F-104A/C weapons 1965-1975

[f84thunder]

Looking to start 2 USAF F-104 kits. The 319FIS used the A model during the late 1960s. From the photos I can find, looks like AIM-9B on wingtips was a common load out.

Could they carry more under the fuselage? Also did the 198TFS Puerto Rico ANG carry AIM-9s under the fuselage, or any air-to-ground ordnance, like Mk 82 or 117s. All the photos

I found online have wing tip fuel tanks only.   Thanks 

[Niels]

You're right, AIM-9B on wingtip launchers only, typically with wingtanks under the wings.
For the F-104G I think it was the opposite; wingtip tanks with catamaran launchers under the belly.

For the F-104A/C, Mk117 under the wings while in VietNam with the 435FS. I belive the F-104C could carry the catamaran under the fuselage, but not carried a lot/regularly? I suspect someone will correct me though? 

 

[signals]

While we're on the subject of F-104s

I'm curious if the wings for the A/Cs were painted white on top and light grey under or were they BMF?

[Finn]

Here are some F-104s in Tawain:

 

https://images.google.com/hosted/life/718659467b2d4d2b.html

 

click the Related images thumbnails for more.

 

Jari

[lodni_k]

As Niels mentioned, the 'C' models and later could carry Winders under the fuselage. They didn't do that often because debris would damage the early AIM-9's seeker head. They could (and did) carry a variety of ordinance both on the centerline and under the wings. But typically the Starfighter would only carry the travel pod and the SUU-20/21 there. Hope this helps. Pick of a PR ANG bird with a travel pod and LAU-3 rocket pod. 😊

[signals]

23 hours ago, Illu said:

 

All production F-104s had painted wings.  

Curious as to the reason behind coloring the wings and not the fuselage being bare metal?

Edited March 17 by signals

[f84thunder]

Thanks for the photo of the PR ANG F-104C. Very interesting. The store on the centerline looks like a SUU-21 .

[lodni_k]

It might be. But I thought that pod was like a 'half-pod'. Not the best image but I thought it was neat because of the 19 shot rocket pod.

[JeffreyK]

On 3/17/2025 at 6:27 PM, signals said:

Curious as to the reason behind coloring the wings and not the fuselage being bare metal?

The wings were machined/milled from solid material, not sheet aluminium. It therefore had a rough texture and was factory puttied/painted to smooth everything out.

[Niels]

6 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

The wings were machined/milled from solid material, not sheet aluminium. It therefore had a rough texture and was factory puttied/painted to smooth everything out.

Just checked DACO's book on the F-104, and find nothing to collaborate this? If this was the case, then why would you have a very high number of screws which are very visible atleast on the underside of the wings. And this would preclude pulling wires etc for the flaps, light, pylons etc. 
DACO does confirm that the wings were puttied and smoothed before delivery. But solid material - sorry no. 

[STEN8]

Oh, that's a really cool picture of the PRANG F-104C. That harsh sun just beats the shine right off SEA camo, doesn't it? And I love the rocket pod. Very unique and thanks for sharing.

 

Slightly off topic, but PRANG is unfortunate, isn't it? I mean, I like FANG, like DANG and although I personally don't like WANG I know folks that do. But PRANG just sounds...unfortunate.

 

Thanks for sharing the cool picture.

 

Harry

Lutz, FL

[JeffreyK]

3 hours ago, Niels said:

Just checked DACO's book on the F-104, and find nothing to collaborate this? If this was the case, then why would you have a very high number of screws which are very visible atleast on the underside of the wings. And this would preclude pulling wires etc for the flaps, light, pylons etc. 
DACO does confirm that the wings were puttied and smoothed before delivery. But solid material - sorry no. 

I did not say one piece. Of course the wings have upper and lower parts and an inner straucture with cavities etc. The upper and lower pieces were fastened to the inner structure. But the parts were machined material, not skinned with thin sheet metal as in the traditional way.

J

[habu2]

The white paint on the upper surface was to minimize thermal expansion effects on the wing structure. The extremely thin wing design was more susceptible to warping due to uneven expansion on the upper & lower surfaces than a thicker wing desigh. This was more of a problem when parked on the ground, when in flight the airflow provided sufficient convective heat transfer to minimize the effect. Later it was deemed the benefits of camouflage paint outweighed the need for thermal protection. 

 

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.  🙂

[Niels]

11 hours ago, JeffreyK said:

I did not say one piece. Of course the wings have upper and lower parts and an inner straucture with cavities etc. The upper and lower pieces were fastened to the inner structure. But the parts were machined material, not skinned with thin sheet metal as in the traditional way.

J

Thanks, you got me a bit concerned for a while 🙂