F-106 Delta Dart

[KJ_Lesnick]

How much weight could the F-106A carry in it's center bay, and it's left and right bays?  Additionally, how much could be carried under the pylon (where the supersonic tanks are typically carried)


KJ Lesnick

[wagnersm]

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.

Would it have to be as fast or just be significantly faster than anything it would have to intercept?  Mach 3 would be fast enough for most Soviet bombers. Steve

[Weaver]

The F-106 site linked below mentions that the 106 was evaluated against the F-4H, the results being that the Phantom had a better, more reliable, longer-ranged radar and better weapons, but that the Delta Dart ususally won a visual-range dogfight. This lead to ADC wanting F-4s, but in the end they were only procured for TAC and there was no F-106 replacement.

So what if they decided instead to go for a best-of-both solution, i.e the F-4H weapon system in an F-106 airframe. I see it like this: F-106B two-seater airframe, enlarged radome, fuel tank in the weapons bay with fin pockets and possibly troughs for 4 x Sparrows, and four Sidewinders on small inboard and outboard wing pylons, thus leaving the drop tanks in place. If it's possible to re-package the F-4 radar for one-man operation, then by all means do so. In this case, you could sacrifice a bit of the weapon-bay fuel capacity to fit the Vulcan pack.

Another idea: more shots for the F-106. The F-106 had three shots: two double Falcon salvoes and 1 x Genie ( they couldn't eke the Falcons out because there was only enough compressed air to cycle the bay doors three times). Now the F-102 also had FFAR rockets in the bay doors, but these were never designed into the F-106. So what if they decided to re-instate the rocket capability? One way to do this would be to replace the drop tanks with a scaled-up version of the JL-100 pods used on Mirages, i.e. a drop tank with a rocket pod in it's front end. Given that F-106 tanks were increased in size considerable during the aircraft's life, this seems eminently doable.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

The F-106 site linked below mentions that the 106 was evaluated against the F-4H, the results being that the Phantom had a better, more reliable, longer-ranged radar and better weapons, but that the Delta Dart ususally won a visual-range dogfight. This lead to ADC wanting F-4s, but in the end they were only procured for TAC and there was no F-106 replacement.

Was the F-4 originally leased (and flown off against the F-106A) for TAC's needs, or for ADC?  I know the plane (The F-4) ended up flying for TAC, but I'm not sure which branch of the USAF (TAC, ADC, SAC) the original fly-off was on behalf of?


KJ Lesnick

[Weaver]

Weaver

The F-106 site linked below mentions that the 106 was evaluated against the F-4H, the results being that the Phantom had a better, more reliable, longer-ranged radar and better weapons, but that the Delta Dart ususally won a visual-range dogfight. This lead to ADC wanting F-4s, but in the end they were only procured for TAC and there was no F-106 replacement.

Was the F-4 originally leased (and flown off against the F-106A) for TAC's needs, or for ADC?  I know the plane (The F-4) ended up flying for TAC, but I'm not sure which branch of the USAF (TAC, ADC, SAC) the original fly-off was on behalf of?


KJ Lesnick

In late 1961, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara spoke of reopening the F-106 production line to build another 36 aircraft (rather than the 80 originally budgeted for in FY 1961). However, the ADC had heard so much about the capabilities of the Navy's F4H-1 Phantom two-seat interceptor that it thought that it might be a better idea to purchase some F4H-1s rather than buy additional F-106s. The USAF called for a competition-named Project High Speed-between the F-106 and the Navy's F4H-1 Phantom. It was designed to evaluate the capabilities of these two aircraft to perform similar missions. During the competition, the Phantom's APQ-72 radar was more reliable and had longer detection and lock-on ranges than the MA-1 system of the F-106. However, in many sorties F-106 pilots "shot down" their F4H adversaries in visual range combat situations. In the event, neither aircraft got the nod for additional ADC interceptor orders, and in December of 1961, the USAF announced that the F4H/F-110 would be acquired for the Tactical Air Command and that ADC would get no new interceptors.


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

[KJ_Lesnick]

So TAC ended up getting the F-4C as a side-effect of the ADC Fly-Off?

Would the F-110A have used the SAGE system for intercepts, or would it have flown without it?  (I do remember hearing that the F-108 was designed to operate outside SAGE, and at least some F-101B's were designed if necessary to operate independant of it...)


KJ Lesnick

[Weaver]

So TAC ended up getting the F-4C as a side-effect of the ADC Fly-Off?

Would the F-110A have used the SAGE system for intercepts, or would it have flown without it?  (I do remember hearing that the F-108 was designed to operate outside SAGE, and at least some F-101B's were designed if necessary to operate independant of it...)


KJ Lesnick

My guess would be that they'd be like the 101s, i.e. they'd have a SAGE datalink but could also operate without it if neccessary: beauty of a back-seater in them days.......

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver

My guess would be that they'd be like the 101s, i.e. they'd have a SAGE datalink but could also operate without it if neccessary: beauty of a back-seater in them days.......

Good point. 

I got two questions...

1.) Which had a greater range, the F-106A or the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B?  This one has me confused because the F-4's were often criticized for being short-ranged, but I do remember reading at least one report about the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B in which it said the plane had 25% more range than the F-106A (which I've been told had a pretty respectable range). 

2.) Which was faster the F-101B or the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B?  From what I remember the F-106A was faster than the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B (at least at certain altitudes -- probably 40,000 feet and up), but I'm not sure if the F-101B was faster or slower than the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B...


KJ Lesnick

[Weaver]

Weaver

My guess would be that they'd be like the 101s, i.e. they'd have a SAGE datalink but could also operate without it if neccessary: beauty of a back-seater in them days.......

Good point. 

I got two questions...

1.) Which had a greater range, the F-106A or the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B?  This one has me confused because the F-4's were often criticized for being short-ranged, but I do remember reading at least one report about the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B in which it said the plane had 25% more range than the F-106A (which I've been told had a pretty respectable range). 

Range is always a difficult thing to compare, because it's so dependent on loadout and mission profile. From what I can see, the F-106 had an intercept radius, with tanks, of about 650 miles. I can find a figure for the F-4E for "area intercept combat radius" of 786 miles, but there's no explanation of what that means. My guess would be that it means 4 x Sparrow, 4 x Sidewinder and 2 x tanks though.

2.) Which was faster the F-101B or the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B?  From what I remember the F-106A was faster than the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B (at least at certain altitudes -- probably 40,000 feet and up), but I'm not sure if the F-101B was faster or slower than the F-110A/F4H-1/F-4B...


KJ Lesnick

The F-4 was much faster than the F-101B: Mach 2.27 compared to Mach 1.85.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Weaver,

Range is always a difficult thing to compare, because it's so dependent on loadout and mission profile. From what I can see, the F-106 had an intercept radius, with tanks, of about 650 miles. I can find a figure for the F-4E for "area intercept combat radius" of 786 miles, but there's no explanation of what that means. My guess would be that it means 4 x Sparrow, 4 x Sidewinder and 2 x tanks though.

I thought the F-106A had the ability to fly virtually across the whole country on one tank of gas (I remember reading a story about a pilot who did that once... the plane was not specially equipped or anything), landed on fumes allegedly though.  Does that 650 mile figure include the fact that the plane would be dashing towards the target as it neared it and then away from the target into the equation?

The F-4 was much faster than the F-101B: Mach 2.27 compared to Mach 1.85.

I thought the F-4 could do Mach 2.5+?


KJ Lesnick

[Weaver]

Weaver,

Range is always a difficult thing to compare, because it's so dependent on loadout and mission profile. From what I can see, the F-106 had an intercept radius, with tanks, of about 650 miles. I can find a figure for the F-4E for "area intercept combat radius" of 786 miles, but there's no explanation of what that means. My guess would be that it means 4 x Sparrow, 4 x Sidewinder and 2 x tanks though.

I thought the F-106A had the ability to fly virtually across the whole country on one tank of gas (I remember reading a story about a pilot who did that once... the plane was not specially equipped or anything), landed on fumes allegedly though.  Does that 650 mile figure include the fact that the plane would be dashing towards the target as it neared it and then away from the target into the equation?

The 650 miles is an intercept radius, i.e. the furthest point you can reach IF you then have to return to the same airbase you took off from on internal fuel. On a point-to-point flight with the same payload and spped/altitude profile, you can, of course, go twice as far, i.e. 1300 miles.

Here's the range data from the F-106 site linked on page 1:

Range:

1,500 miles ("A" model)
575 miles ("B" model)
Combat radius 575 miles
Max range w/max ext fuel 1809 miles
Max ferry range 2700 miles at 610 mph at 41,000 feet

On those figures, ext. tanks add about 20% to the range, so applying that to the radius gets us into roughly the same ballpark as the 650 miles quoted elsewhere on the site.

You can see from the above how load/speed/altitude/mission profile makes a huge difference to the effective range, and this in turn makes any simple, unqualified figure dubious.

The F-4 was much faster than the F-101B: Mach 2.27 compared to Mach 1.85.

I thought the F-4 could do Mach 2.5+?


KJ Lesnick

Maybe a stripped one did 2.5 once (just like the Streak Eagle), but every reference I looked at gave it as approx. 2.2 for an operational aircraft. The speed an aircraft can do with no missiles, no ammo and 1/3 fuel for the sake of getting a record is fairly irrelevent to what it can do when actually fighting a war.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Regarding the Tactical-Dart idea...

There actually was an idea for an air-to-ground or at least a fighter-bomber version of the F-102A interestingly which the USAF cancelled.  I don't see why an fighter/bomber version of the F-106A couldn't be done.

I remember hearing the AIM-120 could be carried in the weapons bays of the F-106.  At least one F-106 modified for test-launching the prototype AIM-120's actually did this.  I don't know if the AIM-7 were any longer or any bigger in size, but if they're the same size they physically could be made to fit in the bays.  I don't know if it could accommodate the weight though as the AIM-7's were way heavier than the AIM-120.

I don't know how much drag would be produced by flush-mounting the AIM-7's under the F-106's fuselage like the F-4 did.  It worked well with the F-4, but it would seem that it's not just the missile but the airframe/missile combination.

I'm wondering if the  the F-4B/C's radar be fitted in the nose-cone of an F-106?  I do remember seeing a drawing in which they had shown an F-15's radar and it fit neatly within the radome.  I don't know if it was smaller than the F-4's radome however.

Air to Ground capability could be built in as well.  The wings do have pylons which mount streamlined supersonic tanks.  Those could easily be rigged to carry bombs under them -- dunno how streamlined it would be, or how many bombs could be carried but it appears to be do-able.


What do you guys think?
KJ Lesnick

 

[PR19_Kit]

KJL,

That's an interesting thought, the one where the F-102 carries Sparrows in belly grooves like an F-4, or maybe on the corners of it's fuselage like an F-15? That would look pretty good to my mind. It could be a bitch to model though, as I recall from building the 1/72 F-102 the missile bay doors are all separate and meet where they touch, which isn't that often.

If I could find a spare '102 kit I may even try it, but the only one I have has been 1/2 way converted into a TF-102 for about 5 years. Hm, how about a TF-102 weapons trainer though, or even a test systems bird?

[KJ_Lesnick]

KJL,

That's an interesting thought, the one where the F-102 carries Sparrows in belly grooves like an F-4, or maybe on the corners of it's fuselage like an F-15? That would look pretty good to my mind.

It would look good, I'll give you that.  The question I have is how much drag would a flush-mount set-up have on the F-106 design?  Apparently the drag produced by missiles depend on the aerodynamic interactions between the missile and the plane (in addition to any weight penalty), the F-106A is a very clean design so it might not be all that bad, but I'm not sure. 

As for the internal weapons bay, would you really want to get rid of it?  It is already built into the design and the bays can physically mount Sparrows in them (according to what I read they have the same length as the AIM-120), assuming they could physically carry the weight of a single AIM-7 (which to the best of my knowledge is heavier than 2 x AIM-4 Falcons), maybe I could justify replacing the center-bay with a gunpack like what was later done with the F-106A (Project Sharpshooter -- it also featured a lead-computing gunsight, a canopy modification which eliminated much of the metal bracings on the canopy and produced better visibility), but I don't know why you'd want to rid the side-bays.

It could be a bitch to model though, as I recall from building the 1/72 F-102 the missile bay doors are all separate and meet where they touch, which isn't that often.

Yeah it would be.  If you were so inclined to get rid of the weapons bay you could just remove the doors, then just fill up the whole bay with putty or something then smooth it out to conform with the fuselage though...

If I could find a spare '102 kit I may even try it, but the only one I have has been 1/2 way converted into a TF-102 for about 5 years. Hm, how about a TF-102 weapons trainer though, or even a test systems bird?

If you want.  I think the TF-102 is as ugly as sin though...


KJ Lesnick

[Mossie]

Some F-106 variants, all from this site:
http://www.456fis.org/TABLE_OF_CONTENT.htm

F-106 model, possibly of a real world SSD test bed with underslung J85's


F-106X


F-106X with diagrams for different noses for several F-106 variants


Don't know about this one, has the Canards of the F-106X, along with recessed missiles & what appears to be two wing mounted vectored thrust engines.