I really appreciate that you actually narrated, instead of using AI. There's nothing I hate worse...

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you, as much as we would all love to live on auto pilot, nothing beats the human touch.

On December 17th 1966 for my 13th birthday my Mom dropped me off at the Planes of Fame museum at Orange County airport so I could spend the day there. The museum had an aircraft bone yard attached to it where you could climb all over and into the fuselages there. Among the various planes I got to climb into was a B29 complete with machine turrets that still had the 50 caliber Brownings in them,an XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter that had been developed for the B-36 (This one was tail number 524 which is now at the SAC museum in Omaha) and an F-107. The 107 was missing the engine so I managed to crawl all the way up and into the inlet and look down into the cockpit (This was in the days before the world was rubber padded for kids). It was truly great to get to experience these famous planes up close and personal.

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

That is such a cool story, so let me get this straight, you crawled up into the jet pipe, through the fuselage, right up to the intake. That' is an amazing memory to have.

@pauliedweasel

29 күн бұрын

@@AviationRepublic The engine and everything else had been removed so it was just a hollow air frame. I’m really amazed I didn’t seriously injure myself, but back then the world wasn’t rubber padded. I’d really love to find out which of the three test aircraft it is.

@pauliedweasel

29 күн бұрын

@@AviationRepublic I found this on Wikipedia, and it looks like it was #3 (55-5120) and the fuselage was in really bad shape as noted. “In late 1957, prototypes #1 (55-5118) and #3 (55-5120) were leased to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) for high-speed flight research. Aircraft #1 is now in the collection of the Pima Air & Space Museum. In September 1959, with Scott Crossfield at the controls, aircraft #3 was damaged during an aborted takeoff. The aircraft was not repaired and, ultimately, used for fire fighting training and was destroyed in the early 1960s.[18] (55-5120 was also noted to be stored in poor condition in the Tallmantz collection at Orange County Airport California in September 1970.)”

@pauliedweasel

29 күн бұрын

@@AviationRepublic The XF-85 was ‘Really’ cool, an aluminum football with wings! I was glad to see that that one was preserved. And what kid won’t love having his own private tour of a B-29… I so wanted one of those 50 caliber Brownings! ☹️

@AviationRepublic

28 күн бұрын

That's sounds about right

I first saw this plane in 2001 when I was a 2Lt in the Air Force. It was just sitting in front of the ramp in front of the restoration hanger of the Air Force museum. I thought I knew it all but had never even heard of this plane until I saw it in person. Nearly drove off the road!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

If you have a moment have a quick search "US Experimental aircraft", the F-107 was by all accounts conservative by comparison. But she is still eye catching...also, eyes on the road :-)

On my first visit to the US in 1966 I saw a F107 in a state of disrepair at an airfield somewhere in the greater Los Angeles area (Anaheim area I think). I had a photograph of it but didn't know what is was for very many years.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

It's quite possible that the F-107 you saw was the one in the thumbnail, how cool would that be. Do you still have the photo, if so, what is the tail number?

@Kingsford44

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic Sorry, I got rid of all my old slides years ago but on further reflection it was in the Santa Ana area not Anaheim, at some private aviation museum/collection (Paul Mantz??) sitting outside with a jack under one wing as something was wrong or missing from one MLG and painted as in the video. I think it was the same day we visited Briggs Cunningham's car museum in the same area. Helluva long time ago now!. It was when I was disposing of my old slides I saw the photo and thought it looked similar to an F100 so did an internet search and finally discovered it was an F107.

@user-jq2rf4nf3o

Ай бұрын

A 107? There were all 3 parked at the south end of John Wayne Airport in the early 70s at the runway over run. Remember them well as with the old hangars of the west side Tallmantz Museum was a flying junk yard of odd flying machines, Disneyland of the Air... Loved it ( Pops helped with Flight of the Phoenix )

@cardinalRG

Ай бұрын

@@Kingsford44 --I posted my own comment above, before I took the time to read yours. I'm happy to hear that others recall long-ago experiences seeing the F-107 at Orange County Airport.

@cardinalRG

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic --Yes, the thumbnail photo is indeed Orange County Airport, right by Tallmantz Aviation.

I grew up just a few miles from Orange County Airport where one of the F-107s was parked for several years. Even in a line-up of other distinctive looking aircraft, such as Vampire jets, the F-107 stood out. I used to ride my bike right up to the fence and stare at it--it _was_ pretty to me, even though it looked like it was halfway to the scrapyard already. To this day, I don't know whether it's the one currently displayed at Pima or at Wright Patterson. I'm just glad it was preserved.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Amazing, do you by any chance recall the tail number, I know it's a long shot. There have been so many prototype aircraft that have gone to the scrapper, take for example the British TSR.2, sold for scrap for just £50,000.

@cardinalRG

Ай бұрын

​@@AviationRepublic --Sorry, I don't remember a tail number, but I'd wager that it's the same aircraft as in the video's thumbnail, since that vintage photo was taken at Orange County Airport, right near Tallmantz Aviation. I don't remember there ever being but one F-107 on the field, so I think it's a safe bet. I share your sentiment about destroying, rather than preserving prototypes, and the TSR.2 is a very meaningful example of an aircraft that should still be with us. (By now I'm an old fart with bad legs, but I'd still ride a kid's bike for miles, in the rain, just for an up-close look at *_that_* bird!) Fortunately, there is such foresight sometimes, even among private individuals like Walter Soplata, an Ohio man who quietly amassed an incredible private collection of aircraft that were otherwise headed to the scrapper. Thanks for the great video.

The F-107 at Wright Pat was on display on 2014 when I was there. It was in the secured part of the base where the X planes and presidential planes were,next to the restoration building. You could only see them one day a week on a reservation basis only. Beautiful airplane. It sat right next to the X-B70.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Did you get any good photos?

@fw1421

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic Yes,not many but enough to satisfy me. It should have been transferred to the new hangar with the X-Planes and Presidential planes,as most were move to the museum proper. I haven’t been back since I had the 2014 great aviation museum trip after I retired. So many planes to photograph.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

I know want you mean, every time i visit a museum I never seem to take the right photos or get the right video footage.

@Hyposonic

15 күн бұрын

It's on permanent display now.

@fw1421

15 күн бұрын

@@Hyposonic Yes,I’ve seen the pictures in the museums site. I need to make another pilgrimage again.

The dorsal intake is a non-starter. There's a reason this configuration is never used. Any increase in angle of attack starves the intake of airflow and the engine of power and also increasing flame-outs. Maneuvering is hampered by this. This is a crucial flaw. Look at the F16, Eurofighter, etc with the intake on the bottom which enhance airflow during maneuvering.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

I wonder if this was documented, I did not find anything regarding this during the research, although I am going to pick up some new (old) cold war aviation book soon, I will see if it is covered there

@galvanaut7119

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic Interesting. It was in 1964 that the Energy-maneuverability theory of fighter jets was developed that put emphasis on "dogfighting" ability in design. This is when it was realized that high angle-of-attack capabilities needed to be prioritized higher as bvr missile tactics are not always an option. A jet like the F 107 would be quite limited.

@coreyandnathanielchartier3749

19 күн бұрын

Flying at high AOA was not a factor when this was designed. Speed was the holy grail of USAF criteria in those days. This plane would have been quite adequate in this era. Have you any official data regarding engine flame-outs or loss of power when testing this jet?

Very nice job, man! Looking forward to more from you.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Much appreciated! More to come.

good video- been to the Pima Air Museum many times- happy to have seem the awesome aircraft in person :)

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you, One day when I travel across the pond I will try to make to all the great museums you have over there.

I saw the F-107 at PIMA on a visit to the USA, as well as the Tucson Air Show!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Did you get some good pictures?

@LiquidAudio

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic I did!

Excellent video, well narrated. I like your style. I had no idea of the F-107s existence until spotted this video, despite having read extensively about the century jets and the Valkyrie.

@AviationRepublic

6 күн бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it! More videos on the century series to come in the next few months. I am torn as to which one to cover, they are all great, I am leaning towards the F-105, or the F-101...Mmmmmmm. :-) Joe

Thoroughly enjoyed that. The quality was top notch, lots of plane footage which is always nice. Keep it up, this channel is going places. 😊

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it.

Another excellent video, thanks for the research and interesting points brought up

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thanks again! Means a lot.

Nice video as awlays. Keep up the good work

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you, much appreciated. No better way to spend ones days off than to research these amazing projects.

Very well done! I look forward to watching the next one.

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

Coming soon, buried with work at the moment

Just ran across your channel and subscribed! Lots of good stuff!

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

Awesome! Thank you! I have quite a few videos lined up, need start getting them out in the next week.

A very good video, thank you for your hard work here! I don’t think the F-107 has a hope as a non nuclear conventional bomber the F-105 just had the overwhelming advantage there which is what the Air Force was looking for. I’m no aerodynamic expert, but that high mounted intake would have caused immense problems for the F-107 in a low speed turning fight as well. For as tough a time as the F-105 had in Vietnam the F-107 wouldn’t have done any better and potentially worse in my opinion. I think with the F-107 North American built a tactical nuclear strike aircraft out of an interceptor, and that came with all the limitations point defense jets are saddled with. Having a lot of first doesn’t a good tactical aircraft make, and the F-107 just couldn’t fill the tactical role as well as the F-105.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you, I am very pleased you enjoyed it. For sure the F-105 was a better bomb carrier in terms of load.

@georgeburns7251

Ай бұрын

I think you are totally correct about the high mounted intake affecting AOA. there is a reason that no fighters used this layout.

"mysteriously"? Many planes were designed/developed but never entered production. In this era most fell victim to advances in Soviet SAMs.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

My conspiratorial mind at work, I don't doubt their were some back room deals being done to get the Thud into service, who knows.

A very interesting aircraft but possibly not much space for upgrades for the new Air to air weapons systems in and possibly more space in the F-105 I think

The F-108 would have been something.

@ccrider00

21 күн бұрын

Same with the F 103---😮

It's well known that the more technologically advanced fighter loses the competition. being too advanced means production issues, bugs, problems, difficulty being maintained in real world combat conditions, etc. Engineers at Grumman knew this when they started designing the F-14.

@AviationRepublic

15 күн бұрын

That is very true, dare I say TSR2 and Avro Arrow to name just two.

@SoloRenegade

15 күн бұрын

@@AviationRepublic North American F-107, Northrop YF-23, Vought F8U3, etc.

I'm pretty sure the Boy Scouts had a Davy Crocket or two under their beds. Assuming Fallout has taught me correctly.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

True, kids are ideal for crewed weapons.

I like explanatory KZread titles. Good job!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Glad you think so!

Let's be honest... The 107 was a pretty bird, but there's a LOT to be said for the 105. The 105 experienced high attrition because the job it performed was extremely hazardous, and any aircraft given *that* job would have experienced similar losses. More importantly, no other aircraft then in inventory--or having been considered for development at that time--could have done the same job as the Thud. Its prowess at what it did cannot be overstated. Seriously, the 105 was a bomber that could leave its escorts in the dust. That's a rare bird.

@AviationRepublic

15 күн бұрын

i am really tempted to write about the F-105, but I want to do the F-100 and F-103 first, the Thud looks like a lot of fun to research.

When looks count, the intakes could have been moved to a more A-4 Skyhawk configuration and made possible for a second seat and it would have been accepted (with a B-58 type drop-tank).

@AviationRepublic

4 күн бұрын

I know what you mean, but she looks so cool. :-) Joe

The above the canopy inlet would scream at high speeds, it would almost deafen the pilot. Communication was almost impossible at high speeds.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

That's a good point.

Good Job!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you! Cheers!

I nice set up for a long comment? It all comee down to this: That era of military aviation produced alot of designs, from many companies. Those companies were feeling the hunger. There were in fact many great products. But we couldn't buy the whole store. The F105 was selected, and designed to deliver a nuclear weapon at high speed. That it could, and would do conventional bomber work was secondary at the time. As you pointed out, confidence in Intercontinental Ballistic Missles should have been the end of the strategic bomber. So, The F107 was the century fighter that wasn't. Nice doc. I'm not expert enough to say anything but, Good Show Sir!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you very much for the compliment. It's interesting that you mentioned ballistic missiles being the end of the strategic bomber, I read in a very old book which was published in 1973 covering the B1 bomber development and why the US would need another one when they just shelved the B-58, the reasoning behind having missiles and bombers, honestly i had to read it a few times, but i will paraphrase "We won't strike first, but if you do, you can't get all our silos, and if you do then we still have our bombers" I dunno, some sort of 4D chess , game theory stuff. I will need to read it again.

Were is the thumb nail picture?

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Where was the location of the aircraft picture taken?

Excellent 👍

@AviationRepublic

21 күн бұрын

Thank you! Cheers!

I just had a thought. And wonder if it's related. Movie and acting was in the golden age in the 50's and 60's. Look at innovation in aviation in the same time period.

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

Maybe there was so much more class back then, who knows, interesting thought.

Howdy Aviation Republic, has there been any models of this plane? 🛎⚡

@Red-rl1xx

Ай бұрын

I've got one. Found it at a model shop near me a while back.

@Quadrant14

Ай бұрын

@Cameron_Bell YES indeed a good model by Trumpeter, still widely available

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

Yes, there are, I actually held the model box in my hands this very weekend.

..looks very similar to Convair's Sea Dart...

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Oooh, that's a good observation. I never thought of that, thanks, I will make a note of that.

An excellent round up of the F-107 in particular, and sneaking in a bit of F-105. (which I always considered to be a clumsy brute) I liked the footage you showed, which I haven't seen before of the North American craft. The ejection system would have been an easy engineering issue, by the way (some sliding rails to guide the seat, for example) Republic were winding down, it must be said, but they had a terrible habit of building overweight craft, I have subscribed. North American lives on in Rocketdyne, which used to build the rockets for their X-15.

@guaporeturns9472

Ай бұрын

Love the 105 , even if more than half of all 105s produced were lost in Vietnam.. that plane and its pilots paid a heavy price in SE Asia

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you very much, ironically, the day after I posted the video, I found even more unique footage, if I get around to making a video about the F-105 i'll put it in there.

Perhaps the air intake that got in the way of the ejecting pilot.

Does Pima still have this plane? Last time i saw it was the late 1970's at Pima.

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

Most probably

Oh, North American Aviation, I do miss you so...

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

I am currently researching a well known British cold war aircraft for a video, and it's amazing how many various aircraft companies there were during the cold war,seemed like there was one on every corner.

How was the mobility of the rocket assist takeoff planes to be accomplished without hardened runways? It seems to me they would have to be trucked around as they could only land on a runway, rather silly for a plane and an inherent security risk.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

That's a good point, they most probably had the idea to cart the aircraft around in the same way ballistic missiles are, although they would have had to consider wing span, etc, etc.

"Extraordinarily effective warplane... that never went into production"... Now that is a special kind of stupidity...

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

I do my best :-)

50s and 60s was such a fascinating time in military aircraft development

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

It's amazing how many amazing machines came out of that era, I will do my best to cover them all.

@skunkjobb

Ай бұрын

Yeah, I often think of how fun it must have been to work in a time of such a rapid development. Some planes from that time are still flying or are even still being produced.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

but you could only use a slide rule. Crazy to imagine the insane machines being turned out using slide rules. I miss my slide rule

I'm no expert for sure but I'm happy with what we have now. Thanks for sharing. 🙈🙉🙊 😎 🇺🇸

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Thank you

It reminds me of the car Homer SImpson designed

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Hey, don't knock it, that was a pretty cool car. I liked the fact it had a separate bubble for the kids.

F 107 Republic ok not Delta wing ? after F84 and F100...

We continue to need alternative designs to keep shaking up the status quo. Consolidation killed Mcdonnel Douglas, Consolidated and North American. More companies more comp and better fast ramp up when needed but what do I know

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

The British aircraft industry was no different, so many great companies now one big blob.

No way to eject from it - which is a serious failure right there. There is a REASON this was the only American design to use an overhead jet intake. And to be blunt, "super fast" was mildly useful for an interceptor, but NOT useful in a fighter.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Very good points.

@bricefleckenstein9666

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic Someone mentioned downward ejection seats - but those need you to be fairly high up to work, forget using them on the COMMON scenario of you have an issue during takeoff (when you're putting the most stress on the engines) or while landing (most stress on the landing gear).

No. Nothing mysterious here. Not every plane gets selected for production. They chose the better airplane.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

True, but there are some that believed the F-105 was selected to keep Republic afloat, but we may never know for sure. Shame, the F-107 is simply a great looking beast.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic Lots of people believe lots of things. I believe the Air Force was correct in believing the 105 was the better airplane. Aside from looking weird with that intake, perhaps the 107's problem was that it was too closely based on the F-100. Some people believe the 107 was a low effort swing at the contract by North American, which is why the airplane wasn't much of an advance over the F-100.

@dougcastleman9518

Ай бұрын

@@gort8203And…it was originally designated the F-100B, albeit briefly. It clearly was a big step up with the J75.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

@@dougcastleman9518 A step up in thrust from the F-100 for sure. The J75 weighed about the same as the J-57 it was developed from but had more thrust and better specific fuel consumption. Both were good engines in their day.

@downix

Ай бұрын

Not all the time. Multiple times, including this time, the selection process was to keep a critical business operational, and not due to being the superior plane. Other times the selection was done to prevent a single company from monopolizing production.

Should have been the "Super Duper" Sabre!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Most Excellent Sabre?

@chairrider2462

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic DUDE! They wouldn't been ready for that yet. ;-) Maybe by the late 80s. Super Duper would have sold it. LOL When I was a kid, I thought the F100 was the sleekest most bad assed jet. Here I am as an old man and still thinking like a kid.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Ah, we all think we are still 20 in our minds, our bodies on the other hand tell a different story. Thumbs up on the F-100, mean looking machine.

👍👍👍❤❤❤✈✈✈

Lots of aircraft other than the 107

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

More than enough to keep me busy for many years to come.

The main issue came down to pilot ejection, there was no way to safely eject in front of those inlets.. Th F105 and F101 proved more succesful, especially the 105.

@dougcastleman9518

Ай бұрын

Sorry, but that is a myth. The ejection system was tested and proved effective. Remember this was North American, many of the same guys who designed their many excellent previous aircraft. The main reason the 105 was picked was its fully internal bomb bay. These two were designed for low level and fast nuclear weapon delivery, and not what was later required in Vietnam.

@c123bthunderpig

Ай бұрын

@@dougcastleman9518 " effective" is not a term in military jargon, the F105 was called the Thud in Vietnam for a purpose. There were more Thud pilots in the Hanoi Hilton than any other type aircraft.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

@@c123bthunderpig I recall the word "effective" as a term used in the military. The ejection seat was not the problem. The F-105 was called the Thud long before it got to Vietnam. If the F-107 had been bought instead of the F-105, just as many or more of them would have been shot down in Vietnam.

@dougcastleman9518

Ай бұрын

@@c123bthunderpig Not really sure what that has to do with the F-107's ejection system...but okay. I happen to know F-105 pilots and they loved their airplane. The reason why they had the most tenants of the Hanoi Hilton is because that airplane was the one the USAF used to go downtown in, until replaced by the F-4. It was a very fast and stable bombing platform but ran into the most heavily defended city in the world, save, perhaps, Moscow. I was privileged to go to the very last F-105 pilot/RIO reunion at Pima Air and Space Museum a couple of years ago. Not one of those guys had a bad word about their airplane...nothing but praise, actually.

@c123bthunderpig

Ай бұрын

@@gort8203 its OK if you disagree I can't force you to be right. Klaatu barada nikto

Was this staged? Love the warped plywood.

'Thoroughly enjoyed'? What? At 19:28, the video talks about the f-100 and the follow-on F-86 Saber. Uh, the Sabre (F-86) first flew in the late 40's or early 50's, the F-100 WAS the follow-on program. There were other issues as well. If you are going to make statements etc., at least have them correct: n'cest pa?

@warrenholmes3311

Ай бұрын

BTW, did I ever say how I HATE computer narration?

@Alexandros11

Ай бұрын

@@warrenholmes3311 This isn't computer narration, it's clearly a person

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

It's 100% not computer narration.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

I meant to infer that there were follow on projects for the F-86, not that the F-86 was the follow on project to the F-100.

why all the 'on-the-fly- edits? why are some random facts displayed on screen? might need to take an editing class. as for the plane? the f105 was a FAR superior combat weapon.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

You are probably right, I need to work on my editing, it's a skill that's for sure, maybe when the channel earns some shekels I can hire someone to do it for me, that's the dream.

Depressing

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Why? Because it never made it into service?

@ethanspaziani1070

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic yeah it's sad that I'll never get to see one fly

The F-105 was not used for its primary design purpose. As a fighter/interceptor it was found wanting and became used primarily as a level bomber in Vietnam. Would the F-107 have made a better fighter??? Seems we’ll never know.

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

In my opinion the F-105 was a bomb truck, deliver the load and scoot.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

Wrong, fighter-interceptor was absolutely not the design purpose of the F-105. Where did you get that idea? Are you kidding me? It was a nuclear fighter-bomber with a bomb bay to carry the weapon for high speed delivery.

@topturretgunner

Ай бұрын

@@gort8203 Well I stand corrected. Yes in researching the 105 I was in error. Thank you.

In other words pork belly politics🙄

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Release the Pork, everyone has to eat, shame it's not the little guys.

Never liked it

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Why, she looks so cool.

@9014jayvictor

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic the position of the intake mostly .

@AviationRepublic

29 күн бұрын

Fair enough.

A Very, Very, Very, BAD AUDIO ---This Story Is An North American Aircraft , A USAF Aircraft . "Question: Why Would A Production Compony Hire A Foreign Narrator.??????? Explain !!

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

Sorry, I am a little confused, are you requesting that the narrators accent matches the country of origin of the aircraft?

@cikenberry3

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublicyeah ignore this nonsense, great video

@AviationRepublic

Ай бұрын

@@cikenberry3 Thank you, very kind you.

@galvanaut7119

Ай бұрын

@@AviationRepublic Your audio is good. Its actually very good, clean, good range.

@joesutherland225

Ай бұрын

Maybe because they're not jingoistic morons .😊