Talk:Lockheed F-104 Starfighter/Archive 1

message: I could have sworn that the F-104 saw extensive service in VietNam as a specialized radar jammer for B-52's.  Not true?
:* Never heard of that. I'd be surprised -- the F-104 is TINY, not much space for a complex avionics suite. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, get your hands out of your pants and fix the article! :-) But seriously, you'd likely do a better job than anybody else on some of these details. Stan 05:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find that it was not the German Democratic Republic (DDR, a.k.a East Germany) that bought the Starfighter, but in fact the West German Airforce. Such a glaring error in this external article does tend to throw the credibility of the rest into some doubt, at least for me. Graham 02:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Fixed Graham 02:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: *I erase the words, that the riskful german pilots take the responsibility for the lost of nearly 300 Starfighters. That was stupid and fare away from a real fact (it was based also on one personal statement) 217.83.12.236
I have read the source, and it's not from a reliable sources, but rather a discussion group of some kind. You are right that it doesn't belong here, but as you had not provided an edit summary when you deleted it, I had no idea why it was taken out. 
Also, the usual practice is to post new topics here at the bottom of the page, where they can be found more easily. If you sign your post with four ~ , Wiki will automatically sign at date it for you. Thanks for your contributions. - BillCJ 03:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German pilots

message: Someone shoot me... I've given EMT147 a fit about  an article to death but this one seems to scream for it.  There isn't a footnote one in several sections at all about design and construction where you'd expect alot of it. Tirronan 19:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: footnoting and sourcing

message: Are these FAI recognised records? - it doesn't get a mention under Flight airspeed record GraemeLeggett 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  world records 

message: I think the introductory definition of an article's subject should primarily state what the subject is or was, rather than just mentioning for whom it was designed to do what ...
However, I can live with the current wording "[The] Starfighter was designed for the USAF as a [definition] ...". I'm just nitpicking and stating a principle. --83.253.36.136 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, and I don't particularly like how it was re-worded. WP:AVIATION has decided on a consistent style, and one anon making a fuss about it shouldn't be reason to change our style at the expense of readability.--chris.lawson 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory definition 

message: in Articel clames that Germany build two F-104 VTOL called The EWR VJ 101C, those Aircraft are NOT F-104!!!
nore were part of F-104 used to build the Prototypes X1 & X2. 
But the Germans build two Protoypes of F-104G for Zero-Length Launch Test (ZEL)   
one oft ZEL Prototype ist on Display in Lufwaffenmuseum Gatow Berlin Germany
see ZEL  http://www.vectorsite.net/avzel.html
See Prototype F-104 G ZEL http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/x_planes/zell104.html87.66.161.171 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are no VTOL F-104 in Germany 

message: Two VTOL F-104 one is Proposed by Ryan Aeronautical engineer Peter Girard turning an F-104 Starfighter into a supersonic helicopter. http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/F-104VTOLPage.htm
anonder is Idea to replace the wingtip stations by lift jets engines
http://aerostories.free.fr/dossiers/ADAV/f104.JPG
(frence Webpage "publicité North-American d'époque" = North american ad from that Time) 
87.66.161.171 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VTOL F-104 

message: Italy acquired or produced by itself nearly 400 F-104 of various version. It was the country that used the F-104 the most, having been the last one to retire it from active service in 2004, well after all the others. For 40 years it was the most iconic aircraft in the Italian Air Force and its main interceptor... why it isn't amongst the primary user on the template box? I'm wondering how many F-104 had Turkey or Greece. --Fertuno 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I've corrected Infobox data. Piotr Mikołajski 15:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotr, Canada is covered on the Canadair F-104. We should probably list another user in its place here, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. Japan is another major user that might be worht listing here. - BillCJ 17:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Italy is not amongst primary users? 

message: I am establishing a question/comment/discussion item concerning the grim joke that was commonplace in West Germany as F-104G accidents mounted. The wording is basically, "Anyone want a Starfighter?" "buy an acre of land and wait..." There are myriad variations on the wording but basically the same intention is there, that the F-104G was eventually going to crash on the bit of land you own in Germany. The phrase has even cropped up in a popular song by Robert Calvert. My contention is that the F-104G crashes entered the German public psyche by the circulation of this macabre joke and has a place in the F-104 article as a "popular culture" inference. What say you? |:¬) Bzuk 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognise it from the Calvert song as well, but don't think it belongs in the article. I especially don't like the way it is presented as though it was a reference. --John 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't thinks it belongs either. I also don't think John should have been required to place fact tags or seek a consensus before removing the items he removed. I had placed an "unreferenced section" header there at least a week ago, snd that should have been sufficient to call the entire section into question. - BillCJ 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Black" humour regarding the F-104G

message: A rather battered F-104 was used in Berlin's "Take my breath away". 07:44, 6 August 2007 210.246.62.194 (Talk) (45,854 bytes) (→F-104 in popular culture) LanceBarber 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lance, I think this submission may be acceptable as a popular culture reference if you provide more information. This section is not intended as a "list" but rather as a source of information. Recently, in the aviation group, a discussion has taken place that is examining the issues of trivial versus significant (read: notable) entries as popular culture references. If you indicate more clearly the notability of this F-104 reference, it could meet the standard of a reference that shows a significant connection to this aircraft. Just some suggestions, but if you wikilink the song Take My Breath Away and give the date of use (1987) as well as the connection to the iconic aviation film, Top Gun (film). FWIW Bzuk 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This item was added by 210.246.62.194 ... this person's only wiki-edit... and I dont feel like researching it. Feel free to followup and edit.  LanceBarber 17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Lance, I thought you were championing this edit. If you weren't, then forget it, the item isn't significant enough unless a talented writer could set forth a convincing case. I'll pass, as well. [:¬) Bzuk 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced pop culture 

message: I am about to remove all the latest edits as of questionable veracity. Quoting from magazine articles is always problematic unless there are notes or quotes. The latest edits provide none of this and can not be easily checked. What do others think? FWIW Bzuk 17:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest edits

message: Shoudn't the Puerto Rico ANG F-104s be listed under United States - after all we don't list Texas ANG under Texas!! Nigel Ish 22:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rico as operator? 

message: Treat me gently guys, this is my first visit! I have been researching the F-104 for over thirty years and hope to add some facts to this article once I've got the hang of editing.
I agree with an earlier writer that the reference to the VJ-101 should be removed, it is not an F-104 variant. Cheers. Nimbus227 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VJ101

message: I have added a new article, Lockheed XF-104. I felt it deserved a page of its own, it borrows from this article and expands on those two aircraft. Cheers Nimbus227 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: XF-104 New article

message: I would like to add information on the F-104G CCV (Control Configured Vehicle) which was a modified F-104G fitted with an extra F-104 tailplane behind the cockpit, rear fuselage ballast weights and a partial 'fly-by-wire' control system. I was wondering where best to place it in the article, under 'variants', at the bottom of the page? Any ideas? Nimbus227 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Variants usually describes versions of the aircraft and it would fit here although it is really more of an experimental modification. FWIW Bzuk 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a bit tricky. Under 'variants' it does say principal variants which put me off putting it in there. The CCV was quite a strange looking version of the Starfighter and probably quite important in the development of 'Fly by wire' technology and its link to the Eurofighter.
Might put something together in the sandbox until we can work out where it can go.Nimbus227 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this could be added as a paragraph at the end of the 'Design and development' section. --Red Sunset 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: F-104G CCV

message: That article has been nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lockheed XF-104, and it has been suggested that it be merged with this article.--victor falk 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Oppose the merge and question the reasoning behind the merge/afd. The editor who proposed the merge is  not a regular submitter and has recently emerged from an indefinite ban as a sockpuppet. FWIW Bzuk 04:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue seems to be resolved now with AFD nomination being removed. Nimbus227 23:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mergefrom|Lockheed XF-104

message: I noticed the note list is rather long, much longer than than the F-4 Phantom as an example, should we take some out or can we hide the refs in a collapsible list (thought I saw a discussion about that somewhere?) There is a format problem in the Specifications section, the bullet points are out of line and I can't see what is causing it, perhaps someone can have a look.
Still can't find anything on the MAP, there is a stub on ZELL but not much info at all. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Over-referenced now?

message: I've failed this GAN for the following reasons:
* Please expand the lead so that it adequately summarises the article.  The lead as of now only mentions a sliver of its history.
:::* Expanded to the maximum of four paragraphs recommended in WP:LEAD Nimbus227 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * All current images have been individually checked and are fully licensed and sourced, the single disputed image was US public domain and its source has been clarified. Nimbus227 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Moved the single external link found, projectwide Navbox revision in progress by WP:AIR team. Nimbus227 (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Good Article nomination

message: I have thought for a while that the infobox photograph does not really do the type justice because it does not really show the planform, does not dominate the frame and has text at the bottom which looks untidy and can not be read until the image is opened.
The b&w photo on the right does show the planform well and it is flying with tip tanks which most of the public will remember.
You can try it in the infobox temporarily to see how it looks, I think there would be no contest if it was in colour (sorry, color!). Would appreciate thoughts on this and perhaps a little vote to be democratic, I am aware that the choice of lead photo can cause problems. Nimbus227 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; an alternative colour photo might be better, or maybe the NASA photo could be cropped (if that's allowed) to remove the original caption and make the aircraft fill more of the frame. --Red Sunset 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox photo

message: What are some improvements left to do before a GA renomination?  Looks like the Lead is fairly complete.  The External links and Navboxes in the proper place per the MoS now.  I see no fact tags and most paragraphs have references.  -Fnlayson (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much, I put right some of the observations from the last attempt, others have also tidied since. Given a fair review I don't see why it should not pass as it is. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * Good.  Looks like referencing and clean-up stuff to me.  I was hoping to just add something like "A total of" to the variant entry so the sentences wouldn't start with a number. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points; you could place "Number built" at the end of each perhaps, but I think the main need is to cite more references throughout the article – currently there are several paragraphs (possibly sections too; not sure without looking again) without any refs at all. --Red Sunset 22:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the web based references need a 'retrieved' date, some don't have it. I'm sure I put a reference in almost every para after the GA flop. Reading WP:CITE earlier it does say that inline refs are only required when a statement is contentious or likely to be contested. Will try to fill the survivors section out a bit just to stop that image leaking into the next section. Nimbus227 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * The Retrieved date is mainly if the web page is not dated.  The USAF Museum links I added should be of help on referencing basic data. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by the F-4 Phantom FAR, linking to personal websites (such as Joe Baugher) may cause problems with WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wanting to add cn tags, there are no refs to the Fuselage, Engine, Avionics, Armament or Two-seat trainer sections of "Design and development", the "International service" section, or the lead paras of "Safety record" and Aircraft general characteristics section. The info might not be contentious, but I think a reviewer would be looking for ways to verify the facts. Valid point BTW Nigel, but hopefully a different GA reviewer will be more understanding! --Red Sunset 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I see the League of Copyeditors has put an in-use tag at the top of the F-104 page: it'll be interesting to see what changes they make; and what they do ought to go some way in helping to achieve GA status although it already reads well to me; doubtless there'll be some useful lessons to be learned! --Red Sunset 21:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who copyedited this article. It did need a bit of work, but it has good info. But I'm telling you now, as a copyeditor/music Peer reviewer, this will NOT pass as GA. You need a LOT more references. I put a few [citation needed] tags, but it needs a lot more references. I think a Peer review could really help this article in things that I noted but don't really know how to fix, like the organization of the article, structure, etc. All these things are necessary for an article to be a GA. And FA, well, frankly, the process is a nightmare. Anyway, feel free to talk to me if you have questions about anything. Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?)  (Stuff I messed up) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements before GA renomination 

message: It appears that we no longer need to discuss major changes to this article, the infobox photo has been changed for another one that does not show the planform or typical carriage of tip-tanks which is the reason that the previous image was inserted (please also see the discussion about this above, which I was courteous enough to ask and wait for consensus on). A high quality armament image has been moved in to the specs section, (now cluttering that section IMHO) and has left behind a low-quality B&W image incorrectly captioned as an F-104G (note the extra wing hardpoints), yes, I know I should have deleted that one. I recently removed a new unreferenced and incorrect 'origins' section after conferring with another editor. Nimbus (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the fact that the Lead image was a duplicate of another image further down, and the fact that two images in the text were on the same level, I assumed these were changes made my someone who didn't know what they were doing, and that cleaning it up didn't need discussion. Please remember that side-by-side pics don't work well at lower resolutions such as 800x600px, there is only enough room for a few letters between the pics. As for the Lead image, the "requirement" of a planform image is a new one that hasn't as yet caught on. I prefer the older style of choosing the best looking image, regardless of the planform, but generally using color images if a good one is available. Anyway, I'll let you do what you want here from now on without my interference, since I'm not generally used to running my improvements through discussion first. I understand the need for it in a GAFA article, but generally the people who need to have there changes discussed first won't do it anyway, such as the recent text additions you rightfully removed. - BillCJ (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I don't see the reason for putting successor aircraft or the canceled follow-on project in the lede, nor do I see why we have current owner/operators there. I intend to trim these from the opening paragraphs, making sure they are represented in the body of the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lockheed CL-1200 does not seem to be mentioned in the text at all (apart from 'see also' and infobox) so the lede as you say is summarising something that is not there. Perhaps that text could go to the end of the 'development' section. Mention of the current operators is perhaps notable as they operate the last remaining airworthy aircraft. Nimbus (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On operators the lede is summarising the text that was cut and pasted to form the new List of F-104 Starfighter operators article which has left the operators section in this article completely empty apart from the country flags. Might be useful to add an operators summary paragraph back in. Nimbus (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * Yea a little text there would be good. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Looking back at the version of this article with the full 'operators' section I see that there was no summary para so one would have to be made from scratch, will have a go if I get the time. Nimbus (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I moved the current ones down to that section.  I'm not sure how to lay that out.  Rework as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * I thought of cheating by cribbing the text or format from another article but a quick look at about ten random (but fairly famous) aircraft articles seems to show that the trend is no text, just country or air force headers. Don't know if that is good or bad!! Nimbus (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm probably just stating obvious stuff here, but... The shortest thing that could be done is sentence(s) listing the nations that used it.  That's essentially what the flag list is.  Going beyond that could turn into paragraphs like the List of operators article. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * Probably best left as it is now, lest we open another can of worms!! Think there is a 'specialised' that is spelt wrong in the article (edit/find). Nimbus (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: Chuck Yeager wrote on a book, that the level of velocity of this fighter was far bigger than is writen on article.This aircraft was nicknamed as "the missile with a man man inside it".Agre22 (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Velocity

message: I came to reading this article after being surprised by the statistic that;
:F-104 Starfighter, dubbed the Widowmaker, ... took the lives of 110 pilots of the Luftwaffe alone 
quoted by George Nield, head of the FAA, in this news article in New Scientist.
I would imagine these were all due to peace time accidents and I rather think this is the sort of statistic that brings the F-104's safety record into focus. Assuming it is true, it really ought to be mentioned. At the moment the article makes it clear that the safety record was a significant concern with this aircraft, but for most part this article seems more interested in explaining away or justifying the accidents. You have to look quite hard here to find any mention of just how many aircraft were lost, how many pilots died and how that compares with other similar fighters.
Obviously, this statistic would benefit from someone finding a better sourced reference. -- Solipsist (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's been discussed above.  The F-104 accident rate/safety record is covered in 2-3 places in the article now.  That should be plenty. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is a question of the level of detail, I have the figures but have not put them in. For the Luftwaffe/Marineflieger the actual total of fatalities is 115 aircrew and one ground crew passenger. Some of the aircrew were USAF exchange officers or instructors from Luke AFB. I have them listed by rank and name as I do for the Canadian and Italian losses. The German story is covered in two additional Wiki:de articles on the aircrafts' safety record and political history, and  which I would like to translate into English one day. I have done a couple of translations from Wiki:de and it is not a quick or easy process. Nimbus (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could add a one sentence referenced summary of the statistics at the bottom of the German section if that would help? Any further analysis would be going down the WP:OR road I think. I do feel that the safety record section clarifies the causes of the many accidents rather than 'explain away' the losses, if the facts are presented accurately then the reader can hopefully draw their own conclusions. I added nearly all of this section and hope that I did it in a WP:NPOV manner. Nimbus (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: Luftwaffe losses - A joke that made the rounds in Germany circa the late '60s-early '70s regarding Luftwaffe Starfighter losses went "Want to own a Luftwaffe Starfighter?  Buy an acre of land - and wait."  Mark Sublette (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Safety Record - significant omission

message: I have not read all of them but the recent addition to roll stability is incorrect. The reference added explains this clearly (where it looks like the ref is supposed to show the 'fact' that the '104' was unstable in roll). In a nutshell, as the reference says sweepback induces excessive roll stability which is countered by the use of anhedral. The Starfighter with its sweepback and 10 degree anhedral actually has the equivalent of 5 degrees dihedral (i.e. positive roll stability) I can reference this from a copy of the flight manual which I have (and have not used so far). The '104' was positively stable in all three axis (above stall conditions), backed up with an autostabilisation system for gusts (normal fit even today), I can add and reference that as well although it is probably excessive detail. The link added is also embedded and not formatted as an inline cite (reason for failed GA last time). I don't come here often now. Nimbus (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  I don't know these details about the F-104.  The 10 deg anhedral was stated in the tail surfaces section, so I thought it might help to have those 2 sections together.  The info from the flight manual looks like a good add when you get a chance. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looked back at the tail paragraph and agree that it was not quite right. I am hoping not to use the flight manual as it could descend into too much detail but it's there if needed. The aerodynamics are quite complex and difficult to summarise clearly in a couple of paragraphs, a major challenge for this article. Even when this is explained (with solid references) I fear that editors will still continue to add their own theories. Cheers Nimbus (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions

message: Can some one add a section on the various F-104 record attempts and gains ? TinhDongThap (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: F-104 Performance records, variants, attempts