F-105 Thunderchief

[PR19_Kit]

There has been a whole switch from low to medium altitude.

The next thing you know is they'll be painting them white and bobming from 60000 ft! 

[ChernayaAkula]

Follow-up to Duncan's VG Thud on the previous page:

Wings and tailplanes straight off an Su-17M Fitter and to scale. The wings are a little further out, though. Please note that the views don't necessarily agree, as the F-105 drawing was ever so slightly askew.

Isn't it strange how it almost looks like a normal Thud when the wings are swept back? Maybe a Fitter with F-105 style intakes would be an idea. Would leave the nose free for a big air-to-air radar to make it an all-weather fighter.
 

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; <...>

Yeah, I know.    I guess guided weaponry and improvements in bomb aiming computers might make up for the less stable delivery platform, but that would still leave it with a less comfortable than desirable low level ride. Might not be quite as bad as on the F-15, though, where the wide, flat fuselage also helps tremendously in unloading the wings.

[GTX]

 

[raafif]

I nearly skipped this topic on the Chunderthief.

Really nice designs, Moritz 

[Taiidantomcat]

Great work Moritz! 

[Weaver]

As I said on another thread, an alternative rationale for the F-15-winged Thud would be a fighter version. Imagine a world where the F-4 never got built: you could see the USAF keeping the F-105 production line open and then incorporating early Vietnam lessons into an "proper fighter" version to fly top-cover for the bombers. The F-105 was a surprisingly good fighter considering it's size and wing-loading: it downed more MiGs in Vietnam than it lost to them. It's Achilles' heel was systems vulnerability: although basically tough, some critical systems either wern't duplicated or separated enough, so that a relatively minor hit in the wrong place could take the plane down.

Wing area-wise, it should work a treat:

F-15C:
Wing area: 608 sq.ft
Empty weight: 28,600lb
Loaded weight with fuel plus 4 x Sparrow: 44,630lb
Max weight: 68,000lb
Combat wing loading at roughly 40,000lb = 66 lb/sq.ft


F-105D:
Wing area: 385 sq.ft
Empty weight: 26,855lb
Max weight: 52,838lb
Combat wing loading at roughly 40,000lb = 104 lb/sq.ft  


F-4E:
Wing area: 530 sq.ft
Empty weight: 30,328lb
Max Weight: 61,795lb
Combat wing loading at roughly 40,000lb = 75.5 lb/sq.ft

Bear in mind that actual combat weights may or may not be 40,000lb, but I picked it as reasonably within limits for all three aircraft.

Of course, the bigger wing would give the fighter-105 a greater empty weight than the bomber, but you should still be able to get combat wing loading into a very useful 70-80 lb/sq.ft range.

[zenrat]

Rocket from the Crypt!

I have recently had in my hands the 1/72 Hasegawa limited edition two kits in one box edition of the F-105 for a reasonable price.
I put it back assuming it would be an old mould with raised panel lines, basic detail etc (akin to the F102/F106 boxing which I do have).
It's been nagging at me that maybe I should have bought it.  Was I correct in my assumption or did I do a bad thing?

[pyro-manic]

http://www.internetmodeler.com/scalemodels/flaviation/Hasegawa-F-105BD-Thunderchief-Combo.php

[Captain Canada]

I have always wanted to do a twin-engine naval variant. I had all of the parts, but at some point chopped up a twin seat fuselage to give to a member here, and now I don't have a two-holer.

[PR19_Kit]

http://www.internetmodeler.com/scalemodels/flaviation/Hasegawa-F-105BD-Thunderchief-Combo.php

On kit builds, panel lines must be recessed if you want to accentuate them with a whole bunch of under-shading, counter-shading, layered colors, washes, and overdone weathering. My question: WHY?! --You couldn't possibly do anything to your build that would make it look LESS like a replica of a real airplane.

Oh YESSSSS! I'm with him 1000%. 

[zenrat]

Thanks Pyro.
Looks like I made the right decision as the price while being good wasn't that good given the lack of details.

[KJ_Lesnick]

I was thinking of several different things regarding the F-105, and at the penalty of sounding stupid, I'll ask them

F-105 Endurance

From what I remember, the F-105's endurance was pretty good under the following conditions

• Mach 1.2-1.3 @ 500 feet: This approach was for use in the nuclear-strike mission, though could be used in conventional delivery as well.  The plane was largely built for this mission in the fact that it's small wings were to minimize gust-response at low-altitude, and the fuselage was stressed for something like 815-830 KIAS; the engines could also be throttled back to some degree while in afterburner (if I recall) to conserve fuel (I'm not sure if later models had multi-staged burners).
  
• Mach 0.85-0.90 @ 15000-17000 feet: This approach was used commonly in Vietnam so as to minimize harm from AAA at low altitude
  

I'm curious how good the F-105 would have been in the following roles

• Supersonic at altitude (bombing): Fuel consumption is lower at high altitudes on either dry or AB.  While I know higher mach numbers impose limits as to how far back you can retard the throttles, the greater speed achievable would allow more distance to be covered in the same amount of time, and fuel-burn on full AB is less at altitude than sea-level.  You'd think it'd cover some serious distance.
  
• Supersonic at altitude (intercept): The aircraft had a multi-mode radar and the capacity for AIM-9's, a maximum airspeed of around 810-830 knots up to a Mach number of at least 2.3.  With lower fuel burn at altitude you'd think it could seriously get out there
  

.

F-105H

Evidently there were links earlier that might have shown what this version looked like, but they're currently defunct and no good.  Anybody got anything?


Survivability at Low Altitude

I remember early on the rationale for flying low was to get "under the radar" and avoid enemy radar: In Vietnam, there seemed to be a lot of losses by flying at low-altitude which seemed in some cases to be running into stray AAA, and possibly the method of passing on data to other AAA sites to nail high-speed low-altitude aircraft.

On these notes I'm curious as to the following

• Was low-altitude AAA realized to be a threat when it came to penetrating Europe, and former USSR (particularly when such AAA was to be radar-directed)?
  
• Were the concern of losses at low-altitudes in a nuclear-war environment mitigated by the fact that despite a large number of planes lost, many would still deliver their loads?
  
• Why were later aircraft like the B-1, and F-111 designed for low-altitude penetration if this was an issue?
  
• Was the issue of low-altitude penetration survival a function of coming in at altitudes more like 30-50 feet vs 200-500
  

[Weaver]

Thanks Pyro.
Looks like I made the right decision as the price while being good wasn't that good given the lack of details.

Don't know what it's like where you are, but at the last few model shows I've been to here, the bagged-models-for-£cheap boxes have always been well stocked with Hase F-105s.

[FAR148]

•Supersonic at altitude (bombing)

No benefit to bombing at supersonic speed. Your accuracy goes to $hit

•Why were later aircraft like the B-1, and F-111 designed for low-altitude penetration

You got to remember that was the best way at the time to invade an enemy airspace. Low and as fast as you can (cough... TSR.2) Now days we have low observable aircraft.




Steven L  

[rickshaw]

http://www.internetmodeler.com/scalemodels/flaviation/Hasegawa-F-105BD-Thunderchief-Combo.php

On kit builds, panel lines must be recessed if you want to accentuate them with a whole bunch of under-shading, counter-shading, layered colors, washes, and overdone weathering. My question: WHY?! --You couldn't possibly do anything to your build that would make it look LESS like a replica of a real airplane.

Oh YESSSSS! I'm with him 1000%. 

Another quote from that article which I heartily agree with!

Build What You Want, The Way You Want To, And Above All Have Fun!