F-105 ThunderChief Airborne: Whats it gonna take?

[Shay]

I've REALLY been enjoying Craig Baker's F-105 site. i highly recommend it.

http://www.burrusspta.org/thud.html


It's way past time that a F-105 returned to the sky. I can't imagine a Thunder Chief in the sky would be anything less than a instant crowd pleaser at the airshows.

So I'm going to try an rehash this subject.

Perhaps RickH and The Inspector will be some of the knowledgible folks to comment on this.

I'm not talking about money concerns. Those are obivious.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 3 groups with THUDS capable of supporting a flying F-105 are Mr Paul Allen, EverGreen and Colling Foundation?

In the past it has been mentioned that the engine mounts on the EG Thud were cut. Is that also the case for the CF and PA F-105s?

Is it not possible to fabricate new mounts? I mean they were made once before, can't they be made again?

Do these birds have data plates? I have seen with cockpits that have been DRMO'd the data have been removed.

And lastly does the legislation that permits the CF F-4D to fly make way for an F-105 to fly again?

What other hurdles are there to overcome?


Thanks

Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

[RickH]

The Evergreen F105 is the aircraft that CF was going after. The motor mounts were cut by order of the NMUSAF to remove it as a possible flyer.

[Shay]

The Evergreen F105 is the aircraft that CF was going after. The motor mounts were cut by order of the NMUSAF to remove it as a possible flyer.

So that's it?? Everything grinds to a halt?

Without trying to over simplify the situation. Can't intact mounts be procured or manufactured?

Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[JimH]

yeah...but you need the rest of the plane to mount them to...

jim

[RickH]

The motor mounts on the F-105 are integral to the main structure of the airframe.

No, I don't think that's it. It just complicates the resurection and selection of a suitable candidate.

[Shay]

Thanks Rick and Jim

I was not aware of how dependent the airframe was on the mounts.

Any theories as to why the NMUSAF went to such lengths?

Maybe I'm slightly naive, but I can't fathom how one flying example of a type would impact how the NMUSAF operates. Why would or should they care?

I imagine there has to be a reason, I just can't think of a logical one.


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[262crew]

Mr. Allen has a F-105F or G I've seen it along with a pair of F-8's As far as I know he or FHC are the only ones with the means and interest in doing such a thing.

[JBrawner]

hmm wonder if the f-105 at our museum has them cut as well, any pics of what they may look like?

[mazdaP5]

I think the thing that really keeps a 105 from flying as a Warbird is the same a the B-52, it's initial design as a nuclear delivery system. That's kind of frowned upon by the government.

That and the crazy amount of money to keep it maintained.

[Glen]

[quote="mazdaP5"]I think the thing that really keeps a 105 from flying as a Warbird is the same a the B-52, it's initial design as a nuclear delivery system. That's kind of frowned upon by the government.

That and the crazy amount of money to keep it maintained.[/quote

Shhhhhhhhh! dont tell the anybody but a F-4 is flying today that could too

[hang the expense]

Somebody needs to post some pics of what these mounts look like and how they tie into the airframe.Man I really loved seeing them fly at Dobbins afb in atlanta ga.What a darn fine looking jet.

[Ryan Keough]

The case with any potential F-105 to fly is the ability for the aircraft to offset it's operation costs based on it's ability to make money. Sure, such a plane would be a rarity at shows and some would be interested in paying the SIGNIFICANT appearance fee and fuel bill, but in the near-term, it isn't viable for many shows out there when John Q. Public doesn't care if it's an F-16 or a -105 -- as long as it's loud.

And yes, I understand that we here don't think that way, but are we going to show up to every show enmasse with 300 of our friends to make the 30,000 people that they need to make a profit?

Having a 2-seat -105 is the next big hurdle. If you ever think you'll have the opportunity to make a 105 fly, you need to have that second seat to potentially offer another paying bum to sit in back and get some flight instruction.

FHC and PA seem to not be interested in the 'flight training' concept, so I am sure it's down far on his list at this point.

In all reality, the Collings Foundation is the only organization I feel has the means to operate such a complex turbojet, the safety and operational record, and the funding and reputation behind them. Unfortunately the USAF and the DoD have thrown so many curve-balls in their direction in an attempt to get them to stop -- putting the QF-4's on the circuit to dry up airshow bookings, not releasing the two engines that were given to them in the original deed of gift for the F-4, lawyers fighting for years on the TA-4, and finally this F-105 "middle of the night" transfer to another museum -- stripped of it's ability to fly again EVER.

I give a lot of credit to the tenacity of the folks in the know over at Collings Foundation -- most organizations would throw in the towel by now. If anything, they are proving that they are not only growing, but are on the offensive in the fight to get some of the most unique turbine and turbojet military aircraft out there as the last flying examples of their type.

My .02.

[n5151ts]

ill fly it if you fund it!

[RickH]

No,No,...we'll fly it if you'll fund it !!

[Broken-Wrench]

Give me a pile of Hy locks and a new /used mount and that baby will fly again! You should have seen what I did to 757 engine mounts