F-4 Rear Canopy

[Puma44]

Great photo,
but I must be getting old. All I can think of is how did he take that at the most critical point of a planes takeoff. The preceived immortality of youth I guess
or was it a twin seat plane?

It was most likely taken by the back seater in the Wild Weasel lead jet.  There's no way the pilot would have been taking pictures during a formation takeoff.  His priority is flying a smooth, stable platform for the wingman. 

[Charge]

Looks like an RTB to me. No AB on and bomb rack attached without ordnance. The picture is likely taken from a F-100 WW because the landing incidence is smaller and there does not seem to be wing slats.

-C+

Ed. Two seat F-100F does have wing slats...

[FTJR]

Thanks Puma, Charge.

[Puma44]

Looks like an RTB to me. No AB on and bomb rack attached without ordnance. The picture is likely taken from a F-100 WW because the landing incidence is smaller and there does not seem to be wing slats.

-C+

Ed. Two seat F-100F does have wing slats...

More than likely not an F-100 of any type.  The USAF was adamant about NOT flying dissimilar formations under any but the most dire emergency, especially a dissimilar formation takeoff or landing.  From the photo, it's hard to tell if flaps are extended indicating a landing.   Not sure if the THUD used any flap extension for takeoff.  The lack of visible AB is insignificant.  Maybe it's not visible from the viewing angle or they were light enough weight to not need it.  Anyone with actual Thud time that can elaborate?

[Charge]

In my book recommendation Rasimus tells about his F-105 flights with F-100 WWs because it took some time to get F-105 WWs.

I recall that it was not too easy as the cruise speed of WW loaded F-100 is lower than that of loaded F-105 so the F-105 had to constantly throttle to keep in formation.

Of course they did not need operate from the same fields and I cannot say why they did such a formation landing, if it even is an F-100, that is.

-C+

[Widewing]

In my book recommendation Rasimus tells about his F-105 flights with F-100 WWs because it took some time to get F-105 WWs.

I recall that it was not too easy as the cruise speed of WW loaded F-100 is lower than that of loaded F-105 so the F-105 had to constantly throttle to keep in formation.

Of course they did not need operate from the same fields and I cannot say why they did such a formation landing, if it even is an F-100, that is.

-C+

F-100F Weasels were the first Weasels. Four initially deployed and final total of 7 were converted and deployed. 5 were lost. Because the F-100F was too slow to keep up with the F-105s, it was decided to convert F-105F two-seaters to WW platforms. Those converted were later redesignated as the F-105G. There were no new G models built, all were converted F models.

Wild Weasel YGBSM (You Gotta Be Sh##tting Me).


F-100 Wild Weasel video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUW9_RWqsWk

F-100 and F-105 Wild Weasel videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TBpswks2f8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWGvHe-1aHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUW9_RWqsWk

[Puma44]

In my book recommendation Rasimus tells about his F-105 flights with F-100 WWs because it took some time to get F-105 WWs.

I recall that it was not too easy as the cruise speed of WW loaded F-100 is lower than that of loaded F-105 so the F-105 had to constantly throttle to keep in formation.

Of course they did not need operate from the same fields and I cannot say why they did such a formation landing, if it even is an F-100, that is.

-C+

Regardless, TAC would not allow dissimilar take offs or landings.  There was/is no tactical advantage to it in addition to differences in performance speeds, wing loading, etc.  It's a matter of risk vs benefit.  No TAC commander could justify it in the event of an accident. 

[Widewing]

It's a take off run, photo shot from the backseat of an F-105G....

[Puma44]

Good reference  Widewing.   . Where did you find the article?

[Widewing]

Good reference  Widewing.   . Where did you find the article?

The author... Via Facebook.

That's a 12,000 ft runway at Hill AFB. Note the tire marks, meaning they used all of the runway. Author said, AB with water was needed on a hot day at 4,900 feet ASL....

[Puma44]

The author... Via Facebook.

That's a 12,000 ft runway at Hill AFB. Note the tire marks, meaning they used all of the runway. Author said, AB with water was needed on a hot day at 4,900 feet ASL....

Good stuff, thanks!  Years ago, a Thud passed thru Holloman AFB for a fuel stop.  The fueler, obviously unfamiliar with the Thud, filled the water reservoir with JP-4.  Wait for it.........when the pilot selected water on takeoff the resulting explosion blew the tail off the jet. 

[morfiend]

Good stuff, thanks!  Years ago, a Thud passed thru Holloman AFB for a fuel stop.  The fueler, obviously unfamiliar with the Thud, filled the water reservoir with JP-4.  Wait for it.........when the pilot selected water on takeoff the resulting explosion blew the tail off the jet. 

   


  Not that it's funny but it sort of is!   Reminds me of the time my Dad put gas in his diesel benz...... 



   

[Widewing]

Nothing sounds like the J-75 in a Thud. Unless it's 24 of them....

A Facebook link... Turn up the volume.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=767806776577466&set=o.57289657667&type=3&theater

[Puma44]

Now that was a beautiful sight and sound.  Too bad they couldn't have been cooking along another 100 knots faster.   . 

                 

[wpeters]

Good stuff, thanks!  Years ago, a Thud passed thru Holloman AFB for a fuel stop.  The fueler, obviously unfamiliar with the Thud, filled the water reservoir with JP-4.  Wait for it.........when the pilot selected water on takeoff the resulting explosion blew the tail off the jet. 

That would of been a surprised pilot