Talk:Aeritalia F-104S Starfighter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial section copied from main article for reference

In the Italian Air Force (AMI, Aeronautica Militare Italiana), the F-104 was a mainstay from the 1960s until the end of the 20th century. Italy received a total of 105 F-104G, 24 TF-104G and 20 RF-104Gs, becoming operational in 1962. They equipped a total of nine groups (two reconnaissance, one training and the rest interceptor and fighter bombers), replacing ageing F-86s and RF-84s. Although superior to the aircraft it replaced in performance terms, the F-104 lacked a powerful radar, and its internal reconnaissance equipment (RF-104G) proved inferior to the RF-84F, which remained in service until 1972. During the first five years in Italian service, 24 aircraft were lost. As only 80-90 F-104s (of 149 acquired) were operational at best, it was decided to purchase new aircraft, this time of a new generation designed by Aeritalia in collaboration with Lockheed; the F-104S (see Equipment and armament). "G" stood for "Germany," the lead country for this version, while "S" denoted the improved "Sparrow" version.[28]

Two further improvement programs were carried out, resulting in the F-104ASA and F-104ASA-M, prior to the introduction of the new Eurofighter Typhoon. The F-104ASA (Aggiornamento Sistemi d'Arma) introduced a Fiar Setter radar, with some look-down capabilities and compatibility with the Selenia Aspide missile, starting in 1986.

Will trim this section in main article. LanceBarber 05:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

About the photograpic equipment of RF-104 vs RF-84F: in the monography written by P.Gianvanni, June 1998, Ed.Ai editions (Firenze/Florence), interview with Gen Da Vincenzo Camporini, here the datas about the stuff:

1-Photograpic format of RF-104G was Rolley 6x6, excellent quality for great magnifications, *but*, this was still far away from RF-84F: 24x28. The high level shots from RF-84s were excellents: six machines of very good quality. With RF-104Gs there was not such capabilities, and also the IR equipment was found unsatisfactory. THe only capability apprecied was the stability from low level high speed missions, for obvious reasons (High-loaded wings), and the inertial platform.

2-About the Orpheus pod: excellent machine, with excellent photograpic pods, and above all a IR scanner. But the conseguences for the fighter, because the dimensions and 700 kg weight, were quite heavy about speed and range.

3-RF-104G had a 780 lbs of fuel instead the Vulcan gun. So, it was clean and fast.

4-The weights used with RF-104s, despite the function of Recce, was the heavier (W. Orpheus) of all the F-104Gs, 27.000 lbs, 12,560 kg.

Now about the missions:

5-pilots flew with the help of Inertial Platform but the herror was about 3-4 miles and so the primitive LN-3 was used just as 'reference' and for the rest, there was the need to use cartograpic and experience to fly well in the target. The cruise speed with RF-104 was about 778 kmh with passages over the target at 960 kmh and 60 m.

6-The radar was not used in day missions, was useful in the night ones.

7-The range was greatly different between F-104G/Orpheus and RF-104Gs: the firsts were about 100 min. the second had missions longer. One example: take off from Villafranca, hi-lo-hi, Etna-Barcellona (Target), Villafranca: 153 minuts, over 2000 km.

8-For tecnical missions was excellent as range the RF-104, as equipment F-104G/Orpheus: for the sensors, the excact opposite, so it was not a perfect machine.

9-For pilots, the Orpheus combo was worse to fly, expecially at take off. But was better overall, because the F-104 cockpit was really cramped, and so, even F-104/Orpheus was difficult for pilot: imagine a machine capable to surpass 120 minuts instead of 100 as normally.

10-Orpheus: it had some problems for maintenance, not too great. It had (from forward to aft): a frontal photo-machine, oblique, a plannimetric/vertical machine, two obliquous machines for side shots, the IR scanner, control unit, water tank for cooling the electronics.

11-Self defence: there was the provisions for an ECM equipment, normally not installed. It was an ALQ-73, a 'misterious stuff' for the pilots. Lather it was used also a chaff/flare dispenser.

12-Bombs: there was a trial to do also bombings, but the task was too heavy even with the only task of recce. Forget the AA combat: only running from treaths, nothing else.--Stefanomencarelli 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: the correct name for article should be Aeritalia/Lochkeed F-104S. Or better, italian use of F-104s: after all RF and TF are not S.--Stefanomencarelli 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PS2: Napoleone Bragagnolo, chief-test pilot Aeritalia, still from this monography stated that he climbed to 15000 with a F-104S and went supersonic at mach 2. Took off from Tourin, landed near Rome: total 19,5 minuts or 1,5+ mach average. It had two ext tanks and still 1,300 l at landing, exactly the equivalent of those two tanks. It was enough to reach Palermo (but not at supersonic speed). I posted this info one time, but obviousely it was deleted. Strangely enough, it's difficult to accept that F-104s was capable of supersonic cruises. At 20.000 m the fuel consumption i heard by former pilots, was 90 kg/min at mach 2. Only very lightened machines were capable to reach this levels, obviousely.

Obviousely i still have to know why CF-104 is untauchable to me, even with Joe Baugher site as help. Someone should answer, and to the lack of info about career (except one could think that so few is enough) of CF-104s, so interesting but almost totally ignored by wikipedia.en, and not because my guilth. Who has deleted my contributions should take care to integrate that poor stuff, instead there is nothing done about.--Stefanomencarelli 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Talk:F-104 Starfighter discussion, this article began as F-104 Starfighter in Italian service, but we are in the process of changing it to cover just the F-104S series. That's why the "Under Construction" tag is still up. Aeritalia/Lockheed F-104S might be the more accurate name, or even Lockheed/Aeritalia F-104S, but they are a bit too long, so we went for simplicity. At least until my bribe arrives from Lockheed ;) - BillCJ 23:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, treat me gently as I'm new here! It might be worth mentioning that the 'S' version used the Dash 19 J-79 and has hydraulically actuated auxiliary intake doors. Another visible difference from the 'G' model is the two extra ventral fins added for increased yaw stability. Have not edited anything, cheers. Nimbus227 20:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:F-104S-Italy.jpg

Image:F-104S-Italy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Big mess with dates

Looking at variants chronology it seems there is a bit of confusion. For example, in the article it is written

upgraded from 1998 to ASA/M standard

while ->here<- the Italian Air Force official website states:

it:15.10.1997 Viene assegnato al 5° Stormo il velivolo F-104S ASA M

en:Oct 15th 1997 F-104S ASA M is delivered to 5th wing

Which are the most accurate dates for :

• first flight - wiki:1966 - AMI web site: Dec 30th 1968
• service start - wiki:1969 - AMI web site: 1969
• deliveries S variant start - wiki:1969
• deliveries S variant end - wiki:1976 maybe 1979 (?)
• ASA variant program start - wiki:1986
• last ASA deliveries - wiki:early 1990s
• last decommissioning - wiki:2004 - AMI web site:October 2004
• ASA M upgrading start - wiki:1998 - AMI web site (see above) 1997

? Is there around a reliable source for missing confirm dates? --EH101 22:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First flight - - Janes All the World's Aircraft 76-77 says December 1966 for the first LOCKHEED built example and 30 December 1968 for first Italiian aircraft (as does the Air International article - so both dates are sort of consistent, but probably need to be clarified.

Production completion, Jane's Civil and Military Upgrades 94-95 says March 1979, as does the Wings of Fame article. Nigel Ish 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's so. F-104s were made by Lochkeed and were based on F-104G. Just in 1968 flew the first italian one.--Stefanomencarelli 23:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New Edit

The following edit was recently added. It needs some work first before being added into the main body, Can you help?

---

Beginnings:

The F-104 program knew a second era with F-104G, quite improved compared to the early Starfighters. USAF had not interest about this plane, while Lockheed proposed new versions, even improved to F-104G. Two main differences were fielded: the new J79 GE-19 engine and the Sparrow III missiles. This new configuration was called Model CL-901. Next proposal were CL-958 with larger wings, CL-981 with retractile canard wings (behind the cockpit), CL-984 for strikes. An RF-104 prototype was modified and flew on september 1966 as CL-901.

The new engine had air intakes slightly larger and (internally) made in steel, that supported 175C° instead of 121, making possible to fly at 2,2 mach. Exhausts con/di. were also improved and different than 'G' models, being more complex and similar to the B-58 or F-4E [1]. Due to the higher temperatures reached by this new engine, there were aft fuselage elements made in titanium, and the air intakes were slightly larger. No orders were placed by USAF, and this project, also called 'super Starfighter' seemed to be destined to failure. But another country needed an improved Starfighter.

The requirement for a new all-weather aircraft was called 'AW-X' (All Weather-X aircraft) and many fighters were considered:F-4B/C, Dassault Mirage IIIC-1, BAe Lighting, F-100S among the others. The natural choice, for a Starfighter air force like AMI was, was the CL-980, a simplified version (with the same wings) of the projected new F-104S. On 26 january1966 AMI choose this new aircraft as her future fighter.

First F-104S was actually a modified 'G' and flew on 22 December 1966 (MM.6658), while a second, more similar to the final configuration, flew 28 February 1967. So there was never a 'real' prototype, born as XF-104S: there were only modified aircrafts and series machines. First real 'S' flew on 30 December 1968, it was MM.6701, a CB model. It's unclear how many CB were produced; perhaps 80 examples, but it was made rebuilt an F-104S both CB or CI, as needed. Quickly the firsts series models were delivered to operational units, already the fullowing year.[3]

Overall, the differences between F-104G an S were:

• J-79 GE-19 engine, that was so powerful that cannot be used even at full military power with the aircraft stopped, because brakes were unable to hold the aircraft.
• Radar was partially solid-state, much more reliable than the old on 'G', and it was called NASARR R-21G-H. CWI illuminator for Sparrows (exactly the same used on F-4)in the place of Vulcan gun, new horizontal display for radar
• Titanium elements, bigger air intakes, ventral fins, more hardpoints and some other minor changes.

Production was made on five block of 40-50 examples each: MM were: 6701-6850, 6869-6881, 6886-87, 6890, 6907-6946. This not included F-104Gs used as prototype and 40 produced for THK, Turkish air Force.

Production started in 1968 and ended on march 1979. Fiat/Aeritalia was involved in the production of all the 246 Starfighters, and this included forty ordered in 1974 by THK. Aeritalia was the main contractor, but also Aermacchi joned the production, while FIAR electronics made all NASARR radars after the first 15 delivered directly by USA. Next to this experience, FIAR will been one of the best producer in the field of small fighter radars.

In the meanwhile, Selenia produced 1000 AIM-7E NATO Sparrows for several users, and this experiences led to another important developement, the new Aspide missile.

F-104S produced for THK were almost equals to the italian Starfighters, but with a different IFF and radio set. They were delivered together with 200 Selenia Sparrows, but very seldom used them.

Noticeable that also USAF F-104As were partially upgraded to 'S' standards. Those in service in 319 FIS, based at Homestead, had J-79 GE-19 engine, and being still a relatively light machines, this allowed them the best performances of all F-104s (except NF-104 with rockets). They served until 1969.

As for engine, at one point it was evaluated even R.R. Spey, repeating the experience with UK F-4s. But even if this solution granted less fuel consumption and efficiency at low altitude, it called for a re-engeneering of the machine, much costly, and it was not the optimal for interceptor roles. Since AMI had economic problems it was not seriously considered, also because GE-19 granted already 13% more thrust and 11% less fuel consumption (relative to the thrust, not in absolute terms) than the older J-79s.--Stefanomencarelli 10:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW Bzuk 01:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

---

Service:

F-104S not always was capable of outstanding performances. Bragagnolo spoke about the experiences at Edward AFB, 760 m on sea level and 40C° temperature. The take-off with a clean F-104S, only at military power, took 3,6 km, four times the usual for a normal take-off with a normal equipped machine, and this was coupled with an almost non-existent acceleration for other 7-8 km once in the air. The take off with a full loaded aircraft (12,8 t) was performed near the maximum speed allowed by wheels: 440 km/h/238 knots, and often even more, damaging the wheels.

---

Among the missions of F-104s there was one against US Navy. In that time -1985 there was the Achille Lauro crisis, with diplomatic issues among Italy and USA. F-104S even faced F-14 during missions over Mediterranean Sea.

---

Operational units were:

9 Gruppo: it had the first F-104G on 13 march 1963 (the first in AMI). On september it had 16 machines and the operational status was obtained the next year. The first F-104S CI was delivered on 22 febraury1970 and 10 may 1971. Based at Cesare Baccarini airfield, Grosseto, 4 Aerobrigata, it was worthy also as training unit. Originally based on 95,96,97,98 squadriglie.

10 Gruppo: It had F-104Gs and RF-104G since 1964. After some changes, it was based at Grazzanise with F-104S CI from 1972, organized on 84,85,86, 91 Squadriglia

12 Gruppo. Based at Goia del Colle (Bari) it missed F-104G but it was equipped with S from 1 december 1971. Sqn. 74,79, 89, 90, equipped with F-104S CI and improvements until 1996, when received Tornado ADVs.

18 Gruppo: Verona-Villafranca, had from 1974 F-104G and RF-104G. From 1977 it had only F-104G Orpheus. Disbanded 1 november 1977, it was rebuilt 1 march 1984 with a completely new task, being the only dual role Gruppo of the whole AMI. It received F-104S CB, and was based in the southern airbase of all italian F-104s, Trapani Birgi. Often encountered Lybian fighters over Mediterranean Sea. It had F-104 ASA with Aspides only from 1996 (ex- 53 Wing machines)

20 Gruppo: This was constitued on 15 february 1965 at Corrado Beccarini airfield at Grosseto as trainig unit with TF-104G and (until 1994) F-104G.

21 Gruppo: it had F-104G since 1964 and from 1 december 1971, F-104S/CI. On 26 december 1996 it phased out these machines and had only Tornado ADVs. It was based at Novara-Cameri

22 Gruppo: Treviso-Istrana, it was equipped with F-104S already in 1969. It had CI machines, and four squadriglie: 352, 353, 354, 355.

23 Gruppo: Rimini-Miramare, after based on Cervia airbase. It had F-86K but from march 1973 had started to use F-104S CI

28 Gruppo: Verona-Villafranca, it had RF-104s from February 1970: they were sobstitued in 1992-93 by AMX

102 Gruppo: Rimini-Miramare (initially Grosseto) air base. It had since 1964 F-104G nuclear strike, 8 november1973 saw the total replacement with F-104S CB. August 1993 saw the replacement with Tornado IDS

154 Gruppo: 'Red Devils'. They had F-104G from 1963 to 1982 with Tornado IDS

155 Gruppo: On spring 1972 had F-104S/CB on Piacenza-San Damiano air base. From 1990 was equipped with Tornados.

156 Gruppo: Gioia del Colle airbase, it leaved F-84F already in spring 1970 to operate with F-104S/CB and was mainly used for naval attacks until 1984, when arrived Tornados.

311: Experimental group. it had always some F-104s of all models to test them.

---

One modific less costly was the low-visibility camouflage. F-104s started with air-superiority colours, but after that they began differently used and painted.

F-104Gs were painted with 'dark sea grey' (initially it was still a light grey) and 'dark green' for the superior parts, in a scheme very similar to those used during WWII by RAF. Inferior surfaces were light grey or white. Italian flag was represented by three big concentric circles, red, white and green, over aft fuselage and wings. Distinctive numbers (about wing and aircraft) were on the forward flanks, bigs as well. This compromised the aircraft because that distinctives made it quite easy to spot. In '90s there added smaller numbers and flags, often with darkened colours. The nose, white with the upper part black, remained the same. After an experimental aircraft with light blue scheme, the standard one was a light grey, uniform on all the surface (except the upper nose, still black). The long smoke trailers of J79, that heavily compromised the small dimensions of this fighter, were somewhat reduced. All this gave to F-104 some interesting capabilities to hit and run unobserved. It was quite small and difficult to sight.

The air exercises displayed that when some other aircrafts needed A/B, F-104s could fly still on military power. In all the aspects-visual, IR and even radar- it was quite 'stealth' and this, coupled with speed and acceleration made it a dangerous enemy, especially when it received AIM-9Ls. Escaping at high speed with climbs or low-level rides (thanks to the heavy wing load) was a successful tactic. The first official test was made against an Harrier,and it was a draw. After, there were airbattles, especially at Decimomannu, between F-104s and almost all the other NATO fighters. One of the first was against RN Sea Harrier, more agile but slower. This lead a draw, and Sparrows proofs not really useful.

The real problem was the on board avionic, that forced it to fly only with ground radar control, and without any datalink. It could strike hard, but also been tracked and shot down if someting went wrong.

Radar was vulnerable to ECM and too short ranged, RWR did not existed. Equipping F-104ASA with a APG-68/Grifo radar, an Elettronica ECM system and Aspide Mk 2 or AMRAAM could had been possible (Italy choose the radarized version of AV-8B, that displayed a complete set of new avionics in a small airframe) and could resulted in a very improved fighter, but the costs were too high to do this, and so only marginal improvements were made. In the meanwhile, AMXs too were hampered because they received only a ELTA EL-2001 rangefinder radar, when they could have a light multimode system, as partially happened with brasilian version (Scipio radar unit).

--Stefanomencarelli 11:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

References

New information on unit use

Waaaaay too much detail for the article. It can exist however as a sub-article. FWIW Bzuk 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

No thanks. It was already done with split F-104S to Aeritalia F-104S. This should be an enciclopedy, not a matrioska.--Stefanomencarelli 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding this amount of information will greatly alter the article. The unit use is peripheral to the design and history of the type. FWIW the unit section is 20 kb while the original article length is 72 kb. Bzuk 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

It may be worthwhile trimming it down to a list (perhaps with models and dates) (which is the level of detail that aircraft articles tend to have on wikipedia), including similar data for other operators of the F-104 and forming another sub-article of the main F-104 article(with of course a link here as well.Nigel Ish 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nigel and Stefano, you may be right- the list can be brought down to manageable size and would probably work with some notable actions identified and the basic unit name and dates in service. FWIW Bzuk 18:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

I've made a start at User:Nigel Ish/sandbox2Nigel Ish 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the operators list Nigel, is that for the main F-104 article? I can help with the Norwegian and Spanish units and possibly the USAF but there were quite a lot! For Germany another unit I can think of is WS 10 or Waffenschule 10.CheersNimbus227 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, , it is intended to be a sub article for the main F-104 article. Feel free to worl on in. Nigel Ish 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will when I have timeNimbus227 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions for this article

I can see that there has been some lively discussion in here, I have been researching the F-104 for just over thirty years and I would like to help, back in a minuteNimbus227 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on the article para by para and suggest ways to improve the article if I may.

First para - Replace United States with Lockheed, remove references to the G and TF model apart from mentioning that it is a development of the G model.

Add that it was operated by the Turkish Air Force as well as the AMI.

Infobox - Has CF-104 as a variant which is incorrect, ASA and ASA-M are variants. Nimbus227 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While ASA and ASA-M are variants, they don't have their own article (yet!!)Nigel Ish 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Design and development - Intakes not steel, this would be the compressor front frame and Inlet Guide Vanes (IGV)

Super Starfighter was a Lockheed term used to sell the F-104G.

No version of the 104 can be held on the brakes with military power, it is normal practise to apply full dry power then afterburner after brake release and monitor the engine instruments in the early part of the take off rollNimbus227 20:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Include the distance between Rome and Turin to quantify the achievement.

Criticism of the short ranged radar is opinion and unreferenced.

It says the S was designed with the gun removed but several lines down says the FB version has a gun.

CI and CB are Italian abbreviations not widely known.Nimbus227 21:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone knows what these abbreviations stand for then adding this would help.Nigel Ish 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Operational history - many references to the G version and its reconnaissance system not relevant to the S.

Statistics on losses should only relate to the S.

Comment on the avionics appears negative rather than factual.

Improvement programme - mainly good, the missiles can be wiki linked. Are not all interceptors vectored by ground control to their targets?

What is ECO version? More reference to TF'sNimbus227 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Variants - F-104S - Information from earlier text and the later specifications is repeated. 245 built (two modified F-104G prototypes would not be counted under S production)

What is the difference between range and ferry range?

ASA - 147 built should read modified from existing aircraft.

ASA/M - Why the reference to the TF again? This is a separate type.

Operators - AMI? Turkish Air Force? Both can be wiki linked.

References - There are many reputable books that are not mentioned here.

External links - CF-104? Perhaps this was copied across.

Related development - maybe another typo neither of these is a development of the F-104S.Nimbus227 21:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I have been critical here I must acknowledge the work that has gone before. I am willing to help with editing this article as long as it is not instantly overwritten and everybody works together to state known facts and keeps it simple, the last part can be achieved by linking to other internal articles on the engine, missiles, avionics etc.

The Starfighter is a fascinating aircraft and subject to many myths and uneducated poor publicity, here is a chance to put things straight.

Thanks for listening! CheersNimbus227 21:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Criticism of the short ranged radar is opinion and unreferenced.

The radar short-range is what i read in *all* the source i have. So it's not a 'unreferenced'. Just as example, Col Ripamonti in JP-4 Special about F-104 said about F-104ASA: this lack of autonomy depends by the the scarce radar capability..the launch of a missile SARH is always difficult, at major reason if there is a low radar capability like we have...when we look to another fighter, it's likely that he had seen us already from 60 km away..the range of Aspide missile (40 km) is not utilizable with the onboard radar... (Special RID about The air defence),...When you have a lock on at 15 km it's a great day.. and so on.

About the max scale of radar: don't take seriously 100 km sometimes called for. At that distance you can see just the Moon. Small antenna, small power, old tecnology. No serious to expect better. The former F-104G pilots stated that F-104G, as example was barely on pair with F-86K. This had 80 km max range, but to see something you must close at 15-16 even without ECMs. And F-86K had bigger antenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanomencarelli (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

About the F-104G statistics and so on: my former task should been to describe the use in Italy of Starfighter. Not necessarly only S variant. This thing was lather jikjaked to only 'S' version.

About this article, i fail to understand why it is too long. My opinion that 25 k are not 'too long' and IF some stuff should be deleted (Why?) then F-104G should send to other articles, leaving here the stuff about F-104S.

Third: There are not statistics available to me about the only F-104S models as accident rate.

Fourth: i cannot understand why a wiki article *must* been just a 'resume' with datasheets. There are xxxxxxx articles longer than this.--Stefanomencarelli 10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding this amount of information will greatly alter the article. The unit use is peripheral to the design and history of the type. FWIW the unit section is 20 kb while the original article length is 72 kb. Bzuk 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC).

So what? This was considered a 'new' aircraft, right? And i pushed to a voice that was 'Starfighter in AMI service' that could solve many problems. However, with 100 kb dedicated to B-17 (even too few) i am not herassed by 20 dedicated to F-104S. And above all, i don't think that this will lead Wikipedia to bankrupt. If i must pay money to avoid this, well i am even available to subscrive a donation. What i must pay to hold a 20kb article?

Excuse me, but these continuos critics for every stuff i post are a bit tiring. POV, Copyviol, too long articles, too bad written, too this, too that..really exiting.--Stefanomencarelli 10:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of acknowledging that some of observations I made about the text are true you criticised one comment I made about the short ranged radar. While I recognise that you write fairly good english and I do not speak Italian your text does have grammar and spelling errors even if the information is true, someone will then at the least need to correct your text to remove these errors. Please take this as an observation and not a criticism.

• No, no criticism at all. It's only a thing that led me to fall from mushrooms. I heard only complaints to this radar in a countless series of articles and so, or all journalists are plotting or effectively F-104s radar..sucks.

Perhaps the answer to your apparent unhappiness is to start your own article 'Starfighter in AMI service' which would leave the F-104S article to concentrate on that aircraft alone.

• Frankly speaking? yes

The length of the article is probably not as important as how easy it is to read, which at the moment it is not. Nimbus227 11:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

We try to do better, so. I am a notorious maniac of details and so i am concentred to 'substance' rather than 'form' (nobody is good for everything, no time is endless).

As grammar, i have recently discovered a function in the last Word program that marks the grammar herrors. The problem is that i must transfer with floppy disk all the stuff to the other computer with the upgraded Word, then report it in my main PC and so write it. A bit complex, i use only 1997-99 computers (excellently reliables, not like the stuff that is selled today, a thing confirmed even by my computer tecnician) and i have only 56 kb connection that run at 3-4kb/sec. in truth. So you could better understand how many difficults i have to fullow this project, and using all the tools. Even wikilinks are a problem for me. --Stefanomencarelli 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS-this lead also to my more hungry complaint about wiki.en: the photos made with thumb dimensions, that means that you can barely reconnaise what is shown. The only way is to click to image and then wait for a minute to see the stuff. By Zeus, i cannot understand why there is simply a 'intermediate' system with 200-500px to load the webpage. In Wiki.it nobody, lukily, thinks that the only way is to make thumb photos. For an aviation, navy or art fan, mind you, what kind of pleasure or enjoy or even raw information (read: details) can be done with a inch-size photo? Even the printable version has these mini-photos. But if one try to make them bigger someone arrives and reduced to 'thumb'. So you imagine this, a ms. Pacman, a Phantom, Gioconda are pratically all the same size. Is it difficult to do it better, with a bit of respect to the reader? In wiki.it atleast yes, here not and still i fail to understand why.--Stefanomencarelli 12:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if the photos were full size instead of thumbnail the pages would load even slower! You would notice a world of difference to speed with Broadband as we call it. Sounds like your software and connection speed is making life hard for you.

I could not help noticing that you expressed an opinion on computer reliability just now, forgive me. I could also describe myself as a 'maniac of details', the trick is being able to summarise it all otherwise the message is lost. Cheers Nimbus227 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not 'full size'. 200-500 pixel is more than enough for all purpuses. Not to make one thing bad just as solution for another bad either. I made a 'personal version' [[1]] with all the stuff that to the opinion of other wikipedians have an hard life in this page. There all just 24 kb, not so great. I would add a link to the main page, so if someone is interested to have a more complete page (Ie with squadrons and so on) he will been accomplished.--Stefanomencarelli 14:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Like this:

Honestly, particulars can be a lot better apreciated with a decent size. If not, it worth almost nothing to put such images. All the web do this, but not the most part of wikipedias. It's absurd, to say the least. If you try to print these small photos yu'll need a very good printer to see actually something. --Stefanomencarelli 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There is a reason for not having large images, they take up space, make it harder to download the article and unless you are a graphic artist, trying to establish a "decent size" is entirely subjective. As a former graphic and technical artist, I worked within parameters established by the graphics editor and I still do. Those who want to see a larger image, merely have to "click" on the image and a separate window will take the viewer to the image size that was established by the editor who submitted the photograph. I typically upload a high resolution image but if it was anything other than a "thumb" size in an article, the images would quickly overload the article. If you check out any of the WP:Aviation Project pages, you will see the same basic layout and use of image sizes. FWIW, the image you are using as an example, is one that I uploaded and I feel that the "thumb" size works extremely well with this image. Bzuk 00:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC).

---

1- The fact that is 'subjective' establish a 'decent size' NOT means that it's impossible to allow someone to establish it. I have no interest to click an image to see it better, 'because' wikipedians are 'not capable objectively' to establish if a ms.Pacman needs more magnification than a Spitfire, Cappella Sistina, Iowa battleship. It's cleary absurd to make such statement, seen that a photo must be enough big to allow to see atleast some particulars, i said 'particulars' not the mere shape.

2-F-104 is simple as aircraft, you can always try with a ship like

How many guns it has? How many particulars you see?

Perhaps here there are more particular to see? More fair to see? The writings in the photo are readable? Well, but in Iowa page there is thumb version

and then tell me if they are the same thing.

Try to see the cockpit instrumentation

how hell you can see how instruments are there? I cannot recon almost none

or with

A bit better reconnissable, or i mistake something??

2This not mean that i must have 10/10 to see your dumb little image. And this not mean that i must click and wait xxx seconds to see the stuff, expecially with 56k, because someone is not pleased to post it with decent magnification....

3-Moreover, there is another issue: an article must be also a bit 'fair' and this is not allowed with this kind of stupid thumb photos. Wonder that you are a graphic.

4-There is another question, the suspect that 'THUMB IMAGES ARE NEEDED TO FIT ALL WIKIPEDIA IN A DVD SELLED' as happens with wiki.it as example (Wiki.it is far smaller than Wiki.en, could afford bigger fotos). If it's so, then not advocate any excuse.

Stefanomencarelli 20:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that there is an option in the my preferences tab at the top of the page to change the size of thumbs to a size that is suitable for you, and if you really want to see the picture full resolution, then you can click on the pictureHard coding picture size will over-ride other peoples preferences as how large they want to view thumbs.Bear in mind that not everyone is viewing the page on the same sized/resolution screen as you, and some will be viewing pages with very slow download speeds, so large pictures will be an irritant or inconvienience to some.Nigel Ish 21:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Comment accidently deleted: FWIW Bzuk 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC).

Stephano, if you want the pics bigger, all you have to do is set the thumb size bigger on your preferences. Go to the "my preferences" link at the top of the screen, then click on the "files" tab. In there is a box where you can set the size you want to view thumbs at. If you add thumb sizing, then you are preventing everyone else from deciding what size they want to see things at. Why should you be telling me what size I should view things at? Should I not have the choice to have the images at a size that fits best my monitor? By sizing thumbs, you force your view on everyone else, which just isn't a very nice thing to do. AKRadecki^Speaketh 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Pattern-aircraft

After the prototype (converted from a RF-104G) I have a source that says Lockheed-built two pattern aircraft are these the same as MM6658 and MM6660 already mentioned in the article (although not atributed to Lockheed) or two different aircraft? MilborneOne (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Both those MM numbers were Fiat built F-104Gs, they were modified by contract in the US rather than built. MM6660 was the armament test bed. Initial testing prior to the contract was carried out on a different F-104 (US Ser No 61-2624) which is probably the RF-104G you mention. Not sure what happened to these three aircraft (I can trace them though) and they must have been hybrids as the 'S' was structurally different (mainly intakes). Often wondered about that myself, can look it up for you if you like. Production F-104S aircraft start at MM6701. I must get back to this article but it is a holy mess. Cheers Nimbus227 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aeritalia F-104S Starfighter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829223340/http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it:80/SitoAM/Default.asp?idsez=6&idarg=8&idente=122 to http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/SitoAM/Default.asp?idsez=6&idarg=8&idente=122

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)