceiling. Could carry nuclear weapons.
Anyone who likes Hawkwind needs to check out 'Captain-lockheed-and-the-starfighters' it was a concept album by Bob Calvert about the starfighter. In addition to being damn good music it also was more or less contemporary to the F104-G problems and I think it fairly accurately reflect the feelings about the starfighter at the time...... with a little bit of German stereotyping added, which would be considered bad taste these days but was like water off a duck's back in the rufty-tufty days of 1974.
In 1966 I was stationed at Homestead AFB in Florida. It was a SAC base with B52s. There was also a TAC wing of F104s. Several F104s were lost while I was there. Rumor had it that the 104 had the glide angle of a flat rock. If it lost power and you weren’t high enough to eject…..bad result. Some pilots were lost.
I used to live under the approach to CCK air base, at the time the ROCAF was using the Starfighter as a trainer. The primary air defense fighter at that time was the Mirage, but due to lack of spares, the F-5 was actually the type most used in daily ops. Not surprisingly the loss rate on the F-104 was very high. I used to cringe every time I time I heard one on final and expected to eventually have one in my 14th floor living room eventually.
Excellent - Uniquely thoughtful approach there Chris. Gotta say I was waiting for you to throw comparative graphicsw of standard deviations up next just in case a few folk weren't still going 'eh'?
One commentator said the star fighter was originally designed as a high altitude interceptor the problem began when many users adapted it as a low altitude ground attack aircraft it can be done successfully but it requires a very skilled and experienced pilot.
My uncle had to eject from one below minimums. Eject was called from the tower. Apparently they always expecting malfunctions. He recovered well and went on to have a long life with many stories.
As a former German Air Force mechanic, I can say that all pilots loved the F-104. “The Starfighter was a rocket with wings,” that was the opinion of the pilots. The reason why so many of these planes crashed is simple, they were overloaded on orders from the General Staff. The Starfigter F-104 was an interceptor that was very fast with its stubby wings. But the General Staff wanted/needed a light bomber and then simply packed too much weight/too many bombs under these small wings. So that the machine could only be flown at very high speeds, if you went too slow or flew too tight a curve, then the bird fell like a stone from the sky. Without a modern stall warning, the plane could no longer be controlled.
I was at RAF Upper Heyford UK, a flightline AGE troop and always went out to watch the Luftwaffe depart in their F-104s, Crazy Bastards....no sooner off the ground, wheels up full AB and a looping of the field, dipping so close to the runway it was scary, and then off they would depart towards home.....F-4 Pilots ran a close 2nd in the insanity department....
Great to see any video on the Starfighter. The Century series fighters are all interesting but the Starfighter has a special place in my heart. My uncle had a model of one when I was a kid and I remember it looking really cool and the name is just the best ever for fighter jet. Starfighter sounds like something out of science fiction.
Love the channel. It's probably been said a dozen times already, but no one in the US pronounces USAF as "yoosaff". We speak the letters individually. It's not an acronym. You also won't hear any century series fighters described with the word "hundred". Just one-oh-four. The same goes for rifle caliber.
Perhaps to do a more accurate comparison one should only look only at aircraft with a single engine, rather than a mixture of single and twin engine fighters.
It wasn’t inherently dangerous, but as Tony LeVier commented, “It is an extremely honest aircraft, it will not forgive any mistakes.” The early F-104 were dangerous, the J-79 had reliability problems, and it couldn’t fly without engine power, and the downward firing ejection seat made take off problems pretty non-survivable. The F-104C was not actually in U.S.A.F service very long,mostly because they didn’t have much use for it. ADC didn’t want it, they already had the F-101/F-102/F-106. TAC wasn’t really interested, it wasn’t a patch on the F-105. The F-104G sold worldwide was a different beast. The West Germans went straight from the F-84F , even worse, they often took people out of staff positions and dropped them into command positions, and expected them to lead in the air real early. Further, they were flying in a very demanding environment, fast and low. In the hands of a fully competent pilot, an F-104 could be sent out to hit a particular target, and any defenders would be hard put to stop them (small target, moving fast and low), likewise the maritime strike versions, basically a high speed surface skimmer, still a difficult target. The JASDF had a different mission, air defence under ground control, with a more effective radar fit than the F-104A/C. Likewise, the Italian F-104S with the Sparrow/Aspide(?) That a small number are flying in civil hands shows they are not inherently deadly, though a rather expensive hobby.
Most of us loved flying the 104. You leave out the important consideration of role and operating theater. Canadians only flew the aircraft operationally in Germany. Always low level and in the mountainous terrain of the South. Often the weather conditions were quite poor and visibility limited. Doing ground attack in a 104 is a very high workload and good aircraft handling was essential when diving at the ground to deliver conventional munitions.
Looking at the flight hours per airframe loss raises serious questions about the F-22. Though I guess the small size of the fleet might make those numbers less statistically relevant. Also interesting to see the F-15 to F-16 comparison, which I had expected to be reversed purely because of the single engine
Good point. Re the advantage of twin engines (e.g. F/A-18 vs F-16) it would be interesting to see how often an aircraft survived because there was only a single engine failure. Both in combat and in non-combat flights.
I was talking to an old 104 pilot. He shocked me with a common issue that happened to him it was an engine hi-speed flame out suddenly requiring a restart, he didn't explain the causes of flameouts. Another reason given for so many crashes in Germany/Switzerland the flight training in Arizona deserts is nice flat and open but there were are too many BIG mountains for this hot missile with wings-if true??
Yes, this definitely shows the reputation is undeserved. I also might like to find the sources that cause this reputation as well. It sounds like dramatization from a movie or magazine or coffee table book. Thank you for not using the narrative words widow maker or flying coffin. It really grinds my gears to hear that in any use at this point.
I don't know if you really can say the reputation was undeserved when only the F86 was worse. You can see a clear decrease of accidents with every new fighter generation. The F4 was safer than the century fighters, the F15 was safer than the F4. But from all the century fighter types the F104 had clearly the worst accident rate, and wasn't that significantly better than the F86.
Love your style and wit. Thoroughly watchable, more so than most similar Aviation videos. I'm coming around to the idea that the Starfighter in Europe gets a bad rap. I do think, though, that it's safe to say it was a dangerous plane. Maybe not the flying death-trap it's been made out to be, but not easy by any means.
My old Colonel used to say the rep of this aircraft wasn't deserved as he flew them in Europe. He did say,however that it did have the glide characteristics of a brick upon engine failure.
Thank goodness they ditched the downwards ejection seats. Given that take off and landing approach was when the stubby wings were not helping much. The reason of the downwards ejection was because a suitable catapult system to clear the T tail wasn't developed at the time, even when one was, it still couldn't handle the sink rates of a dropping Starfighter, at low attitudes
As I recall being in Germany when they were losing starfighters, the media was saying that it wasn't as much the airframe's fault for the crashes, as it was the modification packages the Luftwaffe bought and added on to them, literally making the airframes too heavy and unstable. The more interesting question here is whether it was the airframe itself or the mods and which mods or models were actually likely to be associated with crashes.
I applaud the level of detail in colating all that data. A friend of mine did that for US 1795-1884 muskets and rifles. Sure lots of bookshave the info but he went through the National Archives to get all of the records. He used to tell me source material is everything.
I do remember a documentary on german TV ( i am not german though) long ago (15-20 years) where they looked into what made it so easy to get into an accident with the "Erdnagel" as some called it. And from what i remember it wasn't the reliability of the aircraft that caused most problems, but the rather small speed window in which they could perform some much needed things (like lowering or retracting the landing gear etc.)
If I'm not mistaken, and I probably am, a lot of the nations on the list don't allow flight hours statistics to go public but sometimes you can get fuel spent by aircraft type/model reports. What would lead to a mathematical issue: dividing the fuel spent by the average consumption per hour should give you a number of theoretical flight hours. I'm sure a lot of European nations didn't do differentiation on models, only roles, in their fuel consumption reports during the late 90's and early 2000's. Can't say for anything prior than that.
Something somewhere is wrong. For example for F22 you have a 5 to 1 destroyed to fatalities ratio. Somehow that ration to 82 to 1 while adjusted to flight hours. Same flight hours value should be used for both destroyed to fatalities. If you take the 5000 FH/destroyed and multiply by 5 (no of destroyed F22) it results a total of 25000 flight hours. If you take the 410200 FH/fatalities and multiply by 1 (no of F22 fatalities ) it results a total of 410200 flight hours!!! Can you explain? OTOH the main issue with the F-104 was that the wing was too loaded. Was barely acceptable as the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor but later it was mainly used as a low-level fighter-bomber and the wing load became to high and seriously compromised the already restricted flying capabilities of the plane.
When flown and maintained according to the book, reduced the crashes. My uncle retired from the RCAF in 1970 as a colonel. Prior, he was chief technical officer at the Metz base.
The bad Belgian fogures is because Belgium used the 104 as low level fighter bomber, well outside of the role it was designed for. We also had at least 2 gatals for airobatics. We had Bil Ongena and the slivers airobatic team.
I couldn't find official records from the Italian Air Force on the F-104 but one thing that everyone over here agrees on is that the aircraft revieved more praises than actual hate. Both former pilots and former ground crews talk of it in a positive way which is also why terms such as "widow maker" and "flying coffin" weren't created, instead a more friendly name was given to the aircraft "spillone" (big pin) due to its design
A question, It would be quite intresting to see the diffrence between the big five airforces during the cold war regarding loss of airframes and fatalities as there was a big diffrence in regards to Doctinal use of said airforces both in how training was done and how the systems was used during real active missions. In Sweden (number 4 or 5 during Cold War era) it has always been said that we had a high loss of life due to our way of training with flying the same during training as active war service aka less than 20 meters abouve ground and less than 10 meters abouve water. Best regards.
as you listed in the third caveat, flight profile would significantly affect the fatality & mishap rate - flying fast and low is intrinsically much more hazardous than flying fast and high. lower altitude provides less margin for error. controlled flight into ground happens all too often at low level and never at 10,000m
An attempt has been made to establish a reference to the number of flight hours. However, the respective operating conditions were not taken into account by the operators. The North American, Southern European and Asian used the F104 mainly as an interceptor at medium and higher altitudes, important in the event of engine failure. In Central Europe, on the other hand, the F104 was mainly used as a heavily loaded fighter bomber in low flight in the known bad Central European weather. Important circumstance to which, for example, Günther Rall has also pointed out.
You left out a major factor: role of the aircrafts, and how they used. For the green quality cuntries: purely air defense, mostly over land. Enough altitude to recover or succesfully eject, and typically over land. Jordanian ones were took away to Turkey in the 6 days war. Yellow quality countries: mixed attack and defense roles, mostly over land. These planes flow much lower altitudes, less place to recover. Pakistan is irrelevant in two ways: low number of airframes, and war. Germany used only two of its squadrons as Marineflieger. And the red quality countries: Greece and Turkey have a conflict, naturally higher stress on the airframes. The conflict is mostly over sea, just like the partols. And typically in middle or low altitude. Italy the same without a conflict. Over sea the chance of the crew to survive is exponentially lower, even after a successful ejection. Practically all Italian Starfighters had maritime attack role in some degree, this is one of the reasons why they have somewhat higher losses compared to Germany. If you take in consideration how long is the coastline of Italy, and their flights almost always took place over sea, their loss rates are surprisingly good, especially compared to the German numbers. The outliers: Norway is another special case with the climate. Your survival chance after a successful ejection over the cold waters is practically zero. And again, really long shoreline, just like Italy. And that shoreline is really jagged, not a straight one (there are somewhat straight lines between two fjords). Finding an ejected pilot is not an easy task there. I have no clue why the Belgian numbers are so bad.
I remember hearing a radio interview, or perhaps I talked with a RCAF fighter pilot, in any event it was back in the 1970s (I think) and the question was "Why are there so many CF-104 Starfighter crashes?" Back then almost all of these crashes were happening in West Germany. The answer was "Because NATO training practises were far too strict, forcing pilots to fly so low there was virtually no room for error." CF-104s were auguring into the ground there every 3 or 4 months it seemed. So that is all I know about it. Maybe a F-104 pilot from that era can give his insights into this.
There used to be a joke in Germany, that if you wanted your very own Starfighter, all you needed to do was buy a lot of land and then just wait for one to crash or emergency land on your property
I submit that instead of comparing number destroyed to number of flight hours you should compare it to number of sorties. Modern fighters have flown much longer duration sorties than the old cold war fighters did due to air refueling on long operational deployments and patrols over Southwest Asia and the Middle East, etc. These longer sorties still have one takeoff and one landing, and may not even have a training event such as a bombing or strafing run, or BFM. Plus, these aircraft have been in service much longer, racking up the hours.
7:06 soon, my guy, soon. Though it's far yet but I have late war period fighters and interceptors like the A6M5 and the J5N1. My goal is the Shinden (J7W1) and after it the Kikka (which is still not an Me 262 copy, it was based on the papers of that aircraft but the two are very different.)
Interesting video. The focus on flight hours, while significant is only part of the story. How the aircraft was flown and in what weather conditions also has a bearing on incidents and losses. Norway for example has notoriously bad weather compared to where I live in Australia and this is reflected in loss rates (yes I know we flew the Mirage III not the F-104 but the comparison is still relevant). Flying low level also increases the risk of an incident as does flying at night. Since this kind of information is almost never published except in individual accident reports we will probably know the true picture. I would be interested in knowing what the loss rates in the second decade were relative to the first decade for similar types of flying. Canada for example switched from single ship nuclear strike to low level strike using conventional weapons and multiple aircraft which probably increased their overall accident rate.
Notice on the F-104 in *Vietnam* - The USAF figures here include the F-104s lost over Vietnam, which are generally considered to be 9-14 depending on how we count.
Regarding *flight hours* of different F-104 users, there are various websites out there that show these (e.g. Italy). I know a few of those but it is not always clear where the info comes from. Official sources that have published this data themselves into the public domain are best (just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is in the public domain )
Don't you have to exclude combat-related losses from these figures, since none of the other Starfighters (with the possible exception of Taiwan) ever saw combat?
@@Ensign_Cthulhu My uncle served in the China Air Force, the name for the air force in Taiwan. Two F-104 engaged and shot down one MiG-19, but one of them never returned. That is the only combat record for the 104. Furthermore, there were 114 F-104 crashes in which 66 pilots died. There's no getting around the F-104 is a terrible aircraft.
Thanks for the context @@賴志偉-d7h
I've got an old book somewhere where they stated that the F104 over Vietnam never really had enemy contact due to range problems. So the 104 figures i think aren't skeewed much by it's presence in vietnam.
Yes, one could argue that under wartime use safety measures often loosen up a little, but the same would be true for the F86 and the F4. Both of which saw extensive enemy contact.
Polyus has a great video on the CF-104 with some good sources to go with it. He is a smaller channel but he does amazing videos on Canadian aviation.
In his book, Royal Navy test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown, stated that flying the F-104 was like piloting a missle and noted the US required a lot of flight hours before allowing a pilot to fly it, but other users of the type didn't have the luxury of that.
@cessnadriver6813 I said flight hours, not training. The US chose very experienced pilots to fly the F-104 who had a lot of flight hours in other jets. The US operated several other jet airplane types that were easier to fly in which to gain experience. Most nations only had a few airplane types so they put in pilots who had a lot less flight experience, as they didn't have enough other types of jets to gain experience with. The F-104 was a unforgiving aircraft to mistakes, so being more experienced in flying helped.
@cessnadriver6813 Money. If training costs were too high, some air forces could be tightfisted.
And this decrease in the needed training could be possible also because some armies have a strange sense of duty: When a unit is provided less than the needed means to achieve a mission, the commanding officer feels forced to try anyway. Perhaps because that strange thing some people call "honour" (old euphemism for social pressure), that in risky situations it's an error leading to disaster.
@cessnadriver6813 The comment attributed to 'Winkle' (an exceptionally gifted Test Pilot) is absolutely accuarte.
If you dig around on UA-cam you will find quite a number of documentary compilations featurinm him, including that observation.
WHY did other nations not train as well as the USAF?
You'd have to ask them BUT it is a well known fact Lockheed's behaviour was incredibly corrupt at that period - as indeed was that of buyers taking kick-backs - Its entirely possible Lockheed misrepresented the training requirement. [*]
Had they not done so, AND had the US not put financial pressure on them to 'buy American' if they wished to continue benefiting from wider US military support / backup ........... Most buyers would have followed Saudi & bought English Electric Lightnings.
[*] Anyone who has ever had to commission computer systems will tell you:
'Sales people lie'
Here is the actual quote from Brown's book, Wings On My Sleeve, "Starfighter was virtually a flying missile and totally unsuitable as a naval aircraft... The Starfighter is a ‘hot ship’ and has to be flown every inch of the way. In bad weather, or with an on-board emergency situation, it is a real handful to cope with. The USAF had recognised this and required pilots assigned to the Starfighter to have at least 1,500 flight hours’ experience. The new breed of German military pilots had been trained in the blue skies environment of Texas, then returned to Europe and its fickle weather with about 400 hours total flying time. To put such raw pilots into a Starfighter was asking for trouble, especially as the German F- 104G version had become a multi-mission aeroplane, weighing 2,000lb more than the standard F-104. Trouble they got in plenty...the decision to choose the Starfighter was, in my opinion, influenced by the German aircraft manufacturing industry. It had been dormant in the post-war years and now saw a golden opportunity not only to rise phoenix-like from the ashes by building the F-104 under licence, but also to leap straight into the supersonic league in one big bound. In this situation it was almost inevitable that the industry would lobby the Government for the Luftwaffe and Navy to have the same aircraft for financial and logistic reasons, and this resulted in a total requirement of 750 Starfighters for Germany. The price paid for this political intrusion was the loss of 164 Starfighters in operational service with some 50 per cent of their pilots killed."
@cessnadriver6813 Oh 2 seats = fly better?
Lots of hearsay (and how I remember it from more than a decade ago) here:
I met someone who was in the Luftwaffe in the Starfighter era, and he also defended the Starfighter. He said the Luftwaffe was an air force in the making, lacking experience, and the jump from a Fiat G-91 to the Mach 2-Starfighter was gigantic.
And apparently that was too much, and they had impressive accident numbers. But once they understood that, they sent the pilots to extended trainings in the US, and the accident rate fell drastically.
He also said that in this early jet age, the accident rates were anyhow rather high, and so it was not thaaaaaat much higher than other types.
In that time was the high time of the Cold War. The Starfighter was the bomber the germans had to provide to carry US nuclear bombs.
He told they were in ready alert at the end of the runway, nuked up,, sitting in the cockpit.
He said they never drank so much as in that time. For the sobering (lol, that had to be) reason that nothing mattered in that situation.
When they got the go for their sortie, and they should make it to their target and back, there would not be a home left. Just a nuclear desert.
Take this with a healthy dose of salt. All from memory, but the guy had no reason to tell us from our model airplane club total nonsense to show off.
I only think the small stories should live on, contribute a little to the overall picture, and it would be sad they would simply disappear.
It may be hearsay but it has been heard from multiple sources and documented in multiple studies: For Germany the F-104 was a big step up, and it flew a risky mission profile in European weather.
My uncle served in the China Air Force, the name for the air force in Taiwan. Two F-104 engaged and shot down one MiG-19, but one of them never returned. That is the only combat record for the 104. Furthermore, there were 114 F-104 crashes in which 66 pilots died. There's no getting around the F-104 is a terrible aircraft.
@user-dc1ud6px3s
I think there is a Cult of Kelly Johnson that can not admit anything he touched did not turn into aviation gold. He designed some terrific aircraft but the 104 wasn't one of them even if the accident rate is ignored.
Indeed: The Luftwaffe also was lacking shelters for the planes, which were left in the open in cold winters, like they used to do with the Sabres. After 1969, when proper shelters were built, the accident rate dropped significantly.
@@Chilly_Billy Wrong.
When I was a child I had a F-104 Starfighter. It was a blue plastic toy with no country identifications, but after watching this video I think it could be Spanish, because It never crashed or suffered any damage. 😅
In Taiwan the F-104 was our first line of defense against any PLAAF aerial campaign and for a time our only all-weather fighter prior to F-CK-1's entry into service. The F-104 pilots were literal poster boys of the ROCAF, the finest in the service, and the initial groups even have physiques as part of the selection criteria.
Unfortunately late in the Starfighters' service, unlike Italy, Taiwan had to rely on second-hand airframes to beef up numbers, with non-airworthy ones for spare parts.
My dad’s old best friend’s brother was a Starfighter pilot. My dad was at his friends house sitting in lawn chairs in the front yard when a car pulled up, and two men in blue got out to tell my dad’s friend the news that his brother died in a crash. Even though it wasn't my dad who lost a loved one, seeing a friend learn the news of his brother, and possibly best friend his entire life pass away was really tough for my dad. For being there for him, my dad received a round the brother fired from his 104 from his friend. It’s possibly my most valuable possession when it comes to meaning.
Germans added/hung too much on its airframe.
My dad said it liked to roll over and play dead. He had a few incidents, including 2 dead stick landings in the 104. The 104 could be dead sticked, unlike the F-4 he flew in Vietnam, which could not be. There was no window in the F-4, where you had enough airspeed to run your hydraulics, but not blow your tires on landing.
Twice as many enjins in the f4 so less likely to have total failure
The losses of F-104 Starfighters in service with the Danish Airforce are (afaik can find out, at least) 12 planes and 6 pilot fatalities: the explanation given, for the relative low losses, was that it entered service later on, with the danish airforce, so they were able to restrict the flying of the plane to more experience pilots. Also, the role of fighter-bomber was given to other aircraft types to keep the Starfighter in it's imagined role as interceptor and thus (possibly, at least) also helped with keeping losses low (again, relatively speaking). Edit: if memory serves, it served with the Danish Airforce from the mid 1960's to the mid 1980's.
It's a similar story for the Norwegian Air Force. We didn't even really use bombing, so there was even less of a reason to use the 104 as anything other than an interceptor
You didn’t take into account the type of mission flown. Germany (amongst other EU NATO counties) used the F-104 as a fighter bomber (a role for which it was not designed) flying low in European weather, an inherently more dangerous mission than high altitude interception.
Yes, nothing a future video can't look into. Without data how these specific conditions affected F-104 ops, it would all be assumptions
@@MilitaryAviationHistoryyou screw up at low level with the 104 you're gonna lose the plane and very likely the pilot. There are many sources that specifically mention the Germans crashing them using them as low level fast intruders
Yes, however, superficially the data doesnt seem to support that theory.
After all, the Americans had more airframe losses than Germany. You can make the argument that the US used the F-104 in Vietnam, but it didnt actually see much action there, IIRC it didnt get any kills.
The idea that using the F-104 in roles it wasn't designed for caused it to crash more often is misguided logic. There wasn't anything inherently wrong with using the Starfighter as a fighter-bomber or low-level strike aircraft. Except for range and payload, it flew and performed at low level about like the F-105D, which had similar all-weather avionics and bombing systems. Starfighters crashed at low levels for typical reasons - bird strikes, engine problems, crappy weather, or good old "pilot error", not because it's wings were too small or some other such nonsense. If the Germans had used the Mirage or the Super Tiger in the same fashion they would have had similar losses.
@@dukeford8893 The F-105 had a more reliable engine and less complicated flight charachteristics. It was huge for the time, and with much bigger wings (better wing loading).
And had quite good high angle of attack performance and wouldnt easily stall.
The F-104, besides technical and engine issues that got somewhat fixed, had very difficult flying charachteristics.
For example, it had tiny wings, outright horrible wing loading. But the T-tail means that more Angle of Attack than 15 degrees causes it to very quickly stall.
And its very easy to pull AoA when you are heavily loaded with bombs. Its just a bad combination.
Meanwhile the Mirage 3 is a delta with huge wings, which is much more forgiving.
F104 was probably excellent for a scenario that never happened: super fast zoom to interception height of non-maneuvering soviet bomber fleet, and engage it with its relatively meager armament of two sidewinders.
For most other applications including air combat maneuvering it was probably garbage compared to the F8.
Well, that IS what it was made to do. It was a rapid response bomber interceptor that was pressed into other roles it wasn't suited for, either by the necessity of the conflict or by the operator (Germany) deciding that a difficult to pilot fighter with limited payload was a great option for a low-level close air support role.
@@Robloxman01I do agree forcing equipment into roles it's not meant for invites accidents and issues, though I wonder how wise it is to invest in military equipment that focuses so completely on one single role when cross use seems pretty much inevitable in combat situations.
That is not saying much since every US fighter except the F106 was inferior to the F8 until the 1970s
Or the EE lightning...
But if was originally designed as an air superiority fighter based on pilots experience from the Korean war.
You might show up some useful data by counting the accident rate per-flight, i.e. the chance of getting back safely each time you get into an F-104. If most accidents are during takeoff and landing this would put the F-104 at a disadvantage compared to fighters which fly longer missions, when only measuring flight hours.
this is very true
in any situation that does not involve war, the majority of accidents will always be takeoff and landing, since there is a nice hard obstacle just meters away to greet you if you make any mistakes
Tbf, on the other hand it might help the F-104 because accidents are close to basis and medical support is readily available, if the ejection seat works.
I've always had a soft spot for the Starfighter. It's one of those aircraft that manages to still look like it's from the future all these decades later, kind of like a less-janky looking MiG-21 in some ways.
Thank you Christoph for providing some clarity on this issue.
Glad you enjoyed it
As a comparison, Saab 35 Draken in the swedish airforce, in service between 1960 and 1994:
615 manufactured and delivered between 1954-1990 (including prototypes, and conversions).
135 written off due to accidents of all causes.
70 of which occured in the first 12 years (60-72). In these 70 accidents; 22 pilots did not make it, there was 38 successful ejections², and 10 survived during start/landing.
So half of the accidents happend during the first decade out of a 35 years service. Mostly due to faults in the engine¹, avionics¹, and of course pilots learning to flying a Mach 2 fighter.
For the entire service in RSwAF, the Draken has a "frequency of destruction" from 18,4 down to 15,9 per 100,000 flight hours, depending on what you include as causes, and the timescale.
This is 5,435 FH/Destroyed up to 6,289 FH/Destroyed.
During the period of 1986 to 1994, "only" four aircrafts were lost, one pilot.
¹) fuelpumps breaking, hydrolic servos not being strong enough etc.
²) On at least four occations there have been mid air collisions during training "air combat manouvers", ie mock dog fighting. In three of these, the Drakens involved returned to base, landing.
In the other, one pilot did not eject. For the other pilot, the canopy didn't open properly, making an ejection impossible (links to the ejection seat). He did however manage to squeeze out, and
parachuted down safely. His aircraft landed on a rail track up side down. When rescue found the aircrafts, the canopy was closed, the ejection seat still there, but no pilot...
Source: ISBN 91-971605-4-7 (1995)
SAAB 35 Draken, Bo Widfeldt
The Swedish Airforce flew much different to NATO Airforces and still does so.
Interesting. The accident rate of the Draken and the Starfighter in German service are almost the same.
I knew a former Canadian forces pilot and he said that as long as you didn't screw up on take-off or landing, and used the 104 as a high speed, high altitude interceptor it was a fantastic aircraft, easily one of the best in the world in it's time. Using it as a high speed, low altitude bomber was "completely idiotic but we did it anyway".
High-speed low-level is what is idiotic, not doing it in the F-104. Do it in any similar high speed single engine jet and it's just as risky.
Then why did America have so many lost 104s (they saw almost no combat in vietnam)? Why did the engine have such a bad failure rate? Why was Lockheed Martin selling the 104 as a fighter/bomber from the beginning?
@@termitreter6545
"Then why did America have so many lost 104s"
As I recall the majority of USAF losses were due to engine failure.
"Why did the engine have such a bad failure rate?"
Because it was a new engine that pushed the performance limits of the time. The reliability issues improved with time.
"Why was Lockheed Martin selling the 104 as a fighter/bomber from the beginning?"
They were not selling it as a fighter bomber from the beginning, they sold it to USAF as an air superiority fighter. But most USAF tactical fighters eventually get fighter bomber capability, and the 104 was no exception. The high wing loading of the aircraft was suitable for the high-speed low-altitude attack profile of the NATO nuclear strike role. The F-105 designed outright for the role had similar wing loading.
Former co-worker, National Guard A-10 pilot, came back from Red Flag one year and told me of the time that he was cruising along at what for him in his A-10 was low altitude, and this streak went _under_ him, with the pilot reporting that he was "down on the deck doing 800 knots". He concluded from this that CF-104 pilots were insane.
And having a nuclear bomb strapped to it with a one way flight path, and ultimately a low level ejection on successful mission completion, followed by 4 intense days of hide and seek in a possible fall out zone. Yeah idiotic might not be the word I would use.
Say what you like, of the 200 Canadair CF-104 and 38 Lockheed dual-seaters. 113 were lost and 37 pilots died flying it. While only four fatalities were caused by aircraft system failures, the rest were the dangers of flying at high speeds at low altitudes sometimes with the poor visibility. IMO the aircraft was unsuitable for the role in which it was used and considering that every casualty was non combat, I regard the CF-104 to be one of the more a tragic failures of Canadian aviation.
"IMO the aircraft was unsuitable for the role in which it was used" - that is fair. However that isn't airplane's fault. That is doctrinal issue, especially since not every country had that magnitude of a problem. It doesn't make 104 a safe fighter, but it wasn't that terrible. It just really was used, marketed and for some reason accepted for such dangerous use that didn't suit it.
Screwdrivers make poor hammers , it does not make them poor tools.
The CF-104 was an excellent interceptor, however both us and germany decided to fly them over treetops in a ground attack roll.
Also I don't remember the exact numbers but I know that Canadian CF-104 pilots got more flight time than our german counterparts, which is how we had lower losses even though we were both flying the same low altitude missions over Germany at the time.
@@Sman16 There was a big push by Lockheed to convince users that the aircraft would be useful in multirole and keep them in contracts for maintenance and such. They realized they were going to be outdated for scramble interception (the original intent) and were pressured to find an alternative to keep the aircraft relevant. I'm sure the bean counters were interested in a plan to keep using them since they were already paid for and they were hoping to delay buying new replacements for high speed ground attack jets. I'm sure the experiment was seen as cost saving and worth pursuing at the time and lessons were learned.
was this the aircraft referred to (in Canada) as a "widowmaker"?
Military Aviatian History:
- requires military documents
- gets sponsored by WarThunder
🤔
I seem to remember reading ( many years ago, true) that when used as a straight interceptor it was a brilliant plane. Unfortunately, it was then forced into multi-role usage, (which is was never designed for) and thats when things went majorly wrong!
Thats a bit of a myth. Engine failures and difficult piloting was an issue even as an interceptor. It also suffered from very limited range and payload, which is why eg America didnt use it for very long.
Also, the 104 was never 'forced' into multirole usage, it was literally special variant developed for the job. Both american 104Cs or the export 104Gs.
My father was a starfighter pilot for Canada stationed in Germany. His opinion was that the 104 was not a bad plane, but used for missions for which it wasn't suited, i.e. low level flight.
While the widowmaker had a high fatality rate, he mentioned that they lost more pilots to drunk driving.
There's a documentary on belgian F-104 pilots. The thing they stated was the following: the german AF was much younger than theirs. Hence they had more accidents. Overall experience in having an AF, besides flight hours, has to be taken into account as well. Belgian pilots loved their F-104's. They even had a stunt team pulling of stuff Lockheed deemed impossible.
WWII ace Gunther Rall said in an interview that the F-104 was his favourite aircraft to fly.
Cheers
As tiny as the wings are on this aircraft, I'm surprised it could fly at all.
It's like the arms on a T-rex, looks useless and out of place
Some lift is generated by the aircraft's body. the wings performed best at supersonic speed (drag lift ratio was very favorable), but at high AOA they were quite draggy. Maneuver flaps helped a bit to improve. At least compared to some contemporary aircraft like some F-4 variants.
From my understanding part of the F104's bad reputation came from the Luftwaffe, which had a horrendous series of crashes and had a far worse safety record than the type did in other nation';s service. The reasons for this were only partly due to the aircraft.
It was the 1st really modern high tech aircraft the Luftwaffe had after the war.
The Luftwaffe ticked pretty much every box in the options list resulting in pilots being task overloaded
German pilots entering the F104 training programme had far fewer flight hours than those from other countries
The pilots were trained in good weather in places like Texas and had little training to cope with European conditions
The Luftwaffe lacked trained mechanics and facilities like heated hangers to maintain the aircraft, resulting in low availability and many aircraft flying with "problems" increasing pilot workload even further.
Result was that every 2nd field in West Germany had a starfighter or two poking out of earth.
When the Luftwaffe improved their training and fixed the maintenance issues the accident rate dropped by over 70% down to the level of other operators.
It is still taught to accident investigators as a textbook case of systemic operator failure.
Correct. German pilots didn't just have fewer flight hours; their prior experience was in subsonic fighters and they went straight from that into a high strung Mach 2 airplane.
There are now more questions that need addressing:
1. What effect did the operational environment have on loss and fatality rates?
2. Did the switch from downward to upward firing ejection seats have any significant effect on fatality rates?
Form what I have read the operational environment had a big effect on loss rates. The J-79 was powerful, but not very reliable early in its maturation cycle. When you lose the engine on a clear day at high altitude over the southwestern U.S. you have a chance to dead stick it to a runway, and you at least have some time to work out your options. At low level in murky European weather if you lose the engine you will have little time to chose between the available options of slim or none. Best case outcome is likely a fully successful ejection. This is the nature of this inherently risky operation, not this specific airplane. Same outcome in an F-105, with the caveat that I think it had a more reliable engine.
The USAF had about as many successful downward ejections out of the Starfighter as they did unsuccessful ones, but going to the C2 seat undoubtedly saved a lot of lives. The Germans replaced their C2 seats with a Martin-Baker zero-zero seat that was a bit of a lash-up.
Simple: Don't use an interceptor as an attack plane and you'll be fine.
My uncle piloted the CF-104G at Metz and Geilenkirchen. I remember as a young lad my parents asking about the "widow maker" reputation it had. He had previously crashed into somebody's garage when his Sabre jet (F-86) had a flame out at altitude too low to eject. He attributed the accidents to keen pilots pushing the envelope too hard and not to the aircraft which he loved to fly flat out at full throttle. He said you always had to fly it in a zigzag pattern or you would always overfly your destination.....WOAH MULE!!!
Would be much interested in the existing commentary about F-104 ("The Widowmaker") performance by Erich Hartmann, Johannes Steinhoff and Gunter Rall.. (and others) "A missle with a man in it.."
Aka the LawnDart
I lived in a town in north germany where some of the crashes happend. Together with my father I found a strange square sea in the middle of a forest. My father did a bit of research and its possible that we found the remains of one of the crashsites.
Just from my general reading, the USAF didn't really know what to do with the 104. The Air Force wasn't used to a pure sir superiority fighter, and the training reflected that in the same way contemporary training for the P-38 resulted in pilots who had trouble when an engine was lost.
Reading Data as in this video "can" be misleading.
Usage of the Starfighter is key: Spain, Taiwan. Jordan and Japan employed the F104 as Interceptors, flying high and only major technical issues could create an accident, may be landing errors, but that's unavoidable. All these countries also enjoy hot weather and usually very good visibility.
Belgium, Germany, Canada and Italy employed the Stafighters as Low level tactical bombers with nuclear capabilities, flying very low at high speed in central Europe, where weather is no ideal.
I know, even acrobatic team pilots in the IAF were denied licence to fly the Starfighter, proving unable to react fast enough, as being supersonic at tree level means there is no room for error.
Generally speaking, the accident record between the IAF fighter bomber units, compared to interceptors, is about 10 to 1. It drastically improved with the Tornado, due to Radar offloading the pilot of keeping above the ground, something the F104 from the sixties was worrisomely lacking.
The F104 also was an analogic, very high performance fighter plane, which could bite the pilot hand if not properly treated. For the same reason, the F16A was also often referred as the widow-maker.
There were errors in Germany, mostly, on servicing the plane: Until 1969, they were left sitting in the open, like Sabres, instead of inside shelters. After 1969, this changed and the accident rate dropped significantly.
In Italy the Starfighter flew too far from the intended servicing life: the last F-104 was withdrawn in 1999, 40 years after the first purchase. There were also reports that known issues were not addressed due to lack of funding.
What stands is a Fighter able to intercept a fast moving target 5 minutes from cold, at 30K feet (something only the F-20 could replicate), able to fly at mach 1.2 at treetop level, with a nuclear bomb underside, bring it further and faster then any other plane, except the F-105 and the F111A, until the Tornado became available. It was dangerous, but the only tool able to get the task done for small budget countries on the verge of a total war.
Another possible caveat!
The F-4 (and possibly others on the list?) carried 2 crew, which probably inflates the casualty % for that aircraft. I'm not qualified to say if that's fair or not.
I'd also like to point at mission profile, as briefly mentioned at 11:23. If F-104s were mostly used as interceptors, this likely means that they burned through their fuel quickly, right? This would result in relatively few flight hours. Plus a relatively larger part of these flight hours would be spent doing slightly more dangerous stuff, such as landing, flying fast, steep climbs etc.
Then again, judging from the WT footage the thing could carry bombs, so my line of thinking might be 100% wrong.
It depends on the user. Some users as Germany used is s FB others as USAF or Spain as day interceptor. Spain lost 0 Starfighters while Germany using them as all weather interceptor and Fighter-bomber a lot. Pe The Netherlands and Belgium AF losses fell when they Choose CF5 and Mirage 5 and used them as FB instead of the F104.
"Not great, not terrible" is what I wanted to hear 😅
Chris as a retired engineer, that spent his career in US defense work, I applaud your ethic and emphasis in origional data. Please keep up teh great work.
I wonder if there is any good way to get flight hour/incident data mapped to mission role.
After all, even in peacetime training. a nation that uses a particular airframe for NOE tactical fighter bomber roles most of the time is going to have a much higher incident and fatality rate than someone who spends a significantly higher proportion of their flight hours using it as an interceptor.
And a force that spends more time doing strike misaion training in the Alps has a different risk profile than their allies who live on a mostly flat desert, even if they technically train for the same type.of missions in roughly the same proportions.
And that's without even allowing for differences in average force skill level with that airframe. A force that gets the minimum flight hours is going to have more incidents per flight hour than an otherwise identical force that spends so much time flying aimulated missions, their kids are born with feathers.
My cousin was a test pilot for the later stretched version of the F-104. In an aileron flutter test where he was to dive from 40k ft to 20k (12200 m ro 6100m) to report on any flutter. As he flashed by 20k ft he pulled back on the control stick, only it didn't move! He was heading down at Mach 2, and he desperately pulled, even putting his feet up on the instrument panel. He finally felt the stick move, but the G forces caused him to black out. The recordings showed that he got within 1500 ft of the ground, and he gained awareness going back up through 20K ft!
When we asked why he didn't eject, he said that he had lost a test pilot friend who had ejected at a similar situation just the day before. He decided to stick with the jet!
He liked the 104...
I have my old vinyl record 'Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters' by Robert Calvert of Hawkwind fame, from 1974 a great record good artwork too. The record outlines the dubious way the German and US went about getting it into service, and a little of the outcome ie "if you want a Starfighter, buy an acre of ground, and wait"
I may have missed it, but do the aircrew fatality rates (e.g. for the F-4) include the crew size? Also, in the case of F-4, F-35, etc. are these just USAF numbers or also including USN and USMC?
I wonder what the Soviet figures would be for their fighters from the same period?
Can’t find Soviet figures, but the loss rates of Warsaw Pact MiG-21 users (Poland, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary) seem similar - for instance, East Germany lost 126 out of a fleet of 556 aircraft.
Bear in mind though it’s almost impossible to find out total flight hours of the fleet. My *assumption* is that this was usually way lower, seeing that most East German MiG-21s that can be seen in museums had been retired with an average of about half the flight hours of the average West German F-104G of similar vintage.
I remember reading somewhere that folks in Germany used to say that if you wanted your own F-104 and didn’t care what condition it was in, all you had to do was buy yourself a random plot of land and wait. Certainly exaggerated, but entertaining in an “It’s always funny if it happens to somebody else” kind of way.
My uncle dropped out of high school and joined the U.S. airforce in 1970 at age 17. He was stationed in the Philippines from 1970-1972. He mostly served on rescue helicoptes or on C130's doing the bottom rung guy jobs because he was always the lowest rank guy.
They sent the Germans there to train in F104's. One of my uncles most hated memorable from his time there was having to walk the field at the end of the runway with a zip lock bag to recover pieces of a German pilot who nosed in after blacking out.
He absolutely loathes that plane. Spent about a half hour talking about how deadly it was when we went to the Museum of the USAF.
I remember being at a flightshow as a kid where they had Phantoms. Some older pilot or so said that "in the starfighter time" people were buying patches of fields behind the airstrip, in the hope of being able to tell their friends that an airplane came down in their "backyard". Probably just a tale, but it shows how they viewed the Starfighter.
'Lawn Dart' !
The U.S. hours are unsurprising since the U.S. operated the earlier models. I REALLY wonder what the heck was up with Belgium and Norway though? I mean did they not operate conversion trainers? I googled that Belgium bought 112 F-104's and lost 42 (!). I still think it's a great little interceptor but it had it's limitations and vices, especially when used at low altitudes.
The F-104 starfighter has to be the most strangest American jet fighter design in US aviation history. great video. Have you heard the news of Hawker tempest Mk.ii MW763 first flight in Sywell airfield.
There was a common meme (before memes were a thing) when I was much younger, that if you lived in West Germany and you had a garden big enough, sooner or later you would find an F-104 Starfighter in it. Interesting that the data in this video sort of suggests there was a kernel of truth in this (33% of airframes lost), but as in a lot of these types of meme, it was exaggerated for effect.
Thanks Chris, that's very interesting. I recall the general view in the UK during the sixties of the F104 as being most dangerous aircraft of its type. However, I recall one commentator saying that the English Electric Lightning was statistically worse. I can't recall the source of that comment, but F104 vs Lightning would make a very interesting comparison when subject to your rigorous approach.
Coolest name ever for a fighter jet though.... I remember being at an airshow at one of the US air bases in the UK as a young boy with my dad. There was a Starfighter there and an old vet called it "A flying coffin"
It was an early jet fighter, at the very bleeding edge of technology. Things weren't nearly as well understood back then in terms of design, and pilot training also didn't keep up with aircraft advances. Germany eventually solved its accident rate with improved training; after that its yearly accident rate was no worse than any other fighter. And consider its performance: it literally could supercruise, in 1958. That was simply unheard of. It was an excellent aircraft for its time, whose reputation is marred by looking at it through the modern lens without fully considering all the factors.
Great work, Chris. And that slick crossover 🎉
Also, beyond the statisics: Germany had high initial losses due to inadequate training and using the plane outside its comfort zone as all-weather low-flying fighter bomber, which caused some media attention. When Germany accepted this and changed the training, the rate of crashes dropped dramatically - but media only likes bad news, of course. Another factor is how fast the "bugfixes" were implemented by the respective airforce, which can for example explain why certain airforces had much worse experiences. For example, the nozzle of the engine liked to fail open, resulting in very poor thrust at military thrust and much worse during landing. Later the planes received a lever to manually close the nozzle for safe landings. Also, like the MiG-21, it had a BLC system to blow engine bleed air over the wings at low speeds, which required some training to be used to it.
Canada did the same thing, they made it into a recon, fighter bomber which it was not really suited for.
From 1982 to 1984 I was serving in the Hellenic, Greek, air force, as a mechanic in the 104s. During this time there was only one accident when a TF-104 made a heavy landing and was damaged. The problem with the 104 was that having a very small wing area, it was obliged to fly at 90% thrust. Less than that it could lose lift and fall. Landing speed was also very high and always deployed a parachute to assist braking. On the other hand it was very fast, up to 2,2 mach, with the highest, at the time, ceiling. Could carry nuclear weapons.
PUBLICLY accessible data. You got two Warthunder mentions in for this video!
I was waiting for so long for this episode. Since the inside the cockpit.
Anyone who likes Hawkwind needs to check out 'Captain-lockheed-and-the-starfighters' it was a concept album by Bob Calvert about the starfighter. In addition to being damn good music it also was more or less contemporary to the F104-G problems and I think it fairly accurately reflect the feelings about the starfighter at the time...... with a little bit of German stereotyping added, which would be considered bad taste these days but was like water off a duck's back in the rufty-tufty days of 1974.
My uncle was a Starfighter pilot in Spain, he said that it was hard to control at lower speeds, but never had incidents, in Spain 0 accidents.
It's probably the most beloved fighter plane by italian enthusiasts (still, had a bad rep with the general public)
In 1966 I was stationed at Homestead AFB in Florida. It was a SAC base with B52s. There was also a TAC wing of F104s. Several F104s were lost while I was there. Rumor had it that the 104 had the glide angle of a flat rock. If it lost power and you weren’t high enough to eject…..bad result. Some pilots were lost.
I used to live under the approach to CCK air base, at the time the ROCAF was using the Starfighter as a trainer. The primary air defense fighter at that time was the Mirage, but due to lack of spares, the F-5 was actually the type most used in daily ops. Not surprisingly the loss rate on the F-104 was very high. I used to cringe every time I time I heard one on final and expected to eventually have one in my 14th floor living room eventually.
Excellent - Uniquely thoughtful approach there Chris.
Gotta say I was waiting for you to throw comparative graphicsw of standard deviations up next just in case a few folk weren't still going 'eh'?
One commentator said the star fighter was originally designed as a high altitude interceptor the problem began when many users adapted it as a low altitude ground attack aircraft it can be done successfully but it requires a very skilled and experienced pilot.
My uncle had to eject from one below minimums. Eject was called from the tower. Apparently they always expecting malfunctions. He recovered well and went on to have a long life with many stories.
Another good one Chris. 👍
Ok, I gotta ask, why did you used to introduce yourself as Bismarck & how come you don’t anymore?
As a former German Air Force mechanic, I can say that all pilots loved the F-104. “The Starfighter was a rocket with wings,” that was the opinion of the pilots.
The reason why so many of these planes crashed is simple, they were overloaded on orders from the General Staff.
The Starfigter F-104 was an interceptor that was very fast with its stubby wings. But the General Staff wanted/needed a light bomber and then simply packed too much weight/too many bombs under these small wings. So that the machine could only be flown at very high speeds, if you went too slow or flew too tight a curve, then the bird fell like a stone from the sky. Without a modern stall warning, the plane could no longer be controlled.
I was at RAF Upper Heyford UK, a flightline AGE troop and always went out to watch the Luftwaffe depart in their F-104s, Crazy Bastards....no sooner off the ground, wheels up full AB and a looping of the field, dipping so close to the runway it was scary, and then off they would depart towards home.....F-4 Pilots ran a close 2nd in the insanity department....
Great to see any video on the Starfighter. The Century series fighters are all interesting but the Starfighter has a special place in my heart. My uncle had a model of one when I was a kid and I remember it looking really cool and the name is just the best ever for fighter jet. Starfighter sounds like something out of science fiction.
Love the channel. It's probably been said a dozen times already, but no one in the US pronounces USAF as "yoosaff". We speak the letters individually. It's not an acronym.
You also won't hear any century series fighters described with the word "hundred". Just one-oh-four. The same goes for rifle caliber.
Perhaps to do a more accurate comparison one should only look only at aircraft with a single engine, rather than a mixture of single and twin engine fighters.
It true that engine failure was a huge cause of F-104 mishaps, especially early in its life when the J-79 was having reliability issues..
As a retired F-111 pilot I would have been interested in that comparison. Great video, I love the deep dive into numbers.
It wasn’t inherently dangerous, but as Tony LeVier commented, “It is an extremely honest aircraft, it will not forgive any mistakes.” The early F-104 were dangerous, the J-79 had reliability problems, and it couldn’t fly without engine power, and the downward firing ejection seat made take off problems pretty non-survivable. The F-104C was not actually in U.S.A.F service very long,mostly because they didn’t have much use for it. ADC didn’t want it, they already had the F-101/F-102/F-106. TAC wasn’t really interested, it wasn’t a patch on the F-105.
The F-104G sold worldwide was a different beast. The West Germans went straight from the F-84F , even worse, they often took people out of staff positions and dropped them into command positions, and expected them to lead in the air real early. Further, they were flying in a very demanding environment, fast and low. In the hands of a fully competent pilot, an F-104 could be sent out to hit a particular target, and any defenders would be hard put to stop them (small target, moving fast and low), likewise the maritime strike versions, basically a high speed surface skimmer, still a difficult target.
The JASDF had a different mission, air defence under ground control, with a more effective radar fit than the F-104A/C. Likewise, the Italian F-104S with the Sparrow/Aspide(?)
That a small number are flying in civil hands shows they are not inherently deadly, though a rather expensive hobby.
*Advertises War Thunder* "If you have access to PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, OPEN SOURCE DATA..." - I see the man knows his audience
Most of us loved flying the 104.
You leave out the important consideration of role and operating theater.
Canadians only flew the aircraft operationally in Germany.
Always low level and in the mountainous terrain of the South.
Often the weather conditions were quite poor and visibility limited.
Doing ground attack in a 104 is a very high workload and good aircraft handling was essential when diving at the ground to deliver conventional munitions.
Looking at the flight hours per airframe loss raises serious questions about the F-22. Though I guess the small size of the fleet might make those numbers less statistically relevant. Also interesting to see the F-15 to F-16 comparison, which I had expected to be reversed purely because of the single engine
Good point. Re the advantage of twin engines (e.g. F/A-18 vs F-16) it would be interesting to see how often an aircraft survived because there was only a single engine failure. Both in combat and in non-combat flights.
I was talking to an old 104 pilot. He shocked me with a common issue that happened to him it was an engine hi-speed flame out suddenly requiring a restart, he didn't explain the causes of flameouts. Another reason given for so many crashes in Germany/Switzerland the flight training in Arizona deserts is nice flat and open but there were are too many BIG mountains for this hot missile with wings-if true??
I remember one crashing off of CFB Comox on Vancouver Island back in the late 70's.
I would bet the data is in the archives of the manufacturer...
Yes, this definitely shows the reputation is undeserved. I also might like to find the sources that cause this reputation as well. It sounds like dramatization from a movie or magazine or coffee table book. Thank you for not using the narrative words widow maker or flying coffin. It really grinds my gears to hear that in any use at this point.
I don't know if you really can say the reputation was undeserved when only the F86 was worse. You can see a clear decrease of accidents with every new fighter generation. The F4 was safer than the century fighters, the F15 was safer than the F4. But from all the century fighter types the F104 had clearly the worst accident rate, and wasn't that significantly better than the F86.
Love your style and wit. Thoroughly watchable, more so than most similar Aviation videos.
I'm coming around to the idea that the Starfighter in Europe gets a bad rap. I do think, though, that it's safe to say it was a dangerous plane. Maybe not the flying death-trap it's been made out to be, but not easy by any means.
My old Colonel used to say the rep of this aircraft wasn't deserved as he flew them in Europe. He did say,however that it did have the glide characteristics of a brick upon engine failure.
Thank goodness they ditched the downwards ejection seats. Given that take off and landing approach was when the stubby wings were not helping much.
The reason of the downwards ejection was because a suitable catapult system to clear the T tail wasn't developed at the time, even when one was, it still couldn't handle the sink rates of a dropping Starfighter, at low attitudes
Funny, I'm currently using a F-104 in War Thunder.
As I recall being in Germany when they were losing starfighters, the media was saying that it wasn't as much the airframe's fault for the crashes, as it was the modification packages the Luftwaffe bought and added on to them, literally making the airframes too heavy and unstable.
The more interesting question here is whether it was the airframe itself or the mods and which mods or models were actually likely to be associated with crashes.
I applaud the level of detail in colating all that data. A friend of mine did that for US 1795-1884 muskets and rifles. Sure lots of bookshave the info but he went through the National Archives to get all of the records. He used to tell me source material is everything.
I do remember a documentary on german TV ( i am not german though) long ago (15-20 years) where they looked into what made it so easy to get into an accident with the "Erdnagel" as some called it.
And from what i remember it wasn't the reliability of the aircraft that caused most problems, but the rather small speed window in which they could perform some much needed things (like lowering or retracting the landing gear etc.)
15-20 years sounds like a long time until you say that it was 2003-2008.
They had some good shows back then.
If I'm not mistaken, and I probably am, a lot of the nations on the list don't allow flight hours statistics to go public but sometimes you can get fuel spent by aircraft type/model reports. What would lead to a mathematical issue: dividing the fuel spent by the average consumption per hour should give you a number of theoretical flight hours. I'm sure a lot of European nations didn't do differentiation on models, only roles, in their fuel consumption reports during the late 90's and early 2000's. Can't say for anything prior than that.
To get the whole picture, shouldn't there be another column for total number of airframes manufactured?
Something somewhere is wrong. For example for F22 you have a 5 to 1 destroyed to fatalities ratio. Somehow that ration to 82 to 1 while adjusted to flight hours. Same flight hours value should be used for both destroyed to fatalities. If you take the 5000 FH/destroyed and multiply by 5 (no of destroyed F22) it results a total of 25000 flight hours. If you take the 410200 FH/fatalities and multiply by 1 (no of F22 fatalities ) it results a total of 410200 flight hours!!! Can you explain?
OTOH the main issue with the F-104 was that the wing was too loaded. Was barely acceptable as the original design of a high-speed, high-altitude fighter/interceptor but later it was mainly used as a low-level fighter-bomber and the wing load became to high and seriously compromised the already restricted flying capabilities of the plane.
When flown and maintained according to the book, reduced the crashes. My uncle retired from the RCAF in 1970 as a colonel. Prior, he was chief technical officer at the Metz base.
The bad Belgian fogures is because Belgium used the 104 as low level fighter bomber, well outside of the role it was designed for.
We also had at least 2 gatals for airobatics. We had Bil Ongena and the slivers airobatic team.
I couldn't find official records from the Italian Air Force on the F-104 but one thing that everyone over here agrees on is that the aircraft revieved more praises than actual hate. Both former pilots and former ground crews talk of it in a positive way which is also why terms such as "widow maker" and "flying coffin" weren't created, instead a more friendly name was given to the aircraft "spillone" (big pin) due to its design
A question, It would be quite intresting to see the diffrence between the big five airforces during the cold war regarding loss of airframes and fatalities as there was a big diffrence in regards to Doctinal use of said airforces both in how training was done and how the systems was used during real active missions.
In Sweden (number 4 or 5 during Cold War era) it has always been said that we had a high loss of life due to our way of training with flying the same during training as active war service aka less than 20 meters abouve ground and less than 10 meters abouve water.
Best regards.
Have to admit, the 104 was most badass looking in Luftwaffe markings!
as you listed in the third caveat, flight profile would significantly affect the fatality & mishap rate - flying fast and low is intrinsically much more hazardous than flying fast and high. lower altitude provides less margin for error. controlled flight into ground happens all too often at low level and never at 10,000m
An attempt has been made to establish a reference to the number of flight hours. However, the respective operating conditions were not taken into account by the operators. The North American, Southern European and Asian used the F104 mainly as an interceptor at medium and higher altitudes, important in the event of engine failure. In Central Europe, on the other hand, the F104 was mainly used as a heavily loaded fighter bomber in low flight in the known bad Central European weather. Important circumstance to which, for example, Günther Rall has also pointed out.
yes, and something a future video can cover
You left out a major factor: role of the aircrafts, and how they used.
For the green quality cuntries: purely air defense, mostly over land. Enough altitude to recover or succesfully eject, and typically over land. Jordanian ones were took away to Turkey in the 6 days war.
Yellow quality countries: mixed attack and defense roles, mostly over land. These planes flow much lower altitudes, less place to recover. Pakistan is irrelevant in two ways: low number of airframes, and war. Germany used only two of its squadrons as Marineflieger.
And the red quality countries: Greece and Turkey have a conflict, naturally higher stress on the airframes. The conflict is mostly over sea, just like the partols. And typically in middle or low altitude. Italy the same without a conflict. Over sea the chance of the crew to survive is exponentially lower, even after a successful ejection. Practically all Italian Starfighters had maritime attack role in some degree, this is one of the reasons why they have somewhat higher losses compared to Germany. If you take in consideration how long is the coastline of Italy, and their flights almost always took place over sea, their loss rates are surprisingly good, especially compared to the German numbers.
The outliers: Norway is another special case with the climate. Your survival chance after a successful ejection over the cold waters is practically zero. And again, really long shoreline, just like Italy. And that shoreline is really jagged, not a straight one (there are somewhat straight lines between two fjords). Finding an ejected pilot is not an easy task there. I have no clue why the Belgian numbers are so bad.
I remember hearing a radio interview, or perhaps I talked with a RCAF fighter pilot, in any event it was back in the 1970s (I think) and the question was "Why are there so many CF-104 Starfighter crashes?" Back then almost all of these crashes were happening in West Germany. The answer was "Because NATO training practises were far too strict, forcing pilots to fly so low there was virtually no room for error." CF-104s were auguring into the ground there every 3 or 4 months it seemed. So that is all I know about it. Maybe a F-104 pilot from that era can give his insights into this.
The Japanese F-104 is the safest since they all were attached to a wire. Well except until the run into monsters or ufos
There used to be a joke in Germany, that if you wanted your very own Starfighter, all you needed to do was buy a lot of land and then just wait for one to crash or emergency land on your property
As a US Army veteran, I appreciate you dunking on the Chair Force's omission of the F-104 in its data.
I submit that instead of comparing number destroyed to number of flight hours you should compare it to number of sorties. Modern fighters have flown much longer duration sorties than the old cold war fighters did due to air refueling on long operational deployments and patrols over Southwest Asia and the Middle East, etc. These longer sorties still have one takeoff and one landing, and may not even have a training event such as a bombing or strafing run, or BFM. Plus, these aircraft have been in service much longer, racking up the hours.
7:06 soon, my guy, soon. Though it's far yet but I have late war period fighters and interceptors like the A6M5 and the J5N1. My goal is the Shinden (J7W1) and after it the Kikka (which is still not an Me 262 copy, it was based on the papers of that aircraft but the two are very different.)
Interesting video. The focus on flight hours, while significant is only part of the story. How the aircraft was flown and in what weather conditions also has a bearing on incidents and losses. Norway for example has notoriously bad weather compared to where I live in Australia and this is reflected in loss rates (yes I know we flew the Mirage III not the F-104 but the comparison is still relevant). Flying low level also increases the risk of an incident as does flying at night. Since this kind of information is almost never published except in individual accident reports we will probably know the true picture. I would be interested in knowing what the loss rates in the second decade were relative to the first decade for similar types of flying. Canada for example switched from single ship nuclear strike to low level strike using conventional weapons and multiple aircraft which probably increased their overall accident rate.
Canada put more flight hours on their Starfighters than anyone and also had one of the best accident rates of any Starfighter operator. Go figure.