F-105 Thunderchief

[Mike Force Team]

Please create a module for the F-105 Thunderchief.

[upyr1]

Hell yes. If I had my way and we could get the Thud I would love two or three versions.

The F-105D F and G. Also I think we would need an AI EB-66. My dad was an EWO he went to war in the EB-66 but he almost got assigned to the Thud. Right now I just want a good AI thud.  

Edited December 6, 2021 by upyr1

[Fangs Out]

+1 , only problem is that Republic , the manufacturer has destroyed most of the supporting documents needed to make it a Full fidelity module

[Tank50us]

15 hours ago, Fangs Out said:

+1 , only problem is that Republic , the manufacturer has destroyed most of the supporting documents needed to make it a Full fidelity module

hmm.... is there any way to make a FFM without those documents? I imagine it can be done, it'd just be a lot harder, and you'd need a lot of SMEs to get it right.... and we're rapidly running out of those.

[Northstar98]

It's not just the FM though, it's also how the systems work and how you interact with them.

[Evoman]

11 hours ago, Tank50us said:

hmm.... is there any way to make a FFM without those documents? I imagine it can be done, it'd just be a lot harder, and you'd need a lot of SMEs to get it right.... and we're rapidly running out of those.

I had read that ED had to pretty much do that for the P-47 by doing their own wind tunnel test to get the data they needed. However it was very expensive to do.

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, Tank50us said:

hmm.... is there any way to make a FFM without those documents? I imagine it can be done, it'd just be a lot harder, and you'd need a lot of SMEs to get it right.... and we're rapidly running out of those.

That's a good reason to hurry. I don't know what he remembers but in theory if we did the F my dad could be a SME for that. He's spent time in the back seat of a Thud but he went to war in an EB-66

On 12/6/2021 at 1:39 PM, Fangs Out said:

+1 , only problem is that Republic , the manufacturer has destroyed most of the supporting documents needed to make it a Full fidelity module

I know you can get some documents from the Smithson. 

[Beirut]

It would be hard to resist an F-105, that's for sure. That there is some classic hardware. 

[Mike Force Team]

Too bad the original manufacturer's manuals are not available for the F-105.  Could the F-105 be created based on books or manuals found online for sale?  There might not be many veterans left alive that flew the F-105.

[Tank50us]

9 minutes ago, Mike Force Team said:

Too bad the original manufacturer's manuals are not available for the F-105.  Could the F-105 be created based on books or manuals found online for sale?  There might not be many veterans left alive that flew the F-105.

You might be able to go to the USAF Archives and look up the information needed. The question is how much of it is still classified.

[WOPR]

It might be in the Smithsonian archives.  The SI is a notorious collector of such things and they have one in the Udvar-Hazy annex.

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/republic-f-105d-thunderchief/nasm_A19820064000

[upyr1]

7 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

You might be able to go to the USAF Archives and look up the information needed. The question is how much of it is still classified.

I have literally asked the USAF historical command about that, they said to go to the Smithsonian. They will copy the files for a fee here is a link of documents with all the files they have available 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Udw8h10lDxMK4sYvkmcnNSuAuX2qGea?usp=sharing

 

[Andrew8604]

If you can't obtain 100% of the flight nuances of the F-105B/D (let's forget about the "Wild Weasel" G-model for a moment), is that a reason to not reproduce it in DCS?  Are any of the flight models in DCS 100% accurate?  I highly doubt it.  For example, I believe YouTube channel author and F-16 pilot, "Mover", commented how the DCS F-16C cannot sustain a 9-g turn like it should and can attain too much "alpha".   So, these DCS models are not 100% accurate.  They're pretty damn neat, though.  DCS is not a certified pilot training device, it's for entertainment.  They should just do the best they can.  We have a lot of fun with the "fan-created" A-4E-C Skyhawk...it's not at all 100%...but it's still fun. 

There seems to be plenty of documentation available on the Internet for F-105D & F's Flight Manuals with detailed diagrams and descriptions of all the systems.  Somewhere there must be descriptions of the radar modes and functions, as well.  Also, some pilot accounts and descriptions in novels, "Thud Ridge" for example.  There are no flight-worthy F-105's, but there are several on static display.  That may assist in getting all the dimensions correct.

I think the F-105D is a model that at least 75% of DCS customers will buy.  Sure, many will say, "It's not a dogfighter.  Who wants it?  It can't beat a Mirage 2000 in a dogfight!"  But that's those people.  This isn't Dogfighter Simulator (or I didn't think it was exclusively supposed to be).  This is Digital Combat Simulator.  And the F-105D flew more missions against SA-2 SAMs and radar-directed AAA than most types currently in DCS.  No, it didn't deliver your laser-guided and GPS-guided smart bombs or IR Mavericks, but it did deliver a pair of M118, 3,000-lb demolition bombs, or eight M117 750-lb bombs, without a HUD, in the hands of skilled pilots.

You read "Thud Ridge" and tell me it was boring and the F-105 was a dull plane.

They should do the wind tunnel testing on the F-105, then, like the P-47.  Then sell the F-105 on DCS for $69...for 1 year subscription.  Thereafter, each additional year would be $9.99, or three for $24.99.  Maybe some of the wind tunnel money could be recouped, then, without people having to pay $100 just to try it out.

[upyr1]

10 hours ago, WOPR said:

It might be in the Smithsonian archives.  The SI is a notorious collector of such things and they have one in the Udvar-Hazy annex.

 

https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/republic-f-105d-thunderchief/nasm_A19820064000

Here is a link to a folder with pdfs containing all the documents the SI has 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Udw8h10lDxMK4sYvkmcnNSuAuX2qGea?usp=sharing

 

[Nodak]

I don't believe the problem is classification of information, the problem is it's bombing computation system was unique and a one off, one of a kind.  If that information is no longer available, well, good luck with that.  Even if you built it without the bomb system it wouldn't work since the system was married directly into most of the flight instrumentation.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Nodak

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Nodak said:

I don't believe the problem is classification of information, the problem is it's bombing computation system was unique and a one off, one of a kind.  If that information is no longer available, well, good luck with that.  Even if you built it without the bomb system it wouldn't work since the system was married directly into most of the flight instrumentation.

 

Would you settle for a close approximation?

[Nodak]

That's what a simulation is.  However, your still going to have to invent that approximation, who's got that kind of time and investment to devote, and in the end probably get roasted over any future discrepancies and anomalies uncovered, there are still living witnesses.

I don't believe for a second anyone's coming up with a 'close' approximation without the manuals in a system of that complexity.

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Nodak said:

I don't believe the problem is classification of information, the problem is it's bombing computation system was unique and a one off, one of a kind.  If that information is no longer available, well, good luck with that.  Even if you built it without the bomb system it wouldn't work since the system was married directly into most of the flight instrumentation.

 

Would maintanance Manuals help provide the needed information? Some of those exist 

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Would you settle for a close approximation?

Only in an AI Thud. Which we need even if we never get a Thud mod

[Tank50us]

51 minutes ago, upyr1 said:

Would maintanance Manuals help provide the needed information? Some of those exist 

I imagine they would. And of course the right kind of SMEs will help as well.

[upyr1]

55 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I imagine they would. And of course the right kind of SMEs will help as well.

This is a link to my google drive folder with some PDFs that list all the documents the Smithsonian have about the Thud.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17Udw8h10lDxMK4sYvkmcnNSuAuX2qGea?usp=sharing

I'd like someone to state if they think it would be useful. 

[mkellytx]

There's quite a bit of open source data out there for the Thud, beyond just the -1's and performance annexes.  NASA has a lot of technical reports and did a lot of studies for Republic when it was still NACA, those are all still on the NASA technical servers for download.  Both P&FQ (Performance & Flying Qualities), as we called that part of a flight test program, are needed to build a flight model.  The "P" part a reasonably competent aero E could back out with the performance annex and the TPS textbook to get your aero coefficients and Equations of Motion (EOM's).  The tough part is the "FQ", how the control movements translate into the EOM's.  At least one of the NASA reports had the block diagrams of the Stab Aug/control system, with EOM's and with most of the gains for the system.  It's not everything, but it's a start...

While most of the Republic archives were destroyed years ago, I wonder if some of the old flight test material is still on the selves in the Edward's Technical Library.  Might be worth a FOIA request for anyone serious about the Thud...

[upyr1]

14 hours ago, mkellytx said:

There's quite a bit of open source data out there for the Thud, beyond just the -1's and performance annexes.  NASA has a lot of technical reports and did a lot of studies for Republic when it was still NACA, those are all still on the NASA technical servers for download.  Both P&FQ (Performance & Flying Qualities), as we called that part of a flight test program, are needed to build a flight model.  The "P" part a reasonably competent aero E could back out with the performance annex and the TPS textbook to get your aero coefficients and Equations of Motion (EOM's).  The tough part is the "FQ", how the control movements translate into the EOM's.  At least one of the NASA reports had the block diagrams of the Stab Aug/control system, with EOM's and with most of the gains for the system.  It's not everything, but it's a start...

While most of the Republic archives were destroyed years ago, I wonder if some of the old flight test material is still on the selves in the Edward's Technical Library.  Might be worth a FOIA request for anyone serious about the Thud...

I have not tried NASA but I have tried the usaf and they sent me to the Smithsonian. I will try NASA the si has drawings, the flight manual some maintenance manuals including the fire control system and bombing computer. I didn't see any flight data listed unless it is in the flight manual. I will ask about another aircraft such as the F-100 to see what they list.

My main concern though is if we have enough data to piece together the weapons systems. The laws of physics are still the same so a wind tunnel test would have the same results as one done in the 1950s. So if we have a good model the wind tunnel tests could be redone. However if we can't accurately model the radar and other combat systems we can't have a ff module just a really good ai thud

[mkellytx]

3 hours ago, upyr1 said:

I have not tried NASA but I have tried the usaf and they sent me to the Smithsonian. I will try NASA the si has drawings, the flight manual some maintenance manuals including the fire control system and bombing computer. I didn't see any flight data listed unless it is in the flight manual. I will ask about another aircraft such as the F-100 to see what they list.

My main concern though is if we have enough data to piece together the weapons systems. The laws of physics are still the same so a wind tunnel test would have the same results as one done in the 1950s. So if we have a good model the wind tunnel tests could be redone. However if we can't accurately model the radar and other combat systems we can't have a ff module just a really good ai thud

Keep in mind the office within USAF, the history guys probably won't know how to get to the technical data, which isn't to say there aren't places to research.  Air Force Material Command has a technical document library, so does Edwards AFB, Maxwell AFB & Tinker AFB deal with Technical Orders, so they may have archives.  There's also Defense Technical Information Center which has a decent online search function.  There are also some organizations/societies that could be helpful, namely the Red River Rats and the Society of Wild Weasels.  The data needed probably still exists, it's just a matter of resources and time to find and collect them.  Museums and CAF are another resource that might exist as well.  I know for a fact that the CAF has a F-105D in Midland, I saw it every week when I traveled.

The radar was built by North American, so technical data may be much easier to come by.  Not to mention it was similar to many other radars also built for other aircraft in the 50's and 60's.  The basic modes like ground mapping, terrain avoidance, beacon, etc. should be doable.  As for the FCS, ISTR seeing some basics for the lead computing functionality in one of the documents.  Bomb modes, mostly Dive Toss and LABS were SIOP. so not really that applicable to conventional which was mostly manually depressed recital, the drop tables from the dash 34-1 would do a lot...

The question that bears asking is if there is someone/an organization that has the time a resources with the expectation of a reasonable return on investment?

[Zeagle]

+1 for the Thud