Smoke II pictures

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:20 am

Does anyone know where I can find pictures of the real F-104 Smoke II in the southeast Asia paint scheme? Thanks.

supersonicfifi · Post by **supersonicfifi** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:37 pm

and by the way if somone receive an 1.18 model of smoke II : is it possible to post some picture

supersonicfifi · Post by **supersonicfifi** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:18 pm

the best magazine to date is the "international air power review" quarterly edition of ALL the military aviation (past -present) they have in their Volume 12 an intersting study of the F 104 in vietnam with lot of photos .... but no SMOKE II interstingly all the photos are without sidewinder...but bombs !

Jericoeagle1 · Post by **Jericoeagle1** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:41 pm

I'm sure the F-104 was great in the dive bombing role...snicker, snicker.

donnieboy · Post by **donnieboy** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 8:44 pm

Hey Jerichoeagle1:
Forgive me, but I feel compelled to jump in here. The June issue of "Flight Journal" also has a story about the F-104 in Viet Nam. The Starfighter was used rather extensively early in the war (1966)in the ground attack role there, and was a very stable bombing platform. It could drop either napalm canisters or 750lb bombs (one per wing), and flew many missions in support of ground troops around DaNang. The grunts liked it because with its almost Mach 2 speed, it could arrive with the goods in a hurry. The article goes on to say Kelly Johnson actually designed the F-104 with a secondary ground attack capability in mind. It was evidently withdrawn from Viet Nam 'cause of its short legs-it needed refueling every ten miles or so! But it was much more than just a "hothouse plant" Cold War bomber interceptor!

Jericoeagle1 · Post by **Jericoeagle1** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:34 pm

I'm retired Air Force myself and many of the guys I flew were from the Vietnam era. Overall everyone liked the F-104 but few of them thought much of it in the ground attack mode. Granted speed is nice, but bombing accuracy drops the higher the speed, plus loiter time on target was horrendous for it. Plus there was a general consensus that the aircraft was too fragile to live up to the ground attack mission. My squadron commander who flew F-104s would tell stories of guys making bomb runs in them with no more then grease pen marks on the windshield as thier bombsight because whatever they were using wasn't accurate. However he later flew F-105's which he felt was only a slight improvement. I like the F-104 but I think it shows how unprepared we were for it in our AirWar Doctrine at the time.

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:59 am

The F-104 was designed as a 1950s era interceptor. It was designed to take off, and climb as fast as it could to intercept incoming bombers. Vietnam put requests on the Starfighters that they were never orignially designed for. But they sure look cool in the Southeast Asia camo paint.

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:06 am

actually, i believe the original purpose of the F-104 was for low level tactical nuclear strike....hence the tiny wings.

A plane that is to climb high quickly to intercept incoming enemy planes should have big wings, like the F-102 and F-106 did.

For low level strike missions you want the smallest wings possible. That's why planes like the Sepecat Jaguar have small wings and some specialized low level WWII plane variants had clipped wings (like several variants of the Spitfire).

jeffrowse · Post by **jeffrowse** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:43 am

aferguson wrote:actually, i believe the original purpose of the F-104 was for low level tactical nuclear strike....hence the tiny wings.

A plane that is to climb high quickly to intercept incoming enemy planes should have big wings, like the F-102 and F-106 did.

For low level strike missions you want the smallest wings possible. That's why planes like the Sepecat Jaguar have small wings and some specialized low level WWII plane variants had clipped wings (like several variants of the Spitfire).

I guess someone forgot to tell Avro when they built the Vulcan, Handley Page with the Victor and Vickers with the Valiant then...

The English Electric Lightning also has relatively small (surface area) and narrow (chord and thickness) wings, and *that* was a high-level interceptor.

A better "generalisation" might be thin, small wings = fast/agile and short-ranged interceptor, thick/big wings = more stable fighter/fighter/bomber with much longer legs.
Look too at the Mig 25 and the F-15; both have airframes that get almost as much lift from the fuselage as the wings.

I was trying to figure out exactly where the F117 "Wobblin' Goblin" fits into the above but then realised it is impossible for it to fly - it's just so darned ugly the Earth tries to keep it as far away as possible!

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:08 am

the V bombers you mention were originally designed as high level bombers. They were eventually used for low level strikes due to the advent of highly efficient SAM missile technology, much the same as what happened with the B-52.

Big wings = high manouverability (look at the spitfire) and fast climb rate (eg the fokker triplane had one of the best climb rates of the war due to its large wing area, it also could turn very well because of it) and thus are ideal on an interceptor that you want to get to 50,000 feet as fast as possible to intercept enemy bombers before they can drop their loads.

The F-104 got virtually no lift from it's fuselage (other than flat body lift when at a high angle of attack).

Small wings are good for low level because the air is thicker and hence causes more drag and there is less surface area for air currents to cause an uneven ride (ie small wings = more stability at low level).

The F-104 was used as an interceptor but was not ideally suited to the role. The under fuselage sidewinder mount was an afterthought which was disliked by aircrew because it caused much drag and made take offs and landings trickier. The German Luftwaffe used the F-104 very effectively in the low level strike role (the role for which it was originally designed).

donnieboy · Post by **donnieboy** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:42 pm

Jericoeagle1: Thanks for the first-hand info from your Viet Nam buddies. Actually, all you guys make good points. I was just going on what the Flight Journal article said. Several Starfighter pilots told how they were able to lob bombs or napalm right down the mouths of V.C. bunkers. Maybe they were exceptionally talented pilots. The article did mention that an inordinate number of F-104s were brought down by ground fire, which contributed to the decision to pull them from Southeast Asia. However, the article also said that when Starfighters were escorting American bombers on a mission, the North Viet Namese Air Force stayed away.

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:02 pm

Do you guys know if the F-104 model Smoke II will be sold at Wal-Mart?

supersonicfifi · Post by **supersonicfifi** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 8:09 am

I really love BADCATAVIATION they are real pro i just receive the confirmation and tracking of my SMOKE II model !!! the USPS tracking mode is incredible !

i can't wait to receive it ; i will keep you informed ASAP !

Jericoeagle1 · Post by **Jericoeagle1** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:55 pm

I got mine today, it looks alot cooler in person. I especially like the pilots helmet done up like an american flag. I now have all three which is something I don't to often buy multiples, but the F-104 just looks to good to stand alone.

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:30 pm

Can you post some picutures of your Smoke II F-104? I would like to see what the pilots helmet looks like. Sounds cool to me.

Jericoeagle1 · Post by **Jericoeagle1** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:06 am

Sorry I am not able to upload pictures, I don't have the means to do so. I do have a problem with my 104 one of the struts on the landing gear has a misshapen hinge so mine sits bowlegged. I'll keep it though for I want to display it in flight.

KAGNEW · Post by **KAGNEW** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:38 am

the F-104 was made for SPEED & ALTITUDE.
Kelly Johnson went to Korea during the war and ask F-86 fighter pilots what they wanted. they told him the Migs were faster and higher flying.
he came back an designed the F-104.hence the names "Missile with a man in it". and "manned missile". which have hung with the Zipper even today.
it was the best chase plane for X-15 because of speed and altitude.
still 45 years later holds several speed and altitude records!
later the company hung all the other junk on it to try to sell it to USAF and overseas.USAF was wanting more bells and whisles then the airframe could carry is why early retirement here.

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:52 am

Ditto Kagnew!

mikeg · Post by **mikeg** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:10 pm

JERICOEAGLE1--------Perhaps this will help- see F104 GEAR PROBLEMS
from March 25th on the 1/18th forum.

Jericoeagle1 · Post by **Jericoeagle1** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:09 pm

Hey thanks,

The fix worked great.

Sabrefan · Post by **Sabrefan** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:41 pm

I still can't find any pictures of the actual F-104 Smoke II. Can someone who has the model post some pictures for us? I would love to see it.

supersonicfifi · Post by **supersonicfifi** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:23 am

maybe i am the only nuts around but don't have a camera ! i will try thsi WE to borrow some and send the picture of my brand new smoke II F 104 and boy ! this plane is nice ! i really like the 2 pitot tube (one soft and one in plastic), the camo , the size & shape, the flaps and leading edge of the tiny wings and the cool pilot ! ( with ultra cool helmet aka "captain america " !!!)

what i dislike is the main gear look (to large ) but it works great !!!!

something is disturbing me : the ejector seat seems to lack the top ?

anyway i will try to post a picture ASAP !

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:05 pm

All the F-104s have the "missing" top on the ejection seat. I never could figure it out as I thought the C (and of course the G) versions had the upward firing seats. Its only a very minor complaint, since the rest of the F-104 is totally awesome

digger · Post by **digger** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:15 pm

Don't know if this has anything to do with it but I remember there was some explanation about a compromise being made with the ejection seat, up or down, something something...if you look back at an old thread you may see Roy's comments on this, or some word from 21st. Again, not sure if this is related.

Small Scale Military Headquarters