Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Great Pictures of an awesome aircraft. Thanks for posting 'em, guys. Here's a couple shots of one that's still kept shiny; 59-0105 at Camp Blanding, Florida.

IMG_6320.JPG

IMG_6322.JPG

:wave:

Glad everyone enjoyed the shots.

Anyone else notice the upper wing nationial insignia on this Florida bird is bassackwards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
While it was maneuverable compared to an F-4 (which is not saying much) it was nowhere in the class of the Teen Series fighters.

Most interesting, I always figured the F-4 was more maneuverable than the F-106. So why was it that USAF adopted the F-4?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most interesting, I always figured the F-4 was more maneuverable than the F-106. So why was it that USAF adopted the F-4?

The F-4 was a more flexible platform, able to carry a much wider selection of weapons.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because the contractors never proposed a winning delta wing design during the various tenders ie. LWF ect. Delta wings have the inherent disadvantage of bleeding energy extremely quickly, high landing speeds, high induced drag, high angles of attack for maximum lift, (these two are related) and reduced effectiveness of trailing-edge flaps- these are somewhat mitigated by canards and fly-by-wire controls, but I'm no engineer.

Edited by Rapier01
Link to post
Share on other sites
Probably because the contractors never proposed a winning delta wing design during the various tenders ie. LWF ect. Delta wings have the inherent disadvantage of bleeding energy extremely quickly, high landing speeds, high induced drag, high angles of attack for maximum lift, (these two are related) and reduced effectiveness of trailing-edge flaps- these are somewhat mitigated by canards and fly-by-wire controls, but I'm no engineer.

Yes. The delta wing has a lot of advantages, but also some serious disadvantage against "conventional" planes. It's usually more "clean" which means the plane can go faster and more far while using less fuel, but it can't carry flaps (so really fast landings) and has low sustained turn performance. The Six was designed as an interceptor, not a dogfighter, so what they needed was something that could climb fast to intercept enemy bombers, it wasn't meant to be agile.

In the '70s they realised it wasn't that bad also in dogfighting, even if because of that big wing it couldn't make many hard turns (energy bleed). As Rapier said, in late years they somewhat managed to fix the delta wing problems thanks to "unstable" designs and FBW controls (Rafale and Typhoon just to name a few).

Btw, the Six markings I liked more were the "Green Eagles". I have an Hasegawa Six on my bench, but it still needs a lot of work... I only wish someone finally makes a NEW TOOL kit in 1/72 to use all those great decals sheets I got!!!

Edited by Yuri
Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at these pictures, I think it's time for an ARC "Century Series GB" :cheers: ! The "Hun", the "Deuce", the "Six", the "One-O-One", THUDS, and "One-O-Four" wore some very colorful paint schemes in the service of quite a few different Air Forces. Might be an option for late 07 early 08?

Nice photo's guys and thanks for sharing them!

Regards,

Don

Link to post
Share on other sites
After looking at these pictures, I think it's time for an ARC "Century Series GB" :lol: ! The "Hun", the "Deuce", the "Six", the "One-O-One", THUDS, and "One-O-Four" wore some very colorful paint schemes in the service of quite a few different Air Forces. Might be an option for late 07 early 08?

Nice photo's guys and thanks for sharing them!

Regards,

Don

I'm not a modeler, but would be willing to help moderate such an event.

bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...