F-106 Delta Dart

rallymodeller · March 11, 2009, 03:51:47 PM

A quick note about the definition of "Intercept Radius": It generally assumes that the aircraft will be flying from a certain airbase (on a point-defense mission, say, New Jersey), flying X miles to an intercept point at supersonic speed, a certain amount of loitering at the intercept point (usually considered about 15 minutes of loiter time), and the return leg to the launch airbase flown at subsonic speeds; therefore the radii are asymmetrical. Also remember the F-106 was equipped for boom-refuelling.

The F-106 was designed to use SAGE -- on the aircraft the SAGE antennae are the two small blade antennae located in-line somewhere near the arrestor hook. Since it was designed to operate in the SAGE environment working with a ground controller, there would be no need for an onboard radar operator -- the GC vectors the fighter to the targets. If the F-106 were to be given a superior radar, say, the AWG-9 -- then an onboard RIO would be needed.

Actually, there's an interesting idea: a two-hole Dart with AWG-9 and Phoenixes on underfuselage pallets.

Mossie · March 11, 2009, 04:10:27 PM

Thanks Duncan, not an F-106 then, but v.cool.

Jeremey, the F-106X was slated to carry Phoenix or AIM-47 in it's role as an F-12 alternative.

rallymodeller · March 11, 2009, 04:46:48 PM

I was actually thinking something along the lines of an F-106X "Lite". No super speed, just a missile truck with F-14-style Phoenix pallets on the underside.

tigercat2 · May 27, 2009, 05:48:05 PM

Here are a couple of "poor man's" F-106 Whifs; the black one has wing racks for bombs in place of the external tanks, and a weapons bay full of 500 pounders.

Wes W.

KJ_Lesnick · May 28, 2009, 08:39:57 AM

Tigercat2,

So you're saying that a F-106 could physically mount a 500-pounder in the left and right bays? (The center bay I would want to put a gun in there for the WHIF idea)

tigercat2 · May 28, 2009, 09:22:11 AM

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on May 28, 2009, 08:39:57 AM
Tigercat2,

So you're saying that a F-106 could physically mount a 500-pounder in the left and right bays? (The center bay I would want to put a gun in there for the WHIF idea)

In my What if world, that is no problem!! I filled the missile bay with bombs (you can't see them in the photo), and I believe there were 6 total, plus the bombs on the MERs under the wings. Good idea for the gun, however; I believe that is where the "six shooter" gun was installed in our real world.

I have always admired the "six" for being one of the "purest" aircraft used by the USAF. In our world, they had essentially the same mission for the entire operational life, had one operational paint scheme (ADC grey with unit markings) , and were never modified for air to ground, recce or any other mission.

I do recall seeing a photo of one or two Sixes with an Air Superiority scheme a few years ago, I beleive it was done after they came our of overhaul at McClellan AFB.

Wes W.

Weaver · May 29, 2009, 01:32:09 AM

The Sharpshooter gun pod was installed in place of the Genie, i.e. in the middle of the bay at the back.

KJ_Lesnick · August 02, 2009, 02:37:20 PM

Could two AIM-7's be flush-mounted along the side of the rear fuselage (e.g. would it get in the way of the gear?)

KJ Lesnick

Shasper · August 04, 2009, 05:34:04 PM

You could put a brace of Sparrows back there.

KJ_Lesnick · August 04, 2009, 07:28:34 PM

Shasper,

Would that have any serious drag penalty issues?

Taiidantomcat · August 04, 2009, 08:16:49 PM

Quote from: KJ_Lesnick on August 04, 2009, 07:28:34 PM
Shasper,

Would that have any serious drag penalty issues?

I'm not an expert, but I think as long as they have the flush mounting as seen on the Tornado ADV, F-4, F-14, etc... It won't have significant penalties. the above mentioned Aircraft seem to not have any problems.

Weaver · August 05, 2009, 04:02:01 AM

A couple of Sparrows there shouldn't cause a drag problem. They might have a separation problem though (like AMRAAMs on F-15 rear fuse stations) depending on the nature of the local flow field. It's probably one of those things you can't predict theoretically (aerodynamics still has something of the black arts about it), so you just have to tunnel-test/test-fly it and find out the old-fashioned way.

KJ_Lesnick · August 05, 2009, 02:27:21 PM

Weaver,

How did they deal with the separation issues with the rear AIM-120 mounts on the F-15?

KJ Lesnick

anthonyp · August 05, 2009, 03:17:01 PM

Quote from: Weaver on August 05, 2009, 04:02:01 AM
It's probably one of those things you can't predict theoretically (aerodynamics still has something of the black arts about it), so you just have to tunnel-test/test-fly it and find out the old-fashioned way.

Don't you know it. Didn't they increase the force the ejectors used on the aft stations to launch AMRAAMs? You know, when in doubt, [Tim Allen]MORE POWER!!!!![/Tim Allen]

Weaver · August 05, 2009, 06:33:16 PM

Quote from: anthonyp on August 05, 2009, 03:17:01 PM
Quote from: Weaver on August 05, 2009, 04:02:01 AM
It's probably one of those things you can't predict theoretically (aerodynamics still has something of the black arts about it), so you just have to tunnel-test/test-fly it and find out the old-fashioned way.

Don't you know it. Didn't they increase the force the ejectors used on the aft stations to launch AMRAAMs? You know, when in doubt, [Tim Allen]MORE POWER!!!!![/Tim Allen]

Yes I think that was the solution, but don't hold me to it. An AMRAAM's about 100lb lighter than a Sparrow and that was enough to make the difference between punching through the local airflow and bouncing off it.