F104 - fundamentally flawed
I’ve been browsing Pprune for a couple of years, but this is my first post.
I’ve a long-time interest in all things military, but no military connections.
I’m a journalist by profession, but I’ve worked in PR for many years, so I possibly represent one evolutionary notch up from pondlife.
I’d like your help as I’m now getting my ass into gear and trying to write a book I’ve been tinkering with for a good while.
It’s basically about the dichotomy represented by some iconic post-war military bits of hardware that have been hugely successful despite being utterly crap.
I’m currently working on a chapter about the good old Starfighter, and I’d love any of your reminiscences. I know this site is populated mainly by RAF types, but it must have been impossible to have served in the 60s, 70s and 80s without coming across the 104 on a frequent basis. If you’ve actually flown the thing, either on exchange or serving with the RCAF or an another user, so much the better.
I’m not trying to write anything at all technically authoritative – it’s by a layman for a layman. I want the tone to be light, although I appreciate humour doesn’t quite sit easily when the subject is an airplane that killed so many of the people who flew it. I also know many of you will think there are much better examples of soaraway crapness (I’m thinking about the Harrier next). You may also think the F104 was a marvel of the age.
I also realise that its reputation may have been partly maligned by the corruption that is such a rich part of the F104 tale.
To be honest I don’t care – any contributions gratefully received.