Read the forum code of contact
By: - 8th October 2016 at 00:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you want MiG-31 speed you'll need to build it like one, mostly out of steel and titanium. You can forget about Gripen like agility.
By: - 8th October 2016 at 00:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
an F119 engine provide more thrust dry than an J75 on max a/b, and 30% more on a/b,
F-106 speed is M2.3 with the ole J75, and unrivaled range in spite of pitiful fuel fraction.
A fighter that rival Mig-31 in speed, and rival gripen in agility, and out-ranges both,
has lower rcs then either, with an operational cost far less than an average fighter.
why isnt it mass produced like VW ?
The F-106 had a maximum load factor of 6g (example at 30,000 ft 6g only attainable between 380-410 knots), that is not even close to any fourth gen or many third gen fighters. The range numbers on wiki and on the front page of the F-106 site are total range, not combat radius. Looking at the flight manual, it had a flight radius of around 625nmi on internal fuel, and around 700-750nmi with to 360 gallon tanks (retained) or 900 mmi dropped.This was in a optimal climb cruise profile. In actual combat radius, the USAF sheet lists 417nmi with internal fuel for an area intercept, and 725nmi with external tanks http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/Tech_Performance_Data.pdf. Not exactly amazing range when you consider that modern AtA combat radius figures include combat time.
There is no reason to think that the range would be better with the F119, nor would the maneuverability approach that of the Gripen. The Atlas Cheetah would be similar in layout to an F-106 with canards. It was more maneuverable than the Mirage III or Nesher it was derived from, but no world beater. Making the Delta configuration efficient and agile took the evolution of FBW systems and negative stability.
By: - 8th October 2016 at 01:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you go less wing area, not more. I cannot imagine wing tanks if you're trying to truly gain range at higher speeds associated with an interceptor. Either go more internal or take the lessons of CFT design. Likewise, no underwing weapons. Either streamlined with the fuselage or internal. And if a gun is desired, make it as compact, lightweight, and with as high of muzzle velocity as you can afford.
By: - 8th October 2016 at 06:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-106 had a maximum load factor of 6g (example at 30,000 ft 6g only attainable between 380-410 knots), that is not even close to any fourth gen or many third gen fighters. The range numbers on wiki and on the front page of the F-106 site are total range, not combat radius. Looking at the flight manual, it had a flight radius of around 625nmi on internal fuel, and around 700-750nmi with to 360 gallon tanks (retained) or 900 mmi dropped.This was in a optimal climb cruise profile. In actual combat radius, the USAF sheet lists 417nmi with internal fuel for an area intercept, and 725nmi with external tanks http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals/Tech_Performance_Data.pdf. Not exactly amazing range when you consider that modern AtA combat radius figures include combat time.There is no reason to think that the range would be better with the F119, nor would the maneuverability approach that of the Gripen. The Atlas Cheetah would be similar in layout to an F-106 with canards. It was more maneuverable than the Mirage III or Nesher it was derived from, but no world beater. Making the Delta configuration efficient and agile took the evolution of FBW systems and negative stability.
I have spoken online with pilots from the F-106 site, one sent me his uniform patches, and they have said they were told that 8 g were the official line they were told not to exceed but that in during combat exercises that meant nothing, they pushed them as hard as need be.
One pilot did retire his aircraft, as far as he knows, as he never saw it fly again, when it went into a dive that he recovered from way less than a thousand feet from the ground.
He said he thought it was the end , as did a another who saw it but by the grace of God it leveled off.
The wings were canted up and the entire airframe out of square. Last time he saw it it was still parked in the out of service area.
They also have said the numbers from Wiki and such sites are near meaningless for range, speed etc. Those are the official numbers that were printed up when the aircraft was approved in the fifties and mean nothing as far as actual performance.
One pilot, due to rank and tenure exceded allowed fairy range and landed with more than minimum fuel tank levels. He said if you pushed the aircraft and landed with less than official minimum fuei, at least for junior pilots, there was hell to pay.
The officer he reported to checked, fumed and dropped the subject.
Another said it would fly for three hours on internal fuel and four with tanks.
Yet another pilot said the fastest he ever saw was little over Mach 2.2 during an official flight maneuver at which point he had to turn which bled off speed.
The F-106x would have used the J58 so the F119 would have been over a ton lighter with the performance of the J58.
The problem with a delta, though highly maneuveable, it bled off speed. One pilot said that the six could have used a few thousand more pounds thrust to fix the acceleration from a tight turn.
Here is what one pilot wrote:
Flew the 106 at Duluth, the 11th FIS, (after checkout at Tyndall) for two and 1/2 years, 1964, 65 and 66. The original Red Bulls. The squadron moved in the late 60's or early 70's and became the 87th. It flew as great as it looked. Went to Tyndall and some of us got fitted in pressure suits that they said were similar to the ones used in the Gemini program. Had a little cooler box and all. We ran on U-2's at 65,000 feet. We were at 60,000. Accelerate to 1.8 mach at about 37,000, then climb at 1.8. The missle firing range at that altitude was 8 miles. And we were not to fly past the U-2. They feared the shock wave from the 106 would flame them out, and might have done some structural damage. Not sure. We also ran quartering head on passes on one of our guys in a Six. He was at 65,000. What a closure rate. 2500 knots or so. And the MA-1 fire control system worked great.
By: - 8th October 2016 at 06:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i'm thinking a crossbreed F-106/Gripen E on steroids with the formidable F119,
like an enlarged Gripen E with bomb bay, and other features associated with stealth,
altho not at the cost of performance & sortie generation
By: - 8th October 2016 at 21:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
that's probably what Saab's engineer could have better use their time instead of working on the E: a large, low op cost, bomb bay fitted (oblique), frontal stealth fighter. Then, that it would have looked like a Canard 106, that's totally another question.
what is notable (once again) is the exstensive Canard studies made in the US Prior to the Eu industry and the discard of that technogy (prior to EU ?). Sorry for the repetition, I might got aged.
By: - 9th October 2016 at 09:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
yes well, it took a computerized flight control system and canards working as rudders to make it rock in all conditions,
the FCS tech didnt exist back then, but now it does.
the basic simple strong aerodynamic air frame isnt going to go out of fashion as long as drag exist,
and as long as engines is the limiting factor in sheer speed & acceleration,
that the design lend itself to low rcs is just the icing of the cake,
it ought to form the basis of any fighter with an eye on cost effectiveness
By: - 9th October 2016 at 16:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you want a very fast plane you might try to get rid of the VT, like on the F-16X. The front of the wing along the fuselage could be a moving planform like on the PAK-FA. This way you avoid the drag of the canard in horizontal flight and have some of the canard advantages for maneuvrability. Combined with the thrust vectoring it would be very maneuvrable. And STR is less important if the aircraft has HOBS missiles/360 degrees engagement capability.
By: - 9th October 2016 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
reminds me of "Super Avro Arrow" :3
By: - 9th October 2016 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know people would love to see what an F119 would do in a Delta Dagger body, but realistically your aircraft wasn't even built for the speeds attained by the F-15. Removing the vertical tail and canards from F-106X doesn't address the thermal issues.
And why wouldn't something as small as the F-106X be sufficiently overpowered by an F100-229? The most fuel thirsty leg of the F-106 mission was the climb, which the F100 would have been a huge improvement over J75.
By: - 9th October 2016 at 22:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I know people would love to see what an F119 would do in a Delta Dagger body, but realistically your aircraft wasn't even built for the speeds attained by the F-15. Removing the vertical tail and canards from F-106X doesn't address the thermal issues.And why wouldn't something as small as the F-106X be sufficiently overpowered by an F100-229? The most fuel thirsty leg of the F-106 mission was the climb, which the F100 would have been a huge improvement over J75.
Small, hmmm, the six was 70 feet long, the Thud was only 64 feet long.
As far as speed, if you read some of side stories involving the Six from the site dedicated to it, it was flown at speeds up to Mach 2.7 and 70,000 feet. Not dash or zoom but flown in steady state.
Now for a Gripen craft to to use the F119 it would have to gain a lot of size.
By: - 10th October 2016 at 21:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If you want a very fast plane you might try to get rid of the VT, like on the F-16X. The front of the wing along the fuselage could be a moving planform like on the PAK-FA. This way you avoid the drag of the canard in horizontal flight and have some of the canard advantages for maneuvrability. Combined with the thrust vectoring it would be very maneuvrable. And STR is less important if the aircraft has HOBS missiles/360 degrees engagement capability.
last thing i'm worried about concerning F-106 is drag, a man can search a lifetime looking for lower drag and come up with naught.
the issue is rather, how do i get appropriate balance with the new engine and movable canards to give it gripen like agility,
also since F119 is so much shorter i want to use the leftover volume for fuel, but to get these things done with a good balance is,
well
By: - 11th October 2016 at 07:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't dislike the idea. It's true that what they wanted to do with the F-16X sounds very complicated. I still doubt it would have the STR and roll rate of a gripen, but frankly I don't see the point of focusing on that too much either.
I think it would better to have a WVR missile with a big enough motor to be able to turn better at very high speed, something like a MICA instead of a 9X.
By: - 11th October 2016 at 10:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
unless i'm completely misinformed, the canards on F-106X were to be fixed,
i want them as rudders, and a shift of center of gravity backwards
By: - 11th October 2016 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Small, hmmm, the six was 70 feet long, the Thud was only 64 feet long.
The F-106A was built low drag and it's maximum takeoff weight was actually quite small for its length. Its fuselage was a triangular profile along the longitudinal axis, not the square or round profiles typically used. The F100 may not have had performance equal to J75 at FL600, but it would have required far less fuel to make the initial climb to FL360.
As far as speed, if you read some of side stories involving the Six from the site dedicated to it, it was flown at speeds up to Mach 2.7 and 70,000 feet. Not dash or zoom but flown in steady state.
Now for a Gripen craft to to use the F119 it would have to gain a lot of size.
I can imagine that you understand glass front glass has its thermal limitations. Rare excursions to M2.7 are the exception, not the rule. Later designs protected the canopy from thermal issues that allowed better vision than the Convair wedged canopy. I'm not sure how one would elect to tackle these issues. But we know Northrop and Lockheed did pretty well using chines to focus much of the air friction to the panned underside, so I imagine it wasn't impossible to tackle. But I find the idea of Mach2.7 in an operational F-106 to be far fetched.
By: - 11th October 2016 at 13:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-106A was built low drag and it's maximum takeoff weight was actually quite small for its length. Its fuselage was a triangular profile along the longitudinal axis, not the square or round profiles typically used. The F100 may not have had performance equal to J75 at FL600, but it would have required far less fuel to make the initial climb to FL360.
The F106 was pretty much on par with the F4 for size (wingspan was shorter). However it wasnt a triangle shape all the way to the rear. Only the cockpit and intake was triangular. The rest of the fuselage had area ruling waist and was pretty much circular , only the bottom was flat.
By: - 11th October 2016 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
unless i'm completely misinformed, the canards on F-106X were to be fixed,
i want them as rudders, and a shift of center of gravity backwards
Even at that I doubt you would get the same maneuvrability. The sweep angles on the gripen and rafale have been carefully chosen for maneuvrability. From what I understand the shorter the wingspan the less the maneuvrability. Perhaps wingtip control surfaces like on the F-16X would help the roll rate and the pitch moment. Might be possible to build such control surfaces without too much complexity hmm..
By: - 11th October 2016 at 17:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F106 was pretty much on par with the F4 for size (wingspan was shorter). However it wasnt a triangle shape all the way to the rear. Only the cockpit and intake was triangular. The rest of the fuselage had area ruling waist and was pretty much circular , only the bottom was flat.
The Six was seven feet longer than the F-4, wingspan was identical.
The F-4 had better acceleration due to extra thrust but the Six had far, far more endurance which was shown when they went against each other in air combat exercises.
The Six could also cruise at a much higher speed than the F-4.
The Divided windshield on the six could endure far higher speeds than any glass front.
They used to say about the Deuce, it has a Mach 3 windscreen, Mach 2 air frame and a Mach 1 engine.
If you read the Six site, one ground crew member relates how a Six pilot came in once with the paint of all leading edges burnt and peeled off, the windshield was not affected.
He said the pilot just walked away and no one asked questions.
By: - 11th October 2016 at 17:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Spinning and stalling a Delta Dart
I love the F-106.
Here's a video of the F-106 fitted with 'canards' of a sort, deployable in the event of an emergency. Used for spin and stall tests almost 60 years ago.
By: - 11th October 2016 at 18:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
thanks. Nice one.
But they are more LERX than canards.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 7th October 2016 at 23:59
an F119 engine provide more thrust dry than an J75 on max a/b, and 30% more on a/b,
F-106 speed is M2.3 with the ole J75, and unrivaled range in spite of pitiful fuel fraction.
A fighter that rival Mig-31 in speed, and rival gripen in agility, and out-ranges both,
has lower rcs then either, with an operational cost far less than an average fighter.
why isnt it mass produced like VW ?