I've wanted to do a 1960's ground attack aircraft for some time now. Something that flew low and fast. There have been some EXCELLENT F-4 Phantom builds lately, but the A-6 Intruder and F-105 Thunderchief seem to have been neglected for the last year or so. It takes me about a month to build a plane, so I can't just do both, which one should I pick?
The F-105 was a big, extremely fast (Mach2+) Air Force fighter-bomber that could carry 17,000 pounds of bombs. Despite being used mostly as a bomber, Thunderchiefs also carried air to air missiles and a very effective 20mm Vulcan cannon, earning them 27 air to air kills over Vietnam.
On the other end of the spectrum, the A-6 was a tiny subsonic jet that had an interesting side by side cockpit layout for the pilot and navigator. Despite being 10 feet shorter and much lighter than the F-105, the A-6 could carry an astounding 18,000 pounds of bombs and still take off from a carrier. The A-6 was able to fly and navigate in zero visibility thanks to sophisticated sensors and cockpit displays. But she didn't have defensive weapons of any kind, relying instead on low alititude and speed or fighter cover to get in and get out unharmed.
So which one?
I don't know. My main device is on the kindle and it is becoming slow. I am horrible on iOS but I'll try on the kindle. @F104Deathtrap
@NativeChief1492 It looks like Im going to FINALLY get back into making this thing for the Vietnam challenge Kevinairlines posted. Are you going to participate?
@F104Deathtrap true dat
@Bluerobot11 Yes, the Phantom still is one of the all time best. She is certainly no dog fighter, but the versatility and raw performance is just amazing.
@F104Deathtrap yeah the phantom was amazing
@Bluerobot11 The F104 absolutely pushed the limits of science at the time. Its boundary layer control system was very influential and it set many altitude and speed records. But it was a mess. It had a nasty habit of doing somersaults and tearing itself apart (F101 had the same trouble, has to do with certain T-tailed jets). The wings were tiny, so landing speeds were silly-fast, and if the engine failed, other systems failed with it, including the boundary system that provided lift for the wings, combined with the fast landing speed basically meant you had to bail out or crash, and bailing out would have been interesting considering the ejection seat fired DOWNWARD through the floor of early models. TLDR, the Starfighter was a brilliant piece of scientific achievement and an appallingly unreliable chunk of military equipment.
The Thunderchief was by no means a great dogfighter, and there were other aircraft more suitable for precise ground attack, but at the time, the USAF needed something that could fly low and fast and deliver as much TNT as a B-17, and the F-105 was the only thing they had that could fit the bill until the F-4 Phantom came along.
@F104Deathtrap no, I thought the thundercheif was the bad one, and the starfighter was the one that proved itself in combat. Unless I've gotten it wrong this entire time
@Bluerobot11 My username is a reference to the fact that Lockheed literally bribed airforce brass around the world to use the Starfighter, and hundreds upon hundreds of pilots died in accidents flying it. When it finally saw combat over Vietnam, we lost 12 of them and they scored no ariel victories despite being used in an air superiority role.
I probably should have used the Thunderchief as my username, you're right. It was designed by Alexander Kartvelli (who also designed my favorite plane, the P-47 back in WW2). It's my favorite "Century Series" fighter and probably the ONLY one to prove itself in combat. Forming the backbone of Operation Rolling Thunder, Thud crews carried out the majority of bomb runs during the early part of the war, racking up over 25 air-to-air vitctories (and 2 Congressional Medals of Honor) in the process, but it all came a terrible cost as hundreds of pilots were lost to AAA and SAMs.
@F104Deathtrap Lol, you sure your name shouldn't be F-105 Deathtrap? It's much more accurate (yes build the thunderchief)
I could sure try @F104Deathtrap
@NativeChief1492 @Skyfalcon Well guys, there have been a few A-6 builds recently, one of which is actually quite well done, so I think it will have to be the Thunderchief as soon as I get finished with that pesky contest Boggy posted. Chief, if I do a good job on it, do you think you could do me the honor of throwing together a custom paintjob version?
Thunderchief
both are great planes, but I think an intruder would be nice.