Jump to content

Talk:Republic F-84F Thunderstreak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No subject

[edit]

There is another on display at a VFW hall in Bartlett, IL on Rte. 59 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.71.95.101 (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also one on display at the 118th Wing in Nashville, TN. I am currently trying to find out its tail number in order to include it in the list of display aircraft.

There is one display on the side of the road, 700 North road (IL 17) and near Cavalry Drive, wenona, illioois. It is 51-9419 apparently.

There is one at the Merrill, Wisconsin Airport but the first two numbers of the BUNO is different that the ones on the display list page. I have a pic of the aircraft and of the BUNO. What next...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.69.217 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

60.242.95.23 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

I suggest that the article is moved to Republic F-84 Thunderstreak, because it is also about the RF-84K and YF-84J. - ZLEA —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose that as the F-84F is the primary variant the others are just version of it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with MilborneOne. There are straight-winged F-84s which are distinctly different, and should not be covered on the same page. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect photo?

[edit]

Is there some reason why the same photo appears twice in this article? Surely there must be many more photos of this aircraft available... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.160 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree,  Done. - Samf4u (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Republic F-84F Thunderstreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thrust loss

[edit]

It says that "700 pounds, or 10% of the total thurst is lost because the engine is mounted at an angle and there is a prominent kink in the exhaust". First, I changed it to "not perfectly straight exhaust", because there clearly isn't what most people would call "a prominent kink" in the jet pipe. A "kink" is a hard angle that causes a serious flow restriction, and that clearly cannot fit inside the fuselage, at a glance. So the jet pipe is a little curved, and the engine is mounted "at an angle": so what? I don't see how the engine being mounted at an angle would have any effect (one frequenlty sees jets with engines mounted at an angle to the centerline), unless the editor means that hte engine is angled relative to the jet pipe? I suppose this would cause so losses due to friction where the flow is redirected, and again where the pipe curves....assuming that it does. But ten percent loss? Just from that? What are the thrust losses from the convolutions the jet flow is forced to go through in a Bristol Pegasus then? If you loose 10% just from not having a perfectly straight jet pipe/engine interface, I hate to think what the losses must be from diverting you jet flow 90deg sideways, and then 90deg downwards directly afterwards. The Pegasus must actually produce 50,000lnbs of thrust, just to make 35,000 net in tne end, in that case! My suspicion is that if this "10%" number actually means something, it refers to the total thrust loss, which comes not only from the curved just pipe, but primarily from the long jet pipe. All jets with long jet pipes loose a pretty good fraction of thrust due to cooling before the exhaust can exit; the Hunter, the F-84, the F-80, the F-86, the U-2. Any plane with a long jet pipe. I'd believe 10% TOTAL loss, not not 10% ADDITIONAL loss, just because the pipe isn't perfectly straight. Since as far as I know the F-84 and F-84F have the same engine installation and jet pipe design, the same must be true for both of them. So both the F-86 and the F-84 loose power due to th jet pipe...say 8%...and the F-84 looses another 2% because of the angled pipe, etc. That seems much more plausible to me. SO what thie should really say, then, is "the F-84 looses 2% of thrust due to angled engine, etc, in additon to the normal losses from a long jet pipe". Because there isn't anything abnormal about 5-10% thrust losses, only this is trying to paint the F-84 as some kind of bad design. It had no worse thrust than other equivalent planes, and if it had poor takeoff performance, it was because of wing design and heavy weight. Not because it lost most of its thrust because Republic didn't know how to design a jet pipe properly, which is basically what this is suggesting.


Idumea47b (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_F-84F_Thunderstreak&oldid=1201253414"