Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief

WikiProject Military history

(Rated GA-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has failed an A-Class review. This article has been selected for use on the United States Air Force Portal. Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Military science and technology task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Designed for hi-lo-hi

The article text claims the Thud was designed for the hi-lo-hi mission, to penetrate Soviet defences at low level. I find this very difficult to believe. The idea of low-level penetration did not become a design criterion until the late 1950s and especially after the Powers shoot-down. The fact that TFX was started specifically to replace the Thud with an aircraft designed to penetrate at low altitudes is strong evidence of this. It seems much more likely that the lo portion was simply because tactical aircraft almost always deliver their weapons at low altitudes, because that's their mission. Can someone with access to the reference check to see if this is what it actually claims? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall that the F-105 was developed to fly UNDER the enemy's radar to deliver NUCLEAR weapons, hence the lo level. It was because of the RADAR avoidance that it was lo level. I also seem to recall that the pilots could do "toss bombing". There's also something called "Over the Shoulder" toss bombing, which is a crazy bomb delivery manouver. Republic started the F-105 venture on its own as a speculation aircraft, under the design team of Alexander Kartveli in Farmingdale, New York, in 1951. Hope this helps and gives you some leads to work on. Also, as an interesting side note, the F-105 silver aircraft were not bare-skinned aluminum, that was actually aluminum lacquer paint that was applied to help prevent corrosion and leaks! There's about a hundred F-105's on static display around the world, none flying that I know of. The F-105 pilots carried "barf bags" in case they threw up during in-flight refueling because the jet fuel fumes would enter the cockpit. The TFX F-111 had Terrain Following Radar (TFR) that could be set at different altitude increments by a rotating switch, as low as 200 feet above the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.231.183 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't cite any references right off, but it was during my F-105 training by a Republic Tech Rep in 1968 that I first learned about many of the unique design features of the 105. According to him, the elevators were placed below the flight plane of the main wings specifically because that enhanced the low-altitude stability and speed of the aircraft. And yes, the original design concept was that in a nuclear conflict the aircraft would fly at low altitude toward it's target. At a certain point before reaching it's target, the aircraft would open it's bomb bay doors, "pop up" in a sweeping arc and toss it's nuclear bomb toward the target. The aircraft would continue to arc on over backwards into a descending angle and accelerate as fast as it could away from the target. Meanwhile, the bomb would arc over toward the target and explode at a pre-programmed point in midair on it's downward fall. Since the aircraft would likely still be within proximity of the bomb when it detonated, the cockpit was equipped with black "flash" curtains that the pilot could pull forward to shield himself from radiant heat effects of the blast.

Also, in regards to low-altitude speed, although it had a higher top speed--I've heard from more than one F-4 pilot that they simply could not keep up with an F-105 when exiting North Vietnam at relatively low altitudes. Perhaps one or more of them could chime in here to confirm. Biscuiteater57 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thunderstreak compared to Thunderflash

Just a minor correction: under "Development" heading the Wiki article states in the first line that the F-105 was developed to replace the Thunderflash, however the Thunderflash was the recon version (RF-84F) of the F-84F Thunderstreak. The F-105 was not developed as a recon plane, so "Thunderstreak" would be the correct name to be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.231.183 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Thunderflash however has the signature wing-root intakes that were carried over to the F-105, unlike the open-nose normal variants .Bachcell (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

563rd TFS Flying Tigers

The 563rd TFS, flying F-105's went into action in Vietnam in 1965. Out of that 5 month tour, they lost 10 of the Squadron's 18 airplanes. In 1965, the 563rd TFS was the most experienced squadron in the U.S. Air Force. They flew 1,508 sorties over Vietnam and environs. They engaged in the first aerial destruction of a SAM site. A plane from the 561st TFS (again, F-105's) was the last F-105 shot down in the Vietnam War, as noted. The 562nd TFS completed the wing, which was the 23rd Wing, the famous "Flying Tigers", which is displayed on their Wing patch. The first shoot-down of an F-105D on a combat mission was on Aug. 14, 1964, this plane was from the 36th Squadron out of Thailand. I think it was with the 6441st Wing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.100.247 (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this commentary be over at 563d Flying Training Squadron ? or do you have a comment on the article? MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the 563rd TFS received two Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards with "V" for Valor Device for its 5 month tour of Vietnam in 1965. It's a rare decoration, restricted to wartime only and the 563rd was awarded two. It was the beginning of the war in earnest for the U.S. military. This was the "hot build-up". The 563rd had a Rapid Reaction Global Combat Commitment. The F-105 was a rugged airplane, the pilots liked it because it didn't carry fuel in the wings, which meant the F-105 offered a very slim profile to shoot-down because it could take hits in the wings without sustaining fuel loss. The F-105 pulled a tremendous number of missions over Vietnam, that's why there were so many shot down. The F-105 was the only U.S. plane to be withdrawn from service due to combat losses. Don't know where this info would fit in best, I'll leave that to Wiki editors. 63.192.100.247 (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Toss Bombing

In regards to the second to last paragraph in "Vietnam War" section, F-105 pilots knew all about Toss Bombing. That's where you launch your bomb like an artillery shell, with your jet plane being the cannon. An artillery shell going Mach I is very fast, and could go a long ways. The F-105 could do Mach II at altitude. The F-105's were designed for nuclear delivery, which would involve toss bombing. There's also a bomb delivery system called "Over the Shoulder" toss bombing, which involves doing a loop. 63.192.100.247 (talk) 01:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"affectionately called"

Dear BilCat, I see that you removed my comment that the F-105 "...was affectionately called the 'Thud' by it crews..." and your note was "Removed peacockish claim". I'm curious about the basis of your decision. Having worked on Thuds and with their aircrews for many years, I can personally vouch for this statement (for what that's worth). Also, I was a little surprised at the negative tone of much of the article, especially in contrast to the article that I read about the F-4, which had numerous "peacockish" comments in my opinion. (I also worked on RF-4s for several years.) Both were very good aircraft, each with it's own features--and shortcomings.

Out of curiosity, I took a quick look at your page. I like your sense of humor--and was extremely impressed by your many accolades. I hope you are feeling better soon! Biscuiteater57 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording like that is not really encyclopedic. Peacockish refers to WP:PEACOCK (Words that may introduce bias). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I worked on Thuds--we'd call them "nickels" too (for the five in F-105). We'd call C-130's "Herky Pigs". If a C-130 needed fixing, we'd put both hands on the radome, bow our heads and intone "Herky Pig, Big and fat, Tell me where your trouble's at". We called the demo team Thunderbirds the "Thunderchickens". I tnink "affectionately" is appropriate. When you go through a war together and your life depends on that airplane, you develop a relationship with it. I suppose an article on the psychological relation between a crew and its airplane might be interesting. Crews named their planes, after all. And people love flying. 67.121.225.17 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No accidents in first operational year

While the statement that the F-105 experienced no accidents in its first operational year, which I assume refers to the 28 May 1958 deployment with the 355th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, may be technically true, I feel that it is misleading. The first Thunderchief airframe loss came on 2 May 1958 when F-105B-1-RE, 54-0101, the second B-model, of the Air Proving Ground Command, at Eglin, suffered an engine explosion and fire during training mission, crashing on the range near Wright, Florida, pilot ejecting. Furthermore, a 355th-assigned F-105B-15-RE Thunderchief, 57-5799, exploded on start up on the parking ramp during a cartridge start on 29 August 1959, pilot surviving. Admittedly the second incident falls just outside the one year mark, but the loss on 2 May 1958 invalidates the claim that the "Thud" was accident-free for its first year of service, in my opinion. Mark Sublette (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Thud had a lot of problems during its development. It was a new aircraft. Perhaps "fatal crashes" might be a better phrase than "accident"--an accident could be anything. 67.121.225.17 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not needed. An aviation accident has a specific meaning. See Aviation accidents and incidents. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The relevant sentence here

Nevertheless, the Thunderchief completed its first year in operational service without a major accident; the first USAF aircraft to do so.{{citation needed}}

was removed as being unreferenced. Just saying it completed its first year in service with a major accident is OK, with a reference. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tags that need addressing

Hello there. I recently analysed this article, checking over to see if it met today's expectations for GA-class articles. I've found some significant flaws that probably wouldn't be tolerated at this level of quality; citations to books without page numbers make things very difficult and inconvinent for readers and editors alike. There are entire paragraphs without a single citation and several low quality citation publishers being used that shouldn't be the case at GA-level. Basically, I've punched up several tags into the article for fixes, this can be addressed at anybody's leisure. After a few months, I'll check back in, see how things are going. As an FYI, in the long-run, if there was no improvement, I would consider running the article through GA Re-assessment. Kyteto (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like 4-5 cite needed tags and 4 page number needed tags left now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Thud" nickname

I wonder if the nickname has any relation to the name of Chief Thunderthud of Howdy Doody fame? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's the sound of an F-105 impacting. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

F-105 is the heaviest single engine aircraft ever produced

I added this information to the article, but it has been removed. Why? It is the heaviest single engine aircraft of them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip.vidinovski (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Added to lede, so statement doesn't stand alone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

While it may seem like a statement of the bleeding obvious - and certainly I cannot think of a heavier single engined aircraft that actually flew, has anyone got a reference stating that the F-105 is the heaviest single engined aircraft ever. Otherwise the statement is subject to challenge and removal.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I cited the USAF fact sheet, it appears as a statement in a gazillion electronic sites, but thought that the USAF fact sheet showing weight might be sufficient, however, a better cite may be needed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

The actual weight of the aircraft isn't a problem its proving that nothing else is heavier without WP:OR. Especially as according to the wiki article the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II weighs in at 70,000 lb (or at least 60,000 lb according to most of the other sources that I've been able to check).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said, a better cite may be needed, perhaps the proviso is that the F-105 was the largest aircraft in "combat," that eliminates the F-35 for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Found it; an exact, word-for-word quote in Francis Crosby's Fighter Aircraft. London: Lorenz Books, 2002. ISBN 0-7548-0990-0. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

John Boyd in Vietnam?

I just deleted a reference to John Boyd piloting an F-105 in aerial combat in 1965. Boyd's biography by Robert Coram makes it clear that the only missions he flew in Vietnam were several years later when he was assigned to a support base in Thailand. Boyd's lack of actual dog fighting experience (only limited missions as a wingman late in Korea) was one of the oddities of his career. The Harry Hilaker reference cited here is not written clearly and may have been misunderstood. The manuever used by the surviving pilot from that engagement as using would not have been new to Boyd - it was a fairly typical move for the aerial combat manual he wrote at Nellis a decade earlier. Robert Bin Peters (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest we leave it in for now, and gather additional information on this incident before ruling it out; Hilaker isn't exactly a bad source for information, I would want to be absolutely sure that he couldn't have been in that situation before questioning the word of a man who knew him well and said he was there. Kyteto (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thunderbirds

The F-105B was used briefly for the Air Force's demonstration team. One of them did a pitch-up for landing and snapped in two, and the demo F-105 idea was scrapped. Did anyone ever figure out why a fighter jet just snapped in two coming in for a landing? --A plane like that would not survive in combat. It must have been a pre-existing condition (I heard the plane had been in a prior air accident). Why would the Air Force scrap the F-l05 demo planes just because one of them was faulty? 67.121.224.149 (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)