Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tall landing gear

The F-105 was perched high up in the air on tall landing gear to provide clearance for the centerline bomb rack when fully loaded, according to what I've heard but I've been unable to confirm this. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Designation

Why was the F-105 designated as a "fighter" when it was designed solely to deliver a bomb to a target? Was it a matter of getting funding, or was it because it was against the USAF's policy to call an aircraft that could carry offensive air-to-air armament a "bomber"?.45Colt 09:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It looked like a fighter, was flown by fighter pilots, and the USAF never put a "B" designation on a sexy, single engine airplane that goes the speed of stink! --Hildenja (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 1968 US Air Force Academy Dedication Ceremony

On May 31, 1968, a dedication ceremony took place at the Air Force Academy. An F-105 had been assembled using parts from ten different jets that had seen service in Vietnam and was placed on permanent static display. The ceremony included the entire cadet wing, the superintendent and commandant of cadets of the USAFA, and a representative of Republic Aircraft, among others. To conclude the ceremony, a flight of four F-105s from McConnell AFB were to fly over in formation at 1000 feet above the ground and then fly over singly at 250 feet. The formation portion happened as planned. However, when the flight leader, Lt Col "Black Matt" Matthews, came back for the single-file pass he exceeded the speed of sound at less than 100 feet above the ground. The ensuing sonic boom broke more than 300 windows in the dormitory building, gymnasium, dining hall, and chapel. Fifteen persons sustained cuts from broken glass, and the damage was estimated at over $250,000. Does anyone think this would be suitable for addition to the article, perhaps at the end of the Vietnam War section? As for references, I have two newspaper clippings of the event, plus it is described in Robin Olds' (commandant of cadets at that time) autobiography. Or is this too trivial for an encyclopaedic article? --Hildenja (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be included. I remember the incident. The pilot broke the sound barrier because he forgot he was flying at high altitude (the Air Force Academy is high up). The cadets knew the pilot was exceeding the speed of sound when they saw him approaching for his hi-speed pass because they couldn't hear the plane; they ran for cover. A sign was later posted in one of the broken windows stating: "Air Conditioning Courtesy of Republic Aircraft". The event is part of the F-105's legacy and should be included in any encyclopedia article. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I added the section. Hope it withstands community scrutiny. Hildenja (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• This single event is not that notable or significant to the F-105 overall. Wikipedia policies and guidelines include WP:Notability and WP:IINFO. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fnlayson, did you read the policies you quote? Under Notability it actually states "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (WP:NNC. The added section is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information either; that policy is used to keep out boring statistics and things like song lyrics. I know someone who was present at this event and he thinks it should be part of the F-105's history, owing to the performance characteristics of the aircraft, how an experienced F-105 pilot could inadvertently exceed the speed of sound for a dedication ceremony. I believe it adds to the article overall. Hildenja (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Notability provides policy for articles, while WP:IINFO provides similar guidelines for anything. They both provide general guidance. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fnlayson and don't think that much details about the ceremony should be included, it's not really notable.--McSly (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Source of term "Thud"

Okay, here it is: during operational development pilots heard about the F-105 with some misgivings and called it names like "lead sled" and "Thunderthud" after Chief Thunderthud in Howdy Dowdy. "Thunderthud" was shortened to "Thud". When the pilots actually flew the plane, their attitude changed. But they still called it "Thud" because it's short and quick. I worked on F-105's during the Vietnam War (23rd Wing). 50.202.81.2 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of contribution Wikipedia needs most: information from people who have personal experience with a subject. I found a letter, evidently from an F-105 pilot writing under a pseudonym, as a source. It's a primary source and so not technically the best for Wikipedia, but it's a totally plausible derivation that isn't the sort of thing that makes it into "the history books." And it makes so much sense that it has to be true. I added it to the article along with some discussion of the "Ultra Hog" name. I hope it's sufficiently sourced, because some mention of the Thunderthud origin deserves to be in the article. Roches (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I change the bit about the source of the name hog- as someone had put it came from the P-47, however the P-47 was the jug. The straight winged F-84 Thunderjet was the hog and the sweptwing F-84F was the super hog. spmaiorca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Highly questionable

"In December 1966, the VPAF's MiG-21 pilots of the 921st regiment downed 14 F-105s without any losses.[82]" This strikes me as unlikely. The source used doesn't carry this specific assertion, and doesn't appear very impartial or factual overall.Tomseattle (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)