XF-103 Thunderwarrior - Warbird Wednesday Episode

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 28 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 31

  • @micodyerski1621
    @micodyerski1621 8 місяців тому +2

    Must be the greatest name of a jet fighter Every!

  • @micodyerski1621
    @micodyerski1621 8 місяців тому +2

    Greg. Now Greg. Good job Greg.
    No go-go juice? Get Greg.

  • @piotrstrzelczyk5248
    @piotrstrzelczyk5248 Рік тому +10

    4:30 F-111 also had a capsule.

  • @michaellefrapper5863
    @michaellefrapper5863 3 місяці тому +2

    The F111 had an ejection capsule as well. 💙 💛

  • @Titus-as-the-Roman
    @Titus-as-the-Roman Місяць тому +1

    F-111 Ardvark had a complete crew capsule for emergency ejection

  • @CAAgNSX
    @CAAgNSX 2 роки тому +6

    Another aircraft with a pod ejection system was the XB-70! It was also part of the high altitude high speed family!

    • @johnroberts7018
      @johnroberts7018 2 роки тому

      Damnit lol, I was going to type the same thing but scrolled down and saw you beat me to it!
      Love the XB-70. What a machine! I went to see the one at Wright Patt Air Force Museum in Dayton OH. Was one of the coolest things I have ever seen. It's tough to appreciate the enormity of that plane unless you're standing right next to it.

  • @fntsmk
    @fntsmk Місяць тому +1

    F-111 had a capsule 7 years before the BONE's first flight.

  • @phayzyre1052
    @phayzyre1052 2 місяці тому +1

    Had Republic worked out the titanium fabrication issues and had the engine for this airplane not been stillborn the Thunderwarrior would have been a formidable airplane! Sadly, the timeframe in which this aircraft was being developed was when military aircraft had just gone supersonic and many other technological issues had just not caught up yet.

  • @jpatt1000
    @jpatt1000 8 місяців тому +3

    I would compare the ejection '"shoe" (It does look like a sneaker, doesn't it?) more with the B-58 and XB-70 as it just encapsulated the pilot rather than ejecting a section of the airframe like the B-1A or F-111. The missiles were more akin to the system on the F-89H where they popped out of individual wells, three in the forward part of each tip tank (and an F-89H with all six Falcons popped out of the tip tanks looked awesome) as opposed to one big bay opening and all the missiles extending like on the 102 or 106. The 103 had six bays for the GAR-1 or GAR-2 Falcon missiles and the two drawers of 2.75" FFARs. (Also, I've seen drawings with two further bays behind the upper pair of Falcons for a pair of GAR-3 nuclear rockets but I have also seen drawings where this space was reserved for fuel.) I immediately thought of the 103 when watching Maverick as they had the ramjet on the Darkstar working just as the 103 system would have! I am a fan of Republic's aircraft! Would love to see some version of F-84 flying in the future.

  • @johnwatson3948
    @johnwatson3948 3 місяці тому +4

    Yes as noted was overweight and underpowered - XF-103 was cancelled after a GAO review of the program determined a likely top speed of only Mach 2.

    • @j.mangum7652
      @j.mangum7652 3 місяці тому +2

      From the initial looks of it it looked like it probably wasn't going to have a satisfactory range required of an interceptor for it's size and the fact it was going to have two different powerplants. Two very fuel thirsty powerplants.
      The main factor that killed Thunderchief was the not-so bomber gap and our military had to respond instead to the Soviet's reliance on ICBM's.
      Also around this same time Convair's project Pluto(SLAM)the nuclear powered ramjet ICCM was also cancelled but their novel guidance system lived on for the development of the Tomahawk cruise missile.

    • @phayzyre1052
      @phayzyre1052 2 місяці тому +1

      @@j.mangum7652 Just adding to your comment another thing that killed the F-105 was its inability to effectively dogfight. Putting stubby wings on an extremely long fuselage did not make for an agile fighter and I think the US Air Force could see that long before the Vietnam war broke out. Originally, F-105 production was supposed to be 1,400 units and last till at least about 1969 but when production wrapped in 1964 only 833 had been built. Over a quarter of them were lost in Vietnam and by the time 1970 rolled around all of the D model 105’s returned home leaving only the F and G models to fight the remainder of the war.

    • @phayzyre1052
      @phayzyre1052 2 місяці тому

      Mach 1 was all it needed to get the ramjet to start. Once there and engaged, the ramjet could’ve easily carried this aircraft well past Mach 3 and beyond. Titanium fabrication problems and an underperforming engine was what eventually drove the last nails in its coffin.

  • @bigharmonicabob2593
    @bigharmonicabob2593 2 роки тому +2

    Another great show...hat ..drink... strange word..
    Thanks....

  • @larrybarger1077
    @larrybarger1077 Рік тому +1

    Very good.

  • @MichaelRoy-hc3lz
    @MichaelRoy-hc3lz 3 місяці тому +1

    F-111 had an ejection capsule

  • @freedog632
    @freedog632 Місяць тому +1

    FB-111 had a capsule

  • @bobclifton8021
    @bobclifton8021 5 місяців тому +1

    The B-58 and F-111 also had escape capsules.

    • @zerstorer335
      @zerstorer335 3 місяці тому

      I was thinking that the B58 had the more similar design because it creates a cocoon around the pilot within the cockpit. The B-1 and F-111 designs ejected the entire cockpit.

  • @mazamatov
    @mazamatov Рік тому +4

    Russian aviation fanatics love this plane

    • @zetoboogaloo8802
      @zetoboogaloo8802 Рік тому

      The plane was American.

    • @tbilisicentralv2
      @tbilisicentralv2 Рік тому

      @@zetoboogaloo8802 Alexander Kartveli was a Georgian 🍻

    • @zetoboogaloo8802
      @zetoboogaloo8802 Рік тому

      @@tbilisicentralv2 that dose not change the fact that the plane was designed for America.

  • @almargiotta484
    @almargiotta484 Рік тому +1

    Sversky became Republic.

  • @Justanotherconsumer
    @Justanotherconsumer Рік тому +1

    One of my favorite American… cancelled for a reason planes.
    Canceled within a few years of the CF105. Must have been American meddling here too!
    Oh, wait, it’s an American plane.

    • @bfc3057
      @bfc3057 3 місяці тому

      You do know that other countries cancelled aircraft? You don't?
      That Canada couldn't afford the CF-105 either? No?

  • @matthewmoore5698
    @matthewmoore5698 Рік тому +2

    The thud was a bit of a letdown in Vietnam shame because guys died

    • @theEVILone0130
      @theEVILone0130 Місяць тому

      It was misused in Vietnam it was a nuclear bomber and not a tactical bomber. It was never intended to go and pound the ground with conventional bombs. It was intended to drop a nuclear weapon and get the hell out of dodge before being caught by the weapons shockwave and radiation. That doesn't mean it was a letdown. A letdown would be closer to the F-4 which had no gun and questionable missiles both IR and radar homing. Otherwise why would they have developed a under belly gun pod so that the newest air superiority fighter of the day. Which it wasn't or they wouldn't have had to adapt it to fire a gun in a fight. But the F-4 was supposed to deal with the MiGs of the North Vietnamese air force. Compared to a plane designed for one specific job and then grabbed and used to do a job in whichh it was never intended to go air to ground in a high intensity conventional war zone.

  • @matthewmoore5698
    @matthewmoore5698 Рік тому +2

    Mixed power British idea get out of Here Greg who or whatever you are Mate you sound like Trump ! OMG

    • @Justanotherconsumer
      @Justanotherconsumer Рік тому +1

      There was a French aircraft that used a similar ramjet/turbojet setup by Leduc (up to 0.22, which didn’t fly).