Your cold war kid's attempt on an early Starfighter...

[Chief Cohiba]

Guys, while I do have some other kits running (or, honestly, just resting a bit), I'm turned into a cold war state of mind due to whatever reasons (maybe because of snow and dark weather here, so this city looks much like the dark and grey Vienna I remember from my childhood days in the seventies). So, to fulfill these dark desires I plan to work this gloomy mood of into the Kineti Starfighter I have in my stash. 

The starfighter is a plane that has always interested me a lot, not only because of it's pure design, also of course of it's twisted history especially in German service - I still can remember stories about it in the news even here in Austria, when another one has crashed (much lesser in the seventies, though), and tales that atomic plants here are build to a standard, that it would withstand the force of a plane with the mass of a starfighter crashing into it. This plane has a fascination on me and I also would like to dig into history of it, even more so than I usually do.

So, I plan to do an early F104G, so with the infamous C2 seat, and have already ordered the usual Eduard Brass for it as well as a Löök set (are there any heavy metal fans involved in the naming conventions here?). So far I found out the while the plastic parts for the early seat are included in the kit, in the manual it is not covered, and while Kinetic was very fast and helpful in answering some questions via facebook, there still are some questions. So, I started researching and ordering stuff. And yes, I came across Danny Coleman's site and ordered his Decal set as well as the pictoral guide, as I do lack some information, especially on the early seat. But, my guess is, this will not be my last "Witwenmacher"...

 

This of course will be before the backdrop of the "Starfighter-Affäre" from these times and the planes abilities and disadvantages, and I do hope for some input from the experts here. Also I expect to learn about this here as well.

I will post some pictures soon, as I have already started with the seat, but for now I'm still wondering about which livery and specific plane to go for. With the early seat option is between two schemes, one is the regular Norm 62 splinter scheme of the planes in service then, which was for both the Marine and Jagdbomber, and a bare metal look, which was in use on some occasions mainly outside of regular service.

 

So, at this very stage all your ideas and thoughts are welcome, let's see if this topic is of some interest for you.

[Biggles87]

I'll join in if I may.

I have a part built F104C which I intend to re-start when I have finished my current build.

 

John

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Very nice!  Do you have the Nr.7 / Juli 1987 issue of Flug Revue?  It's devoted to "F-104G--die geschmähte Diva."  It also contains an interview with the former Inspector General who helped turn around Starfighter safety--Gen Johannes Steinhoff--who was severely burned in the crash of his Me-262 in April '45.  Basically, the IG saw that training standards (honed in New Mexico's sunny weather) were inadequate, and moved quickly to sharpen the pilots' skills in European weather conditions.

[silverkite211]

Allegedly the Germans had a joke that went along the lines of 'If you'd like to own a Starfighter, buy a piece of land in Germany, anywhere in Germany. Sooner or later a Starfighter would land on it.'

[TheyJammedKenny!]

47 minutes ago, silverkite211 said:

buy a piece of land in Germany, anywhere in Germany. Sooner or later a Starfighter would land on it

That's a direct translation from the joke: "wie komme ich an einen Starfighter?  Answer: kauf Dir din Stuck Land und warte."  

 

As I understand it, there was nothing wrong with the Starfighter itself.  The pilots loved it.  The issue was about training standards, and--in  Steinhoff's words--having too many 104's in the force, too early.  Fighter-bomber pilots were unaccustomed to flying at low altitudes with the automatic shaker/kicker, which first warned the pilot of a possible pitch-up condition, and then forced the stick forward.  This took a couple years of hard training to resolve.  The Germans also replaced Lockheed's C2 ejection seat with the far superior Martin-Baker GQ7 to improve survivability.  

[Chief Cohiba]

Guys, I felt that I criminally neglected this thread of mine, while at least there has been some things going on on this. I feel sorry about this, and I vow improvement here.

First of all; stuff arrived. Plenty of stuff. Useful stuff.

See here:



Yes, it's books and decals from Danny Coleman, and I can just recommend these to the highest degree! Yes, these cost more than the kit itself, and - as Danny states on his website - putting on all the stencils and zappings on might take you as long as building this thing, but if you want to approach these German Starfighters from a serious modellers point of view, there's no way passing him.

I got he pictoral guide which includes pictures from almost any angle of this bird. I don't want to reproduce his work here in a way that could make his work dispensable, but just to give a hint: 

 

There's pictures of every section of the plane, just like this, and drawings in 1/48 as well as 1/72. This goes far beyond the average internet research, and pictures in this level of useabililty will not be available on the net. I bought it when getting frustrated researching about the earlier C2 seat.

Also, as I found questions of the options about the paint schemes of the Marine Starfighters, more specifically when the Norm 62 scheme for the Marineflieger was changed for the Grey/Alu scheme, I found the question answered in the manual for the decal set, and not talking about the decals itself, just have a look: 


 

 

it's five sheets of decals (in the upper left you see the original sheet), and a very usefull manual. The promise is, you can build any available starfighter out of this - and for me it is clear, this will not be the only version I build.

[Chief Cohiba]

23 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

That's a direct translation from the joke: "wie komme ich an einen Starfighter?  Answer: kauf Dir din Stuck Land und warte."  

 

As I understand it, there was nothing wrong with the Starfighter itself.  The pilots loved it.  The issue was about training standards, and--in  Steinhoff's words--having too many 104's in the force, too early.  Fighter-bomber pilots were unaccustomed to flying at low altitudes with the automatic shaker/kicker, which first warned the pilot of a possible pitch-up condition, and then forced the stick forward.  This took a couple years of hard training to resolve.  The Germans also replaced Lockheed's C2 ejection seat with the far superior Martin-Baker GQ7 to improve survivability.  

I think the joke was slightly different, as it didn't claim that the Starfighter will land but will "just fall" on it. Slightly different message. 😉

 

In my understanding, having read some books from former Starfighter pilots, the F104 was a great bird - in the role it was designed for. If you look at it, this thing is an archetypical rocket with some wings flanged on and a pilots seat, great for the interceptors role  it was defined for in the mid fifties: go up fast and high, shoot down some Tupolews or Sukhois, and land again. And it did great in that. For other roles the USAF had other planes, like Bombers with heavy payload, fighters which could outturn those Migs in a dogfight, Attack planes going slow and low, and some more. 

E.g. in Vietnam the F104 wasn't a success, as the MiGs could easily outturn them.

The newly organized airforce of Germany needed something else: they didn't want a one-trick pony, but a multirole plane, a role which the F104 wasn't designed for. But the political desire was there, so engineers did include more systems to do the tricks. changed the design in adding bombs and tanks, and added more and more complexity to the system. On the other hand, the newly found Luftwaffe couldn't deal with this highly demanding bird, they even lacked shelters and those highly complicated birds where left outside in the rain and weather all year, at least the first few years. Also, as this was more was a custom build for the Luftwaffe, almost each plane was different, and not all of those where compatible with each other. Lack of qualified resources adds to this, as in post war Germany young kids understandingly weren't seeking for a career in armed forces.

Also, there where some changes to be made, but it took time. The C2 seat was changed to the Martin Baker seat, but not earlier than 1968 - by this time there already have been a significant amount of losses. 

So, the plane was a good design, from what pilots tell you. Great to fly, if you know what you're doing. But under the circumstances it was used in the then-young post war Luftwaffe, it was a desaster. From the 916 Starfighters 300 where lost, and 116 pilots where killed. Not mentioning the political scandal with stories of bribery, that lead to the initial deal. Technically the Mirage was the superior plane for the requirements.

But nevertheless, it is a fascinating plane and a piece of European post war political history, hence my fascination for it.

[TheyJammedKenny!]

23 minutes ago, Chief Cohiba said:

Technically the Mirage was the superior plane for the requirements.

Yes--perhaps--but as the Germans (and I think others) have explained repeatedly, the French were happy to sell aircraft, but unwilling to share their aircraft technology with anyone.  The Starfighter, as with the F-35 today, was part of a defense-industrial cooperation program, and mutually beneficial.  The U.S. "opened the books" to the Germans, Belgians, Dutch, and Italians, and allowed them access/insights into the design--ultimately helpful to their respective aircraft industries.  Bribery?  I doubt it.  

 

You are exactly on-target about the institutional weaknesses of the reconstituted Luftwaffe.  When it re-formed in 1954(?) there were only 320 pilots left over from WWII available (and politically passable) as an initial cadre.  The rest of the force had to be trained, and that took decades.  Nothing beats experience like experience, and the F-104 was "too much aircraft" for the new air force.  Hartmann wanted the F-106 (instead) because it was highly automated, but his was not a widely-shared opinion.

 

Multirole: the F-104's high-wing-loading allowed the airplane to fly smoothly at low altitudes, and was of tremendous help.  There's a reason it stayed in service even after the F-4F reached operational units.  It was actually a rather good air-to-mud aircraft, all things considered.  Fighter?  Not so much.

 

In Vietnam, the F-104Cs were confined to the air defense of South Vietnam, and never used to provide Offensive Counter-Air (OCA) with strike packages, so they were untested, but I agree that USAF pilots would have found it difficult to contend with MiGs in the proverbial "phone booth."  Starfighter pilots were therefore trained to closely follow fighter controllers' instructions and mount a rear-hemisphere attack that could optimize their "heater" AIM-9s, not try and turn with the MiGs.  

 

You've got a lot of resources, and the F-104 is one of my favorites!  Looking forward to your build!

[Harry Callahan]

Erich Hartmann always said what he thought, but some senior officers in the Bundeswehr staff who had never flown an airplane but could only look out the window and drink coffee, decided against his decision. 116 pilots had to pay with their lives for this.

 

They should listen to him..........

[Chief Cohiba]

I think a very important part for the german officials then was not only the technical ability of the plane, as well as a licensing issues - I don't know if Dassault would have allowed production in Manching - but a cooperation in atomic warfare, which the French refused. Franz Josef Strauss was a declared endorser of the atomic warfare and wanted a plane, that was able to carry atomic bombs "to the Ural".

17 hours ago, Harry Callahan said:

Erich Hartmann always said what he thought, but some senior officers in the Bundeswehr staff who had never flown an airplane but could only look out the window and drink coffee, decided against his decision. 116 pilots had to pay with their lives for this.

 

They should listen to him..........

Reportedly Hartmann have gathered some insights from befriended USAF pilots when on training on Nellis AFB,  talking about some issues these birds had in daily work, like issues with the engine, or the nose gear - which had been changed later in the Bundeswehr, but led to losses in the very first days of the Starfighter in Germany. Hartmann quit or was dismissed as the commodore of JG 71 Richthofen in 1962. At least minister of defense, Kai-Uwe Hassel might have agreed in retrospect, when his son died in a Starfighter in 1970 (btw on this very date for 51 years). Joachim von Hassels plane is a possible model for my build.  

I think noone ever has been officially convinced of bribery in the German Starfighter purchase, my guess more for political reasons, but it was know as common practice these days, and led to the Foreign Corrupt Practises Act in 1977. While Franz Josef Strauss sued a Lockheed Lobbyist for the statement, that he and the CSU received 10 million dollars in this deal - the case was closed for the lack of evidence - it could be proved in the purchase of some Lockheed constellations. Also, in Italy, the Netherlands and Japan there was evidence for bribery around government purchases from Lockheed and the Starfighter, and there was evidence that officials like the former Italian minister of defense, the Prince of the Netherlands and the Japanese Prime minister did take money from Lockheed.

 

Looking at this, it is obvious that for us in Europe the Starfighter is rather a controversial plane, both fascinating as distinctive airplane as well a symbol for postwar politics. 

(And I promise, in my next post I'll show some pictures...) 😉

 

 

 

[Jochen Barett]

The main trouble with the Starfighter was/is that you mount the horse from the wrong side. All the other trouble could be solved.

[Chief Cohiba]

40 minutes ago, Jochen Barett said:

The main trouble with the Starfighter was/is that you mount the horse from the wrong side. All the other trouble could be solved.

Agreed - at least from the perspective of aviation. Above that there was the main problem, as it usual is with politics. Look over to our nice little country here, with the issues we have with the Typhoon. Nothing relates to the plane itself, but to circumstances dictated by political stakes and people who know poopoo too little about the topic.

But I consider it a good sign for this thread when it leads to discussion. 🙂

[Retired Bob]

I'm looking forward to your F-104 build, when the Kinetic kit came out I was trying not to buy any more models, my stash is already too big for my remaining years.  I then saw Werner @Harry Callahanbuild his F-104 and now I have 3 of the Kinetic kits to build!  I have some Eduard resin wheels, look instrument panels and their C 2 seat.  For a Marine aircraft I have ordered the Eduard Kormoran missiles and pylons.  Next, I need to obtain those Daco products.

[Chief Cohiba]

16 minutes ago, Retired Bob said:

I'm looking forward to your F-104 build, when the Kinetic kit came out I was trying not to buy any more models, my stash is already too big for my remaining years.  I then saw Werner @Harry Callahanbuild his F-104 and now I have 3 of the Kinetic kits to build!  I have some Eduard resin wheels, look instrument panels and their C 2 seat.  For a Marine aircraft I have ordered the Eduard Kormoran missiles and pylons.  Next, I need to obtain those Daco products.

@Retired Bob I definitely know what you mean - the age/stash balance is an issue for us "more experienced" modellers, but on the other hand; isn't it that so much fabulous new kits are arriving on the market, that one simply can't resist. And this Kinetic kit definitely is one of them.

In mine, I used the Löök part, and bought the usual Eduard interior brass, the latter which I rarely did use so far. But I very highly can recommend the Daco products (and it's Danny CoReman, not CoLeman, sorry) if you want to go into detail. Btw, also handling was easy, very reliable. What I would consider now -- it wasn't available by the time I started - is Quintas 3D decals. It is meant for the Hasegawa Kit, but I guess one could adopt it to the Kinetic kit as well.

[Chief Cohiba]

I promised some pictures, and am struggling with the camera for taking pictures of the tiny cockpit. The phone camera is simply not getting the details, and the macro of my Olympus is to very onforgiving in this scale. But anyway, I place myself at your mercy:

 

 

 

 

 

I used the Löök dash, but found the kit's parts more appealing than the Eduard brass for the side panels, so I kept these, and it's all drybrushing you see here. The extensive belts and the net are included in the Löök-kit, so I uesd these of course.

 

I decided to go for the early C2 seat, which is stated on the box to be an option in the kit. This is partly true, as the parts are there, but not in the manual. So I contacted Kinetic via their FB channel, and they reacted almost immediately, and sent me a picture from the Taiwan manuals, where it is included. Now, that's what I call service. 😉

 

A few additional pieces where added, like a piece of a guitar string for the hose to the upper handle of the ejection seat. Guitar strings are a mayor source in many build - it's a mayor advantage to have a second hobby. 😉

[Retired Bob]

34 minutes ago, Chief Cohiba said:

In mine, I used the Löök part, and bought the usual Eduard interior brass, the latter which I rarely did use so far. But I very highly can recommend the Daco products.

I like the Eduard instrument panels but I agree the side consoles are too "flat" so I will be using the kit parts.  I did not know until recently that the Luftwaffe used the C 2 seat up to 1968, I watched a U-tube video of a Starfighter being checked and refuelled between flights, a JG 71 aircraft with the C 2 seat.  The arm retention net was confusing me, it is supplied as you say with the Eduard sets but most of it is folded away until the seat is activated.  I have to add that I used to be a weapons technician in the RAF, I have worked on lots of ejection seats but not a C 2 seat, perhaps I should use the Mark 7 seats, something I am more familiar with. 

[Tcoat]

I was stationed at the Canadian base in Lahr Germany in the mid/late 70s and pumped fuel into many NATO aircraft during that time. This included both Belgian and German F-104s.

Since I was aware of the "issues" with the aircraft I would talk to the pilots about them whenever I had a chance. Of course by this time most of the early training problems had been ironed out but the type still had a horrible reputation. 

Politics and historical hindsight aside the main complaints (as I can remember 40 years later) were.

1) Not enough flight time to truly become comfortable even with the improved training program. They got a fraction of the time the Canadians did.

2) Many of the airframes were made up of components from all around the world. There was some sort of program (I could probably look it up but am too lazy) where different sections were built in different places and then all assembled. In theory everything should be the same but as we all know this does not always happen.  Apparently these airframes tended to change shape at the most inopportune times. 

3) The conversions that were supposed to take the aircraft from a clear weather daylight interceptor to an all weather fighter/bomber really had little effect on the actual operation.  The radar and visibility sucked for low level flying and they were often simply flown into the higher terrain. The pilots loved it when they were high and fast but slow and low terrified them.  

4) Last but not least was the most basic of all air accidents. Bird strikes! For some reason (I am not an engineer) these aircraft suffered badly from a simple bird strike. An incident that wouldn't even be noted in other planes could take out a wing on a Starfighter. This may have been more a Canadian issue that my memory has lumped in with Europe though. 

 

Now back to the model (even if a bit late)!

A couple of notes from seeing a dozen or so of these even if later versions. They were always, always, always, pristine and clean. No matter what they had done before they came to us there was not a chip to be seen nor any dirt to note. You can build a straight from the factory aircraft and it would be the same in German operational appearance.

I don't know the make or mark of the seats (shame on me) but I recall there were at least 3 different ones in use at the same time.

I never did a side by side comparison and it may be my memory playing tricks on me but I seem to recall that every single one I saw had exactly the same pattern for the camo. They were all in the two tone NATO green and black overall pattern. Again these were later aircraft than being modeled here though.    

Edited March 10, 2021 by Tcoat

[Biggles87]

The cockpit looks great to me, and i’ve never seen the side webbing depicted on the C2 seat before.

 

John

[Chief Cohiba]

5 hours ago, Retired Bob said:

I like the Eduard instrument panels but I agree the side consoles are too "flat" so I will be using the kit parts.  I did not know until recently that the Luftwaffe used the C 2 seat up to 1968, I watched a U-tube video of a Starfighter being checked and refuelled between flights, a JG 71 aircraft with the C 2 seat.  The arm retention net was confusing me, it is supplied as you say with the Eduard sets but most of it is folded away until the seat is activated.  I have to add that I used to be a weapons technician in the RAF, I have worked on lots of ejection seats but not a C 2 seat, perhaps I should use the Mark 7 seats, something I am more familiar with. 

Maybe I've fallen into a trap here, as I followed the instructions from Eduard as well as some pictures, where the net is clearly visible. But that's the difference between theory and practice, I guess.

 

3 hours ago, Tcoat said:

I was stationed at the Canadian base in Lahr Germany in the mid/late 70s and pumped fuel into many NATO aircraft during that time. This included both Belgian and German F-104s.

Since I was aware of the "issues" with the aircraft I would talk to the pilots about them whenever I had a chance. Of course by this time most of the early training problems had been ironed out but the type still had a horrible reputation. 

Politics and historical hindsight aside the main complaints (as I can remember 40 years later) were.

1) Not enough flight time to truly become comfortable even with the improved training program. They got a fraction of the time the Canadians did.

2) Many of the airframes were made up of components from all around the world. There was some sort of program (I could probably look it up but am too lazy) where different sections were built in different places and then all assembled. In theory everything should be the same but as we all know this does not always happen.  Apparently these airframes tended to change shape at the most inopportune times. 

3) The conversions that were supposed to take the aircraft from a clear weather daylight interceptor to an all weather fighter/bomber really had little effect on the actual operation.  The radar and visibility sucked for low level flying and they were often simply flown into the higher terrain. The pilots loved it when they were high and fast but slow and low terrified them.  

4) Last but not least was the most basic of all air accidents. Bird strikes! For some reason (I am not an engineer) these aircraft suffered badly from a simple bird strike. An incident that wouldn't even be noted in other planes could take out a wing on a Starfighter. This may have been more a Canadian issue that my memory has lumped in with Europe though. 

 

At least I've read that 2) and 3) where issues. There have been som  groups where the 104G got assembled, like FIAT in Italy or Gruppe Süd, I think it was around the Messerschmitt Werke, but I'm sure there where much more differences in detail. 

I think I also read a story related to 4), that large gulls where issues especially the MFGs in northern germany.

 

3 hours ago, Tcoat said:

Now back to the model (even if a bit late)!

A couple of notes from seeing a dozen or so of these even if later versions. They were always, always, always, pristine and clean. No matter what they had done before they came to us there was not a chip to be seen nor any dirt to note. You can build a straight from the factory aircraft and it would be the same in German operational appearance.

I don't know the make or mark of the seats (shame on me) but I recall there were at least 3 different ones in use at the same time.

I never did a side by side comparison and it may be my memory playing tricks on me but I seem to recall that every single one I saw had exactly the same pattern for the camo. They were all in the two tone NATO green and black overall pattern. Again these were later aircraft than being modeled here though.    

 

According to the pictures from the period they do look clean, but I think in the very early period, say up to 66, I've seen at least some wear due to weather, but it might also be the quality of pictures. But when they stood outside all year long, some wear seems unavoidable, I guess. From what I've learned the overall green and black pattern was introduced83 (Norm 83), so these where times when the Luftwaffe was a well trained organisation, compared to the early days. But again, that's just theory from an amateur. 

[Chief Cohiba]

18 minutes ago, Biggles87 said:

The cockpit looks great to me, and i’ve never seen the side webbing depicted on the C2 seat before.

 

John

Many thanks. 😊

 

I think I got the weatherin a bit strong, or at least it appears in the pictures, but in real this is only some 2cm long, so this appears much lighter.

For the webbing; it might be that I fell into a trap here, as mentioned above. I've seen it on some pictures with the net visible, but only in removed seats, while these are not clearly visible in the cockpit. Theory against practice. I think I leave it here as it is, but on the next I'll just keep it to the top straps (or build the MB seat). 😉

[Tcoat]

51 minutes ago, Chief Cohiba said:

. But again, that's just theory from an amateur. 

LOL Your theory as an amateur is probably better than my memory from 40 years ago!

[Retired Bob]

1 hour ago, Chief Cohiba said:

Maybe I've fallen into a trap here, as I followed the instructions from Eduard as well as some pictures, where the net is clearly visible. But that's the difference between theory and practice, I guess.

With the Eduard resin C 2 seat, the safety nets are not provided as p/e, they are moulded on the seat, wrapping around the back.  (unlike their p/e sets that have the nets)  I googled the C 2 seat but it only shows seats removed from aircraft so they might not be displayed the same as they are in an aircraft.  I plan on building a Dutch F-104 from 322 Sqn, the Dutch only used the C 2 seats.

I think we need someone that worked on Dutch Starfighters and knows about the ejection seat. 

[worcesterjohn]

Fascinating build and conversations. I’ll hover around and learn if I may. 

[Chief Cohiba]

3 hours ago, Tcoat said:

LOL Your theory as an amateur is probably better than my memory from 40 years ago!

 Not likely, mate! 😉

2 hours ago, Retired Bob said:

With the Eduard resin C 2 seat, the safety nets are not provided as p/e, they are moulded on the seat, wrapping around the back.  (unlike their p/e sets that have the nets)  I googled the C 2 seat but it only shows seats removed from aircraft so they might not be displayed the same as they are in an aircraft.  I plan on building a Dutch F-104 from 322 Sqn, the Dutch only used the C 2 seats.

I think we need someone that worked on Dutch Starfighters and knows about the ejection seat. 

This seems a good explanation - usually, when build in, these seem to be wrapped at the back. When you pull the lever at the side of the seat to the front - my guess for releasing the seat? - you open the webbing. Having had a look at the Eduard resin seat this is from my perspective the most correct look when build in. Like in mine, this would look like you open it and pull the lever back down - my guess not a typical scenario. 🤪

 

So, mine is wrong. Anyway, I'll leave it like that.

 

What do the experts say?

 

57 minutes ago, worcesterjohn said:

Fascinating build and conversations. I’ll hover around and learn if I may. 

Grab a drink, have a seat, your welcome! But first sign the disclaimer, that you don't take ll of this for real! 😉

 

[Retired Bob]

On 09/03/2021 at 22:06, Chief Cohiba said:

Yes, it's books and decals from Danny Coleman, and I can just recommend these to the highest degree! Yes, these cost more than the kit itself, and - as Danny states on his website - putting on all the stencils and zappings on might take you as long as building this thing, but if you want to approach these German Starfighters from a serious modellers point of view, there's no way passing him.

I have ordered a bunch of stuff from Danny Coreman, including the Starfighter book and German decals pack.  The postage costs were a bit eye watering, I could have bought another Kinetic F-104 kit for that cost alone but I got some other books and decals as well, so looking forward to them arriving.

Now, how many Starfighters can I build before they come with the restraints.