F-105 my beloved
>>64260558The "F-16" of the 50-60s.
>>64260563How so in your estimation?
>>64260563I guess you could say that but really it was just the f100 super saber on steroids.
>>64260558DIRTY DEEDS
>>64260563ehhh... that'd be the 104
>>64260737Lol not even close. F104 was wholly unique in its role and era which led to it be totally abandoned by the U.S airforce. While it may have soldered on in other countries for a while after calling it the f16 of its era is pretty insane.
>>64260563>>64260737>>64260975Yes the F-104 (relative lightest of century series) would have been the 'F-16' of that era, he is correct. Was widely exportedThat or the F-5 Freedom Fighter(no, the F-105 was not analogous to F-16 it really doesn't have a follow-on or contemporary equivalent. Its closest relative USAF contemporary was the twin-engine swing wing F-111)
>>64260558>Thread theme https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x3kA34VoCkLuv me Thud
Finally, a Thud thread
>>64260558Fuck McNamara. That is all.
>>64262707This is a work safe board, you can’t post that here
good thread I love the Thud and Nam war storieshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCquks_CSEQ
>>64260558Nigger>>64260563Double nigger
>>64260558>slaps you girlfriend ass with SA-2what you do now, mỹ?
>>64263493Didn't Vietnam veterans used to say that an SA-2 was like an entire telephone pole flying right by your plane?
>>64263493
>>64263493Hunter-Killer
>>64264536Saved.
>>64260737>>64261822F-104 was a pure interceptor. F-5 was the F-16 of the era, would've been a reformer's wet dream, low wing loading, cheap, lightweight, except for its middling TWR for the era due to the use of tiny engines.>>64260975Not really, it was a dedicated interceptor, it had the same role as the F-102 and F-106, and that of the Sabre Dog before it. Prior to that, circumstances and technological limitations made purebred interceptors uncommon in the USAF, but the P-39 was designed primarily for an interception role, and multiroles killed the pure interceptor, along with many other types, its demise wasn't really unique.
>>64264841The f104 wasn't designed as a pure interceptor, it was designed as an air superiority fighter by kelly johnson while getting imputs from expert korean war pilots flying f86's, after the lockheed f-80 somewhat embarassed itself, that told him what mattered for fighting migs was climbing quickly, flying fast and having a good gun with high rate of fire - and to quote Francis Gabreski "I'd rather sight with a piece of chewing gum stuck on the windscreen" and told Johnson that radar "was a waste of time".And that's what the f104a turned out to be, the smallest plane they could design around the engine and m61 gun, with a minimal range finding radar and wingtip mounted infrared missiles - not entirely different from the f-16 design brief, if you think about it. And like the f-16, after the very basic initial design it kept getting fatter with new avionics and ground attack munitions as time went on. It was only designated as an interceptor after the f102 ran into serious development issues forcing the f104 to be adopted as an interim solution, and dropped in the role once the 102 and 106 were up to speed.The problem with the f104 is that it was ONLY designed with input from expert pilots, and ended up entirely unforgiving for newbie pilots between it's very high landing speeds, strictly limited AoA, and dependence on manually controlled flaps for maneuvering. And before the f102 showed how you could use area rule to compensate for large wings, very high wing loading was the only way to go fast - which is why the f105 also has very large wing loading, despite being designed as a bomber.The area rule was quantifed so late in the f105's development that they decided it would be easier to implementing it by widening the ends of the fuselage instead of narrowing the wing root.
>>64265140
>>64260717DONE WITH SHEEP
>>64261828>Thread theme>Doesn't pick 'Thunderstruck'ishygddt
>>64265140>Area rule you said? I will use it to make this thicker then.
