Whiffing an F-105?

[PR19_Kit]

OK, this makes me think tri-jet F-105 with Yak-25/6/7/8 style wing mounted engines, and an extended span, of course. 

I'm wondering how Feri intakes would work on wing mounted engines....... sounds interesting though.

[ChernayaAkula]

I like the twin engined idea, maybe meld the F-105 fuselage with an F-111 and deepen the intakes?

Nooo...Use the Lightning rear fuselage.

This sounded interesting, so I bashed some pixels.  Resulting design has a third air intake under the fuselage.
Lightning bits are to scale. It's quite interesting how a massive fighter like the Lightning looks decidedly normal, small even, when sat next to a Thud.
You could probably use a bit more of the Lightnings fuselage and make a cut just behind the Thud's wings to cut down on the amount of PSR needed.

OK, this makes me think tri-jet F-105 with Yak-25/6/7/8 style wing mounted engines, and an extended span, of course. 

Sounds good! 

I remember seeing an in-progress pic of an Amodel Yak-27 build with teh cockpit in place, but still missing the nose transparencies. It looked like someone took the Yak-27 wings and engines and stuck them on a MiG-17-ish/19-ish fuselage. Looked pretty cool, that.

[Weaver]

It makes you realise just how powerful the Lightning was when you consider that it had 75% more dry thrust than the F-105 (25,000lb vs 14,300lb), 25% more afterburning thrust (32,000lb vs 25,500lb), and yet was 13% lighter at MTO (45,750lb vs 52,500lb). 

(figures for an F.6 and an F-105D, rounded up or down for neatness)

[eatthis]

and didnt the f6 have the worst power/weight of any lightning?

[PR19_Kit]

Now THAT I like, and it works very well indeed. Maybe a channel in the underside of the fuselage leading up to the third Feri intake?

Hmmmmmmmm.......

[Jesse220]

The swing wing F-105 Looks great If they had developed it, it would likely still be in service 

[kitnut617]

Only comment I would make, the ventral intake should be moved forward, to about where the wing ones are, and if the wing ones feed one engine, the area of the ventral one should have the same area, maybe as wide as the fuselage.

This is the formula for working out the ellipses (note! the two intakes [front view] make one ellipse)  A= 3.142ab (where a is half the long axis and b is half the short axis)

[jcf]

Lightning bits are to scale. It's quite interesting how a massive fighter like the Lightning looks decidedly normal, small even, when sat next to a Thud.

The first time I saw a Thud in person was in the late '70s and walking up to it and around it was jaw-dropping.
I had known it was big, but dimensions on the page often don't register the reality. 

[Weaver]

Lightning bits are to scale. It's quite interesting how a massive fighter like the Lightning looks decidedly normal, small even, when sat next to a Thud.

The first time I saw a Thud in person was in the late '70s and walking up to it and around it was jaw-dropping.
I had known it was big, but dimensions on the page often don't register the reality. 

There's a pilot's account on the Wiki page where he says he started to get intimidated by the size of the thing when he realised that he couldn't touch the intake lip from the ground even if he took a running jump...

[NARSES2]

I had known it was big, but dimensions on the page often don't register the reality. 

Very true for so many things

There's a pilot's account on the Wiki page where he says he started to get intimidated by the size of the thing when he realised that he couldn't touch the intake lip from the ground even if he took a running jump...

"Flippin' Ada !"

[PR19_Kit]

It's one of those models that look as if it's 1/48 when it's actually 1/72.

[Scooterman]

Iran, IIAF then IRIAF.  Can you imagine them reverse engineering them in the late 90s and still flying?   

[Snowtrooper]

Iran, IIAF then IRIAF.  Can you imagine them reverse engineering them in the late 90s and still flying?   

The Iranians could have refitted them with a Russian turbofan with more thrust and less fuel consumption than the original turbojet - AL-31 or something similar (they were actually offered AL-31F's to re-engine the 'Cats). Maybe even use the thrust-vectoring FP version and relocate the speed brakes (originally surrounding the afterburner)?

[tahsin]

How good Phantom would be was clear in 1954. That's why it came back even it was refused as an "F", then as an "A", yet finally turned into an interceptor. Eisenhower was firmly for it; though this is a statement that will turn this thread into you-know-what. The simplest summary is that slide rules showed a multirole aircraft would help economics, there were far too many companies and Ike's Nuclear arms race would make impossible for Russians to try to do something in the interim and wars of 19760 and 70s could be more of rolling back Communists gains up to then. And Korea firmly proved dogfight was an art one could not dare let go. USAF was very ready to buy Phantoms in place of F-106s. Possibly because of the poor performance of Convair which failed to deliver that package, speed and electronics, by 1952.

[Snowtrooper]

And Korea firmly proved dogfight was an art one could not dare let go.

Proved to whom? As far as everyone was concerned in the 1950's, Korea was the last dogfight ever and future would belong to high-speed fighters armed exclusively with missiles. Everyone even on the other side of the Iron Curtain - MiG-21 was designed without cannon and accordingly the early versions didn't have one. The F-104 in particular was actually created as the direct result of Korean experience, because the pilots wanted something that was faster and had better climb rate than the opposition, not something that was more agile.

Also, in 1954 the Phantom only existed on paper, having just been reworked from fighter to attack, so no one certainly knew how good it would be - another redesign to fleet defence fighter with secondary bombing capability would only occur in 1955 and the first flight didn't take place until 1958. Sure, there have been "great" designs that you could see right from the first specifications that they would wiped the floor with opposition, except that they never left the drawing board! So saying that in 1954 it was "clear" how good the Phantom was is pure 20/20 hindsight. And the Air Force initially had to be pressured by McNamara to adopt it in the 1960's, only after that did they have the flyoff between F-4 and F-106 (the latter having already been ordered and being in service, although as an interceptor) and decided then to utilize it as a "true" multirole plane.