[mhackl]

All images posted are for the collector’s benefit and may not be reproduced for commercial use without the written consent of On Mark International, Inc. USA © 2007

HA1003 NEW!
Lockheed F-104G Starfighter "Mount Olympus"
Greek Air Force

A 1/72nd Scale Diecast model from the "Air Power" series by Hobby Master
.

[kabelace]

Just recieved this one, love the paint scheme it will really stand out in the collection. Just think that there is a little to much plastic in it, my MB F-86 and Mig 15 have more heft to them.

[flaps]

Originally Posted by kabelace

Just recieved this one, love the paint scheme it will really stand out in the collection. Just think that there is a little to much plastic in it, my MB F-86 and Mig 15 have more heft to them.

Plastic?? What Plastic, mine is 100% metal, and it flies, plus the bombs are real.



Flaps

[duxford]

Summer 2005: Athens. War Museum.

Yup: I was there.

[jim]

Originally Posted by duxford

Summer 2005: Athens. War Museum.

Yup: I was there.

Being a slightly older member of the forum I seem to remember that this plane had a really bad reputation. A flying accident looking for somewhere to happen, a flying coffin etc. The German and Canadian airforces had major problems with it. Am I correct or is my memory malfunctioning yet again?

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by jim

Being a slightly older member of the forum I seem to remember that this plane had a really bad reputation. A flying accident looking for somewhere to happen, a flying coffin etc. The German and Canadian airforces had major problems with it. Am I correct or is my memory malfunctioning yet again?

You're right Jim the F104 had an exceedingly bad reputation, especially with the German Bundesluftwaffe.

If you read "The Blonde Knight of Germany", you'll see that Erich Hartmann was opposed to the introduction of the 'Starfighter' as he felt that the German Air Force at the time lacked the capacity to 'manage' the technical complexity of the aircraft, which required a high level of technical expertise and maintenance together with an even higher level of pilot expertise to actually fly it properly. The whole issue was apparently quite damaging to his career.

[Rooffie]

It had a bad reputation with the germans and canadians....but not with the dutch (in fact it had one of the lowest accident rates of all planes that have been used by the royal netherlands air force). The reason that the germans had so many problems with it had a lot to do with the fact that they weren't allowed to have an air force for many years after the war. By the time they were allowed to fly (at that time) modern jets they simply lacked proper training. They had to breach the gap between about 800 km/h and mach 2 almost instantly. The lack of training and high accident rates come hand in hand and don't necessarily mean that the plane in question is unsafe (another example of this is the B-26 during WW2).

[jim]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

You're right Jim the F104 had an exceedingly bad reputation, especially with the German Bundesluftwaffe.

If you read "The Blonde Knight of Germany", you'll see that Erich Hartmann was opposed to the introduction of the 'Starfighter' as he felt that the German Air Force at the time lacked the capacity to 'manage' the technical complexity of the aircraft, which required a high level of technical expertise and maintenance together with an even higher level of pilot expertise to actually fly it properly. The whole issue was apparently quite damaging to his career.

Noted the book and will look for it, many thanks.
Good point Rooffie

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Rooffie

It had a bad reputation with the germans and canadians....but not with the dutch (in fact it had one of the lowest accident rates of all planes that have been used by the royal netherlands air force). The reason that the germans had so many problems with it had a lot to do with the fact that they weren't allowed to have an air force for many years after the war. By the time they were allowed to fly (at that time) modern jets they simply lacked proper training. They had to breach the gap between about 800 km/h and mach 2 almost instantly. The lack of training and high accident rates come hand in hand and don't necessarily mean that the plane in question is unsafe (another example of this is the B-26 during WW2).

You're totally correct Roofy. Hartmann's arguments were based on the fact that he felt that the German Air Force at the time lacked the essential experience (i.e. capacity)required to operate this complex high performance aircraft, specifically due to the fact that there was virtually no German Air Force for a period of nearly 10 years after WWII.

[JETFAN]

I can't recall where I read it, but the Canadian accident rate on F-104s was far worse than the GAF's in terms of accidents per 1,000 flying hours on type. The Canucks were hardly lacking in experience as they were transitioning out of large force of F-86 pilots. Since most were based in Germany, they were operating in the same poor weather conditions, so that couldn't have been a primary cause.