F-105 Thunderchief

[Chris707]

If you can't bomb 'em, deafen 'em! a Thud/XF-84H Thunderscreech hybrid:



wonder what might be a suitable powerplant?


Chris
-------------------------------------------
F-105 in action review

[dy031101]

Taken from the secret projects forum, this was AP.75, Republic's submission to the LRIX competition that was won by North American with what became the F-108.

Kind of looks like a tailed delta twin seat/enginned Thud!

I missed this post?  No wonder, because I would almost certainly ask about putting an engine like that of the F-103 in the AP-75...... (maybe a dedicated F-103 thread would be a better place though  )

===================================================

On the Thunderscreeching Chief...... did you erase the tailplanes?  I felt an irresistable urge to think a delta-wing platform......

[Chris707]

>On the Thunderscreeching Chief...... did you erase the tailplanes?

Yep, I almost forgot to! I like the T-tail of the 'screech...Thunderyell? ThunderThunder? Thundershriek? Thunderroar?

[Weaver]

Okay, how's this for size then?



More messing around with MS paint, F-105 meets F-16XL    



O.K. (now tempted to try a VG Thud)

Know what that needs? Centreline twin-wheel main gear in the back half of the former bomb bay and outriggers retracting into the trailing edge pods. Gun in the forward part of the former bomb bay, leaving more room for a bigger radar in the nose, plently of fuel in the wings and F-16XL-style tandem weapon carriage....

[dy031101]

I like the T-tail of the 'screech...Thunderyell? ThunderThunder? Thundershriek? Thunderroar?

I got so carried away that I failed to notice the T-tail.

The XFY-1 really got me quite a bit into a tailless delta-wing turboprop aircraft (not necessarily VTOL)......

Maybe Thunderroar......

[Sauragnmon]

I think Thundershriek sounds best of them, but that's just me.

[PR19_Kit]

The way the XF-84H made its own ground crew ill, a much more powerful version may have been more a hinderance to a war effort than a help! But it sure looks good!

[tahsin]

another path to a VG Thunderchief might be pivoting the wings approximately from where the wheel wells and the angle of leading edge would be defined by the moment the inlet closes firmly against the fuselage to form a thick slow speed lifting surface .Since the F-105 had an extra air inlet for runway operations that sucked in from the wheel well , the modeller would explain the engine would work continiously . A moving wing of this kind would then necessiate a F-104/MiG-23 style landing gear .

[GTX]

. A moving wing of this kind would then necessiate a F-104/MiG-23 style landing gear .

Doable if one sacrifices the rarely used (at least as far as weapons go) weapons bay in the fuselage.  One could also go for a bicycle stly landing gear and some sort of outrigger arrangement.  Either way, it would certainly look interesting.

Regards,

Greg

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Doable if one sacrifices the rarely used (at least as far as weapons go) weapons bay in the fuselage.  One could also go for a bicycle stly landing gear and some sort of outrigger arrangement.  Either way, it would certainly look interesting.

Plenty of room for a set of Crusader or Corsair main gear legs and wheels if you plan it right, that would certainly make for an interesting looking F-105 and offer plenty of more stores space on the wings for another large pylon so maybe you could carry four of those wing tanks instead of two. 

[Daryl J.]

Having not read this thread for a very long time, I just purchased a Hobbyboss 1/48 F-105G to add triangular shaped wings and stabilizers to.   Hmmmm....I guess I have no original ideas!  

I'll keep the single engine, however.    

[ChernayaAkula]

How about this?
The F-15 wings are to scale! Span has increased only slightly, but wing area should have improved somewhat.



The wings look kinda small. Shows what a big honkin' barsteward the Thud was!

[Maverick]

Very nice Moritz.  Given that the Thud was only a few feet shorter than a B-17, one could say it's a big ship for a single seater.

Regards,

Mav

[rallymodeller]

That kind of thing would be OK for an interceptor variant, but not so much for an attacker. One of the things that made the Thud so legendary (apart from its ability to absorb punishment) was it's rock-steady weapons delivery. The reason for this is that the Thud had really high wing loading; most of the legendary low-level strike aircraft you can name have the same (Buccaneer, Jaguar, Su-7/17/22, Starfighter and so on). Increasing the wing area makes for better maneuverability and a higher ceiling but at the cost of stability and gust-responsiveness down in the weeds.

One of the most consistent complaints leveled at teh Strike Eagle is that its ride down low is punishing to the extreme, especially when compared to the F-111. THe fuselage/wing planform was never designed for the kind of things the Strike Eagle does.

Lastly, let's not forget that the Thud could, in the hands of a capable pilot, more than hold its own against smaller, lighter fighters. Just don't let the speed bleed off too much in a turn and you're all set...

[rickshaw]

You're not supposed to be trying to fly down low with the Strike Eagle any more.  The risk from AD assets is now considered too great so strikes are meant to be flown at medium to high altitude with smart weapons and SEADS assets.  There has been a whole switch from low to medium altitude.