F-105 Thunderchief

[elmayerle]

I understand the Thud had a loooonggg take of run, so maybe blown wings?

Hence the old line, "If someone built a runway around the world, Republic would build an aircraft that would need every inch of it."

SEriously, either blown flaps/slats or a just plain larger wing.  I rather suspect that blowing the existing wing would be quite a design challenge in itself.

[tigercat2]

In the book by David Anderton, "The Republic F-105 Thunderchief", he talks about several proposals that Republic had for F-105 developments.

One was to replace the J-75 engine with a newer version, designated the JT4B-24 (P&W designation) that had 30K of thrust, compared to the J-75's 26.5K.

In 1962, Republic proposed to take the 450 F-105Ds in service then, add a fuselage stretch for the 2nd seat, add a 220 gallon fuel tank under that seat, install the big engine, beef up the landing gear and that would be called the F-105G.  All follow-on aircraft ( the FY 62 and 63 models)  would also be built to this standard.    This was never adopted,despite an estimated cost of $714K  to convert the existing aircraft to this standard, and probably $3M for each new build.


In late 1962 or early 1963, Republic proposed the F-105H, with a new wing of 448 square feet, two seats, new landing gear, vertical fin, stabilator, new nose, etc.  This was really a new design, and the USAF did not go for it.

Finally, in 1968, with only 344 F-105Ds remaining, Republic proposed adding the Thunderstick II system to all the aircraft, more fuel, new pylons and a few other changes to create an F-105D-35 model.  This would have cost $1.8M per aircraft, but of course the USAF did not go for it.


Wes W.

[MAD]

[/QUOTE]In late 1962 or early 1963, Republic proposed the F-105H, with a new wing of 448 square feet, two seats, new landing gear, vertical fin, stabilator, new nose, etc. This was really a new design, and the USAF did not go for it.

Wes W.

Does anyone have a drawing or artwork of the proposed F-105H, especially a 3-view drawing would be great


M.A.D.

[Archibald]

what solution to shorten the take off run ?
F-104-like wings, but much scaled up (you can add flaps on those wings no ?)
Of course you can also try a delta (but no improvements on take off run would occure in this case).
Delta wing with Fieri intakes  
I'm asking If the tornado IDS radar could fit in a Thud nose ?
This TF-41 (as the spey) was really a missed opportunity
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...12588&hl=medway

[Alvis 3.1]

I understand the Thud had a loooonggg take of run, so maybe blown wings?

Hence the old line, "If someone built a runway around the world, Republic would build an aircraft that would need every inch of it."

SEriously, either blown flaps/slats or a just plain larger wing.  I rather suspect that blowing the existing wing would be quite a design challenge in itself.

What exactly WAS with Republic and the excessive take-off run issue? You'd think they would have learned from the F-84 and its bad reputation of plowing dirt at the end of takeoff runs. Weird.




Alvis 3.1

[upnorth]

For myself I would also ditch the intergral airbrakes/exhaust nozzle design, go for a more straightforward design of nozzle and reposition the air brakes (not sure where though, would putting them on the upper rear portion of the airframe be aerodynamically acceptable, or perhaps one big F-15 style unit on the upper fuselage behind the canopy?)  

I don't think the repositioning of the airbrakes needs to be so radical as that.

The way I think, keep the four airbrakes, but move them to a spot on the rear fuselage between the tail pipe and the trailing edge of the wing.

Basically, I'm envisioning an arrangement in the vein of what the TSR.2 and Sukhoi SU-17 and SU-22 "Fitters" had.

Alternately, you could go with an arrangement like the MiG-21 had; with a small airbrake on the underside centreline aft of the weapons pylon and two larger ones on either side of the centreline just ahead of the pylon.

As for the long runway needed; how about a thrust reverser system for landings instead of the parachute?

[Archibald]

No need for the F-111! we want more F-105s, TSR-2 in australian markings, we need the tomcat earlier (no bloody F-111B!) !!!!!!!!! ^_^
we need the TF-41, not the crappy TF-30!!!

Another thread here
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index...ader,and,tomcat ^_^

I try to mention olds thread to complement this one!

[AeroplaneDriver]

Love the Thud upgrade ideas!  I'd really love to see one in allover Gunship gray carrying a massive load of Rockeyes a'la Gulf War Strike Eagles.

As for the takeoff run...I used to work for a former Thud Driver (first person to eject from one too-engine fire over Kansas) who said they carried a bag of rocks with them.  When the end fo the runway was repidly approaching they would throw the rocks out, the plane would run over them and think it was going off the end of the runway and leap into the air just in time.    

[elmayerle]

Interesting  you should mention that, I was at Cessna-Pawnee when a Thud with engine problems had the bloody thing quit on final (the engine had been giving peculiar data since shortly after takeoff and the pilot decided RTD was a real good plna).  It plowed quite a furrow, but was jacked up, trucked to the shop, and completely repaired to fly again.

If I was going to enlarge the wing, I'd go with something like the 1/48 wing mated to 1/72 inlets for a 1/72 model (Hmm, come to think of it, I've got most of those components...)

[rallymodeller]

Trouble with scaling up the wing is that with the small wing the Thud had really high wing loading making it rock steady at low altitude and high speed, exactly it's mission. Same goes for the Voodoo (in many ways the RF-101 was far superior to the RF-4),  Jaguar and (for different reasons but same result) the Starfighter. Increase the wing size, you lower the wing loading and make the ride much rougher.  

[Archibald]

The Mirage IIIR had a delta wing but it had a small area (35 sq meter)

[AeroplaneDriver]

Trouble with scaling up the wing is that with the small wing the Thud had really high wing loading making it rock steady at low altitude and high speed, exactly it's mission. Same goes for the Voodoo (in many ways the RF-101 was far superior to the RF-4),  Jaguar and (for different reasons but same result) the Starfighter. Increase the wing size, you lower the wing loading and make the ride much rougher.

Hmmmm.....Voodoo-winged F-105?  

A Thoodoo?  
Thunderdoo?

[Archibald]

Aerplane-san, that's a very good idea! Hmm whatif F-101, F-104, F-105 and Phantoms echanged their wings (and intakes if necessary ?)  

[elmayerle]

Well, I didn't think my scale-up would change the wing-loading enough to make it bad in low-level ops (I mean the RA-5C did quite well at low-level with a lower wing loading, as I remember it was the only other aircraft over 'Nam capable of sea-level mach+ performance).

Now, once upon a time, years and years ago, I saw a proposal for increasing the wing area of the F-105 for takeoff via modified wing tips, outboard of the outer-most hardpoints, that would unfold to add wing area and span for takeoff.

Now, considering that the F-105's equivalent was the Su-7, I wonder if a vg set-up similar to that of the Su-22 would work?  The somewhat stalky main gear would be a problem, but not an insurmountable one.

[GTX]

A VG Thud - hmmm!

Regards,

Greg