What if it the Luftwaffe didn't buy the F-104G?

[swerve]

I've been wondering what would have happened if one of the other contenders had been selected by the Luftwaffe in 1959.

 

As far as I can remember, the contenders were -

 

Dassault Mirage III

Saab J35 Draken

Saunders-Roe S.R.177

English Electric Lightning

Grumman G.8 (F11-1F) Tiger

Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

Convair F-106 Delta Dart

Republic F-105 Thunderchief

Vought F8U Crusader

 

What difference would it have made? (to other export orders, the future of the selected aircraft, its designers, manufacturers & Lockheed, the Luftwaffes effectiveness & accident rate, etc).

 

(edited to incorporate the full list of contenders - thanks to Ol Paint)

 

[Edited by swerve (17 Nov 2004).]

[Rod]

Why couldn't German aerospace companies have developed their own supersonic fighter? Did by 1959 were there any restrictions on West Germany's defense industries?

[swerve]

Originally posted by Rod:

Why couldn't German aerospace companies have developed their own supersonic fighter? Did by 1959 were there any restrictions on West Germany's defense industries?

 

No restrictions by then, AFAIK, but they'd have been starting almost from scratch, with no experience of designing or building modern fighters. I think they wanted a plane in the early 1960s, not the 1970s.

[Scott Cunningham]

The Drakken was probably the best of the bunch, but I would imagine the Mirage III would have been fine as well.

[Textor]

Originally posted by swerve:

I've been wondering what would have happened if one of the other contenders had been selected by the Luftwaffe in 1959.

[...]

What difference would it have made? (to other export orders, the future of the selected aircraft, its designers, manufacturers & Lockheed, the Luftwaffes effectiveness & accident rate, etc).

 

Some speculations:

 

1. Franz-Josef Strauss, minister of defense at that time, wouldn't have added to his reputation of being a self-centered, deceitful megalomaniac, and more than open to favors from corporations, both foreign and domestic.

 

2. a considerable number of GAF pilots may not have died in an airplane of dubious suitability to operations as a strike fighter in NW Europe. There were historically around 110 deaths resulting from 292 Starfighter accidents, one claiming the son of a defense minister, 1st Ltn. von Hassel.

 

3. Other European Nato members may not have followed with more Starfighter orders, and so deprived Lockheed of one of its best deals in company history.

 

Strauss, a pilot himself, was always an advocate of a strong German/European aviation industry, even if it couldn't survive, not to mention compete, without government subsidies and taxbreaks.

 

Here is what Joe Baugher's airplane database has to say on the subject:

 

The F-104G was declared the winner of the contest on November 6, 1958, in an announcement made by German Federal Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss in Bonn.

 

It was never made quite clear how a paper project based on a design with a poor accident record which was being rejected by the USAF could have actually won the contest. Nevertheless, an initial contract for 66 F-104Gs was awarded to Lockheed on February 6, 1959, which was later increased to 96.

 

Canada was the second NATO country to select the F-104G as its next generation combat aircraft. On July 2, 1959, plans were announced for the co-production of 200 CL-90 or CF-104 (originally CF-111) versions by Canadair Ltd, plus 38 two-seat CF-104Ds to be bought separately from Lockheed. The J79 engine would be produced under license by Orenda Engines Ltd of Malton, Ontario.

 

Other European NATO nations quickly jumped onto the Starfighter bandwagon. The Netherlands completed a licensing agreement on April 20, 1960. On June 20, Belgium signed a similar agreement. On March 2, 1962 Italy announced that it too would participate in the Starfighter program. By now the Starfighter was the Free World's premiere fighter aircraft, and the project became known as the "aircraft deal of the century". In December of 1960, licensing agreements were concluded with Lockheed for international co-production on a major scale.  

[swerve]

Originally posted by Scott Cunningham:

The Drakken was probably the best of the bunch, but I would imagine the Mirage III would have been fine as well.

 

More or less my opinion, Scott. I see all the others as being flawed (Lightning - best of the rest, a great fighter, but no legs & expensive to buy & operate - SR.177 - don't think that rocket/jet mix made sense, & it was a paper aeroplane - G.98 - starting with something with lower performance than the rest & a promise the delivered version would be better doesn't seem wise).

 

What effect do you think buying either of those would have had on the aircraft industry of either France or Sweden? And, for that matter, Germany?

[Yama]

Originally posted by swerve:

As far as I can remember, the contenders were -

 

Dassault Mirage III

Saab J35 Draken

 

Draken IMHO best of the bunch, thought it might have had trouble meeting the required timeline. Also, it had undesirable superstall characteristics which at first caused lots of accidents in RSwAF. Mirage being an obvious second choice. What I gather, Starfighter had excellent "hype machine" behind it during late '50s/early '60s, when it was thought that high top speed was everything and 'manned rocket' looked like world-beater in that respect.

[Ol Paint]

I suspect that most, or all, of the F-104G users would have bought whatever aircraft was selected, due to the production arrangements.

From Joe Baugher's site http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_13.html  :

European production sites were clustered into four groups, based generally on geographical location. The South Group included Dornier at Munich, Heinkel at Speyer, Messerschmitt at Augsburg (later reorganized as Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm, or MBB), and Siebel at Donauworth, plus BMW at Koblenz for J79 production. The North Group included the Dutch companies Fokker at Schipol and Dordrech and Aviolanda at Papendrecht, plus the German companies Focke Wulf at Bremen, Hamburger Flugzeugbau in Hamburg and Weserflugzeugbau at Einswarden. The West Group consisted of SABCA (Societe Anonyme Belge de Constructions Aeronautiques) and Fairey S.A. of Belgium, which operated a joint facility at Gosselies near Charleroi, along with Fabrique Nationale in Brussels for J79 production. The Italian Group consisted of Fiat at Turin as the prime contractor, with Aerfer-Macchi, Piaggio, SACA, and SIAI-Marchetti as subcontractors. Canadair in Canada was contracted to supply 121 sets of wings, aft fuselage, and tail assemblies to the FRG and the Netherlands, and 40 sets to Lockheed.

 

Lockheed itself remained heavily involved in the license production programs, and supplied small numbers of complete F-104Gs along with knock-down kits of parts to the licensees to help them in the launch of their own individual programs. In addition, Lockheed built the first 66 F-104Gs for the Luftwaffe and built 84 for USAF Mutual Aid contracts.

 

The initial production schedule called for 210 aircraft to be built by the South Group, 350 by the North Group, 188 by the West Group, and 199 by the Italian group. There was lot of cross-flow of components, parts, and even complete airplanes between the various Groups. The Luftwaffe eventually received 700 single seaters from five different nations.

 

In order to assure early service introduction, it was agreed that Lockheed was to build the initial lot of F-104Gs while the European consortium got up to speed. Lockheed eventually built 139 F-104Gs, which were delivered to the air forces of Germany, Greece, Norway, and Turkey, plus pattern aircraft delivered to manufacturers in Belgium and Italy. In addition, Lockheed also built a number of two-seat TF-104G combat trainers. The first Lockheed-built F-104G took off on its maiden flight on June 7, 1960.

 

The South Group's first F-104G flew on October 5, 1960. The South Group of companies eventually built 210 aircraft, all of them destined for the West German Luftwaffe. South Group Starfighters were identified by construction numbers in the 7000 range.

 

The West Group's first F-104G flew on August 3, 1961. West Group Starfighters were identified by construction numbers in the range 9002 to 9189. West Group Starfighters went both to the Force Aerienne Belge and to the Luftwaffe.

 

The North Group's first F-104G flew on November 11, 1961. The North Group eventually built 231 aircraft for the Koninklijke Luchtmacht (Royal Netherlands Air Force) as well as the Luftwaffe. The North Group F-104Gs were identified by construction numbers between 8001 and 8350. F-104Gs were produced in parallel with RF-104Gs.

 

The Italian Group flew its first Starfighter on June 9, 1962, and delivered 169 aircraft to Dutch, German, and Italian air forces. The F-104Gs built by the Italian Group (with Fiat as major contractor) had company numbers in the range between 6502 and 6700. F-104Gs were interspersed with RF-104Gs on the line.

 

Once the European F-104G program was well underway, the USAF ordered 140 F-104Gs to be built by Canadair for various NATO nations under the MAP program. They were intended for Norway, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, and Spain. They followed the Canadian-built CF-104s off the production line. Canadair-built F-104Gs differed from European-built versions primarily in the type of NASARR installed--the F-15AM-11 which was optimized for both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes. Canadair-built F-104Gs were identified by construction numbers in the range between 6001 and 6140. The first of these Canadair-built F-104Gs (c/n 6001, USAF serial number 62-12302) made its maiden flight on July 30, 1963, and deliveries to NATO began before the end of the year.

From Joe Baugher's site http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_11.html  :

The Lockheed Starfighter was not really well-suited to USAF needs, being deficient in range, endurance, and offensive capability. In addition, it lacked true all-weather capability. Consequently, it quickly became surplus to USAF requirements and its service with the Air Defense Command and the Tactical Air Command was relatively brief, most examples soon being transferred over to the Air National Guard. or being exported to overseas customers in Taiwan, Pakistan, and Jordan. Out of the total of 722 Starfighters originally ordered for the USAF, only 296 were actually delivered, the remainder being cancelled.

 

By the late 1950s, it would appear that the Starfighter was doomed to be only a relatively minor footnote in the history of military aviation, yet another example of a combat aircraft which ended up serving only briefly and in small numbers before being quickly relegated to the boneyards. However, the Starfighter was rescued from oblivion by its unexpected win of a major multinational contract.

 

In the mid-1950s, the NATO air forces in Europe, apart from Britain and France, began shopping around for a new supersonic multi-role fighter capable of delivering the US-supplied B-43 tactical nuclear weapon. In particular, the new West German Luftwaffe was in need of a supersonic replacement for its Canadair Sabres and Republic F-84F Thunderstreak combat aircraft, and that service issued a request for proposals. With a potential market for more than 2000 aircraft, numerous aircraft industries became highly interested, and the requirement became known as the "sale of the century". Ten separate entries were made by aircraft manufacturers in England, France, Sweden, and the USA. These were the English Electric Lightning, the Saunders-Roe SR.177, the Dassault Mirage III, the SAAB J-35 Draken, the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger, the Convair F-106 Delta Dart, the Republic F-105 Thunderchief, the Vought F8U Crusader, the Grumman F11F-1F Tiger, and the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.

 

The Lockheed entry was designated F-104G (G for Germany). It was proposed as a multi-role, all-weather aircraft. It was based on the F-104C, but was to be upgraded to have full all-weather capability, carrying an Autonetics F15A NASARR (North American Search and Ranging Radar). The fuselage, wing, and empennage were strengthened to enable the aircraft to carry an increased load and to handle the stresses of low-altitude combat missions at high speeds. Five hardpoints were to be fitted (four underneath the wings and one underneath the fuselage), enabling up to 4000 pounds of external stores to be carried. The internal fuel tankage was revised to increase the fuel load from 1624 to 1784 US gallons. The Starfighter had metamorphosed from an air-superiority day fighter into a multirole all-weather strike fighter.

 

The F-104G was declared the winner of the contest on November 6, 1958, in an announcement made by German Federal Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss in Bonn. It was never made quite clear how a paper project based on a design with a poor accident record which was being rejected by the USAF could have actually won the contest. Nevertheless, an initial contract for 66 F-104Gs was awarded to Lockheed on February 6, 1959, which was later increased to 96.

 

Herr Strauss also indicated that the German aircraft industry would build 210 F-104Gs under license. On March 18, 1959, a consortium of German aircraft manufacturers acquired a license to manufacture the Starfighter. License production and associated technology transfers to expand the German national aircraft industry were key features of the program.

 

Canada was the second NATO country to select the F-104G as its next generation combat aircraft. On July 2, 1959, plans were announced for the co-production of 200 CL-90 or CF-104 (originally CF-111) versions by Canadair Ltd, plus 38 two-seat CF-104Ds to be bought separately from Lockheed. The J79 engine would be produced under license by Orenda Engines Ltd of Malton, Ontario.

 

Other European NATO nations quickly jumped onto the Starfighter bandwagon. The Netherlands completed a licensing agreement on April 20, 1960. On June 20, Belgium signed a similar agreement. On March 2, 1962 Italy announced that it too would participate in the Starfighter program. By now the Starfighter was the Free World's premiere fighter aircraft, and the project became known as the "aircraft deal of the century". In December of 1960, licensing agreements were concluded with Lockheed for international co-production on a major scale.

 

The late '50s, '60s, and '70s saw a fair amount of hanky-panky on the part of defense contractors. It has been a while since I read up on the machinations, but winners of quite a few aircraft contracts were based more on who had the best kickback than who had the better aircraft for the mission. Personally, I'd probably have placed the order something like this:

 

F-8U--good performance

Mirage III--might even take the top spot

F-105 (loses the top spot due to cost/complexity--I'd have ranked it first, otherwise)

Lightning--Probably a bit short on range, possibly short on multi-mission

F-106--not famous for multi-roling, but could probably have been developed.

F-102--Less performance than the F-106

Draken--maybe I should rank this one higher, but I think it's payload is a bit light.

F-104--light payload, short range, probably less maneuverable than most of the other offerings.

F11F-1F--like the Lightning, a bit short on range and a bit short on payload.

I don't know enough about the Saunders-Roe offering to rank it.

 

Douglas

[swerve]

Douglas,

 

Thanks for listing the other contenders. F-105 was certainly a fine strike aircraft, but as you say, expensive, & poor in air combat. Early Drakens had about the same payload as early Mirage III & F-104G, but like the Mirage III, proved capable of more development than the F-104G, ending up with twice the payload of the F-104G.

 

[Edited by swerve (17 Nov 2004).]

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by swerve:

Douglas,

 

Thanks for listing the other contenders. F-105 was certainly a fine strike aircraft, but as you say, expensive, & poor in air combat. Early Drakens had about the same payload as early Mirage III & F-104G, but like the Mirage III, proved capable of more development than the F-104G, ending up with twice the payload of the F-104G.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by swerve (17 Nov 2004).]

 

You're welcome. The F-104G as one of those purchases that make you wonder what they were thinking. While the F-104 is a cool aircraft from an enthusiast's point of view, there were so many contenders that appeared to have it beat in so many areas. Heck, I'd have said the F-5A/F-5E were better aircraft than the F-104 (although they were slightly later) having equal, or better, payload and range, but less raw speed. I tend to think that the F-105 probably wasn't any worse than the -104 in the maneuverability department, although the -104 had a bit better thrust-to-weight. In the end, it would seem that the Mirage & Draken probably had the "bang for the buck" to win, as did the Crusader.

 

Douglas

[Rod]

Originally posted by swerve:

No restrictions by then, AFAIK, but they'd have been starting almost from scratch, with no experience of designing or building modern fighters. I think they wanted a plane in the early 1960s, not the 1970s.

 

I am sure Germany still had a good pool of talented aerospace engineers and designers available then. Also, fighters in those days were simpler thus they could be designed and produced very quickly compared to today's timeline.

 

Re: F-104

 

There was once a program in the Discovery Channel that mentioned that one of the causes of too many F-104Gs crashes was poor training. There was a high ranking German Air Force officer (who I think was disfigured in WW2 battle) who was able to improve training and maintenance and significantly reduce accidents.

[RETAC21]

Originally posted by Rod:

I am sure Germany still had a good pool of talented aerospace engineers and designers available then. Also, fighters in those days were simpler thus they could be designed and produced very quickly compared to today's timeline.

 

Re: F-104

 

There was once a program in the Discovery Channel that mentioned that one of the causes of too many F-104Gs crashes was poor training. There was a high ranking German Air Force officer (who I think was disfigured in WW2 battle) who was able to improve training and maintenance and significantly reduce accidents.

 

 

It should be noted that when used in its intended role as an interceptor, the F-104 could be pretty safe. For example, Spain didn't loose any, but then it was flown by a single elite squadron as an interceptor. Contrast this to the Germans who were flying at low altitude in worse weather and transitioning from the F-86/F-84, too much for inexperienced pilots. Once they got the hang of it, the accident rate wasn't very high.

[Guest Hans Engström]

One large sale of the Draken could have convinced SAAB to put counterpressure on the Swedish government come the next generation of aircraft (due to political considerations aas well as financial ones, the Viggen came into service too early and too overly defined for Swedish use). Another NATO deal (Denmark being the other NATO country) would have helped no end.

 

Politically in the time frame I think the Mirage III would have been likelier thogh.

[Doug Kibbey]

Originally posted by Rod:

 There was a high ranking German Air Force officer (who I think was disfigured in WW2 battle) who was able to improve training and maintenance and significantly reduce accidents.

 

Likely Johannes Steinhoff. He went on to become a general officer in NATO, I believe. His burns were due to an accident on the ground while landing an Me-262 which caught fire, IIRC.

[swerve]

Originally posted by Rod:

I am sure Germany still had a good pool of talented aerospace engineers and designers available then. Also, fighters in those days were simpler thus they could be designed and produced very quickly compared to today's timeline.

 

 

True, but (IIRC) all but one (the SR177) of the contenders for the Luftwaffe buy were flying (albeit not in the form submitted to the Luftwaffe) before the decision to procure a new fighter was made, & had been in development for some time before that. All of them also incorporated lessons learned from earlier aircraft, e.g. the Lightning (flew April 1957) was preceded by the P.1A research aircraft, & The F-102 design began in 1950, developed from the earlier F-92, & the F-106 (flew December 1956) began as an improved F-102.

 

Mirage III flew November 1956.

Draken October 1955.

F-105 October 1955.

F-104 February 1954.

F-8 March 1955.

 

All were produced by design teams with prior experience of producing aircraft capable of supersonice flight (though in some cases only just). A German design team would be starting a few years later, & without that prior experience, so it would almost certainly take them longer. I'd say at least a 5 year delay in service entry, which was completely unacceptable at the time.

[Ol Paint]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

I was watching an interesting documentary on the discovery channel on the Saunders Roe design. Apparently it was favored at the time, before interest switched to the F104. Bear in mind there was still some latent interest in rocket power in the luftwaffe from ww2, remember the Me262 with a secondary rocket engine for better performance? Interestingly there WAS an F104 with a strapon rocket pack that could be fitted to fixed launch pylons. No idea if it ever flew, but it shows that Rocket power at the time didnt necessarily looked the dead end it looks now. Ive even see a piece of artwork that proposed launching F15s into the air on rocket sleds  

 

Much as I like the lightning, it was too specialised as an air defence fighter to be a truly multi mission machine the Germans needed. I think the Mirage would have been a better buy. As a matter of interest, was the F105 never considered?

 

 

Stuart,

 

The Zero-Length Launch? It was done with F-84s, F-100s, and F-104s, although never operationally. Here is a video of the F-104 launch: http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Web/Site/QT...f104launch.html

 

What do you mean "...was the F105 never considered?" It was certainly submitted for the competition, but my guess is that it was considered to be too expensive.

 

Douglas

[Ken Estes]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

It should be noted that when used in its intended role as an interceptor, the F-104 could be pretty safe. For example, Spain didn't loose any, but then it was flown by a single elite squadron as an interceptor. Contrast this to the Germans who were flying at low altitude in worse weather and transitioning from the F-86/F-84, too much for inexperienced pilots. Once they got the hang of it, the accident rate wasn't very high.

 

Ya beat me to it, as the Spanish Air Force guys I knew were very proud of their record crossed with the Germans. The SAF also transitioned from F86, had much better flying weather, did not hang bombs on them, etc. I did not realize the extent of the industrial conenction, and would the F104 have represented the best kickstart for the European industries concerned for high performance a/c?

[Kenneth P. Katz]

NF-104A flown by ARPS at Edwards AFB. A few were built. One is on a pylon outside USAFTPS to this day. It was purely a test pilot training aircraft with no combat capability or potential.

 

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Interestingly there WAS an F104 with a strapon rocket pack that could be fitted to fixed launch pylons. No idea if it ever flew, but it shows that Rocket power at the time didnt necessarily looked the dead end it looks now.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

The Italians have done very well with their F-104S aircraft and IIRC the last ones were just retired. The terrible Luftwaffe record with the F-104G (which led to the song "Catch a Falling Starfighter") was caused by a combination of a hot airplane and an inexperienced operator.

 

The only role where the F-104 really shined in USAF service was as a test pilot trainer and chase aircraft. Several were used in that role by AFFTC at Edwards. NASA Dryden at Edwards also used some as chase aircraft and research testbeds until about a decade ago, the last Starfighters in US government service.

[Guest DwightPruitt]

Originally posted by Doug Kibbey:

Likely Johannes Steinhoff. He went on to become a general officer in NATO, I believe. His burns were due to an accident on the ground while landing an Me-262 which caught fire, IIRC.

 

 

He would be the one. Also, I remember reading that Erich Hartmann was a vocal critic of the Starfighter and that was a major reason he never was promoted to General.

[Sparviero]

Originally posted by Kenneth P. Katz:

The Italians have done very well with their F-104S aircraft and IIRC the last ones were just retired. The terrible Luftwaffe record with the F-104G (which led to the song "Catch a Falling Starfighter") was caused by a combination of a hot airplane and an inexperienced operator.

 

The only role where the F-104 really shined in USAF service was as a test pilot trainer and chase aircraft. Several were used in that role by AFFTC at Edwards. NASA Dryden at Edwards also used some as chase aircraft and research testbeds until about a decade ago, the last Starfighters in US government service.

 

Going at least into the 80s I want to say the only crash that happened to 6 Stormo was a high altitude engine failure. This is going off really fuzzy memory of something my dad said. My dad was stationed on the American side of Ghedi. And well I can't remember what unit my dad was attached to but I remember the Diavolo Rosso! Of course back then about the only thing American about me was my name. My dad still has a really cool mirror with the service patches of all the US and Italian units operating there that I have to figure out how to steal.

[Rod]

Regarding F-104s in Spanish service, what years were they operational? Was there a problem selling weapons to a country led by Francisco Franco?

[lastdingo]

I'd have chosen the Mirage with RATO and hook for STOL.

 

The Draken had two significant disadvantages;

1. Large 'wing' area - bad for low level attacks with nukes.

2. Draken was generally not prepared for the assault role - it was an interceptor. As such, no pylon could carry more than 1000lbs.

 

Another advantage of the Mirage III (which was not initially visible) was that it lead to the Mirage F.1, one of the best NATO fighters/fighter-bombers in the 70's (with regard to fleet efficiency probably even a match for the F-15 since it was much cheaper and with less personnel to operate).

[Animal Mother]

Originally posted by RETAC21:

It should be noted that when used in its intended role as an interceptor, the F-104 could be pretty safe. For example, Spain didn't loose any, but then it was flown by a single elite squadron as an interceptor. Contrast this to the Germans who were flying at low altitude in worse weather and transitioning from the F-86/F-84, too much for inexperienced pilots. Once they got the hang of it, the accident rate wasn't very high.

 

Norway too had a pretty low accident rate, especially considering the weather and general enviroment up north.

 

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f104_21.html

 

The Kongelige Norske Luftforsvaret (Royal Norwegian Air Force) was at first equipped with MAP-supplied Starfighters. The KNL received the first of sixteen Lockheed-built F-104Gs, three Canadair-built F-104Gs, and two Lockheed-built TF-104Gs in 1963. The Lockheed-built F-104Gs were converted to the RF-104G reconnaissance configuration and served with No. 331 Skvadron at Bodo. Following the arrival of Northrop RF-5As for No. 717 Squadron, these aircraft reverted to the fighter configuration and served until 1981.

 

Two ex-Luftwaffe TF-104Gs were later transferred to Norway from the Luke AFB contingent operating in the United States.

 

In 1973, a second KNL Starfighter unit, No. 334 Skvadron, was formed with eighteen ex-Canadian Forces CF-104s and four CF-104Ds. These aircraft were modified to carry Martin Bullpup air-to-surface missiles and were employed in the antishipping role.

 

In the early 1980s, the KNL Starfighters were withdrawn from service. At least 12 of the machines were transferred to Turkey in 1981. The last Norwegian Starfighters, the CF-104/CF-104Ds of No. 334 Squadron, were phased out of service during the winter of 1982-83. During their service with the KNL, only six of the 44 Starfighters were lost in accidents.

 

 

 

[Edited by Animal Mother (17 Nov 2004).]

[FormerBlue]

In spite of issues, I think the F-100D would also have been a valid choice. Probably more valid than the "missile with a man in it."

 

When we walked under the wings of the F-104, we were careful. Seeing how thin the wing was always reminded me of a knife.