Here's what others had to say:
From: janesx2@verizon.net
To: Bobski9933@aol.com
Sent: 3/26/2014 11:37:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: USAF F-105 "Thunderchief," known to VTN pilots as "The Thud"
Bob,
How about a different perspective on the Thud. I had a lot of friends that flew it and there are some things that I don’t think are accurate. First I never heard any Thud driver talk about it blowing up for no reason. I’m quite sure the AF would have found out why and fixed it. Second, I had a friend who went from flying school directly to the F-105 in VN. His name is Tom Gibbs and he worked for me before he went to the Thunderbirds and back to flying TAC fighters. He also was the firsts newbie to finish 100 missions in the bird and was on the cover of several magazines. My first knowledge of it came when we sent six guys at one time to fly it. Two were shot down and killed, two were shot down and spent over six years as POWs and two came back. There were lots of applications to the airlines after that! It became known as the Thud because every landing was a controlled crash! Another friend flew it in its mission in Europe and another came back to TAC and helped develop the Thud weapons officer course. It was a great airplane – just ask any Red River Pilots Association member – it was just horrible misused by our friends LBJ and McNamara.
Ray
___________________________________________________________________________
Okay guys,
I think we tore up this topic about the F105's enough. I just added below the comments received. Let's put this topic to rest!
Thanks for all your comments and Aim High (no matter what aircraft you flew or worked on!)
Bobski
------------------------------------------------
From Beetle Bailey: gcbinsc0506@yahoo.com
I worked those "sweethearts" at Seymour Johnson and Incirlic Turkey and Thakhli Thailand, Republic just skinned the frame around all the Hydraulics, and Environmental components. Most of the access panels were NOT where they needed to be to work on anything and a person would get cut, scraped and jabbed, poked and torn trying to reach a component to change it out, oh such fun.
Beetle
---------------------------------------------------
From Ross: (mross849@hotmail.com)
Ray's right, that there were a bunch of inaccuracies in the original yarn (below), but recognize it was written by an F-4 driver, and a Navy one at that.
The F-4 author attributes the spontaneous explosion rumor to a tall tale told to him by a Thud driver ... more likely told to him by a BUF bombardier (I assume you all know what a BUF is). I can't say authoritatively where the nickname originated, but the story which circulated among us Thud drivers was that when the NVN got lucky, the unlucky 105 (all 30,000+ lbs of it) went "Thud" as it hit the ground.
But the Thud was built to survive. It took lots of damage and kept on flying, and considering the wing loading was multiples of anything else in the inventory, it was amazing that it would still fly even after serious damage to the wings (tended to increase the approach and landing speeds, which were already close to 200 kts).
We had fairly accurate charts for takeoff roll, which were rather necessary when trying to get 26+ tons off the ground on rather short wings with an almost-too-small surface area. Fully loaded, we used water injection (thrust enhancement) on takeoff to insure a safe departure, but even if the water failed, the bird could still stagger into ground effect and build up climb speed. If the pre-flight departure figures strayed from the acceptable chart region, well, we just didn't go (rare, except at Nellis AFB, Nevada, where summer temperatures at the 2,000' field elevation could soar to 120° plus).
As for the Pentagon abuse, the rumor was that MacNamara wanted to get rid of the 105s, and so Washington was sending down frags with terribly stupid targets (such as Radio Hanoi ... a 12'x12' square wooden shack with some radio equipment and a smallish tower; and consecutive attacks on the Doumer Bridge – they didn't even have to move the AA array and SAMs from the day before). Target security was notoriously lacking, and NVN often knew what our targets were before we did. Tack on the almost absurd Rules of Engagement, and the unchanging dive-bomb tactics, and only the solid construction of the Thud (and the general skill of most of the pilots) kept as many flying through the end of the war as there were. Reports were that the anti-aircraft environment around the Hanoi/Haiphong areas (Route Pak 6) was far more intense than in Germany in World War II, so any suggestion that the Thud was a vulnerable bird would be severely in error.
I loved the F-106, but for the mission the Thud performed, I wouldn't have wanted to be in any other fighter (especially the F-4), and I consider myself lucky to have been a Thud Driver.
M. Ross Shulmister
-------------------------------------------------------
From T. Curtis: (tcurtis3@satx.rr.com)
I have 821 hrs in the machine and never had one blow uip. If you want to use all the runway try a kc135 or F -84.
Some people are full of crap
-----------------------------------------------------------
From Jack Krause: (jkrause54@msn.com)
BG Ken Bell, deceased, wrote a good book re the 105 titled
"100 Missions North". Great book.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Don Doty (chevy39sc@aol.com)
I recall a problem that early on in the thud, it had some catching fire in flight. Finding was the fuel vent located in the aft section was too short. The venting fuel was being drawn back into the engine bay and started a fire. They extended the saber drain to fix the problem.
Don Doty
Worked thuds over 5 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Doug: (dcrb@yahoo.com)
Yes, they did just blow up - and that is why they added the external cooling scoops on the aft fuselage - to cool down the aft engine section. Prior to SEA, the THUD was never used in a tropical environment with full AB all the time. They were overheating the engines & they blew up. That is also why they got the vented gun bay doors (on the Hun as well) - when they went out to the range for practice, they only used a hundred rounds or so. When you emptied the entire ammo magazine, it built up so much overpressure that they started blowing the panels off of the compartments.
That is a little oversimplified, but you get the idea. And like the DC-10 - they had all the hydraulic lines running side by side. Didnt really matter if you were on a one way nuke delivery mission, but sure mattered a lot going downtown. It made construction & maintenance a lot easier but survivability was nonexistent. That is why they finally added the duct along the upper spine - they separated the hydraulic lines so that one shell couldnt take all the hydraulics out.
A former colleague of mine used to tell me about how he jettisoned the external fuel tanks from his thud on every mission "up north" so that he could egress faster. Their unit got a tongue lashing from the higher ups about using up so many tanks & that they were running short. He tried leaving them on for a couple of missions but then took a jet for depot maintenance. He said that there were so many external fuel tanks piled up he never brought another one home.
Doug
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: davebrog@comcast.net
To: thud241@comcast.net
CC: mross849@hotmail.com, bobski9933@aol.com, janesx2@verizon.net
Sent: 3/27/2014 8:34:27 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: USAF F-105 "Thunderchief," a/k/a to VTN pilots as "The Thud"
JC,
This may help put to bed the blow up issue. I talked to Harry Matthews about it.
In the 1963 time frame, out of Kadena, there were a couple that blew up. It was problem with the fuel tank that was put into the bomb bay. It took about a year to fix. That was the running joke among them that you could fly along side a MIG and blow up to knock it down. The problem was fixed before any of the Thuds went to war.
The Thud was a great bird. It brought me home 108 times out of 108 take offs flying Wild Weasels from Korat.
Check 6,
Dave
On Mar 26, 2014, at 7:45 PM, JC Jones wrote:
M, It is my belief that the name Thud first originated among the pilots of the 4th TFW at Seymour-Johnson AFB when they were equipped with the B model. Not sure how many, but they lost quite a few. According to a former 12th person, the infamous Matthew P. D’ Addio, who was member of the 4th at that time, the name Thud supposedly referred to the sound it made as it slammed into the Pamlico Sound, a few miles to the east of Seymour Johnson, which fielded many of the over water ranges.
On a side note, I understand that the 4th TFW under the command of Lt Gen Joseph Moore, was so busy with putting on demonstrations with the aircraft that they never really became operational ready.
JC
PS: You may find this interesting….
www.planesofthepast.com/f105-thunderchief.htm?gclid=CKz1lvWssb0CFcg7OgodBQUAAg______________________________________________________
From: pgrignot@gmail.com
To: Bobski9933@aol.com
Not sure if you would know him but i flew 20 years with a Man Named Salvatore A Bonacasa. he was a wild weasel as well.
We were in the drone program here at Tyndall flying F-100,106's and lastly the F-4 All QF's and single seat configuration...
We still play golf and eat out from time to time. Great guy and Great pilot. Had nothing but praise for the Thud.
BLessings...
____________________________________________________________
From: ivy@mccoy8.com
To: Bobski9933@aol.com
Sent: 3/27/2014 5:18:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: RE: F-105
Now that I am in a more reasonable mood, let me give you my thoughts on the Thud
I flew the Thud for 5 years. Flew 100 missions North . Half tdy with the 67th (Risner ) the other half at Takhli with the 357th (Bobby Wayne) .
Before Nam the Thud had a problem with fuel vapor collecting in the aft and blowing up. A major mod put air scoops on the aft fuselage. It went from a 1.8mach to a 1.5. Problem solved.
The only machine that landed faster was the Space Shuttle. But “every landing a controlled crash “is absurd. If you were a lousy pilot is the only reason I can think of that would make that true.
Those nose sniffing the dirt applied to the F-84 ,not to the Thud.
A major reason for our losses were stupid tactics . Our squadron ,67th, lost three on Rolling Thunder1 and I came back with significant battle damage. ALL were lost/damaged delivering CBU-2’s. Dumbest maneuver know to man. Fly directly over the target at 100ft and dribble out these little bomblets. Those losses were not the fault of the Thud. Shooting Bullpups at the Than Hoa Bridge(in two passes). It chipped the paint off the bridge. I lost my flight commander, Smitty Harris ,on that mission. Flying in extended trail and tossing bombs at Kep Airfield from the same IP. WE lost Ron Byrne on that one, not the fault of the THUD
Nasty Ned Miller of the 44th Sqdn was pulling up to a KC-135 when the radar fuse on a 3000# rang in and detonated. Not the fault of the Thud. Low angle strafe,2.75 rockets ,and releasing bombs as if you were on the gunnery range was stupid . We learned to deliver higher. Not the fault of the THUD
So you see a lot of the losses were due to inexperience and plumb stupidity.
We had a reunion of Nam Thud Drivers in this past Oct. 238 total and I didn’t hear a bad word about the THUD.
I also flew the F-4 for a second tour in 1972:132 missions. Once again I was there for Linebacker 1. A good airplane ,but I am of the generation that loved the bird you were flying.
Cheers,
Ivy McCoy
__________________________________________________________
I'd say this is one of the best aircraft debates I've seen lately. I would also say thet Ken Bell who wrote the book "100 Missions North" was a 456th FIS Pilot on F-106s. His book had me sweating bullets as he described his missions like I was in the cockpit with him. May he rest in peace.
Pat P.
Amazon:
www.amazon.com/100-Missions-North-Fighter-Vietnam/dp/1574886398