F-105 Thunderchief

[AeroplaneDriver]

My first job in aviation (Aiport Boy-sweeping hangars, washing planes, pumping gas, feeding the airport cat...) was working for an ex-105 pilot.  IIRC he was the first pilot to eject from a Thud after an engine fire over Kansas.  

He used to talk about the veeeery long takeoff roll, so any carrier versions would likely need a complete new wing at a minimum.  Bill used to say they tied a bag of rocks to the nosegear, with a string running into the cockpit.  Close to the end of the runway the pilot had to pull the string, releasing the rocks.  The nosewheel would hit the rocks, making the aircraft think it was running off the end of the runway, encouraging it to get airborne.  

Also, the 105s retired from the AFRES/ANG in the 80s were retired due to fatigue I think, so selling tehm on was not a real world option.  Naturally this is easy t oget around in the whif world with some structural mods earlier in the service life.

I think a mid 80s maritime strike RAAF Thud in a blue-gray scheme with Harpoons or Sea Eagles would look spiffy.

[elmayerle]

One upshot of Republic offering the F105 to the RAF was that they were sent info on all the big UK engines - Spey, Olympus, etc.  An Olympus engined F105K is a reasonable option.

I've seen mention of an Olympus-powered two-seat F-105 having been offered to the RAF.  ISTR it was written up some forty years ago as a small news item in Air Progress, unfortunately, it's been ages since I saw that issue.  The one I always thought would look sharp would be a two-seater with the T-Stick II spine.  Add in better, and less thirsty, engines and you'd have a nice bird.

[icchan]

Actually, for laughs I stuck F-8 Crusader wings on an F-105, keeping the distinctive intakes of the Thud, and it looked pretty darn spiff.  Sadly, I lost the artwork for it but I did actually get a model into the chopshop stage, an old cheapy $5 Thud and a similarly priced Crusader kit sacrificed their parts to make a rather interesting - if big - fighter.  It certainly solves the fuel supply problem, and lines up well for center-of-lift, though I'm not sure what it'd do to the transsonic performance.

I'll see what I can do about remaking the pictures at least; sadly I have no camera and can't dump photos on you guys.      

[upnorth]

So, something like this then....



My own inept attempt at messing around with MS Paint and some F-105 and J-35 plan views....

Much of it had to be redrawn, and its's not a good first attempt, but as a proof of concept it's food for thought!



O.K.

Hey, not bad!

I just envisioned the wings and intakes a bit further forward so the the intakes are imediately aft of the cockpit and a bit more tailpipe is sticking off the back. Also give the outer sections of the wing a bit wider cord so you could put missile rails on them for the aircraft's own defence.

[upnorth]

Hmmmmm Thud with partial VG is a possible, Tupalov style podded main gear perhaps.

Actually, for the Thud's size, I'd look more to what Sukhoi did when they made the SU-7 into the SU-17 and just keep the main gear as it was and make the VG section outboard of that.

[elmayerle]

That was what I had in mind, though the undercarridge issue might be more difficult, since its a mid-wing rather than low wing.

You've got two choices here, you can put the pivots sufficiently outboard of the main landing gear so as to not have the gear and moving wing interfere or you can change where the gear is mounted and the direction it retracts in.  You'd need a larger center section, but how about a gear that retracts forward with the MLG wheels ending where they do on a "regular" F-105?

[upnorth]

Hey yeah! That most recent one is really looking slick.

I'm also glad we got Evan's approval of the mating of the two, someone who actually knows what he's doing with real world aircraft engineering is saying we got something plausible here!  

[AeroplaneDriver]

I like the second one best with the wingtip Sidewinders, but with the intakes that far forward it's going to be a bit of a challenge getting in and out.

Maybe just slide the intakes back to the rear of the canopy frame...?

Love the concept though.    

[upnorth]

Or you could extend the fuselage just aft of the cockpit to bring it clear of the intakes. By extending the fuselage you could also put a bit more length on the weapons bay.

[elmayerle]

Hey yeah! That most recent one is really looking slick.

I'm also glad we got Evan's approval of the mating of the two, someone who actually knows what he's doing with real world aircraft engineering is saying we got something plausible here!

Thanks.  Now, I need to do a bit of playing and see if I can give you a reasonable main landing gear for this one.  I've got some ideas, but they'll eat up some of the "real estate" close to the fuselage and just aft of the intakes.  Let me play with this a bit.

[upnorth]

Could the main gear legs possibly be brought closer to the fuselage and the whole assembly retract directly forward into the wing (paralel to the fuselage) rather than retract across part of the wing span?

I'm envisioning a set up sort of like the tomcat or Intruder's main gear.

I would think that that would be a practical way to free up space under the wings, orienting the main gear's retraction cycle paralel the fuselage and close in to it rather than perendicular to it and further out in the wing and thus taking up more of the span.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Since the general concensus here is to create a Frankenstein F-105, how about someone doing a check fit on the Vulcan B.2 wing plan form mated to the F-105F/G airframe.  Go with the Vulcan air intakes and see what it looks like.  I don't have any decent images to work with of either aircraft at the moment and that Draken/F-16XL wing got me to wondering about the Vulcan style wing on the F-105 fuselage.  

[Jeffry Fontaine]

apparently there was a idea/proposal for a RF-105.
no idea where or how they would have done this but i shall graft a F9F-2P recce nose on to a trumpeter F-105D in 1/72.

Trevor,

I have seen one or two images of the RF-105 in various reference books on the subject.  The aircraft retained the smaller radar nose of the F-105B with the cameras being mounted just behind the radar and ahead of the nose gear.  There were flat sections in the curved fuselage surface to accomodate the camera ports.  Your idea to use the F9F reconnaissance parts may work out if you try to adapt a smaller radar nose to the parts.  Or you could just blow it all off and make it a VFR reconnaissance platform with no radar. 

[Weaver]

Over on the F-4 thread, I proposed a scenario where the Phantom is only produced in it's original (-ish), single-seat AH-1 attack version for the USN - a sort of carrier-based equivalent of the Thud, if you like. This then leaves the question of what the USAF would buy in it's place, bearing in mind the high Thud attrition over Vietnam.

One proposal I thought of was to re-instate the F-105 production line, but with some Lessons Learnt incorporated (nothing too fanciful), to produce two different versions:

Common to both: bomb bay and all it's equipment completely replaced by fuel tankage (not just a space-inefficient tan k in the exisiting bay). F-105C raised dual cockpit and canopy for better vision: the back seat area is engineered to either take a second cockpit, a fuel cell or an electronics package, but the airframes are all common (the canopy might be different on the single-seater).

Strike Version. Single seat, original wing, but with wingtip Sidewinder rails to free-up pylon space. Normally carries centreline tank and 4 x pylons of ordnance.

Strike Support Version. Two-seater version of above. Normally carries Pave Tack on centreline, tanks on inboard pylons, ECM on outers. Wild Weasel version in due course (as the original ones wear out).

Tactical Fighter version. Single seat. Big Wing: straighter flap trailing edge for more area, tapered leading edge flap with more root chord, new intake outer skin fairings to match, all giving more area without changing the core wing structure. Sidewinder rails on wingtips and under new intake farings ahead of main gear wells. All non-essential nav-attack avionics removed to save weight and radar modified/replaced with more air-to-air bias. Normal loadout is three tanks plus eight Sidewinders; singles on tips and root plyons, twins rails on outer pylons (Sparrow capability left out because of small radar and to save weight).

Interceptor: Two-seat. Big Wing as above. Gun removed to make space for much bigger radar (possibly re-fitted further aft if space can be found). Conformal Sparrow stations on corners of fuselage fore and aft of the main gear (the doors sit against the fuselage when open). Normal loadout is three tanks, four to six Sparrow (fuselage stations plus outer wing) and either two Sidewinders on the tips (minimum drag) or upto six (maiximum combat persistence).

[van883]

I have an old Flying Review from 1967ish that mentions in the news section that Fairchild Republic was offering to restart F105 production. Shame it came to nothing.

Van