F-106 Delta Dart

[dy031101]

Israeli strike Mirages were basically Mirage IIIC fitted with bomb racks and used in daylight attacks. So you can probably keep the MG-10 as is it - just don't use it!-

IIRC, Israeli replaced the radar with ballasts.

But the idea remains the same.  Unless they purchased AIM-26B.

[imatt88]

archibald,

    The Mirages just had a centerline MER underneath, but it had no internal weapons bay like the Six did.   The F-105 had an internal weapons bay that was used to carry fuel, and usually had a bomb rack attatched. 

The 106 could possibly do the same.  any thoughts?


Joe,

  I can't think of any on the internet, but I know the Detail and Scale series of books has a good one on the 106 and it has some good pics of the arresting hook.  If I knew how to post some pics, I would...


            Cheers,    Ian

[Jeffry Fontaine]

Another option to making the F-106 into an attack aircraft might be to remove the weapons bay entirely and have that space dedicated to fuel.  The result would be a large area under the fuselage that could be used to mount two or three stores pylons.  

Another option would be to look at using the Phoenix missile pallets from the F-14 and convert them to conformal weapons pylons on the F-106.  There would be sufficient space for all four pallets under the fuselage.  This might be a nice WHIF all by itself using the AIM-54 on the F-106 and create an upgraded interceptor.  These same pallets could also be used to carry conventional bombs or special weapons.  

Using the 1/48th scale Monogram F-106 and the Phoenix pallets from both the 1/72nd and 1/48th scale F-14 kits, you could create something really interesting with minimal modification to the basic F-106 airframe.

[famvburg]

       Seeing that Aggressor F-106 reminds me of when I was ayoung teen in the early '70s, I had a USAF booklet showing the various Commands & their a/c. The ADC page showed only the F-102 & F-106, both in overall gray with yellow wingtips & red vertical tail. I always thought that was so cool, when one day I saw the Revell 1/32 Mirage & thought it looked like the F-102 & F-106 & was going to get it when I got my next allowance & paint it like the ADC birds. It was gone the next time I was at the store. Anyway, this adds a bit of a twist now. I still plan to do a Revell Mirage in F-106 colors, one day! Anyone know what the markings are on the tail? Since it's shown with an F-14, would these have been taken by the USN or what? How about the timeframe?

There were quite a few 106 proposals.  Some included:

* Various Fighter-bomber proposals (both in single and two seat forms);
* Recon proposals often with cameras in the weapons bays;
* A J-58 engined (i.e. the same engine as the SR-71) proposal;
* A version with 2 GE J93 engines (i.e.the same as planned for the F-108 and XB-70) - this would have a 2 manned crew and engines under the wing similar to the B-58;
* Proposals for Canadian, Japanese, German, Belgian and Dutch 106s - some of these were multi-role versions with underwing pylon use;
* F-106X - apparently this included canards and revised intakes;
* ASAT bird - Under Project Spike, a F-106 was trailed as an ASAT bird using an AGM-78(see pics below); and
There were also proposals for USN F-106s including in the Aggressor role (see model pic below).





Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

yea sorry, a photo of how its mounted,etc

thanks

Here you go:



Regards,

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

How'd they get Mach 5 out of a F-106X? 

What kind of engine was it to be powered by?  Was the airplane to be all titanium or honeycomb stainless-steel construction? 

[Mossie]

How'd they get Mach 5 out of a F-106X? 

What kind of engine was it to be powered by?  Was the airplane to be all titanium or honeycomb stainless-steel construction? 

Kendra, I believe it would have used a variant of the Blackbird's J-58.  Structure wise I have no idea.  It's unlikely that they could have really squeezed Mach 5 out of the F-106X, the original figures were based on a paper exercise when little was known about high mach performance.  Mach 3 is more likely.  There's quite a bit of information on the Secret Projects forum, do a search for F-106X & you'll find several threads discussing it, although some of the info is a bit scattered.  I see you're already signed up on there, maybe it's worth starting a thread?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php

[TsrJoe]

just wondering, does anyone have any photographs or details of the emergency arrestor hook fitted to the F.106 Delta Dart??? iv been trying to find information on this fitment for a while but as yet with no joy...possibly one for one of our US. membership perhaps?

many thanks, cheers, Joe

[KJ_Lesnick]

Regarding the F-106X, I do wonder if they planned on using some kind of light-weight thermal protection system instead (After all, Convair did work on the Aerospaceplane program and they probably looked into light-weight thermal protection systems.)

Does anyone know what kind of fuel they were planning to use for it (JP-4, JP-5, JP-6, JP-7 etc)

[XV107]

Sorry to cut across your query, KJ_L, but as Joe has looked in...

Joe, in your searches at the PRO, have you encountered any evidence to suggest that the RAF attempted to obtain F-106s? I have various bits of hearsay evidence that suggest that the RAF ended up with the Thor IRBM when it actually wanted the '106...

IIRC, the idea was that the USAF would base Thor here and the RAF would provide air defence with a mix of F-106 provided under MDAP and nuclear Bloodhound. I have seen evidence from the AHB that the US became so concerned about the state of the UK's air defence in the late 50s that it offered a wing's worth of F-86D to the RAF as an interim step before these 70-odd airframes were replaced with F-100 or possibly another century-series aircraft (dependent upon whether a day fighter to complement the Lightning or an all-weather fighter to replace Javelin was preferred), but obviously nothing came of it.

I believe that there are some files in the archives that suggest RAF interest in the -106, but the stories I've heard from some generally reliable sources suggest that it was a keen interest which went slightly awry when the RAF ended up with the Thors it had hoped to defence with new aeroplanes...

[Mossie]

Does anyone know what kind of fuel they were planning to use for it (JP-4, JP-5, JP-6, JP-7 etc)

Wth the engine being a J-58, they would have used JP-7.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mossie

Wth the engine being a J-58, they would have used JP-7.

Instinctively, I would agree with your assessment, (and I actually think you're right) but the J-58 existed before the Blackbird (and they didn't all use JP-7...)
-First as an 80% scale J-91 derivative with a higher pressure-ratio with a variable inlet-guide to lower the pressure ratio for cruise to power an advanced A3J derivative, and the F8U-III (The second prototype was to use the engine, and I assume all others were to as well):  During this stage the engine was designed to run on JP-5, with the USN considering some kind of ZIP-fuel for the afterburner (which was eventually done away with)
-Second as a competitor to the J-93 when it was kind of obvious the J-91 was too large (The J-58 had about the same sea-level thrust as the J-93, and featured a more efficient nozzle which may have made up for cruise thrust deficiencies):  At this stage the engine was to use JP-4 with either JP-4 or HEF-3 in the burner.
-Third as a back-up for the J-93 should the engine fail to deliver:  Dunno if they were still doing JP-4 with HEF-3 in the burner, or had switched over to JP-6.

By the time the modified bleed-bypass J-58 which powered the Blackbird was developed, the engine still could run on JP-4 (although there were speed limits as the plane would be leaking fuel and if it got too hot the fuel could ignite as it drips out), although JP-7 was the primary fuel to be used. 


KJ Lesnick

[Mossie]

Kendra, you've probably answered your own question better than I could!  I had a feeling when I stated outright that it would have used JP-7, that it might not have been the whole story.  I should have learned by now never to speak in absoloutes!

Assuming that the F-106X would have had similar perfromance to the Blackbird, I think we can pretty safely say that JP-7 or something very similar would have been the primary fuel.  Had it been able to attain it's proposed Mach 5 though, I guess it would require something else that probably hasn't ever been developed, or at least only on an experimental basis?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Mossie,

Was it said in any reliable source that the F-106X could actually keep up with the Blackbird, or just that it could do Mach 5-ish performance?


KJ Lesnick

[Mossie]

I can't find any site that I could call 'reliable' as such, although the F-106 Delta Dart does seem pretty comprehensive on the face of it & that does quote the 'Mach 5' performance.

http://www.f-106deltadart.com/history.htm

There's a small snipet in Tony Butler's American Secret Projects, but it doesn't quote any performance figures.  That & a similar paragraph on the Wikipedia page about the F-106 mention repectively the F-106X as a 'substitute' & 'alternative' to the F-12.  That infers it could keep up with Blackbird, but I can't find anything to tie it down any closer than that I'm afraid.