Any chance of a restored "Thud" flying ?

I thought that was the F-100 Super Sabre…..:confused:

F-105 as well, although i seem to recall that the engine mounts in a Thud are in the wing/fuelage centre section, not the tail section

I recall the Thunderchief could be split in half (approx ) to facilitate engine changes.

I thought that was the F-100 Super Sabre…..:confused:

Thought this site might be of interest

http://www.burrusspta.org/thud.html

Is there not an uncut rear end available anywhere. I recall the Thunderchief could be split in half (approx ) to facilitate engine changes.
Be lucky
David

I don’t want to sound retarded but why with Collings foundation resources could they not fabricate new mounts? In my model club I have the privelege of meeting a true Wild Weasel pilot who flew the THUD in combat, and he often tells me when they flew the THUD at Red Flag exercises, he would often chuckle at the F-15’s struggling to keep up with him on the deck!

Something to do with the mounts being an integral parts of the airframe. Once they’re cut, that’s it. No repairing.

I don’t want to sound retarded but why with Collings foundation resources could they not fabricate new mounts? In my model club I have the privelege of meeting a true Wild Weasel pilot who flew the THUD in combat, and he often tells me when they flew the THUD at Red Flag exercises, he would often chuckle at the F-15’s struggling to keep up with him on the deck!

The Su-27s are scheduled to be used on defence contracts. Similar tasks as to the privately owned Kfirs, Drakens etc in the U.S.

TJ

Both of the SU-27’s are still up for sale and have been ‘civilianised’ to be imported as such.

http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm

Anyone fancy a whip around for one?

curlyboy

Yup, the Collings Foundation were going to get the last Thud at AMARC, which was considered the best example left for returning to the air……..but the DoD/USAF jobsworths got wind of it and ordered the airframe be cut to prevent it being returned to the air.

Very little chance now of a Thud getting back in the air.

How ironic that the US Govt did this and yet were quite happy to let two Su-27’s be imported from the Ukraine this year for the purpose of being allowed on the civilian register……….:confused:

The Su-27s are scheduled to be used on defence contracts. Similar tasks as to the privately owned Kfirs, Drakens etc in the U.S.

TJ

With that logic, the BBMF better put away the Lanc…:diablo:

Glad somebody got it:p:p:diablo:

Have we missed the clue in the title….?
These aircraft were called ‘Thuds’ because that was the sound they so often made when they met the earth… usually nose first….. i think just about 400 of the 833 ‘Thuds’ built, landed in this way:diablo:

With that logic, the BBMF better put away the Lanc…:diablo:

Again, cross purposes. The original poster confused the CAA and FAA.

Definately crossed purposes.
The original poster never mentioned the CAA or FAA, you were the first to infer the CAA wouldn’t let one fly 😉

And anyway, if it can’t be done in the USA it most certainley won’t be happening here, and that’s long before the CAA would even be involved 😀 😉

Err…….nothing to do with the CAA, it’s the FAA in the USA, and they wouldn’t have a problem with it, as the Collings Foundation already operate the world’s only civilian operated F-4 Phantom (arguably more complex than the Thud) as well as a A-4 Skyhawk.
There’s also a civilian display team of THREE F-104 Starfighters in the USA.

It was the US Govt/Military that didn’t want Collings to restore and fly the F-105 as they don’t want it falling into the hands of some terrorist……:rolleyes:

Again, cross purposes. The original poster confused the CAA and FAA. But if a hypothetical British owner of an F-105 wanted to fly it I’m quite sure the CAA wouldn’t permit it.

As for an F-105 falling into the hands of terrorists, it never fails to amaze me how inventive government officials and ministers on both sides of the Atlantic are!

Regards

I don’t know about a ‘Thud’ which is, afterall, a very complex aeroplane and the CAA is always going to stop one these flying. In my view, rightly.

Err…….nothing to do with the CAA, it’s the FAA in the USA, and they wouldn’t have a problem with it, as the Collings Foundation already operate the world’s only civilian operated F-4 Phantom (arguably more complex than the Thud) as well as a A-4 Skyhawk.
There’s also a civilian display team of THREE F-104 Starfighters in the USA.

It was the US Govt/Military that didn’t want Collings to restore and fly the F-105 as they don’t want it falling into the hands of some terrorist……:rolleyes:

Have we missed the clue in the title….?
These aircraft were called ‘Thuds’ because that was the sound they so often made when they met the earth… usually nose first….. i think just about 400 of the 833 ‘Thuds’ built, landed in this way:diablo:

Aye but presumably, if they got one on the airshow circuit it wouldn’t be facing AAA and SAMs? I thought the loss rate was so high because of enemy action, not accidents?

Have we missed the clue in the title….?
These aircraft were called ‘Thuds’ because that was the sound they so often made when they met the earth… usually nose first….. i think just about 400 of the 833 ‘Thuds’ built, landed in this way:diablo:

I thought the Buccaneer was only a no go because of the non standard Tornado nose.. and the subsequent problems with paperwork etc to return to standard fit.?! Other than that maybe its not such a definate no. After all there were many who thought the Vixen would never see air under its wings in private ownership.. including apparently Ray Hanna.

I seem to recall that when the Hanna’s were close to getting there MiG-17 or 19 (can’t remember which they owned) into the air, the CAA basically said no because it needed to use re-heat for take-offs. Hence possibly why we have a Vulcan and Sea Vixen flying, and not a Lightning or Mig-17.!

But A Su-27 Isn’t complex? Yet they don’t seem to have a problem with them flying as warbirds in the USA!
About the Thunderjet, If you mean the F-84, I think you’ll find the -jet and -streak series had less then perfect safety records. I would feel safer in a Thud!

edit: It’s BTW not the CAA that stopped it from flying, but the USAF

Perhaps we’re talking at cross purposes. I’m quite sure that the USAF stopped the F-105 from flying once it had no further military use for them. I had assumed that if a F-105 were to fly again it would be in civilian marks as a warbird.

Now the FAA in the USA has a much more liberal attitude towards former military jets than the CAA, there has been at least one F-104 and an F-4 flying in the US. The CAA on the other hand sticks at the end of the second generation jet fighters, the Sabre and Hunter generation. This means that it wasn’t and isn’t possible to fly a Lightning or Buccaneer in the UK. Personally I’m with the CAA on this one; I think that discretion is by far the better part of valour!

I’m not the slightest bit surprised to find that the F-84 series, taken as a whole, had a less than perfect safety record. But it wasn’t and isn’t alone in this, the record of the Meteor in particular isn’t too great, the number of civilian registered examples that have been lost in accidents makes for uncomfortable recollection. The RAF was losing Lightnings in the 1960s at a phenomenal rate, equal, on a percentage of the total fleet basis, to the loss of the F-104G in Lufwaffe service!

Personally I’m sure that if a British owner of an F-84G had a very good engineering set up, a qualified test pilot to fly it, and only flew the aeroplane in daylight VFR then the issue of a permit by the CAA wouldn’t be an issue. But that is just a personal view.

Regards

I mentioned the Thunderjet in a thread a while ago-there is an issue with the engines, i was told (something to do with them being worn out or ‘lifed’ or something)

I don’t know about a ‘Thud’ which is, afterall, a very complex aeroplane and the CAA is always going to stop one these flying. In my view, rightly.

To change to the topic slightly, the top of my wishlist is for a Thunderjet, which is of much the same generation as the Vampire and Meteor. It also has a good field performance so it would probably be possible to operate one from Duxford!

Regards

But A Su-27 Isn’t complex? Yet they don’t seem to have a problem with them flying as warbirds in the USA!
About the Thunderjet, If you mean the F-84, I think you’ll find the -jet and -streak series had less then perfect safety records. I would feel safer in a Thud!

edit: It’s BTW not the CAA that stopped it from flying, but the USAF

I don’t know about a ‘Thud’ which is, afterall, a very complex aeroplane and the CAA is always going to stop one these flying. In my view, rightly.

To change to the topic slightly, the top of my wishlist is for a Thunderjet, which is of much the same generation as the Vampire and Meteor. It also has a good field performance so it would probably be possible to operate one from Duxford!

Regards