F-105 Airborne?

[Rigid Rotorhead]

Wow...can you imagine seeing an F-105 Thunderchief airborne once again? Well, that's exactly the goal of one group, with the help of Col Leo Thorsness (Ret), one of the most famous Wild Weasels in history and former POW. Check this out:

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/SiteColle...lease042710.pdf

Thorsness Aids F-105 Effort: A group comprising 15 Medal of Honor recipients and 120 former POWs have partnered with The Collings Foundation to return an F-105 to airworthy status, making it part of the foundation's Vietnam Memorial Flight, according to an April 27 release. Retired Col. Leo Thorsness, both an MOH recipient and former Vietnam War POW, said, "It is one thing to see 'my' aircraft mounted on a pole or gathering dust in a museum, quite another to see it roar down the runway and take to the sky." The group has to obtain Congressional authorization, and, per the release, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) has taken the matter up with the House Armed Services Committee. Former AFA Chairman of the Board Gene Smith, a POW and F-105 pilot, said, "Getting an F-105 back into the skies means a great deal to me—we gave a lot to this country."

Collings Foundation website: http://www.collingsfoundation.org/menu.htm

[modelman11]

WOW......Ive never seen an F-105 fly, would be awesome!! I really hope they succeed. They did manage to get that phantom through and it was the first, I think theres a good chance well see the thud fly........

[Kevan Vogler]

It would be nice to see, but using the flyable Phantom to indicate the degree of ability the foundation may have to get a Thud flying again is overlooking a few key points:

1: Phantoms are still flying in active military service today.

2: Phantoms remained in American service long after the last F-105 was retired.

3: Phantoms were kept flyable in American service as drones after official retirement, F-105s were not (AFIK)

As a result,

1: Spares and support gear for Phantoms is more readily available than the same for an F-105.

2: The available skill pool to keep it going is likely younger and more current than the same for an F-105.

3: A Phantom that could be returned to the air likely hadn't been silently bleaching in the sun for at least 25 years first.

There are some things that all the generosity, drive and ability in the world won't change. As much as I'd like to see it myself, I'm sceptical we'll ever see a flying F-105 again. I suspect strongly that it will be extremely cost inhibitive and that whatever costs the Phantom incurs to keep it flying are not likely to be truly reflective of what the F-105 would cost for the above reasons I've stated.

Before you can get it running, you need the people to maintain and fly it. It leaves me to wonder how many of the surviving F-105 community are actually physically able to do much more than be advisors to the project. The foundation will have to get some people trained to maintain it and current to fly it; expensive in both money and time.

Then there is the issue of spares and ground handling equipment. How much of it is still out there versus how much will need to be made new? Spares and ground handling gear specific to the Thud haven't been needed by anyone since the beast was retired, how much or how little of it is left remaining and what is it's fitness for use?

I won't hold my breath on seeing a flyable Thud anytime in the future.

[nightmare77]

Your failing to realize that it would only be making a few flights a year, they wouldnt be putting hundreds of hours a year on it, thus the requirement for large amounts of spares would be minimized. Also note that is was quite common to be qualified as a maintainer on both F-4's and F-105's. Collings foundation maintainers may be able to convert or have prior knowledge. Also, there are hundreds of people involved in this right now, a large part of them worked on the thud. It would be a huge challenge, however, if they wernt serious about it and couldnt afford it they wouldnt be voting on it in the HAS!!!!! Also note that this has been going on since 2006.....not just oh hey want to fly an F-105? They actualll had an F-105 but the Air force took it away. Thats why its being voted on.

Edited May 1, 2010 by nightmare77

[Steve jahn]

If a bunch of guys with little resources can get a B-29 out of the ice and almost fly it out, you can bet that bringing an F-105 Thunderchief back to life is possible.

Steve

[Chris707]

It would indeed be something to see (and hear!) but I somehow can't see it happening. Beyond the logistics involved, the USAF doesn't want this to happen (they demilled the first candidate airframe IIRC) what would stop them from disposing of the other airframes in an expedient manner tomorrow? There's no military need to maintain them, they could legitimately tear them apart, shoot them full of holes, bulldoze them...

[Kevan Vogler]

It would indeed be something to see (and hear!) but I somehow can't see it happening. Beyond the logistics involved, the USAF doesn't want this to happen (they demilled the first candidate airframe IIRC) what would stop them from disposing of the other airframes in an expedient manner tomorrow? There's no military need to maintain them, they could legitimately tear them apart, shoot them full of holes, bulldoze them...

Very true.

The airframes are still under USAF jurisdiction and they can do as they please with them. If they don't want an F-105 to fly, they can easily ensure that whichever remaining airframes that could be rendered airworthy are rendered otherwise quite quickly.

Heck, they could be out there cutting spars and key airframe structures on the remaining ones as I type this.

[garthk]

It would be nice to see, but using the flyable Phantom to indicate the degree of ability the foundation may have to get a Thud flying again is overlooking a few key points:

...

I won't hold my breath on seeing a flyable Thud anytime in the future.

Four words: Vulcan. To. The. Sky.

IOW, this is already being done with an aircraft to which all your items apply, PLUS is larger and more complex (imho) than a F-105.

[Sig Saur & Son]

Anything can be accomplished if you throw enough money at it. Except for social issues of course, but we are prohibited from speaking politics here. Anyway, look no further than Glacier Gal and the Vulcan. Yes, I believe a Thud can fly again.

[11bee]

Your failing to realize that it would only be making a few flights a year,

I think we are talking more than a few flights a year. You need to fly to each airshow location, perform post-maint check flights and most importantly, the pilots need to fly this thing often enough to keep current. Not sure I would be comfortable at an airshow watching a high performance jet doing a display with a pilot who only has a dozen or so hours on the jet in the last year.

That all being said, I really, really hope this comes to fruition.

Regards,

John

[HWR MKII]

They may only be flying it only a few rare times a year yet all it takes is one main bearing failure on that old motor to put all their effort into the ground. Even modern well maintained F-16s have this issue. The F-4 has the benefit of 2 engines. the Thud doesnt have that luxury.

[Sig Saur & Son]

It wasn't named the 'Lead Sled' for nothing.

Quote from-

http://break-left.org/air/f-105.html

"Many aircraft get derogatory nicknames, the F-105 being no exception. The sheer size and weight of the F-105 coupled with the design decision to use only one engine, led to the name "Thud". This was supposed to be the sound it made when it crashed to the ground shortly after takeoff. Other nicknames included "Ultra Hog", "Super Hog" and "Lead Sled"."

There's at least one more derogatory nickname I do not wish to repeat in this age of political correctness.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Sig Saur & Son

[C-130CrewChief]

It can be done and I don't see why the USAF would not want it done. (as long as it doesn't cost them a ton of money) It would be an awe inspiring PR spectacle.

Curt

[Alternative 4]

Im confused, why would the USAF be so against it? Is there something that makes the THUD special?

[CF104]

There's a lot of "can't do it/won't happen" comments on this thread.

It seems many here think that the F-105 will be flying combat missions and therefore have to be maintained as such. There is a huge difference in flying a few demos each year compared to combat flight training when it comes to airframe wear and tear.

They may only be flying it only a few rare times a year yet all it takes is one main bearing failure on that old motor to put all their effort into the ground. Even modern well maintained F-16s have this issue. The F-4 has the benefit of 2 engines. the Thud doesnt have that luxury.

Former single jet engine high performance combat aircraft have been successfully flown around the US for quite some time. Take the "Starfighters" for example. They have successfully flown 2 CF-104's and 1 CF-104D at airshows all over North America for quite some time now. Also the several F-86's, L-29's, L-39's, numerous Mig's etc.. prove that it is entirely possible to safely fly these single engine jet aircraft without them falling out of the sky.

The J-75 used in the F-105 was also developed commercially as the JT4A and is a very reliable engine when maintained properly. The main issue with these single engine demo jets is FOD ingestion, bird strikes etc.. at lower altitudes during the displays.

Comparing the demo F-105 to a F-16 that is flown in combat/training is not being realistic. The demo F-105 will surely be maintained to a high standard but will never see the type of flying it used to be put thru in combat and training.

If this project gets congressional approval I wish The Collings Foundation the best of wishes for returning a F-105 to flight.

Cheers,

John

[Chris707]

The USAF's position is no doubt centered around the fear that the aircraft might get written off in a very public and disasterous way. Yes, the private owner would have legally signed away liability, but it would still have the potential to be a HUGE political and PR liability for the DoD. The media and Congresscritters would have a field day demanding WHY the USAF allowed the transfer of a forty-five year old jet fighter that hadn't flown in decades; never mind the fact that Congress would have had a hand in it. That would be all you'd hear on CNN for days on end. And then there would be a demand that this never happen again, and then what happens? The gov makes it as hard as possible for ANY kind of warbirds to operate, and like the F-14 fleet, any retired high-performance aircraft gets chopped up. They start looking at gate guards as potential liabilities, and they get smelted down. If the Victor fast taxi that turned into a brief flight had ended in a fireball, I wouldn't have bet on extended longetivity for any of the preserved UK fast jets

The reduced level of flying is a double-edged sword - less wear and tear, but less time for pilot proficiency.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Chris707

[martin_sam_2000]

I would love to see a f-105 flying. granted I have never seen a 104 fly and it has been at least a decade since I have seen an f-4...but still. I hope they can pull it off.

Sean

[rightwinger26]

They may only be flying it only a few rare times a year yet all it takes is one main bearing failure on that old motor to put all their effort into the ground. Even modern well maintained F-16s have this issue. The F-4 has the benefit of 2 engines. the Thud doesnt have that luxury.

I've been an engine mechanic in the navy for 13 years, and have seen countless bearing failures, 400's/402's its a fairly common thing. Now before you jump in and say the navy uses two engines, there are ways of telling if its gonna happen before it does, special and periodic maintenance, plus some good old mechanic intuition, i.e. lots of blue smoke on shut down.

[C-130CrewChief]

The USAF's position is no doubt centered around the fear that the aircraft might get written off in a very public and disasterous way. Yes, the private owner would have legally signed away liability, but it would still have the potential to be a HUGE political and PR liability for the DoD. The media and Congresscritters would have a field day demanding WHY the USAF allowed the transfer of a forty-five year old jet fighter that hadn't flown in decades; never mind the fact that Congress would have had a hand in it. That would be all you'd hear on CNN for days on end. And then there would be a demand that this never happen again, and then what happens? The gov makes it as hard as possible for ANY kind of warbirds to operate, and like the F-14 fleet, any retired high-performance aircraft gets chopped up. They start looking at gate guards as potential liabilities, and they get smelted down. If the Victor fast taxi that turned into a brief flight had ended in a fireball, I wouldn't have bet on extended longetivity for any of the preserved UK fast jets

The reduced level of flying is a double-edged sword - less wear and tear, but less time for pilot proficiency.

I could not agree.... at all.

I don't understand the Negative trend people tend to have. I saw a B-17 fly over my house Friday as I was working on my car. I couldn't help but to think of how that B-17 could fly over a broken car that was made 60 years later! It's done by flyers, maintainers, and, supporters who really really care! I would almost bet any thing that the people who fly and maintain todays "Warbirds" do it with more attention to detail and pride then the people who did when they were new and state of the art. How often do warbirds crash at airshows? Are the odds any higher for them than an active duty military aircraft? I would think not.

Before I go on any more....

Curt

[Chris707]

Oh, I'm not knocking the CF (I've traveled to see the F-4D, B-17, and B-25) or any other warbird owner/operator. But those scenarios are what the USAF/DoD upper echelons and legal people are thinking, and that's why they are fighting this.