In 1961 I was a weapons mechanic in an F-100 fighter wing. I knew the electrical and weapons controls, and the egress systems, in the cockpit well enough to do my job, but the flight and engine instruments were mostly a mystery to me. After I completed my enlistment I went on to get my A&P license, and later my FCC First Class, to work as an airline mechanic, avionics technician, and then instructor in all of the above systems, and more. Now that I know what I am looking at, it is interesting to see that the back cockpit has the long-standard "tee" arrangement of Airspeed, Attitude, Altitude, and Heading that preceded today's digital displays, but the front cockpit did not. The F-105 model which replaced the F-100 after 1961 had one of the first vertical-tape instrument systems that petty much upset the apple cart of standards, but it was still analog rather than digital and electromechanical rather than solid state. Things have changed over the years.
@@Hopeless_and_Forlorn very cool! Yes, constantly changing and upgrading. Doesn’t take much instrumentation to fly any of these birds, as long as you have the basics, you’re good!
I've always thought the F-100 was a gorgeous aircraft. It reminds me a bit of the Eurofighter Typhoon in its posture when on the ground, as they both seem to squat down in back with the nose sitting high. This was our "F-16" of the 1960s, designed and built from the technology we had available to us in the 1950s. This thing was pretty darn sporty despite having a relatively underpowered engine. I can only imagine what a hot rod she would have been with a few thousand pounds of additional thrust.
Thanks for the tour. I have a question regarding the engine starts though. I’ve noticed that there’s a panel on the spine just behind the cockpit that always seems to be off for the start up. There’s nothing similar on the Voodoo like that so it’s not J57 related I don’t think. It’s only an F-100 thing I believe so I’m curious.
As a former A-4 Skyhawk avionics guy, I have to wonder how hard it was for the front seat guy to access the circuit breakers on the aft bulkhead. Can he read the labels? ... or reach them and pull the right one? The Skyhawk, for better or worse, just had fuses located far away from the pilot(s), for the most part. The only thing that I recall mounted to the aft cockpit bulkhead was the "relief container stowage". It wasn't until I flew in the back seat of our TA-4's that I realized that this was where you put your barf bag after filling it up. 🤢
The system is very similar in operation as the T-33, usual SOP is canopy coming down, response was clear, canopy coming full closed, response clear, then canopy closed locked and response canopy closed, light out.
This may seem like a dumb question but as some one that watches for job safety issues at work. When you was closing the canopy on that flight. How do you make sure the other guys is free of the pinch point hazard?
@@dadyhillerbug Was there a required ICS response to the warning of canopy coming down the rest of the way? In the time that the plane was used with actual student pilots? So the instructor knows for a fact that the joiner pilot is aware and not distracted?
What is the purpose of that big plate on the back seater's instrument panel (that's blocking your vision)? Looking at some pictures of other F-100F's (for example, 63948), I don't see that plate.
@@RocketToTheMoose it’s basically part of the ejection system, it pops up even higher during ejection to block the wind and potentially pyro from the front seat.
@@JetJerod Was thinking about that...but shouldn't the backseater be going up the rails first in the sequence (honestly have no idea how it works in the F-100)?
This was a modification by the Danish Air Force to put Martin Baker MK5 seats in. The original Dart seats in the F-100 were different. They eject individually and the Canopy ejects individually.
Collins foundation tried to get one. Got permission from congress, but the Air Force purposely destroyed the one that could have been made airworthy. It sucks but those airplanes where beat. I believe the last gaurd and reverse units flying them in 83 had to check every 10 on the wings for cracks.
Thank you for the tour. History at its best.
@@Helibeaver thanks for watching
I love the floof.
In 1961 I was a weapons mechanic in an F-100 fighter wing. I knew the electrical and weapons controls, and the egress systems, in the cockpit well enough to do my job, but the flight and engine instruments were mostly a mystery to me. After I completed my enlistment I went on to get my A&P license, and later my FCC First Class, to work as an airline mechanic, avionics technician, and then instructor in all of the above systems, and more. Now that I know what I am looking at, it is interesting to see that the back cockpit has the long-standard "tee" arrangement of Airspeed, Attitude, Altitude, and Heading that preceded today's digital displays, but the front cockpit did not. The F-105 model which replaced the F-100 after 1961 had one of the first vertical-tape instrument systems that petty much upset the apple cart of standards, but it was still analog rather than digital and electromechanical rather than solid state. Things have changed over the years.
@@Hopeless_and_Forlorn very cool! Yes, constantly changing and upgrading. Doesn’t take much instrumentation to fly any of these birds, as long as you have the basics, you’re good!
Thank you and thank the Foundation for keeping this great aircraft flying!
@@jeffjames1743 the Collings Foundation and Vietnam War Flight Museum working together is making some great magic!
I've always thought the F-100 was a gorgeous aircraft. It reminds me a bit of the Eurofighter Typhoon in its posture when on the ground, as they both seem to squat down in back with the nose sitting high. This was our "F-16" of the 1960s, designed and built from the technology we had available to us in the 1950s. This thing was pretty darn sporty despite having a relatively underpowered engine. I can only imagine what a hot rod she would have been with a few thousand pounds of additional thrust.
@@georgetincher7859 I agree, she’s got a proud stance to her!
Also area ruling.
Remember the F-8 had the same engine and it was a hot rod.. one of the fastest and most maneuverable jets of its era.
Great video thank you 👍🏻
@@ji88o thank you!
Amazing, thanks. Very reminiscent of a T28 cockpit, glareshield especially..
@@Ripper13F1V definitely!
Thanks for the cockpit tour. Was the two seater made for an instructor pilot to sit in back or for a radar/weapons guy?
@@pakkelly made for trainer but also as FastFAC
Thanks for the tour. I have a question regarding the engine starts though. I’ve noticed that there’s a panel on the spine just behind the cockpit that always seems to be off for the start up. There’s nothing similar on the Voodoo like that so it’s not J57 related I don’t think. It’s only an F-100 thing I believe so I’m curious.
The hydraulic systems on the F,-100 need to be bleed on the first flight of the day. That is why that spine is open.
@@dadyhillerbug Thank you.
Thanks for doing this video!!!
@@jeffdunn7474 thanks for watching!
Beautiful collection!
Except for the Gnat. That was always an ugly troll.
@@DNModels 🤣🤣🤣 to each their own 🤷♂️ I love that little jet!
Would be interesting to do a vid on the pilot and his experiences
@@Pilotc180 I think it would take a series of vids to get through Rick’s experience! 🤣
As a former A-4 Skyhawk avionics guy, I have to wonder how hard it was for the front seat guy to access the circuit breakers on the aft bulkhead. Can he read the labels? ... or reach them and pull the right one? The Skyhawk, for better or worse, just had fuses located far away from the pilot(s), for the most part. The only thing that I recall mounted to the aft cockpit bulkhead was the "relief container stowage". It wasn't until I flew in the back seat of our TA-4's that I realized that this was where you put your barf bag after filling it up. 🤢
Hard as hell, to tell what's popped out.
The system is very similar in operation as the T-33, usual SOP is canopy coming down, response was clear, canopy coming full closed, response clear, then canopy closed locked and response canopy closed, light out.
@@dadyhillerbug yep! Same with TA4 any of the others with canopy and back/front seater
Let's go!
@@brainyhead1 fun stuff!
This may seem like a dumb question but as some one that watches for job safety issues at work. When you was closing the canopy on that flight. How do you make sure the other guys is free of the pinch point hazard?
@@mikequigleyorruneoform7096 communication between pilots before moving the canopy
Close part way, announce canopy comming full closed
@@dadyhillerbug Was there a required ICS response to the warning of canopy coming down the rest of the way? In the time that the plane was used with actual student pilots? So the instructor knows for a fact that the joiner pilot is aware and not distracted?
What is the purpose of that big plate on the back seater's instrument panel (that's blocking your vision)? Looking at some pictures of other F-100F's (for example, 63948), I don't see that plate.
@@RocketToTheMoose it’s basically part of the ejection system, it pops up even higher during ejection to block the wind and potentially pyro from the front seat.
@@JetJerod Was thinking about that...but shouldn't the backseater be going up the rails first in the sequence (honestly have no idea how it works in the F-100)?
@@RocketToTheMoose usually that’s the case.
This was a modification by the Danish Air Force to put Martin Baker MK5 seats in. The original Dart seats in the F-100 were different. They eject individually and the Canopy ejects individually.
@@dadyhillerbug I don't think the F-100 ever had two separate canopies, as far as I know?
What is the history of the F-100F...
Are the seats "hot"? Ie functioning ejection
@@pringphotomartin yep!
Awesome, I'm assuming they aren't zero-zero?
Zero 90 if you are below 160lbs.
It's a shame there isn't a thud (f105) flying.....
Collins foundation tried to get one. Got permission from congress, but the Air Force purposely destroyed the one that could have been made airworthy. It sucks but those airplanes where beat. I believe the last gaurd and reverse units flying them in 83 had to check every 10 on the wings for cracks.