I always wondered if at that time (1958) if Lockheed knowing the F-104 vices could have offered something like the Lockheed Lancer paper proposal that came years later. Even if they had, the time-constraints would have been to ridged for R&D, testing, evaluation, etc. Even then, it took a few years — compared to decades today — to get a design, even one based on an existing design, properly worked out.

Dear Jack,

the Starfighter flew in 1954, was operational in 1958. One key factor in its success on European markets was availability. Another consideration was industrial participation. For many companies it was the first possibility to get hands on current technology, like the J79 (which was a very competitive engine design through the entire 1960ies period, the Russians didn’t match its performance before late 1960ies when USA and UK had first low-bypass turbofans in service).
The Lockheed Lancer was proposed in the late 1960ies and was based on the availability of a more powerful engine (I think the TF30). In the early 1960ies there was no engine capable of propelling a heavier F104. An F104 with a turbofan of similar thrust-class would have performed even better in many respects, but this technology was simply unvailable before late 1960ies, early 1970ies. The TF30 had a very troubled introduction, I think any single engine aircraft would have suffered quite an attrition rate when equipped with early TF30 models.
And finally: the Starfighter was quite affordable.

There was an article in the last six months in either Air Force Monthly or Air International in which Harrier pilots were on training missions in Italy and they came up against the Italian F-104S and they stated the same that the F-104 was not going to do good if it engaged in turning engagements. They stated the best the Italians could do were to come in fast, try and get a shot off and get out fast.

That means the Harrier pilots had to hope that the Italians would slow down and play, because otherwise they (the Harriers) were just targets and couldn’t gain a fire opportunity by themselves.

Subsonic? What does that have to do with glide speed?

It doesn’t matter what the speed is…a number has to be memorized and then flown. Gliding at 200KIAS is no different than gliding at 250KIAS or above…the only thing that changes is the pitch attitude.

Subsonic aircraft usually have different wing loading and therefore optimum glide speed may differ. Being too slow or too fast may have an impact on glide distance.

Look in the emergency procedure section under “glide distance”…in my manual, page 3-12A.

It’s 3-10A in the German manual, thanks for the hint as it is a rather small paragraph!
It says 6nm per 5000ft, or a glide ratio of 7.3. It doesn’t say about configuration (which the F-104G manual does [take-off flaps], maybe the USAF manual is more specific).
Anyways, my original point was that the F-104 isn’t such a bad cruiser when clean. It is in the same region as the F-4 (probably even better, but my numbers are not 100% reliable down to first digit). The F-104 (version unknown!) achieves something like low 9ish, while the F-16 achieves something like 10.
No-one knows at which lift coefficient the glide ratio of the F-104 is achieved, so when flying heavy the F-104 might be pretty bad. From my performance calculations I figured that the F-104G has problems of achieving good altitudes with some stores.

Also note that a small aircraft like the F-104 suffers relatively more from stores than a larger aircraft.

[Edit]Found & checked. It looks as if the BRD may have equalled the 1938 level of total GDP about 1950. DDR didn’t get back to pre-war per capita levels until late 1950s to mid-1960s, depending on which end of the range of estimates you prefer.

Or to make a long story short: money wasn’t really a problem in West Germany in the 1960ies. Still wonder how the UK afforded to do a nuclear weapon program, nuclear submarines, V-Bombers and this colonial thing at the same time.
Same – or even more so – with France.

Both per capita & total figure for pre-war (1938) Germany as a whole was reached in Germany as a whole (east & west) ca 1953-4. The federal republic did better, but was still below pre-war per capita levels in 1950, passing them in 1952. The wartime peak wasn’t passed in the west until 1955 – & much later in the east.

OK, I talked about West Germany. “Late 40ies” actually were meant as 1949. So being only 3 years off although I did a wild-ass guess does speak for me, doesn’t it?
In a nutshell: the industry in Germany wasn’t as badly damaged as people sometimes think. The majority of factories actually still worked, the majority of laborers were still alive. The larger problem probably was that the market disappeared over night. Panzers were hard to sell for several years, Messerschmidts and Maschinengewehre didn’t sell either. And as any toaster-factory switched to producing artillery guns, it needed a time to adapt. Apart from that, Western German population didn’t have the money to buy anything … actually until 1948 they didn’t have real money at all.

In the East many factories were taken by the Soviets, which was a huge burden for GDR economy (apart from the even tougher burden of planned economy).
I think the Brits also took a few factories home, but in relation to the industrial capacity it wasn’t much.

Sorry for the German history class.

It took a long time for the german economy to recover from the devastation of WW2 so I would guess the political climate was sort of anti-military. Also ex-Luftwaffe personal were blamed by the public for losing the war, although only about 2000 out of 70,000 pilots survived so there were not a lot left to blame. Incidentally Erich Hartmann was against the idea of acquiring F-104s and his opposition caused damage to his military career.

Someone from Cuernavaca, finally a city I have already visited.

Actually the German economy recovered quite well and achieved pre-war production levels in the late 1940ies. In the late 1950ies Germany was drastically expanding its economy (Wirtschaftswunder).

The Starfighter was introduced in the mid 1960ies, so nearly 20 years after the end of the 2nd World War. I doubt that more than a few WW2 pilots ever piloted a German Starfighter.

I never read any comment that the Luftwaffe pilots were blamed for losing the war. The Luftwaffe was pretty much out of the game a year before the war ended. And I neither read anything about people blaming the German military in general for losing the war. Actually, the German military fought a little bit too well and prolonged the war (which Allied commanders hoped to be over by end 1944), which resulted in a huge number of casualties on both sides (Ardennen, Huertgenwald).

The Starfighter was intended as nuclear attack aircraft, and its targets were often on (East-)German soil. So there probably was some resentment against introducing such a weapon.

Which in case of the Starfighter shows what goals the designers were after. Hasn’t been repeated on its successors.

Actually some fighter bombers have comparable wing loadings.
But true: the trend went to lower wing loading, also due to more focus on field performance and no usage of blown flaps.

Also I think you might be thinking of the F-102 Delta Dagger, as opposed to the F-106 Delta Dart, when it came to aerodynamic issues!

It still was quite unsuitable for the job and pretty much tailor-made for the interceptor-mission. Or to put different: it didn’t perform any other mission well enough except the intercept mission.
It was short legged, didn’t have any store options and if a design with heigher weights had been pursued, it would have run into similar problems as the F104 concerning landing and take-off speeds.

In cruise the F-104 was a rather efficient machine (also thanks to the low wing area), the clean aircraft achieves better glide ratios than the F-4.