Talk:Republic F-105 Thunderchief

message: There doesn't seem to be a section in the article to support this sentence from the opening paragraph: "it was the only U.S. aircraft to have been removed from combat due to high loss rates.[2] "
There is a citation, but that doesn't tell much of the story - it sounds like an interesting point, and worth leaving in, but it seems like it should be supported better. Does anyone know the story?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.207.2.2 (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The text in the Lead (or Intro) is a summary; it seems to stand on its own, imo.  There's info more later in the article.  The heavy losses combined with a better fighter-bomber to replace it led to the withdrawal of F-105 from combat. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that they weren't making F-105's anymore, only 833 had been built, so there were no replacements available.  As for getting shot down a lot, I seem to recall that more F-4's were shot down than F-105's in the Vietnam War, but I'm not sure, I'd have to research the matter.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the stats--382 F-105's were lost in Vietnam but more F-4's were lost in Vietnam (445).  50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from Combat 

message: More to the point what is a non-operational loss? From the 2nd paragraph: "The F-105 was one of the primary strike bombers of the Vietnam War; over 20,000 Thunderchief sorties were flown, with 382 aircraft lost (nearly half of the 833 produced) including 62 operational losses." I deduce from this that 320 aircraft were lost to non-operational losses, so what happened to them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.12.61 (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If you work your way through these where all the losses are listed:
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1954.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1957.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1958.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1959.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1960.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1961.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1962.html
*http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1963.html MilborneOne (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I could help--an "operational loss" is a non-combat loss.  Say you're operating your airplane and you accidentally fly it into a mountain--that would  be an operational loss.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck are "operational losses"? 

message: I can't think of any other non-combat single-engine aircraft that was heavier than F-105, not just combat aircraft. Why omit that fact?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.105.253 (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source? MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Randomly just looked at the F-35A which has a higher empty weight. MilborneOne (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed - Talk:Republic_F-105_Thunderchief/Archive_1#F-105_is_the_heaviest_single_engine_aircraft_ever_producedNigel Ish (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest single engine combat aircraft, or aircraft in general? 

message: I made an edit that the F-105 could carry 2 sidewinders on each outer wing station instead of the one mentioned in the article, and it got changed back. There are several photos, and even a video by Republic showing the twin rail installation... MakrisDG (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite a Reliable Published Source. Photos are not reliable sources of themselves. I can't comment on the video, as I haven't seen it. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin Rail Sidewinder Mount 

message: Hello folks.  I believe the lede section is too long.  I think everything except the first paragraph should be moved to the body of the article.  Cheers. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not needed now, imo. The Lead is four paragraphs long and is within recommended length at MOS:LEADLENGTH. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede is too long. 

message: Hello -- I noticed the it reads F-102B below and is supposed to read F-105B:
;Later development
To fulfill the USAF's requirement for an all-weather attack aircraft, Republic proposed the F-105D variant during 1957. This version featured an enlarged nose and radome housing the AN/ASG-19 Thunderstick bombing/navigation system. The AN/ASG-19 was designed around the Autonetics R-14A radar, which operated in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and the AN/APN-131 Doppler navigation radar. In the cockpit, the F-105D featured vertical-tape instrument displays for adverse weather operation. The ability to carry the TX-43 nuclear weapon was also added. On account of these myriad changes, Republic noted the difficulty of using the same production line as had been used for the F-102B; production times would also be extended from 144 days to 214 days.Knaack 1978, p. 196. 2600:8802:470D:E000:C53C:5E08:33FB:8C43 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023 

message: The fault was that the two systems run very close, so that a single splinter could break both. Mutatis mutandis, this was the cause of the Bismarck loss. If you are interested, I may recover the reference -- in 2024. MCHNY 151.29.149.29 (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  hydraulics