I remember when we used to play in these and F86 Sabre’s in some parks where we lived as kids back in the day, all the kids fight and argued over time in, on and at positions in them, great times and imagination land, we’d watch the movies then run to the park for some nostalgic play.
My Dad flew one of these. He was in the Air Force then Air Nat Guard from 55 to 71. Flew F-86 and up to the B52. He was a Captain in SAC, I remember as a little kid going to the alert shack in Rome NY in the 60's.
Mine bailed out of one of these in 1953 in Arizona. He was in gunnery school and his wingman followed him into a target at the wrong interval, bounced rounds off of the ground and effectively shot him down. :) He managed to find the mangled data plate off of the dashboard with the plane's tail number and still has it. He was upset, however, that his "caterpillar club" pin went missing.
The basic F-84 airframe was the basis for further experimental aircraft designs. One of the most infamous of these was the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech. It was powered by an Allison XT-40-A-1 turboprop engine providing 5,850 eshp. The most obvious difference between it and its pure-jet brother were the "T" tail, a shark-like anti-torque fin behind the cockpit, air intake fairings at the leading edge wing roots, and of course, the large spinner with its supersonic propeller. The Thunderscreech is best remembered as the loudest aircraft ever built. During a ground run-up, the 12 foot diameter Aero Products propeller generated hypersonic sound waves which, although these are inaudible, they created acute nausea in anyone standing within several hundred feet of the fighter plane, including the pilot. Constant maintenance problems eventually led to the abandonment of the project. It did achieve a top speed of 530 mph in level flight at 34,500 feet. The sole surviving XF-84H is currently on permanment static display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.
I remember a story about the F-84 from the Korean war that shows how rugged the aircraft was. The pilot was on a low level strafing run in rolling country side. The pilot reported hearing a thump and feeling a jolt but the aircraft was still flying so he.continued the mission and returned to base. Later the crew chief reported having to pull weeds and grass from between the belly plates of the aircraft. Apparently the aircraft hit a glancing blow on the top of a hill but suffered no damage. They didn't call it the "Republic Iron and Safe Works" for nothing. It was said back in the day that if they built a runway around the world Republic would build a plane that needed it.
Another experiment with the F-84 was the FICON Project - it had two F-84's attached to the wingtips of a B-29 bomber for fighter protection. There was also a version where the USAF attached a single F-84 under the belly of a B-36. There also was the XF-84H Thunderscreech - a modified F-84 with a supersonic propeller, which was so loud that it sickened ground crews.
@@FishFlysThe plane wasn’t supersonic- the prop blades were. They went so fast and loud that they produced a peculiar type of sound wave that caused nausea and sickness to ground crews within close proximity on the ground. 🤢
My father, who retired from the Air Force in 1969, started flying P47 fighter during WWII in 1943. He stated emphatically the P47 would have been a great fighter in and of itself flying through the mountainous terrain of Korea. It was a tough aircraft and could carry a heavy payload.
@@momotheelder7124 It's true that there weren't any P47's available for the Korean War but not for the reason everyone thinks, some time back I read an article about P47 myths in general and one of the myths it addressed is the one that by the Korean War they didn't have any P47's because by the end of WW2 the Army had fallen in love with the P51 and decided to completely give up on the P47 and scrapped or sold off all of them by the time the Korean War happened, that article listed the number of P47's in service or storage at sites in Europe as of when the Korean War was being fought and it was pretty big, I was surprised because like most others I thought they'd gotten rid of or scrapped all of the P47's by then, the reason none were "available" for the Korean War is because the commander's in Europe who were worried about the Soviets rolling through the mountain passes didn't want to give up what they considered to be the best ground attack aircraft they had in their inventory. An example of them being in Germany as of when the Korean War was being fought can be seen in the movie Decision Before Dawn, it's set in the final days of WW2 in Germany and was filmed in the Manheim area in 1952, since in 1952 Manheim like many German cities still had areas that were basically still bombed out it made the perfect shooting location for a movie set in Germany at the end of the war with hollowed out buildings and piles of rubble all around, shortly before the end of the movie actual P47's are used to film a ground attack scene, at the end of the movie during the credits the producers thank either the USAF or a particular USAF unit for the use of their aircraft in the filming of the movie, so there's proof of what I'd read in that article about P47's still being flown by USAF unit's in Europe during the Korean War. It really is cool seeing actual P47's used as P47's in a movie instead of the different aircraft used as stand in's in so many of them like Patton or A Bridge Too Far, with 5 airworthy P47's and I believe another one in the restoration pipeline that's real close to flying it'd be great to see a movie made about a WW2 US fighter group like the 56th, as with many of these latest movies all it'd take is that many close up with the rest being CGI'd into the background to film scenes both in the air and on the ground to make a really good movie.
One of the first plastic models of aircraft I built in my youth was of an F-84, even had the insignia outlines and other markings molded into the plastic. This video is the best summation I've seen of this airplane and filled a few questionable areas I was unsure of.
@@duartesimoes508I think my kit was older (1952?) than Monogram's venture into plastics though you could be right. My mind keeps flirting with Lindberg's range which were popular and early offerings but I don't recall other lots of theirs that had that feature exactly. I liked building any Monogram kits, especially the balsa mixed construction ones, a Corsair model was interesting and I was a novice youth. On further reflection it seems Aurora might have produced it but I built mostly WW1 models of theirs.
@@whalesong999 mine is from the French _Heller,_ in 72 scale. Pretty good. I Must have bought it around 1979 and of course decorated it as a Portuguese Air Force F-84G from the _São Jorge_ Aerobatic Team. The Crosses of Christ I had, but painting the red and green decoration fully by hand is one of these things you only do when you're young and eager... 😬 My model's aircraft is currently in the Air Museum. Tail number 5187. .
I was always lead to believe, the F-84 Thunderjet, possessed 2 semi-enclosed engines, each one side-by-side just underneath, on the bottom trailing edge, of the wing and fuselage. The F-80 Shooting Star, had one engine, with the thrust coming out of the tail. I've seen uncountable pictures, in books and internet, that depicts the latter, descriptions. Another questionable visual you showed (@09:30), is not the Thunderjet (as it didn't have, swept-back wing's), but the F-86 'Sabrejet'.
My dad flew the F-84G in the Royal Danish Air Force back in the 50ies. One thing I remember him telling about was spin recovery, that under certain conditions could be very difficult. Something about the tail fin losing it's effect if it got sheltered by the wing.
@@ometec The F-84F "Thunderstreak" had swept wings and swept horizontal stabilizers. The spin recovery issue may have been (one of) the reasons for that change of design .
Certain aircraft had the flaw that the wings and/or part of the fuselage could "blanket" or block airflow over the rear control surfaces such as the vertical and horizontal stabilizers and the rudder and elevators within them. If memory serves, when oriented in a nose-up attitude. I am drawing a blank on types of aircraft known for that, maybe one of the professionals in the chat can help....
Thank sir! It's come me back in 1950,1960. At this time I was building some 50 smalls plastics model of theses numerus aircrafts of that time and before. Seeing your videos bring me some water in my eyes. Sorry for my bad english i'm french speaking guy! Thanks again. Great video!
"....crushed every Soviet aircraft it could..." Which as it turned out, wasn't many, but like the Hurricane and P-40, Hawk, F4F, etc, it was where it needed to be, when it needed to be....but with a much lower success rate.
Yet at 6:20 it is stated "…around 25 F-84s were lost in arial combat in exchange for seven to eight Mig-15s". Doesn't really sound like it 'crushed' the competition.
With only marginal speed and climb for a fighter, the Hawker Hurricane made up for its shortcomings with rugged reliability, ease of operation, and ease of repair so much so that by the end of the battle of britain, the hurricane had downed more axis aircraft than the rest of the other RAF aircraft combined. None the less, in the hearts and minds of the british, it was always overshadowed by its flashier cousin. (the spitfire)
@@MarcoPono During the battle of Brittian, there were 32 squadrons of Hurricanes with 344 aircraft vs only 19 squadrons of Spitfires with only 226 aircraft. The Hurricane was a great Aircraft with just over half of the kills recorded against German fighters, but there was 50% more of them. If you were in such a situation as the pilots of that era was, I'd bet money that you would want your butt strapped into a Spitfire with every advantage you could get rather than a Hurricane.
Not quit ! The F-84 has always been my favorite jet. The “ COKE bottle “ comes about when Whitcomb figures the “COKE BOTTLE” fuselage cross section IS needed to push the century series pass MACH.
After the Korean War, dad flew the F-84G for a few years. Heavy & underpowered, it was rugged. He said it was almost impossible to overstress the airframe. Some of the takeoff runs were very, very long.... Some pilots said they were tempted to rig a sand bag in front of the nose wheel & deploy the sand before hitting the end of the runway. The plane would be fooled into thinking it was at the end of the runway and stagger into the wild blue yonder. Hence the moniker "The Sniffer." Dad later upgraded to the F-86. Absolutely loved that a/c.
I like the quote in the narration that the F-84 had a functional ejection seat. Maybe it's just my British sense of humour, but you wouldn't want a non-functional ejection seat in a jet fighter, now would you, especially if you needed to eject! Having said that, I do like watching these Dark Skies videos.
As a fellow Brit, I am also proud of the fact that, of all the countries listed who adopted the F84, Britain wasn't one of them. We could spot a ho-hum aircraft when we saw one. Besides, we had our own gallimaufry of mediocrity to draw from (Gloster Javelin, Supermarine Scimitar etc.)
@@Togidubnus The first generation of British Fighter Jets was composed of Gloster Meteors & Vampires, which were not very impressive either. But the Hunter and the EE Lightning were outstanding aircraft, each one in its own way. Even today the Lightning is a very impressive, intimidating aircraft. And I remember being overflown by Hunters in Switzerland as late as 1984. Regarding the seat, I guess he meant that the latter seats had a larger envelope. The ejection seats in the first generation Fighters probably only saved you above 3000 ft or more and above a given airspeed. They wouldn't save you on the ground or at low level and I bet you had to eject the canopy first - you still do nowadays if you are in a flat spin - and the seat didn't kick you out after ejection, nor opened your parachute nor pointed up automatically, nor selected your seat oxygen bottle, or waited for oxygen levels to open your parachute, nothing of these wonderful automatic features we take for granted today. Nowadays you can literally pull the ejection handle and faint, and the seat will take care of everything else.
The seat even in the F was rudimentary. A no frills affair and the pilot sat with his legs straight out in front of him. Very uncomfortable, he had to bend his knees almost under his chin before ejecting to get them on the foot rests. The engines would flame out in a rainstorm, and if you were approaching your target at 50 feet, your options were limited.@@duartesimoes508
My grandmother's brother was killed in an F84E, I guess he was departing on a combat mission and his engine failed just after takeoff, crashed trying to return to the airfield.
Is it me or do I keep seeing these early single engine through-body jets as updated and improved versions of the Gloster Whittle test bed, even the MiG which had "borrowed" a Rolls-Royce engine. The rate of aircraft development in the early 50s meant that they was often obsolete before they flew.
It's a bit of a form follows function the engine design. Once they started moving towards axial-flow designs, you can get more compact and aerodynamic.
I always find it helpful to compare such lineage to earlier air warfare history any nation/designs with the context being the essential difference. In WWII the division of the war seems to be Wehrmacht who fought the bulk of ground action in the East, until the last year of the . Meanwhile the air war was Luftwaffe vs Wallies mostly to defeat the bomber streams. Any discussion on types needs to be contrasted against importance to such missions, and numbers on each side over the campaign . The importance of the above mentioned Korean War was most important as a yardstick in any EAST WEST campaign as 1950s Europe and later SEA conflict in the 1960s/70s.
That's deceptive. Ground attack missions were very important on the Russian front, though the Germans didn't have many great aircraft for that. It's just that millions of people were on the ground and that gets the attention. After Kursk the Luftwaffe could not challenge the Russians in the sky. In the West, until the landings in Italy there were no opportunities for ground war. But the Allies could fly bomber missions.
The sight of heavily dented tactical nuclear bombs being loaded is one I won’t forget. Did they take a beating in the warehouse? Rough handling by baggage handlers?
Have to admit, I always figured the F84 was some sort of COUSIN to the Navy's Panther jet design, and thought the ultimate SWEPT-WING F84-F Thunderstreak was an entirely Separate Series of aircraft. Guess I was mistaking it for the F86 Sabre jet. Thanks for clearing things up, and making me Appreciate the whole series as never before.
Our local National Guard unit flew the Thunder Streak for years before transitioning into the Super Saber in the seventies. The F16 replaced the F100 in the eighties I think.
Love the content of this show and the other history documentary series. Keep up the good work you do with the archives you have. If you make the videos we will watch em. HAVE A great day everybody.
I've always loved this plane ever since I saw it it just looked like a dogfighting beast, even in war thunder I've spent a lot of time flying this jet in simulator it can go fast, the 50cals can do some work and overall it flies good before a wing stall during a dogfight against the early migs
I remember hearing about how when the Italians were given p47s they didn't like them originally, as they preferred lighter more agile props, however they did agree that the thunderbolt was a very good bridge between prop fighters and jets. I wouldn't be surprised if the jet on the other side of that bridge was the F84.
Yugoslavia flew some 231 F-84G. Some were recived trough MDAP in 1950s along with T-33, RT-33, TV-2, F-86D and F-86E and others were later purchased from Greece. US jets that flew under red star... We retired F-84G in 1972. Only T-33 retired in 1985. outlived it.
My dad flew straight wing F-84s in Korea and swept wing F-84s afterwards until transitioning to F-100s and later F-105s. Dad loved 84s despite being terribly underpowered. Dad told me that in straight wing F-84s you had to bounce the nose wheel to get it off the ground because the leading edge of the wings actually pointed down.
The F84 Thunderjet was a very good American first generation jet fighter. It however used straight wings instead of the swept back wings used in late first generation jet fighters. This reflected conservative design thinking in the design of early first generation jet fighters before the end of the Second World War. The first F84 could achieve 600 mph. The later improved F84, using a better jet engine, reached 620 mph, good but still behind the Soviet MiG-15's max speed of around 660 plus mph. Initially armed with just four, 0.50 mph, this was clearly inadequate. Later F84 Thunderjets included two extra 0.50 machine guns in the wing roots. The U.S. Air Force, direct predecessor to the U.S. Army Air Force, was still conservative in aircraft armament while the U.S. Navy moved to the 20mm cannon post-war. The F84 would have been better off armed with four, 20mm cannon, as later air combat over the skies of North Korea would prove. The early F84 pilots complained about the cramped cockpit. Republic addressed this by extending the length of the cockpit by 12 inches, offering more room. In spite of all the improvements, the real solution was the swept-wing successor, Thunderstreak, which achieved a max speed of about 660 mph, making it competitive against the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis. The MiG-17, with its top speed of 700 mph, would have been a tougher competitor though.
Love the P-47…big power bomber capacity ground attack/support. Bless the P-51 to relive them of bomber escort. P-51 took years to refine all the while the P-47 was 4:28 kicking ass, hey P-51 welcome to the fight.
Intriguing that you paint this as a solid, consistent threat to enemy fighters, here, but in your video about the F-101, you point out that one of the driving factors behind developing the Voodoo was the proven inadequacy of existing jets--with the F-84 getting special mention. It would be nice if you could keep your messaging consistent...
To be fair, The F101 was built for a very different specification. And even an entirely different branch of the Air Force. It was originally intended as an escort fighter for strategic Air command. Eventually they did away with the idea of a fighter escort. And it got used mostly in the recon role. And some two seat models for interceptor missions.
The Dutch Air Force also flew the F84-E and G models, these however were after just 4 years of service replaced by more capable jets in the form of the Republic F84-F Thunderstreak and Thunderflash, Hawker Hunter Mk4 and 6 and the F86-K Sabre. The Thunderflash flew until 1970
I notice the original Thunderjet plans had swept wings. I remember reading somewhere that the top Army brass had a Jones for 'keeping the tradition' of straight wings, so they changed it.
It's not so simple just to swap out engines. The airframe is literally built around the engine design. So getting a substitute that fits and everything is a bit of an issue. Curtiss-wright turned out to be a lousy company. And soon went out of business.
The book by Richard Bach "Stranger to the Ground" takes place against the backdrop of a flight across Europe in one. It's a great read for the personal details and flight experience.
But at least he is flying a F. That's why he survived the thunderstorm... 😂 But I really don't like Richard Bach books much. He is way too digressive for my taste. No pilot can afford to be digressive or he will end up lost, rebuked by the ATC or running out of fuel! Read Pierre Closterman's books, you're sure to enjoy.
@@duartesimoes508 But he did survive it. Inverted. With an engine intake covered with ice. Thank goodness for a robust compressor! A great part of the book. I understand his digressive style and should his wife get a pair of Siamese kittens? They climb drapes (a little ahead on the throttle...). I'm not familiar with Pierre Clostermann- but I'll look around - are you referring to the Big Show? Flames in the Sky?
@@jdos2 EXACTLY! And he wrote a lesser known book, _Intimates of death,_ a very beautiful, humane book in which he describe his own post war experience in Algeria under a pseudonym, flying a M.H.Broussard (sort of a Norseman) and the SNCASE Mistral (a Vampire manufactured under licence) fighting the FNL. In the end of his book, he is shot down by the _Fellagas's_ Flak and killed. I read _Fires in the Sky_ when I was nine, and did it so many times that even today at 57 I know entire paragraphs by memory. My parents became so concerned they even considered confiscating the book or taking me to a Psychologist, but it was just sheer fascination. One day, when I was 13, I kept "The Great Circus" for me from the _Lycée Français_ Biblioteque, alleging having lost it; I was well known for liking Aviation, the clerk did not believe me and I paid a _huge_ fine; but I still keep the book like a Relic. You couldn't find it anywhere else. He ended the war as Wing Commander after flying Spitfires VB, Mk IX, Typhoon for conversion and tempest V, with 27 kills. His writing is absolutely superb. As good as _Sir Martin Middlebrook's_ writings about RAF Bomber Command but with personnel experience. If I ever had an Idol, that's him! After the war he became _Deputat_ (like Senator, or Member of the Parlament) and was exempt from mobilization to fight in Algeria. But he went neverthless; the only other _Gaulliste Deputat_ that also went was _Jean Marie Le Pen,_ Father of Marine Le Pen from the _Front National_ I do recommend you buy the books - Amazon has them - as they are the very best I've ever read in my life. Mine are in Portuguese and French, very old editions from the fifties. The most impressive in Clostermann, apart from being an handsome and charismatic Man and superb writer and fisherman, is that he never had to go to war in first place; he was the Son of the French Ambassador in Curitiba, Brasil, and then went to the US before Pearl Harbor. But he did cross the Atlantic risking being sunk to fight for his beloved France. He was a pilot by then. After the war he worked as Salesman of Max Holste (which built the Broussard) and came to Portugal often since he spoke (Brasilian) Portuguese perfectly. Our Air Force bought several. The former Manager of the Aerodrome where I worked as Controller, near Lisbon, knew him personally. (and he knew Adolf Galland too!) Very decorated and honoured as _Compagnon de la Liberation,_ Pierre Clostermann passed away in 2006. Do take a look in Wikipedia.
2:40 not to nitpick, I'm sure it was just a simple error, but the .50 cal machine gun is the M2. The M3 is the .45 cal submachine gun that was nicknamed the grease gun because of it's appearance to that tool.
The late model .50 cal. MG used on the F-84 and F-86 (and others) was also the M3. The M (Model) 1/2/3 etc. designation was used for all sorts of military equipment besides guns.
The Sabres were the only American fighter Jet that could maneuver and destroy the Sino/Russian/Korean MiGs. Everyone in the Air Force knew it was Soviet pilots operating the MIGs at the express order of Stalin, as American pilots heard Russian conversations between their own Jets and saw them through their cockpits. When a Russian pilot was killed, his family was told he had died in a training accident in Russia. It was only later when Chinese and Korean pilots took over the MIGs. When one Russian pilot parachuted in the Ocean, his Comrade pilots machine gunned him so that the Americans did not capture him alive and reveal the truth. Initially, the Chinese refused to bail out the North Korean Army but only relented when Stalin told them that his pilots would protect them by Air. The Sabres were overstretched but performed well by destroying over 700 MIGs at the cost of 79 Sabres. As a result, all US straight wing prop planes and jet fighters were withdrawn from the Korean War as they were no match for the MIGs. The U.S. Air Force had lost some 2,700 plus prop planes and jets in Korea.
It seemed like those early fighters always seemed to fix the problems by about the 'D' model. The F-100, the F-105, and many others. The pace of change was so fast in the 40's and 50's that they were putting out designs before the problems were fixed. People should remember that when they criticize the F-35. Look at the problems the F-14 had in the beginning. People who love the F-22 forget that it had bad problems with the oxygen system in the beginning and even though the F-22 is capable of Mach 2.3, it rarely goes that fast because it would ruin the Stealth coating.
Think was reading squadron history of 145h GG when they had F-85bs, but can't find that story now. They did a fly-over from Dow AFB in Maine for a parade, where one lost a tip tank, & bombed a garage or fire barn. Think another lost a canopy & crashed, they lost a few up in them woods.
The Mig-15 sent a lot of F-84 s to the scrap yard. The F-84 had STRAIGHT wings with numerous problems. Whom ever wrote this did not read any history of the Korean war.
I was thinking the same thing. My dad was a radar operator in the F-89. He was with the 57th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Keflavik, Iceland during the mid 1950s.
It is stated several times in this video that the MiG-15 was more maneuverable than the F-84. That just isn't true, it was faster and could climb better but the F-84's straight wing gave it very good turning capability.
My Uncle worked on a version of it in the Dutch Milatary. Short landing gone long . It went passed the end of the Airfeild into the Farmers Feild. The landing gear folded . Let's just say the Air force Payed for a lot of Corn.
Swept wings did not become a thing until the late forties. When we started doing the X-Plane stuff. We are also able to study flight data research from the Germans. That's when you started seeing designs using swept wings and Delta wings. You have to understand the rapid change of technology here. Twenty years before they were still flying biplanes. Now the 1950s they're doing 600 Mph. That was why they were doing all the high-speed X plane research.
They did evolve to swept wings for the F-84F. It turned out not to be so easy. There was less commonality of parts than they had hoped hoped blowing the cost projections. They also needed a hot press forge for the wing spars that was in use for the B-47. By the time the Fs arrived they were relegated to the ANG units. They recce version the Thunderflash few on for quite a while even longer in foreign air forces.
If I recall correctly, because the F-84 was being developed late in WWII before the swept wing technology was well understood and tested, as a competitor to the F-80, so they weren't able to overhaul their design and production easily to incorporate it until later, with the Thunderstreak.
@@chrispierdominici3891 Well the whole thing was a Evolving change. And the wing is just one part of the puzzle. Research into high-speed flight in aerodynamics and the whole X-Plane program was underway. Things like fuselage design, tail design, engine output were all going radical changes over short. Putting a swept-wing is not a super instant answer to everything. There's how much sweep was adequate. Then there's the issue of low speed handling, how much lift and Wing cross section. Wet wig or dry wing? Nose or side intake? Weapon type? There's a lot of stuff going on in just a few years.
The Canadian Air Force's Avro Arrow fighter jet was ready for full production in 1959 and would have been the best fighter jet for the next 20 years if the program wasn't cancelled. Some current aviation experts rate it as a 5th generation aircraft in the time of 3rd generation competitors. Also, it's projected jet engine, the Orenda Iroquois. was a 2 generation advancement in jet engine technology and power. Unfortunately, its projection was also cancelled.
Oh sure, a fighter that never even got to flight test would have been the "greatest fighter" for 20 years. Just because of the promises made by the manufacturer. You know how many "greatest fighters" of the era turned out mediocre when actually built and flown? If the RCAF really thought it was that good they'd have moved heaven and earth to procure them.
Clickbait title. What the video really proves is that training matters slightly more than the aircraft. If you can fly a significantly outclassed plane, manage kills, and complete missions while returning home, you know it's not the plane.
it was madness that the P51 was used as extensively as it was in Korea by USAF and allies, when even in Europe it was found they were too vulnerable to German AAA and small arms when used JABO....that there was not a crisis-run of P47s to use in the role...OR...simply use the Navy fighters such as F4U or even F6F if they were still available, as the USN itself did alongside A1s.....both F4U and F6F had been used from land-bases in WW2 by USMC units anyway..anything with the 2000 P&W radial up-front vs a Merlin with big radiators.. meanwhile, the F84...impression I got was that it had gotten the worst of it vs MiG 15 when escorting B29 raids...
The reason for lopsided numbers of downed Soviet built Mig-15 jets was mainly due to the great skills of the United States Air Force and United States Navy fighter pilots. This was and is always true due to the number of hours that USAF and USN pilots are flying in the air and honing their skills. Joe McConnell of Massachusetts with his F-86 Sabre was the first Jet age Triple Ace with 16 confirmed kills. Thunderbolt F-84 was mainly used by US Navy pilot who had great skill and daring.
I think you made a mistake here. The title should be "The Fighter that got crushed by soviet fighters". The K/D ratio vs. soviet MiG 15 was catastrophic due to the overall inferiority of the F84 that could hardly be compensated by better trained pilots. The F86 was barely able to hold it's ground vs. the north koreans, the F84 was unable to do so.
Yeah, amazingly inaccurate and sugar coated. The F-84 got positively MAULED in Korea, suffering 8 wins and 64 losses to MiG 15s. The actual flight hours for Korean War and NATO deployments rapidly outpaced the supply and Allison's ability to manufacture new engines. The F-84 was, at best, an adequate fighter-bomber...but then what isn't?
Don't knock Republic Aviation. In Korea,the F-84 Thunderjet shot down 8 Mig-15's with another 93 probable while losing 18 shot down by Mig-15's. Thunderjets also destroyed another 125 on the ground.F-84 Thunderjets was responsible for 60% of all ground attack missions throughout the Korean war. Air to ground is way tougher than air to air but gets no glory.F-84 Thunderjets did very well in Korea.
Thanks for the video. I heard about that dam strike. With aircraft. I never heard any missions that involved just blowing up a dam on your own supposed territory though....with any heroic notions thats for damn well sure lad. Cheers for the vid.
the wing tip fuel tanks are actually terrible. all that weight at the end of the wing slows role rates and makes the wing heavier. the saber was also the counterpart to the mig15
I remember when we used to play in these and F86 Sabre’s in some parks where we lived as kids back in the day, all the kids fight and argued over time in, on and at positions in them, great times and imagination land, we’d watch the movies then run to the park for some nostalgic play.
My Dad flew one of these. He was in the Air Force then Air Nat Guard from 55 to 71. Flew F-86 and up to the B52. He was a Captain in SAC, I remember as a little kid going to the alert shack in Rome NY in the 60's.
Did he bomb Korea into stone age?
What was it like to experience America before the Democrats unleashed the gays onto society?
Mine bailed out of one of these in 1953 in Arizona. He was in gunnery school and his wingman followed him into a target at the wrong interval, bounced rounds off of the ground and effectively shot him down. :) He managed to find the mangled data plate off of the dashboard with the plane's tail number and still has it. He was upset, however, that his "caterpillar club" pin went missing.
The basic F-84 airframe was the basis for further experimental aircraft designs. One of the most infamous of these was the Republic XF-84H Thunderscreech. It was powered by an Allison XT-40-A-1 turboprop engine providing 5,850 eshp. The most obvious difference between it and its pure-jet brother were the "T" tail, a shark-like anti-torque fin behind the cockpit, air intake fairings at the leading edge wing roots, and of course, the large spinner with its supersonic propeller. The Thunderscreech is best remembered as the loudest aircraft ever built. During a ground run-up, the 12 foot diameter Aero Products propeller generated hypersonic sound waves which, although these are inaudible, they created acute nausea in anyone standing within several hundred feet of the fighter plane, including the pilot. Constant maintenance problems eventually led to the abandonment of the project. It did achieve a top speed of 530 mph in level flight at 34,500 feet. The sole surviving XF-84H is currently on permanment static display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.
Im lucky enough that ive been about to see it in the museum
I remember a story about the F-84 from the Korean war that shows how rugged the aircraft was. The pilot was on a low level strafing run in rolling country side. The pilot reported hearing a thump and feeling a jolt but the aircraft was still flying so he.continued the mission and returned to base. Later the crew chief reported having to pull weeds and grass from between the belly plates of the aircraft. Apparently the aircraft hit a glancing blow on the top of a hill but suffered no damage. They didn't call it the "Republic Iron and Safe Works" for nothing. It was said back in the day that if they built a runway around the world Republic would build a plane that needed it.
I got to see one of them fly at an airshow in bakersfield., years ago.. That pilot was not afraid to put it through its paces. So cool.
I never realized the F-84 was produced in such huge numbers. Learn something new every day.
Another experiment with the F-84 was the FICON Project - it had two F-84's attached to the wingtips of a B-29 bomber for fighter protection. There was also a version where the USAF attached a single F-84 under the belly of a B-36.
There also was the XF-84H Thunderscreech - a modified F-84 with a supersonic propeller, which was so loud that it sickened ground crews.
Small Correction/Clarification; the FICON project was designed to launch the F-84 as a parasite fighter, held in the bomb bay of the B-36
Furthermore, no the prop variant was NOT SUPERSONIC! It was a turbo prop capable of just over 500 mph
The confusion is in the fact that the edges of the prop blades spun at a supersonic speed, creating the incredible noise
@@FishFlys true about the tips - good point - I forgot that
@@FishFlysThe plane wasn’t supersonic- the prop blades were. They went so fast and loud that they produced a peculiar type of sound wave that caused nausea and sickness to ground crews within close proximity on the ground. 🤢
My father, who retired from the Air Force in 1969, started flying P47 fighter during WWII in 1943. He stated emphatically the P47 would have been a great fighter in and of itself flying through the mountainous terrain of Korea. It was a tough aircraft and could carry a heavy payload.
It would have been far better than the P-51 at ground attack, (air cooled engine) but they weren't available anymore. A poor decision in hindsight.
@@momotheelder7124
Agreed...he made the comment years after the Korean War.
@@momotheelder7124
It's true that there weren't any P47's available for the Korean War but not for the reason everyone thinks, some time back I read an article about P47 myths in general and one of the myths it addressed is the one that by the Korean War they didn't have any P47's because by the end of WW2 the Army had fallen in love with the P51 and decided to completely give up on the P47 and scrapped or sold off all of them by the time the Korean War happened, that article listed the number of P47's in service or storage at sites in Europe as of when the Korean War was being fought and it was pretty big, I was surprised because like most others I thought they'd gotten rid of or scrapped all of the P47's by then, the reason none were "available" for the Korean War is because the commander's in Europe who were worried about the Soviets rolling through the mountain passes didn't want to give up what they considered to be the best ground attack aircraft they had in their inventory.
An example of them being in Germany as of when the Korean War was being fought can be seen in the movie Decision Before Dawn, it's set in the final days of WW2 in Germany and was filmed in the Manheim area in 1952, since in 1952 Manheim like many German cities still had areas that were basically still bombed out it made the perfect shooting location for a movie set in Germany at the end of the war with hollowed out buildings and piles of rubble all around, shortly before the end of the movie actual P47's are used to film a ground attack scene, at the end of the movie during the credits the producers thank either the USAF or a particular USAF unit for the use of their aircraft in the filming of the movie, so there's proof of what I'd read in that article about P47's still being flown by USAF unit's in Europe during the Korean War.
It really is cool seeing actual P47's used as P47's in a movie instead of the different aircraft used as stand in's in so many of them like Patton or A Bridge Too Far, with 5 airworthy P47's and I believe another one in the restoration pipeline that's real close to flying it'd be great to see a movie made about a WW2 US fighter group like the 56th, as with many of these latest movies all it'd take is that many close up with the rest being CGI'd into the background to film scenes both in the air and on the ground to make a really good movie.
@@dukecraig2402your run-on sentences and lack of punctuation is impressive
@@whirlingdervish69
Smart mouthed kids who think fantasy art for their meme is cool aren't impressive.
One of the first plastic models of aircraft I built in my youth was of an F-84, even had the insignia outlines and other markings molded into the plastic. This video is the best summation I've seen of this airplane and filled a few questionable areas I was unsure of.
I have a tamiya F84 directly above my monitor...
I bet it was _Monogram._ They really enjoyed doing this in their earlier kits... 🤬
@@duartesimoes508I think my kit was older (1952?) than Monogram's venture into plastics though you could be right. My mind keeps flirting with Lindberg's range which were popular and early offerings but I don't recall other lots of theirs that had that feature exactly. I liked building any Monogram kits, especially the balsa mixed construction ones, a Corsair model was interesting and I was a novice youth. On further reflection it seems Aurora might have produced it but I built mostly WW1 models of theirs.
@@whalesong999 mine is from the French _Heller,_ in 72 scale. Pretty good. I Must have bought it around 1979 and of course decorated it as a Portuguese Air Force F-84G from the _São Jorge_ Aerobatic Team. The Crosses of Christ I had, but painting the red and green decoration fully by hand is one of these things you only do when you're young and eager... 😬
My model's aircraft is currently in the Air Museum. Tail number 5187.
.
I was always lead to believe, the F-84 Thunderjet, possessed 2 semi-enclosed engines, each one side-by-side just underneath, on the bottom trailing edge, of the wing and fuselage. The F-80 Shooting Star, had one engine, with the thrust coming out of the tail. I've seen uncountable pictures, in books and internet, that depicts the latter, descriptions. Another questionable visual you showed (@09:30), is not the Thunderjet (as it didn't have, swept-back wing's), but the F-86 'Sabrejet'.
My dad flew the F-84G in the Royal Danish Air Force back in the 50ies. One thing I remember him telling about was spin recovery, that under certain conditions could be very difficult. Something about the tail fin losing it's effect if it got sheltered by the wing.
sweeping the wing and moving the horizontal stabilizers would have helped that.
@@ometec The F-84F "Thunderstreak" had swept wings and swept horizontal stabilizers. The spin recovery issue may have been (one of) the reasons for that change of design .
Certain aircraft had the flaw that the wings and/or part of the fuselage could "blanket" or block airflow over the rear control surfaces such as the vertical and horizontal stabilizers and the rudder and elevators within them. If memory serves, when oriented in a nose-up attitude. I am drawing a blank on types of aircraft known for that, maybe one of the professionals in the chat can help....
That M3 .50 is a high rate of fire variant of the M2. Thanks for another interesting video.
Thank sir! It's come me back in 1950,1960. At this time I was building some 50 smalls plastics model of theses numerus aircrafts of that time and before. Seeing your videos bring me some water in my eyes. Sorry for my bad english i'm french speaking guy! Thanks again. Great video!
This jet is the spiritual successor to the P-47 Thunder bolt, and it's legacy continued with the F-105 Thunderchief.
Philippines used this aircraft’s till late 80’s. I use to watch them take off at Clark AF Bass
A two week power outage in North Korea? That's better than they have today. Thanks again for another great documentary.
"....crushed every Soviet aircraft it could..."
Which as it turned out, wasn't many, but like the Hurricane and P-40, Hawk, F4F, etc, it was where it needed to be, when it needed to be....but with a much lower success rate.
Yet at 6:20 it is stated "…around 25 F-84s were lost in arial combat in exchange for seven to eight Mig-15s". Doesn't really sound like it 'crushed' the competition.
With only marginal speed and climb for a fighter, the Hawker Hurricane made up for its shortcomings with rugged reliability, ease of operation, and ease of repair so much so that by the end of the battle of britain, the hurricane had downed more axis aircraft than the rest of the other RAF aircraft combined. None the less, in the hearts and minds of the british, it was always overshadowed by its flashier cousin. (the spitfire)
@@TeufelHandlanger that's wjat I said. "Which as it turned out wasn't many..."
I think you may have misunderstood me; as a fighter, the F-84 sucked.
@@MarcoPono During the battle of Brittian, there were 32 squadrons of Hurricanes with 344 aircraft vs only 19 squadrons of Spitfires with only 226 aircraft. The Hurricane was a great Aircraft with just over half of the kills recorded against German fighters, but there was 50% more of them. If you were in such a situation as the pilots of that era was, I'd bet money that you would want your butt strapped into a Spitfire with every advantage you could get rather than a Hurricane.
The hurricane wasn’t half bad even though it was outdated idk if I understand what your trying to convey though
While the P-47 was the flying milkjug, the F-84 was the flying Coke bottle.
😅
Not quit ! The F-84 has always been my favorite jet. The “ COKE bottle “ comes about when Whitcomb figures the “COKE BOTTLE” fuselage cross section IS needed to push the century series pass MACH.
I'll take the milk-jug.
😊😊😊
The swept wing model was my favorite.
After the Korean War, dad flew the F-84G for a few years. Heavy & underpowered, it was rugged. He said it was almost impossible to overstress the airframe. Some of the takeoff runs were very, very long.... Some pilots said they were tempted to rig a sand bag in front of the nose wheel & deploy the sand before hitting the end of the runway. The plane would be fooled into thinking it was at the end of the runway and stagger into the wild blue yonder. Hence the moniker "The Sniffer." Dad later upgraded to the F-86. Absolutely loved that a/c.
The F-86, everyone did.
If there was a runway that circled the Earth at the equator Republic would have built a fighter that used all of it.😂. Not my quote.
@@jimmyjohnjames6397 The "This" comes to mind.
I like the quote in the narration that the F-84 had a functional ejection seat. Maybe it's just my British sense of humour, but you wouldn't want a non-functional ejection seat in a jet fighter, now would you, especially if you needed to eject!
Having said that, I do like watching these Dark Skies videos.
As a fellow Brit, I am also proud of the fact that, of all the countries listed who adopted the F84, Britain wasn't one of them. We could spot a ho-hum aircraft when we saw one. Besides, we had our own gallimaufry of mediocrity to draw from (Gloster Javelin, Supermarine Scimitar etc.)
@@Togidubnus The first generation of British Fighter Jets was composed of Gloster Meteors & Vampires, which were not very impressive either. But the Hunter and the EE Lightning were outstanding aircraft, each one in its own way. Even today the Lightning is a very impressive, intimidating aircraft. And I remember being overflown by Hunters in Switzerland as late as 1984.
Regarding the seat, I guess he meant that the latter seats had a larger envelope. The ejection seats in the first generation Fighters probably only saved you above 3000 ft or more and above a given airspeed. They wouldn't save you on the ground or at low level and I bet you had to eject the canopy first - you still do nowadays if you are in a flat spin - and the seat didn't kick you out after ejection, nor opened your parachute nor pointed up automatically, nor selected your seat oxygen bottle, or waited for oxygen levels to open your parachute, nothing of these wonderful automatic features we take for granted today. Nowadays you can literally pull the ejection handle and faint, and the seat will take care of everything else.
I caught/heard that as well.
The seat even in the F was rudimentary. A no frills affair and the pilot sat with his legs straight out in front of him. Very uncomfortable, he had to bend his knees almost under his chin before ejecting to get them on the foot rests. The engines would flame out in a rainstorm, and if you were approaching your target at 50 feet, your options were limited.@@duartesimoes508
My grandmother's brother was killed in an F84E, I guess he was departing on a combat mission and his engine failed just after takeoff, crashed trying to return to the airfield.
Like Richard Bong in his P-80. It was his last _Bong._
I pass this beauty every morning, at the Danish Technical Museum. She is still a looker!
A “functioning ejection seat” is a benefit over one that doesn’t function.
Had to subscribe twice! Why does yt do that it sucks because your videos are really good and you clearly put effort into these.
Thank you for this one. My dad work on them in the airforce
Is it me or do I keep seeing these early single engine through-body jets as updated and improved versions of the Gloster Whittle test bed, even the MiG which had "borrowed" a Rolls-Royce engine. The rate of aircraft development in the early 50s meant that they was often obsolete before they flew.
It's a bit of a form follows function the engine design. Once they started moving towards axial-flow designs, you can get more compact and aerodynamic.
There was two test aircraft based on the F-84. The F-84 Thunderscreech and the XF-91 Thunderceptor
I always find it helpful to compare such lineage to earlier air warfare history any nation/designs with the context being the essential difference. In WWII the division of the war seems to be Wehrmacht who fought the bulk of ground action in the East, until the last year of the . Meanwhile the air war was Luftwaffe vs Wallies mostly to defeat the bomber streams.
Any discussion on types needs to be contrasted against importance to such missions, and numbers on each side over the campaign . The importance of the above mentioned Korean War was most important as a yardstick in any EAST WEST campaign as 1950s Europe and later SEA conflict in the 1960s/70s.
That's deceptive. Ground attack missions were very important on the Russian front, though the Germans didn't have many great aircraft for that. It's just that millions of people were on the ground and that gets the attention. After Kursk the Luftwaffe could not challenge the Russians in the sky.
In the West, until the landings in Italy there were no opportunities for ground war. But the Allies could fly bomber missions.
The sight of heavily dented tactical nuclear bombs being loaded is one I won’t forget. Did they take a beating in the warehouse? Rough handling by baggage handlers?
My Dad worked for Republic in Farmingdale, Long Island during the Korean war. I believe her was a systems inspector for these aircraft.
As usual, top notch artists. Thanks.
It was vastly inferior to the Mig15. It wasn't until the F86F that we had a fighter on an equal footing.
With that straight wing, rounded vertical stabilizer and wing tip fuel tanks, the F-84 looks decades outdated compared to the Mig-15.
Have to admit, I always figured the F84 was some sort of COUSIN to the Navy's Panther jet design, and thought the ultimate SWEPT-WING F84-F Thunderstreak was an entirely Separate Series of aircraft.
Guess I was mistaking it for the F86 Sabre jet.
Thanks for clearing things up, and making me Appreciate the whole series as never before.
The F84-H had swept back wings.
Our local National Guard unit flew the Thunder Streak for years before transitioning into the Super Saber in the seventies. The F16 replaced the F100 in the eighties I think.
Love the content of this show and the other history documentary series. Keep up the good work you do with the archives you have. If you make the videos we will watch em. HAVE A great day everybody.
I've always loved this plane ever since I saw it it just looked like a dogfighting beast, even in war thunder I've spent a lot of time flying this jet in simulator it can go fast, the 50cals can do some work and overall it flies good before a wing stall during a dogfight against the early migs
sorry, just another POS
I remember hearing about how when the Italians were given p47s they didn't like them originally, as they preferred lighter more agile props, however they did agree that the thunderbolt was a very good bridge between prop fighters and jets. I wouldn't be surprised if the jet on the other side of that bridge was the F84.
Yugoslavia flew some 231 F-84G. Some were recived trough MDAP in 1950s along with T-33, RT-33, TV-2, F-86D and F-86E and others were later purchased from Greece. US jets that flew under red star... We retired F-84G in 1972. Only T-33 retired in 1985. outlived it.
I Liked the Korea Air War Movie "The Hunters" the F-84 Thunderstreak Played the Mig-15s.
With Robert Mitchum. sitting in the DVD collection.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Touche' (smile)
My dad flew straight wing F-84s in Korea and swept wing F-84s afterwards until transitioning to F-100s and later F-105s. Dad loved 84s despite being terribly underpowered. Dad told me that in straight wing F-84s you had to bounce the nose wheel to get it off the ground because the leading edge of the wings actually pointed down.
One of the few jets that legitimately bore the american star and the communist red star of the yugoslav air force at the same time.
The F84 Thunderjet was a very good American first generation jet fighter. It however used straight wings instead of the swept back wings used in late first generation jet fighters. This reflected conservative design thinking in the design of early first generation jet fighters before the end of the Second World War.
The first F84 could achieve 600 mph. The later improved F84, using a better jet engine, reached 620 mph, good but still behind the Soviet MiG-15's max speed of around 660 plus mph.
Initially armed with just four, 0.50 mph, this was clearly inadequate. Later F84 Thunderjets included two extra 0.50 machine guns in the wing roots. The U.S. Air Force, direct predecessor to the U.S. Army Air Force, was still conservative in aircraft armament while the U.S. Navy moved to the 20mm cannon post-war. The F84 would have been better off armed with four, 20mm cannon, as later air combat over the skies of North Korea would prove.
The early F84 pilots complained about the cramped cockpit. Republic addressed this by extending the length of the cockpit by 12 inches, offering more room.
In spite of all the improvements, the real solution was the swept-wing successor, Thunderstreak, which achieved a max speed of about 660 mph, making it competitive against the MiG-15 and MiG-15bis. The MiG-17, with its top speed of 700 mph, would have been a tougher competitor though.
Good history on transition to jet age. Reminded of one of my favorite war movies ‘Bridges at Toko-Ri’ with
William Holden and Grace Kelly.
Love the P-47…big power bomber capacity ground attack/support. Bless the P-51 to relive them of bomber escort. P-51 took years to refine all the while the P-47 was 4:28 kicking ass, hey P-51 welcome to the fight.
Intriguing that you paint this as a solid, consistent threat to enemy fighters, here, but in your video about the F-101, you point out that one of the driving factors behind developing the Voodoo was the proven inadequacy of existing jets--with the F-84 getting special mention.
It would be nice if you could keep your messaging consistent...
To be fair, The
F101 was built for a very different specification. And even an entirely different branch of the Air Force. It was originally intended as an escort fighter for strategic Air command. Eventually they did away with the idea of a fighter escort. And it got used mostly in the recon role. And some two seat models for interceptor missions.
I think the F-84 D model was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever made.
The Dutch Air Force also flew the F84-E and G models, these however were after just 4 years of service replaced by more capable jets in the form of the Republic F84-F Thunderstreak and Thunderflash, Hawker Hunter Mk4 and 6 and the F86-K Sabre.
The Thunderflash flew until 1970
The mig 15 and the F84 always remind me of the uncles jet from spy kids😂
Great stuff! Thank you
I notice the original Thunderjet plans had swept wings. I remember reading somewhere that the top Army brass had a Jones for 'keeping the tradition' of straight wings, so they changed it.
Good one. Thank you.
Great video. Loved it.
That vid has some AWESOME audio
Why did the F84 thunderstreak continue with the notoriously unreliable Wright j65 engine, especially when there were so many better options available?
It's not so simple just to swap out engines. The airframe is literally built around the engine design. So getting a substitute that fits and everything is a bit of an issue. Curtiss-wright turned out to be a lousy company. And soon went out of business.
Well, the engine was about the equivalent power of current day APU.
Did u tell utube I made rude comments to u.
Coward
Did u google that answer?
Sorry I got your wife pregnant. How's my son?
@@briancooper2112 what are you talking about?
They had a great display of F-84 models in the Milwaukee airport in a nice case under glass !
The book by Richard Bach "Stranger to the Ground" takes place against the backdrop of a flight across Europe in one. It's a great read for the personal details and flight experience.
But at least he is flying a F. That's why he survived the thunderstorm... 😂
But I really don't like Richard Bach books much. He is way too digressive for my taste. No pilot can afford to be digressive or he will end up lost, rebuked by the ATC or running out of fuel! Read Pierre Closterman's books, you're sure to enjoy.
@@duartesimoes508 But he did survive it. Inverted. With an engine intake covered with ice. Thank goodness for a robust compressor! A great part of the book. I understand his digressive style and should his wife get a pair of Siamese kittens? They climb drapes (a little ahead on the throttle...). I'm not familiar with Pierre Clostermann- but I'll look around - are you referring to the Big Show? Flames in the Sky?
@@jdos2 EXACTLY!
And he wrote a lesser known book, _Intimates of death,_ a very beautiful, humane book in which he describe his own post war experience in Algeria under a pseudonym, flying a M.H.Broussard (sort of a Norseman) and the SNCASE Mistral (a Vampire manufactured under licence) fighting the FNL. In the end of his book, he is shot down by the _Fellagas's_ Flak and killed.
I read _Fires in the Sky_ when I was nine, and did it so many times that even today at 57 I know entire paragraphs by memory. My parents became so concerned they even considered confiscating the book or taking me to a Psychologist, but it was just sheer fascination. One day, when I was 13, I kept "The Great Circus" for me from the _Lycée Français_ Biblioteque, alleging having lost it; I was well known for liking Aviation, the clerk did not believe me and I paid a _huge_ fine; but I still keep the book like a Relic. You couldn't find it anywhere else.
He ended the war as Wing Commander after flying Spitfires VB, Mk IX, Typhoon for conversion and tempest V, with 27 kills. His writing is absolutely superb. As good as _Sir Martin Middlebrook's_ writings about RAF Bomber Command but with personnel experience. If I ever had an Idol, that's him!
After the war he became _Deputat_ (like Senator, or Member of the Parlament) and was exempt from mobilization to fight in Algeria. But he went neverthless; the only other _Gaulliste Deputat_ that also went was _Jean Marie Le Pen,_ Father of Marine Le Pen from the _Front National_
I do recommend you buy the books - Amazon has them - as they are the very best I've ever read in my life. Mine are in Portuguese and French, very old editions from the fifties.
The most impressive in Clostermann, apart from being an handsome and charismatic Man and superb writer and fisherman, is that he never had to go to war in first place; he was the Son of the French Ambassador in Curitiba, Brasil, and then went to the US before Pearl Harbor. But he did cross the Atlantic risking being sunk to fight for his beloved France. He was a pilot by then.
After the war he worked as Salesman of Max Holste (which built the Broussard) and came to Portugal often since he spoke (Brasilian) Portuguese perfectly. Our Air Force bought several. The former Manager of the Aerodrome where I worked as Controller, near Lisbon, knew him personally. (and he knew Adolf Galland too!)
Very decorated and honoured as _Compagnon de la Liberation,_ Pierre Clostermann passed away in 2006. Do take a look in Wikipedia.
I grew up on Airforce bases, I remeber seeing the f84 in the finger four formation.
Does anyone know the service history of Stan Parris, F-84 pilot in the Korean War and DFC recipient?
Wow. The F84D has a very similar profile to the ME262, except for the engine pods of course.
I have always liked the sleek design of the Thunderstreak.
Yep, a lot in common with the Jug. Wings, tail, pilot.
2:40 not to nitpick, I'm sure it was just a simple error, but the .50 cal machine gun is the M2. The M3 is the .45 cal submachine gun that was nicknamed the grease gun because of it's appearance to that tool.
The late model .50 cal. MG used on the F-84 and F-86 (and others) was also the M3. The M (Model) 1/2/3 etc. designation was used for all sorts of military equipment besides guns.
The Sabres were the only American fighter Jet that could maneuver and destroy the Sino/Russian/Korean MiGs.
Everyone in the Air Force knew it was Soviet pilots operating the MIGs at the express order of Stalin, as American pilots heard Russian conversations between their own Jets and saw them through their cockpits. When a Russian pilot was killed, his family was told he had died in a training accident in Russia. It was only later when Chinese and Korean pilots took over the MIGs.
When one Russian pilot parachuted in the Ocean, his Comrade pilots machine gunned him so that the Americans did not capture him alive and reveal the truth.
Initially, the Chinese refused to bail out the North Korean Army but only relented when Stalin told them that his pilots would protect them by Air.
The Sabres were overstretched but performed well by destroying over 700 MIGs at the cost of 79 Sabres. As a result, all US straight wing prop planes and jet fighters were withdrawn from the Korean War as they were no match for the MIGs. The U.S. Air Force had lost some 2,700 plus prop planes and jets in Korea.
It seemed like those early fighters always seemed to fix the problems by about the 'D' model. The F-100, the F-105, and many others. The pace of change was so fast in the 40's and 50's that they were putting out designs before the problems were fixed.
People should remember that when they criticize the F-35. Look at the problems the F-14 had in the beginning. People who love the F-22 forget that it had bad problems with the oxygen system in the beginning and even though the F-22 is capable of Mach 2.3, it rarely goes that fast because it would ruin the Stealth coating.
Visually, reminds me of the CF-100 Canuck
Think was reading squadron history of 145h GG when they had F-85bs, but can't find that story now. They did a fly-over from Dow AFB in Maine for a parade, where one lost a tip tank, & bombed a garage or fire barn. Think another lost a canopy & crashed, they lost a few up in them woods.
7:30 is actually an F105 Thunderchief
1:57 - “A functional ejector seat” - does that mean the previous ejector seats were dysfunctional?
The Mig-15 sent a lot of F-84 s to the scrap yard.
The F-84 had STRAIGHT wings with numerous problems.
Whom ever wrote this did not read any history of the Korean war.
I don't know if you have done a video on the F-89 Scorpion, but would like to see your perspective on it
I was thinking the same thing. My dad was a radar operator in the F-89. He was with the 57th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Keflavik, Iceland during the mid 1950s.
Interesting, but why no mention of the F86 Sabre? Didn't it also share a pivotal role in the same conflicts?
He mentioned both the F-86 and the MiG 15, saying that both aircraft were faster and more capable than the F-84.
Just reinforces that good/great, well-trained pilots can take a less ideal plane and make it very effective.
It is stated several times in this video that the MiG-15 was more maneuverable than the F-84. That just isn't true, it was faster and could climb better but the F-84's straight wing gave it very good turning capability.
My Uncle worked on a version of it in the Dutch Milatary. Short landing gone long . It went passed the end of the Airfeild into the Farmers Feild. The landing gear folded . Let's just say the Air force Payed for a lot of Corn.
Yugoslavia had them as well.
I never understood why they didn't replace the wings with swept-wings on the earlier models. I can't see it being a major issue.
Swept wings did not become a thing until the late forties. When we started doing the X-Plane stuff. We are also able to study flight data research from the Germans. That's when you started seeing designs using swept wings and Delta wings. You have to understand the rapid change of technology here. Twenty years before they were still flying biplanes. Now the 1950s they're doing 600 Mph. That was why they were doing all the high-speed X plane research.
They did evolve to swept wings for the F-84F. It turned out not to be so easy. There was less commonality of parts than they had hoped hoped blowing the cost projections. They also needed a hot press forge for the wing spars that was in use for the B-47. By the time the Fs arrived they were relegated to the ANG units. They recce version the Thunderflash few on for quite a while even longer in foreign air forces.
If I recall correctly, because the F-84 was being developed late in WWII before the swept wing technology was well understood and tested, as a competitor to the F-80, so they weren't able to overhaul their design and production easily to incorporate it until later, with the Thunderstreak.
@@chrispierdominici3891 Well the whole thing was a Evolving change. And the wing is just one part of the puzzle. Research into high-speed flight in aerodynamics and the whole X-Plane program was underway. Things like fuselage design, tail design, engine output were all going radical changes over short. Putting a swept-wing is not a super instant answer to everything. There's how much sweep was adequate. Then there's the issue of low speed handling, how much lift and Wing cross section. Wet wig or dry wing? Nose or side intake? Weapon type? There's a lot of stuff going on in just a few years.
@1:07 why did it not get the XP-84 swept wings?
Нет слов, просто потрясающе
"Transferred hundreds, but in different numbers..." What?!?!🤣
Hey, as a kid i saw the f model flying over Offut Air force base, as you know sac headquarters. this would have been in the early 60s
"The Fighter that Crushed Every Soviet Aircraft it Could" More like : "The fighter that got crushed by Every Soviet Aircraft that could"
The Canadian Air Force's Avro Arrow fighter jet was ready for full production in 1959 and would have been the best fighter jet for the next 20 years if the program wasn't cancelled. Some current aviation experts rate it as a 5th generation aircraft in the time of 3rd generation competitors. Also, it's projected jet engine, the Orenda Iroquois. was a 2 generation advancement in jet engine technology and power. Unfortunately, its projection was also cancelled.
Oh sure, a fighter that never even got to flight test would have been the "greatest fighter" for 20 years. Just because of the promises made by the manufacturer. You know how many "greatest fighters" of the era turned out mediocre when actually built and flown? If the RCAF really thought it was that good they'd have moved heaven and earth to procure them.
Forgot Portugal, F-84G on the colonial war in Angola.
Clickbait title. What the video really proves is that training matters slightly more than the aircraft. If you can fly a significantly outclassed plane, manage kills, and complete missions while returning home, you know it's not the plane.
Yo be able to go toe to toe with a design like the MIG you would certainly need to have a swept wing aircraft.
it was madness that the P51 was used as extensively as it was in Korea by USAF and allies, when even in Europe it was found they were too vulnerable to German AAA and small arms when used JABO....that there was not a crisis-run of P47s to use in the role...OR...simply use the Navy fighters such as F4U or even F6F if they were still available, as the USN itself did alongside A1s.....both F4U and F6F had been used from land-bases in WW2 by USMC units anyway..anything with the 2000 P&W radial up-front vs a Merlin with big radiators..
meanwhile, the F84...impression I got was that it had gotten the worst of it vs MiG 15 when escorting B29 raids...
The reason for lopsided numbers of downed Soviet built Mig-15 jets was mainly due to the great skills of the United States Air Force and United States Navy fighter pilots.
This was and is always true due to the number of hours that USAF and USN pilots are flying in the air and honing their skills.
Joe McConnell of Massachusetts with his F-86 Sabre was the first Jet age Triple Ace with 16 confirmed kills.
Thunderbolt F-84 was mainly used by US Navy pilot who had great skill and daring.
I think you made a mistake here. The title should be "The Fighter that got crushed by soviet fighters".
The K/D ratio vs. soviet MiG 15 was catastrophic due to the overall inferiority of the F84 that could hardly be compensated by better trained pilots.
The F86 was barely able to hold it's ground vs. the north koreans, the F84 was unable to do so.
That's was interesting, F-84 was cool, I already draw that picture
Always liked the looks of this plane ever since John Wayne flew one in Korea🤔
I remember them.
You mix up the Thunderjet with the Rhunderstreak initially.
Amazing content ❤
Yeah, amazingly inaccurate and sugar coated. The F-84 got positively MAULED in Korea, suffering 8 wins and 64 losses to MiG 15s.
The actual flight hours for Korean War and NATO deployments rapidly outpaced the supply and Allison's ability to manufacture new engines.
The F-84 was, at best, an adequate fighter-bomber...but then what isn't?
Don't knock Republic Aviation. In Korea,the F-84 Thunderjet shot down 8 Mig-15's with another 93 probable while losing 18 shot down by Mig-15's. Thunderjets also destroyed another 125 on the ground.F-84 Thunderjets was responsible for 60% of all ground attack missions throughout the Korean war. Air to ground is way tougher than air to air but gets no glory.F-84 Thunderjets did very well in Korea.
@@richardmontana5864 so it suffered the ignoble fate of all obese and sluggish fighters: ground pounding?
If anybody's interested. You can find one those at the March Air Force Base Museum in Riverside California.
Thanks for the video. I heard about that dam strike. With aircraft. I never heard any missions that involved just blowing up a dam on your own supposed territory though....with any heroic notions thats for damn well sure lad. Cheers for the vid.
@Dark Skies Do one about the swedish mercenary pilot Carl Von Rosen who attacked airbases with modified Cessna-planes carrying rocket pods.
Von Rosen never used modified Cessnas, he used a Swedish MFI-9B, better known as the Minicoin, completely unlike any Cessna.
the wing tip fuel tanks are actually terrible. all that weight at the end of the wing slows role rates and makes the wing heavier. the saber was also the counterpart to the mig15