Don Harstad wrote:

Just got a new magazine today, and there a fine article about the F-104 in
Viet Nam. I do have a question: If they needed to carry both drop tanks
and Sidewinders, did they prefer the Sidewinders be on the wingtip rails?

Yes, although the F-104C could also carry AIM-9s on the C/L catamaran
launcher. However, according to an F-104 aficionado friend who knows and has
interviewed a fair number of former SEA Zipper types (including the late Tom
Delashaw, killed in a post-takeoff crash in a private Hunter last year), they
didn't like to carry the catamaran launcher, considering it too draggy.
Carrying drop tanks on the wing pylons is the draggiest position (the drag of a
tip tank was the same as a tip AIM-9 and launcher), but at least one pilot he
talked to said that if he ever saw a MiG he had a reasonable chance at, not
only were the tanks going to be jettisoned but the pylons as well. He figured
if he got a MiG no one would care, and if he didn't he'd be so depressed that
any chewing out he might get for punching the pylons would be unimportant. For
some reason the USAF decided not to place replacement orders for the 205 gallon
wing drop tank with integral pylon after they used up their stock, leaving them
stuck with the 195 gallon tanks with separate pylon.

For long-range/endurance missions that required all four tanks, they planned to
go without AIM-9s, considering the M61 the primary armament and the extra drag
of the C/L launcher and AIM-9s not being worth the trouble; although I haven't
calculated it out it may be that the extra drag of the C/L launcher and
missiles cancels out the extra fuel provided by carrying four tanks, so you
might as well just go with two tanks and tip winders. It's not like a clean
wing Zipper had any trouble running down a MiG from behind, given sufficient
fuel.


If so, then were the tanks carried under-wing?

Yes.

The only photo they have
that shows one armed with AIM-9's shows only the missiles on the tip rails,
and no underwing tanks. I assume that configuration would be for local air
defense only, but we all know how dangerous assumptions can be.

Any help is appreciated.

One thing you'll see is that most photos of European F-104Gs tend to carry tip
tanks and AIM-9s on the C/L. The reason for this is the peacetime NATO versus
wartime Vietnam environment. Virtually any NATO interception/ID sortie
wouldn't involve jettisoning tanks, so the lowest drag AIM-9 configuration with
tanks retained was to carry tip tanks and C/L winders. In SEA it was assumed
they might punch the tanks on any mission, so they carried winders on the tips
and underwing tanks.

Here's the relevant stores drag counts from the -1:

Wingtip mounted:

Fuel tank [170 gal.], incl. 1,105 lb. fuel: 5.0 counts.

AIM-9B launcher, 2.0 counts.

AIM-9B, 3.0 counts.


Wing pylon mounted:

Pylon, tank or dart pod, 3.0 counts.

Fuel tank [195gal.], incl. 1,267 lb. fuel, 14.5 counts.


Fuselage mounted:

AIM-9B [dual] launcher and adaptor, 12.0 counts.

AIM-9B, 5.0 counts.

So, carrying pylon tanks and tip missiles, the drag totals (pylons, 2 x 3.0) +
(tanks, 2 x 14.5) + (tip launchers, 2 x 2.0) + (tip AIM-9Bs, 2 x 3.0) = 45.0.
Dumping the tanks drops the drag to 16.0 counts, getting rid of the pylons as
well makes it only 10.0 counts.

In typical NATO peacetime configuration carrying tip tanks and C/L winders, the
drag total is 32.0: (tanks, 2 x 5.0) + (dual C/L launcher, 1 x 12.0) + (C/L
AIM-9Bs, 2 x 5.0) = 32.0, but it's assumed that the tanks are retained except
in emergency. If they're jettisoned, then the a/c still has a total drag of
22.0 counts, higher than the above configuration.

For bombing missions they'd normally carry tip tanks plus two M117 750 lbers
(19.5 counts each) on wing pylons. Later, F-104Gs sometimes carried two bombs
on TERs or VERs on the wing and/or C/L positions - AFAIK the F-104Cs never did
this, but my info is lacking on this point to state it as fact. They could
also carry rocket pods and napalm and probably did so, but I don't know.

HTH,

Guy