Read the forum code of contact
By: - 18th October 2004 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only thing an F-105 would've carried internally was a freefalling nuclear warhead (B28 or B43); they even developed a specific "ram" using 250PSI compressed air to push the bomb out into the supersonic airstream. Later it showed that the ram wasn't needed.
Usually a bomb-shaped 390 USgal fuel tank took the place.
By: - 19th October 2004 at 16:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It's the fuel tank. Don't now why it is made out of several pieces. The nuclear warheads you can see when following the links below ...
B28 was up to 1.45MT, B43 up to 500kt
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/thudeur2/weapons.htm
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/B28bomb.gif
By: - 19th October 2004 at 21:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi,
Like Distiller said, the internal bomb bay was only used for the extra fuel tank in Vietnam. In many cases, the bomb bay doors were kept permanently shut with metal strips being visible on the outside.
In 2003 the Chinese model company Trumpeter released 1/32 scale models of the F-105D and G.
The bomb bay is quite wel rendered and the tank looks just like the pictures I've seen of it.
Interesting that you mention maximum TO weight. I suspect that (In SE Asia), they often took off with less fuel than could be fitted in the tanks, and took on fuel from a KC-135 shortly after take-off.
Afterburner, water injection, 2 miles of runway...it was all needed. There are stories like "I lifted it across the base fence and dropped back down again to build up speed before I started to climb".
Those pre-dawn take-offs must have been an awesome sight and sound.
Never mind what lay ahead in RP 6, just taking off was so risky it would probably be illegal nowadays.
Cheers, Transall.
By: - 19th October 2004 at 22:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Juni,
Both Distiller & Transall are correct. The bomb bay was originally designed to carry a tactical Nuke but later carried the 390 US Gal fuel tank. The bomb bay door was not bolted shut during operational life as there were multipul elec junction boxes in the bay that needed frequent servicing. Yes we did on almost every occasion take off with only 25 - 30% fuel on board and then refuel as quickly as possible. When it's 115 deg F with 99% humidity and your loaded with 6 750lb Mk117's, an ALQ 87 jamming pod plus 1 or 2 AIM 9 B's the a/c had a tendency to not want to fly. You started on the first brick and staggered into the air by the last brick which led to disparraging comments like "if someone built a runway that ran around the world and stopped 10 feet short of itself Republic would build an a/c to eat up every inch of it". But conversly on cold day in Germany or Alaska the J-75 would develope gobbs of power and get you airborne in less than 5500 feet. :)
Cheers
Itch
By: - 20th October 2004 at 07:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
juni, you were also wondering how it carried 6 big bombs on "a couple of external hardpoints"... well, something called MERs- multiple ejector racks. 3-6 bombs a pylon. wish i could get u a pic...
By: - 20th October 2004 at 13:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In later versions of the F-105, was there still a bomb bay? If so... what was the centreline weapons pylon bolted to??
By: - 20th October 2004 at 13:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In later versions of the F-105, was there still a bomb bay? If so... what was the centreline weapons pylon bolted to??
The door.
By: - 20th October 2004 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GZYL,
This pic may be of some help.
Cheers
Itch
By: - 21st October 2004 at 05:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Itch
Is that you in the second picture by any chance?
Regards
Sauron
By: - 21st October 2004 at 16:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sauron,
Yes it is, "when I wore a younger man's clothes".
Juni,
The Thud was the biggest Cadillac in the valley for a long time. Maybe not the prettiest a/c in the air but certainly one of the most capable. We did most of the work (75% of all the bombs placed on N.V. were put there by 105's) and the F-4's got all the press. Below 10,000 feet AGL we were the fastest thing in the air, we were known to out run MiG 21's and we also carried a gun which the F-4's didn't in the earlier models, much to the surprise of more than a few MiG drivers. :)
Cheers
Itch
By: - 21st October 2004 at 17:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hello Itch,
That's quite a picture to have of oneself. Good that you're still with us, considering how it ended for a lot of those young pilots and their magnificent aircraft.
Cheers, Transall.
By: - 21st October 2004 at 18:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Transall,
Thanks, that pic is one of my "steely eyed defender of Democracy and Freedom" shots. It is good to still be with you, considering we lost about half the aircraft we had in theater. Of course that has to due to the fact we had the highest sortie rate also. I was very fortunate in my 2 tours, only lost one returning from a mission and had one fall apart on me taxing back to the revet, that cost me a few pints ;) . Glad you enjoyed them.
Cheers
Itch
By: - 22nd October 2004 at 18:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Juni,
Yes the Thud is a good looking a/c, especially in plan view where you can see the area rule fuselage (wasp waist) design. The roll rate was about 385 deg / sec.
Being a product of the cold war and designed as a tactical nuclear interdiction fighter bomber the Thud was not sold to anyone else, it was totally unique to the US inventory. You are also correct in that many other a/c could out turn us, so we wouldn't normally engage in a turning battle with someone. If we had to we would execute a high speed "yo-yo" manuever. When the other a/c started his turn in the horizontal plane we would go vertical (about 60 deg), roll on our backs and pull back to keep the other a/c in sight and fall on him from above and behind, in other words our turn would be in the vertical plane while his was in the horizontal, we could then maintain some tactical advantage. HTH
Cheers
Itch
By: - 23rd October 2004 at 02:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Itch
The F-105 is indeed a huge and handsome beast. What a sight it would be to see it lined up with the other "century series" fighters with a F-4 added for spice. The only fighter which would come close to it in size that served in the Canadian Forces, would have been the F-101 Voodoo which was also a great looking machine IMHO.
I remember watching interviews with F-105 piots, a number of whom survived 100 (and more) missions over North Vietnam in the F-105, the reward for which seemed to have involved being thrown in the base swimming pool and a mission patch. Hopefully they also got a ticket home.
Regards
Sauron
By: - 23rd October 2004 at 04:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The guy standing in front of the Thud must be a rather small pilot or the Thud is much larger than i thought.
By: Anonymous (not verified) - 18th October 2004 at 12:50
i was reading in my plane book that the Republic F-105 Thunderchief can carry an internal bombload of 8,000lbs in the fuselage bomb bay. i assume this would be eight one thousand pound bombs stored in two lots of four. does anyone have any photos of the internal bombay, weapon storage details, what type of release gear was used, size of the bay(i guess a dozen feet long) and if the bomb bay was ever used to carry bombs internally in cuban missile crisis or vietnam? in the vietnam war ive only ever seen photos and film of the F-105 carrying bombs on a fuselage pylon, typically three or six bombs(thousnd pounders?). for the pylon to be put on the fuselage what would it be attatched to, would it be the shut bomb bay or would it be faired over? what was in the space of the bay, was it used to carry more fuel or avionics sensors? my plane book quoted the weapon load of 8,000 internally and 6,000lb externally so i wonder could all of this be carried externally, it seems an awful lot for just a couple of hardpoints. if it was carried externally and the bay was used to carry internal fuel, would this take the airplane to its maximum take off weight? seems very interesting indeed. :cool: