# CF-104



## CF104Starfighter (10 Aug 2004)

Any of you old enough to have ever seen one fly?  My mom was a photo tech on them in Baden in the 70s, and she's got lots of picture of them, and I have to say, this aircraft has to be my absolute favourite.  I know we don't fly them anymore, but I could go as far as saying that they've *thinks of a good word* inspired me to want to fly for Canada sometime.







Not the greatest photo, but it was too big for my scanner.


----------



## Sundborg (10 Aug 2004)

You see that castle back there?  yea, that's mine.  ;D


----------



## Inch (10 Aug 2004)

I think pictures in front of that castle were the "in" thing, I've seen pictures of Hornets, Hornets & MiG's, etc.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2004)

Sundborg said:
			
		

> You see that castle back there? yea, that's mine. ;D



So you are a Hoewenzollerin(SP)?


----------



## Sundborg (10 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you are a Hoewenzollerin(SP)?



Yeaaaaa...   suuure.


----------



## MP 811 (10 Aug 2004)

I remember the CF-105 Starfighter, one of my favourite planes at the time.  Hell I even remember the freakin CF-101 Voodoo.  Those plans were badass and looked like they could kick some serious but...............now on the other hand, the CF-5...................


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Aug 2004)

Do you mean you love the CF-104 starfighter as the CF-105 was the Arrow and never reached production. The Voodoo? Nothing like a surplus aircraft to do almost what you want. 

Hey any 104 jocks out there remember the heel spurs to save your knees? I hear the ladies loved em.


----------



## Korus (14 Aug 2004)

There's a F-104 demonstration team out there, from the States. Kind of like the 'Blue Angels', 'SnowBirds', or 'Thunderbirds', but they're private. (IIRC).

Did anybody make it to Cold Lake for the airshow this year? I missed out on it, and was pretty chafed about that, but the website said the F-104 demonstration team would be there.


----------



## Slim (14 Aug 2004)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Do you mean you love the CF-104 starfighter as the CF-105 was the Arrow and never reached production.



There is a difference between the CF105 and the CF5. The 105 was the Arrow the 5 is the U.S. F5 that we bought way back when.

Please be more concise when presenting something as fact. It will confuse other members who do not know the difference.


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Aug 2004)

I was trying to clarify the difference between the CF-104 Starfighter and the CF-105 Arrow. That is why I did not mention the CF-5 in my last post.To be fair to MP 811 it was probably just a typo.  

The CF-101 was the Voodoo which was an all weather interceptor bought surplus from the US to fill the gap left by the cancellation of the Arrow project.
The CF-104 was the Starfighter shown in the pic at the top of the thread, it is unusual for a Canadian aircraft as it is single engined. It was built by Canadair 
The CF-105 was the Avro Arrow fighter interceptor that never entered service as the project was cancelled before full production started.
The CF-5 was the Freedom fighter a lightweight air superiority fighter built by Canadair.

All of these aircraft are totally different airframes and look unique. There is tons of info on all of the above on the web which if you are reading this you should have access to.

If you want to see something confusing, our CF-105 Arrow was a totally different aircraft with a totally different role than the US F-105 Thunderchief.


----------



## Slim (14 Aug 2004)

Thank you for you excellent clarification of your earlier statement. Very good descriptions of the various aircraft.

The only thing I will add is that the CF104 was nicknamed the Widowmaker by those who flew her. The aircraft had a tendency to "flame out" at lower altitudes as it used to ingest birds (told to me by several different people). There were a great many that flew into mountains as well. (not sure why)

Slim


----------



## Inch (14 Aug 2004)

Slim, the controlled flight into terrain was mostly caused by doing their nav at 50ft and Mach 1.whatever, if you look inside for even a sec you're dead.   I've heard of 104 drivers that have hit houses and such while looking back after hitting their target. Most of that stuff has been remedied with proper training.

The bird thing is totally true, we had a Hawk suck one in 800 ft above the ground in Moose Jaw this past spring, they were just pulling up after doing a touch and go and sucked in a Seagull.   They flamed out and had enough time to tell the tower that they were ejecting.   They were about 2 miles north of the airport.   The British student had minor cuts and was at the mess drinking that night.   The Cdn instructor wasn't so fortunate, he broke his femur in 2 places and broke his pelvis. When I left Moose Jaw in May he was still in hospital.

Another point on the Starfighter, it didn't glide so well either.   When we practice engine failures in the Harvard we need to be overhead the runway at 3000' above the ground (called high key) in order to make the orbit around and land. The 104 had to be at high key at 22,000ish ft, if not, then they got a couple inches shorter and went for a parachute ride.

Cheers


----------



## Slim (14 Aug 2004)

Well...It didn't have much wing did it? Although not a pilot that airplane is probably something I would not wish to fly. Did you ever get the chance?


----------



## Inch (14 Aug 2004)

I'm not that old amigo, I was learning to ride 2 wheelers when those things came out of service.  My buddy's dad used to fly them, he had 3 ejection handles on his mantle, he once told me that unless you were above 20,000 ft, you would be ejecting if you flamed out. He was a very generous man, gave 3 Starfighters back to the taxpayers.  ;D

The other name people used to call them was "the missile with the man in it", so not much of a wing at all. If you get a chance to look at one real close, the leading edge of the wing was almost as sharp as a knife. 



Cheers


----------



## Slim (14 Aug 2004)

Oddly enough I sat in one at the CNE once...Kind of reminded me of a cockpit in an old fashioned racing car. I have also sat in a A10 Thunderbolt. That was a treat...Could have got a ride if it wasn't a single seater...


----------



## Inch (14 Aug 2004)

A 10s are pretty sweet. If you ever get the chance to sit in a Hornet, that's something to see. It feels like you're sitting on top of it instead of inside it. A fantastic view.


----------



## CF104Starfighter (14 Aug 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> Slim, the controlled flight into terrain was mostly caused by doing their nav at 50ft and Mach 1.whatever, if you look inside for even a sec you're dead.   I've heard of 104 drivers that have hit houses and such while looking back after hitting their target. Most of that stuff has been remedied with proper training.
> 
> The bird thing is totally true, we had a Hawk suck one in 800 ft above the ground in Moose Jaw this past spring, they were just pulling up after doing a touch and go and sucked in a Seagull.   They flamed out and had enough time to tell the tower that they were ejecting.   They were about 2 miles north of the airport.   The British student had minor cuts and was at the mess drinking that night.   The Cdn instructor wasn't so fortunate, he broke his femur in 2 places and broke his pelvis. When I left Moose Jaw in May he was still in hospital.
> 
> ...


All aircraft have that chance though, don't they?  I remember my mom telling me when she was posted in Moose Jaw, there was a one bell, and there had been a Tutor crash.  She had to get in the chopper and take pictures, unfortunatly, some of the pictures she had to take were of the dead pilots.  They were doing touch and go's at CYQR, and there was a birdstrike.  The student pilot would have ejected, but he stayed, because had they ejected, it might have crashed into a retirement home.  She said it was a pretty rough site.  And strangely enough, when they looked at the bodies, their sunglasses were still in their pockets, both unbroken.  She also told me that earlier in the day she had taken pictures at the pilot's promotion.

Another ejection story, but this time with a happier ending.  In Germany there was a....Think it was another photo tech....Flying with a pilot in a 104, and there was smoke in the cockpit.  So, they declared an emergency, and the pilot told the tech they might have to eject.  Well, the situation was resolved, but there was a bit of miscommunication.  The pilot gave the guy in the back the thumbs up, but the tech took it the wrong way and ejected ;D  That'd be an awkward situation to explain.

Ok, one more.  My mom was doing a weather check in Moose Jaw with a Tutor pilot, and they were landing, and apparently the pin didn't go back into the seat correctly.  The pilot luckily noticed this, and declared an emergency and told my mom that her pin wasn't in, and her handle bars looked raised.  My mom had to sit totally still for quite a while, while they figured the whole situation out.  She told me she was slightly rattled.


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Aug 2004)

http://www.danshistory.com/f104.html

"Cantilever mid-wing monoplane. Bi-convex supersonic wing section with a thickness/chord ratio of 3.36 per cent. Anhedral 10 degrees. No incidence. Sweepback 18 degrees 6' at quarter-chord. Leading-edge nose radius of 0.41 mm (0.016 in) and razor-sharp trailing-edge. Narrow-chord ventral fin on centreline and two smaller lateral fins under fuselage to improve stability."

On the later and upgraded 104s they gave a slight radius (16 thousandths of an inch) to the leading edges as it reduced the instantaneous stall to a slightly more gradual one.They left the trailing edge super sharp though and in many ground handling pics you will see felt covers on the trailing and sometimes the leading edges. They also gave some models drooping leading edges to reduce stall speed and increase maneuverability.   

The spurs I mentioned before were used to secure the pilots heels to the ejection seat and thus prevent the still all to common smashing your knees and breaking your legs on the instrument panel on the ride out. 

I was at a human factors lecture and saw a video of a bird strike test on a new 777 turbine. At takeoff power it could not loose more than 10% thrust or 10% rpm. They fired a small turkey into it and it took it like a champ I was expecting to see compressor blades everywhere but nothing came out of the turbine but minced turkey. Amazing, at least to me. Now the turbine in the Hawker is far smaller and would therefore be (at least in theory) more susceptible to damage from birdstrikes. Not a bad thing just the way it is. 

Speaking of FOD my friend has a turbine blade with a huge stainless nut welded to it. Someone left it on the intake cowl and it fell inside the turbine. Now when it was spun up the pilot decided it was not sounding or responding correctly so he shut it down and the techs tore it off and as it was a brand new turbine sent it back to the manufacturer. The nut had been pinned against the compressor ring by a blade which wiped it around and around cutting the compressor case and fusing the nut to the blade. He keeps it on his mantle to remind himself what a couple million dollars really looks like. The airline sued the re-builder who blamed the airline as it was a structural nut and not something they would have used at the re-manufacturers. They settled out of court, split the cost of the turbine and paid their own legal fees. 

Ah, the great Canadian ramble.


----------



## Inch (15 Aug 2004)

All right boys, a few points to clarify. Don't take it the wrong way, but as one of the resident pilots, I couldn't allow myths to perpetuate.

Starfighter: Yes any aircraft can do CFIT, if you're looking inside. It's pretty bloody hard to fly into the ground if you're looking outside.   It usually happens when guys are pulling off target and look back at the target or inside the cockpit to check the map, it's also pretty common during night approaches due to some of the illusions you're susceptible to at night.   As I stated in my post, most of this has been remedied with proper training. It is stressed over and over again to keep your head out of the cockpit in turns and pulling off target, and when you do put your head inside to do a cockpit or map check, it's for no more than 5 sec. Your Tutor story is a flameout and not CFIT, CFIT is a perfectly serviceable aircraft striking the ground. 

*edit* I just reread your post and you didn't mention it was a flame out, but a birdstrike, in either case it's not CFIT but an emergency.

Your backseater ejection story, again fixed with proper training. It actually went the opposite way a year or so ago.   The Snowbirds were in London for an airshow and were up on a Media flight.   I think it was #1 & #5 that touched, 5 flew back and 1 ejected. In the Toots, you each had to pull your own handles.   The pax was briefed, and it was the same briefing you always give in ejection seat aircraft...."Prepare to abandon the aircraft....Eject, Eject, Eject" You pull on the second "Eject" and the pilot pulls on the third.   The pax in this case was waiting for the pilot to eject, so when the pilot said eject the third time and the pax was still sitting beside him, he punched out, the pax followed. Not a problem on the Hawk, Harvard or Hornet with interseat sequencing. On the Harvard, no matter who pulled, the back seat went first and like .37 sec later the front seat went. I'm not sure about the timings on the Hawk or Hornet since I haven't studied their operating instructions in detail.

The last one, I've dropped my seat pin a couple times. As long as you're strapped in properly, you're not going to get killed.   The tech just brought out a new pin, I put it in and that was the end of it. Gotta love the new seats. Martin Baker Mk16.

Gunnerlove,

Hitting your legs on the panel isn't a major concern anymore since all of our ejection seat aircraft except the Tutor have leg lines that pull your feet into the seat as you go up the rails.

I'm sure your Hawker comment was a misprint since we have Hawks made by BAe and not Hawker. The birds don't necessarily break the compressor blades to cause flameouts, if they block enough air inflow it'll flameout. So you could have a flameout without anything coming into contact with the compressor blades

Rant off.

Cheers


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Aug 2004)

Sorry about that Hawk, Hawker mix up. 

Not sure what I was thinking, my bad.


----------



## DJL (15 Aug 2004)

Didn't the "Lawn Dart" earn it name by having a near 50% attrition rate?


----------



## Zoomie (15 Aug 2004)

Only "Lawn Darts" that I know about are the type being ejected out the back of a CC-130.  Hopefully their attrition rate is considerably lower than that.


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Aug 2004)

Fact is stranger than fiction. Almost half of the CF-104s we bought ended up destroyed in accidents. 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_27.html

"About 110 CF-104/CF-104Ds were lost in accidents, out of 239 delivered--a loss rate of no less than 46 percent. However, it is only fair to point out that the Canadian CF-104s probably had the highest flying time of any country operating the Starfighter. At the time of retirement, average airframe times were of the order of 6000 hours as compared to 2000 hours for the Luftwaffe."


http://www.pinetreeline.org/metz/otherm1/otherm1-61.html

"Considerable success was achieved in reducing the number of aircraft accidents in 1966. The following accident rates are of interest.

The progressive rate for all aircraft in Air Division in 1966 was 1.3 per 10,000 hours compared to 3.7 for 1965;
The progressive rate for CF-104 aircraft was 1.4 per 10,000 hours compared to 5.5 for 1965; and
three CF-104 aircraft were lost in 1966 for a rate of .86 per 10,000 hours. Nine aircraft were lost in 1965 for a rate of 3.1."


----------



## MP 811 (20 Aug 2004)

took me awhile to follow up on this topic but gunner was right, it was indeed a typo.  I did mean to type CF-104.  When I get going on this keyboard, I have to deploy the chute to slow down!.   Sorry about the confusion gents.


----------



## time expired (8 Jan 2006)

starfighter woes,
 the starfighter was another bill of goods sold to canada and other nato  countries by our friends to the
south after a intense pr. campaign with huge illegal kikebacks by lockheed. The usaf took one look
and sent it to the peuto rico nation guard.The airplane was not capable any of the missions it was 
supposed to fulfill,in that it, was very similar to another great buy of the canadion gov. the F5,if you 
put enough fuel in it you could not carry any weapon payload and with a decent weapon load you 
were not going anywhere.It also had serious flight safety issues, it was basically kept in the air by the
thrust of its J79 engine its very small wing supplied very little lift which made landing or any kind of in flight
emergency a very tricky situation for the pilot requing a very quick decision generally to get out.It had
seriose angle of attack problems causing the aircraft to pitch-up and go out of control.The number of
crashes seems a little high but canadian pilots because of more jet aircraft experience made the right
decisions and ejected from the aircraft in emergency situations,whereas the german luftwaffe which
lost well over a quater of their total buy,460 aircraft and in a large number of cases the pilot died with
his plane.That being said it was a very impressive aircraft to watch from the safety of the ground.


----------



## Garry (9 Jan 2006)

Any of you old enough to have ever seen one fly? (104)

Yer killin' me.............

CFIT- there were some discussions on the low level mission and supersonic speeds.  Friend died in Europe )one of many) and his accident investigation revealed things that no one had thought of before. Reduced vis, low level, high speed, he flew into a mountain. Investigation found that the pilot was not at fault. Seems that by the time the light bounced off the mountain, into the pilots eyes, up to the brain, brain realised that this was a mountain,  recognised the danger,analyzed the response, and then sent the message to the hand to pull up, the plane had impacted the mountain. That fast. 

Low level is inherently dangerous- make it low level and supersonic, it's an accident waiting to happen. 

Having said that, the Cold War was on in full by the time the Century Series of fighters were flying. This war drove the exploration of flying like no other- right place, right time- and new designs were literally conceived, built, tested, and into production in as litle as a  year. Amazing.

The F-104 did a great job. Maybe the best testament of all is to ask a fighter pilot in the 80's what aircraft he'd pick for a joyride- near every single one said the 104.

No one said that Military Aviation was inherently safe, nor for everyone. Military Pilots sacrifice for freedom every day.

Cheers-Garry


----------



## Blue Max (10 Jan 2006)

I have recently downloaded some very interesting videos; one of the last Italian interceptor squadron's which was recently still flying the F104.

French pilots are putting out some very good video's, most not done by any official group and the resolution is incredible. Anyway the best French video's I have seen are training flights in Chad and Djubuti. The pilots practice flying very, very low and strafing cars on the highway. Some of these guys are flying so low that they would end up taking off the top of a truck if it had been driving  down the road.


----------



## baboon6 (10 Jan 2006)

Garry said:
			
		

> Any of you old enough to have ever seen one fly? (104)
> 
> Yer killin' me.............
> 
> ...



Yes great for a joy ride, even as an interceptor, but as a strike aircraft? 4000lb warload? Not very good low-level performance? Very short range? The US Air Force certainly didn't think so, they got F-4s (originally a navy aircraft) instead. A few were in fact sent to Vietnam but proved fairly useless.


----------



## blueboy (20 Jan 2006)

I grew up in Cold Lake as a base brat and often heard the howl of the big J-79 as it would hurddle itself through the air. The engine would howl as the pilot would throttle back on his base-leg getting lined up for final.


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Jan 2006)

my experience with the Starfighter was in two respects. the first was a choice of spending the summer vacation in the back set of the family car with siblings or going and visiting a cousin who was base CO at Comox, no brainier as to where summers were spent. My second experience was about twenty years later in Wainwright as a inf rad op in the bn cp during a brigade ex in which we were demonstrating our expertise in calling down close air support to destroy units of the 52nd Fanastian Motor Rifle Brigade. our pnr. plt had spent the morning setting up a  pyrotechnic result of a simulated napham delivery. With a various assortment of multi service brass looking on a Starfighter came screaming down the valley minimum agl. just as he reached the boom zone the pnr plt Co ignited his display. Result one silver starfighter now sooty black and as high as he could go. Several multi service gentleman crowding in the door of the cp all demanding to know wether a plane was down and had a no duff been declared. Radio chaos on several nets all requesting immediate sit reps and over top of it all the unfortunate pilot using provocitives that clearly were leading to a contest with the RSM over inventituers to the English language. All in a days work.


----------



## geo (21 Jan 2006)

The Widowmaker moniker was coined in West Germany though it ended up being applied to all Starfighters. If memory serves me right, a number of our CF104s and CF5s were sold to Turkey. Wasn't there something about Amnesty International or someone griping about the Aricraft going to a country who'se track record on civic rights leaves something to be desired.


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Jan 2006)

Geo,
"Canadian export control guidelines call for close control of military exports to countries involved in, or under threat from, hostilities. They also call for control of sales to persistent violators of human rights, unless there is "no reasonable risk" of the equipment being used against civilian populations. These guidelines have not prevented extensive arms transfers to Turkey since the onset of the Turkish conflict. In addition to nearly $58 million in fluctuating commercial arms sales to Turkey reported since 1984, the government provided 50 CF-104 fighter aircraft and spares valued at over $67 million under the "Assistance to Developing NATO Nations Program" in 1986. Ignoring subsequent evidence of the use of F-104 aircraft in the internal conflict, in 1995 Canada also was prepared to sell upgraded CF-5 fighter aircraft to Turkey from Department of National Defence surplus stocks. A major invasion by Turkish forces into northern Iraq at the time brought temporary media and parliamentary attention to the proposed deal but, in the absence of a government announcement to the contrary, the CF-5 sale may yet proceed."
 see also;
WEAPONS TRANSFERS AND VIOLATIONS  OF THE LAWS OF WAR IN TURKEY
http://hrw.org/reports/1995/Turkey.htm


----------



## old medic (21 Jan 2006)

CF-5's
http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/fighters/freedomfighter/index.php

CF-104's
http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/fighters/starfighter/index.php?name=Starfighter
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_27.html



> A number of former Canadian Forces single-seat CF-104 fighter-bombers and CF-104D two-seat trainers were transferred to Denmark and Norway after having been brought up to F-104G/TF-104G standards..... Canada then offered Turkey an initial batch of 20 CF-104s, later increased to 52, including six CF-104Ds. Twenty of these were sent to MBB at Manching in Germany in March of 1986 for inspection before being transferred to Turkey. The remainder were broken down for spares.


----------



## geo (22 Jan 2006)

Yeah - that's the story. But, Turkey being a NATO ally AND being the neighbor of two or threee archnemesis of NATO (USSR & Iraq/Iran) - was surprised when the CF104s were picked out for protest. The starfighters were not particularly well suited for ground support (though we certainly figured out how to do some)


----------

