Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/19/2004 12:56:35 PM EST
F-105 Thunderchief:



Interestingly, I have always thought highly of the 105, but it was more for aesthetic reasons. How did it fare "back in the day?" Was it a superior jet? Average?
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:00:33 PM EST
It probably would have been okay if they hadn't made a bomb truck out of it. It reminds me of using a Mini to haul lumber.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:04:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
It probably would have been okay if they hadn't made a bomb truck out of it. It reminds me of using a Mini to haul lumber.



It was designed as a bomb truck. Did pretty good for its era. It was soon outclassed when the A-6 and F-111 became operational. Until then it was the go-to fighter-bomber.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:05:42 PM EST
Tough as hell. Good for bombing the crap out of stuff.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:08:28 PM EST
It's the dreaded "Red X" fighter !!!!



Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:14:04 PM EST
Worked on a lot of them back in the day. Pilots loved them as they were pretty good at taking punishment and bringing them home. The early Wild Weasels were all Thuds. I worked on the 17th WWS birds. They were pretty impressive for their time. "Thud Ridge" is a good read about their role in the RVN.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:15:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 1:20:26 PM EST by CFII]
Its a bomber. It could hold its own if need be, but it was NOT a fighter. Bomb truck, etc. Its basically an Air Force A-6 intruder that can defend itself. Its ONE engine was the fail of the design. A single round would kill this fighter/bomber. It was the MOST shot down aircraft in Vietnam. The early wild weasels were eaten alive. This was not an airframe I would have chosen.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:16:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By 223-Buckaroo:
It's the dreaded "Red X" fighter !!!!



The pic worked the first time I viewed the thread. Arfkom overloads another server.....
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:18:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 1:18:26 PM EST by miamilightning]
Is that one of those new fangled X-Wing' fighters from Star Wars??
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 2:27:56 PM EST
Good aircraft originally designed to be a "tactical" nuclear bomber that went VERY fast low level. It actually has a bomb bay in the fuselage. When it was used in Vietnam, they put a fuel tank in the belly and loaded it down with bombs. With it's little wings it wasn't much of a dog fighter but it wasn't designed to be either. When they started flying Thuds with F-4s as escorts, the F-4s could hardly keep up with the Thud after it dropped its bombs and started the egress out of the target area. If I remember correctly, the F-105 on a stick at the USAF Academy was built from parts from 10 different aircraft and is in rememberance of all the Academy graduates who died flying them in Vietnam. I think that by the end of the war they had lost so many that they were basically given to the National Guards around the US.

Spooky
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 3:40:07 PM EST
I'm not even going to cut and paste....

home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f105.html
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 4:09:50 PM EST
It's the Russian "Red-X Wing" This fighter has superior air to air fighting capabilities!
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 4:54:25 PM EST
They didn't call them Thuds for nothing.

They were designed carry a nuclear weapon. They were not intended for low level wild weasel missions.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:35:34 PM EST
Hauled ass down low but couldn't turn with a damn. Basically a good strike aircraft but I wouldn't call it a good fighter even back in those days. Still a cool jet though. I don't know that being single engine was necessarily a negative. F16's do just fine with only one. I think a lot of them were shot down due to their mission and where they flew.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 5:38:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
F-105 Thunderchief:

de.geocities.com/glupscherle/f105d-thunderchief.jpg

Interestingly, I have always thought highly of the 105, but it was more for aesthetic reasons. How did it fare "back in the day?" Was it a superior jet? Average?



It would have been an absolutely TERRIBLE as a fighter/interceptor

Too heavy, minimal manueverability

However, it did make a decent tactical bomber...

Remember, the Air Force of that day was ruled by SAC (nuke & bomber boys), and the 'brass' thought that fighters were obselete - if it didn't truck nuclear weapons it was considered a 'waste'...

That's why the Air Force found themselves flying a NAVY fighter (F-4 Phantom) in Vietnam...
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:28:27 PM EST
While fiction check out Tom Wilson's Termite Hill/Lucky's Bridge/Tango Uniform. A good series on how the 105 was used and it's role in the war.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:30:23 PM EST
Had really high loss rate IIRC. Was quickly replaced by other planes. Especially the F4 in the wild weasel role.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 6:30:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By rn45:
They didn't call them Thuds for nothing.

They were designed carry a nuclear weapon.



+1
Top Top