Jump to content

F-106 going ballistic


Recommended Posts

Saw this awesome picture posted in the F-106 FB page.  The poster said folks were welcome to share it.....

 

Taken from a U-2's drift sight, gives you some idea of the ability of the Dart to climb to high altitudes.  The original post said the jet climbed at Mach 1.8 so I'm guessing when this picture was snapped, it was probably completely ballistic and on it's way down.   Just a very cool picture.   If you look hard at the bottom, you'll see the U-2's altitude displayed.  Yes, that 106 is at 75,000 feet. 

 

Image may contain: sky, cloud, outdoor and nature

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wicked cool shot!! Looks like an F-106A of the 49th FIS out of Griffiths AFB, NY. We (VF-51- Navy) did ACM with them (dissimilar) ACM back in the '70'S flying poor old F-4N's They had a really cool eagle on the tail with green and white chevrons simulating wings on the rudder of the "SIX".  Ironically, we (VF-51), were the "Screaming Eagles". Loved the Phantom but the the "SIX" was ALWAYS much sexier!!!

Respectfully,

afoxbat

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, afoxbat said:

Wicked cool shot!! Looks like an F-106A of the 49th FIS out of Griffiths AFB, NY. We (VF-51- Navy) did ACM with them (dissimilar) ACM back in the '70'S flying poor old F-4N's They had a really cool eagle on the tail with green and white chevrons simulating wings on the rudder of the "SIX".  Ironically, we (VF-51), were the "Screaming Eagles". Loved the Phantom but the the "SIX" was ALWAYS much sexier!!!

Respectfully,

afoxbat

 

Was the F-106 any good at ACM? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Vaildog said:

 

Was the F-106 any good at ACM? 

 

Several decades ago edition of Squadron's In Action book for either F-106 or F-4 had account of East Coast F-4s occasionally tangling in dissimilar ACM with sixes from I think Langley. If my memory is correct from maybe as far back as the 1980s, the Sixes could be a handful and I want to say the wins were split about 50/50 between the two types.

 

Edited by southwestforests
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Vaildog,

It could hold its own with the Phantom at higher altitude AND if you had an experienced pilot- (which most of them were), that could exploit the Darts' strengths; it could win the day. 

  Remember, it was a PURE interceptor, designed to engage sub/transonic Soviet bombers. That big delta had distinct advantages but some drawbacks as well. Maneuvering at some altitudes could be a bear (no pun intended). Landing speeds were high among other things.But It scrambled quickly, got to its target, and could dispatch the enemy, hopefully before they unleashed their cargo. Cockpit workload was high since the pilots had to juggle the radar and fly simultaneously despite the SAGE system. But the ADC USAF boys flying them had been doing so for years and were really good! The Navy Phantoms had a RIO to target the radar, an extra set of eyes, and a mixed delta wing, and a multiple mission designation. Hence the versatility. The Six was the epitome of a pure point/area interceptor. That's  why we did DISSIMILIAR ACM. The F-106 was more like a big, improved MiG-21 compared to the Phantom.   Their armament wasn't too hot either. The AIM-4 Falcons had to hit the target to detonate ( '50's technology ), no proximity fusing there. And no one would pop a Genie (AIR-2A) with DACM. But the later Darts had a refit and they put an M-61 in place of the Genie and it gave the Dart some new teeth. It could engage in a furball but given a nimble F-4 team it was probably ( arbitrarily ) 60/40, in the Phantoms' favor. The F-4 had the Sidewinder and Sparrow with the Aero1A and later AN/AJB-7A/B and it was somewhat easier to target than with  the Falcon. But the later 106's had the gun. Navy F-4's didn't!

   STILL, us Navy guys respected the Darts- they could well do the job they were designed for, engage in an envelope that wasn't  in their favor and still come through, and they looked like they were going Mach 2 just sitting on the ramp! So yes, under certain circumstances, the Dart was a formidable adversary against the Phantom providing the pilot was experienced, they engaged at a favorable altitude for the Six, and you had an experienced pilot. If the 106 was engaging a Tu-95, Tu-22M-3, or maybe, even a Blackjack ( Ty-160 ),  I think the '50's era fighter would've prevailed!

  Sorry for the long missive; our Dets with the 49th brought back some great memories against some formidable opponents. The Six was a tough nut to crack, even with the Phantom!!

Sincerely,

afoxbat

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So sorry;

I meant to say An/AWG-10/A FCS rather than AJB-7. The latter is for the LABS delivery system. The former is the fire control system (FCS ) for the late model Phantoms F-4J/S. I think the 106 had the MA-1 FCS; a semi avtice SAGE SYSTEM. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FB post has some interesting anecdotes.   One ex-pilot recalled using BOMARC missiles as targets and hitting them above 80,000’ with IR Falcons.  

 

Gotta believe the Dart had next to no maneuverability at those altitudes, must have been an interesting flight.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

That brings back memories! I grew up in upstate NY and got to visit Griffiss AFB as a kid. The 49th FIS were my favorite squadron. They were slated to get F-15's, but it was decided to shut down the unit instead. They were the last active regular AF Six unit flying. I got to chat with some of the pilots and get pictures in the hangars. It was an impressionable childhood memory. I just wish I had a better camera than the Kodak 110 film I had that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, john53 said:

Is that sorta what the Russians tried or did do against Powers

U-2? Got a missile for a "close counts" shot?---John

I believe that was the case, but the MiG’s couldn’t get high enough to take a shot.   Also heard that at max altitude, the U-2 could easily out turn a MiG if the pilot was able to spot the incoming MiG through his drift sight.    That would be sufficient to throw off the geometry of the intercept.   

 

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think now that I remember it being a SAM. I am really surprised that the

6 could fly at that altitude, but then again the U-2 used a J-75 and F-118 engine

so why couldn't a 6 fly that high. I remember the 6s at Otis when I was in my 20s in

Mass, didn't see them as much as the planes out of Barnes and Westover, grew up

in western Mass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, john53 said:

Yeah I think now that I remember it being a SAM. I am really surprised that the

6 could fly at that altitude, but then again the U-2 used a J-75 and F-118 engine

so why couldn't a 6 fly that high.

 

I was equally surprised when I recently read that the F-104A with the F-104S engine could fly level at 73.000 ft and Mach 2.0, according to Walt BJ, about halfway this page:

 

http://www.fighterpilotuniversity.com/alumni-house/alumni-news/zipper-at-fl-730/

 

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2018 at 11:13 AM, Darren Roberts said:

That brings back memories! I grew up in upstate NY and got to visit Griffiss AFB as a kid. The 49th FIS were my favorite squadron. They were slated to get F-15's, but it was decided to shut down the unit instead. They were the last active regular AF Six unit flying. I got to chat with some of the pilots and get pictures in the hangars. It was an impressionable childhood memory. I just wish I had a better camera than the Kodak 110 film I had that day.

 

Me too, I used to deploy to McChord AFB when the F-106 flew out of there and the Montana ANG Big Sky F-106 unit deployed to our base as a forward operating base in case of war with the Soviets.

 

Good memories, beautiful jet!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree! As far as Air Force birds go, it may take the award for being the best looking bird-ever. Back in the heady days of the Cold War and Col. Steve Canyon, it seemed like it would single-handedly win the day! ( yes, Canyon initially flew the F-102 Delta Dagger ). But I don't think General Dynamics could have  built a sleeker bird! The Navy had a few hot rods (F4D Skyray, F11F Tiger, and of course, the ubiquitous A3J/(RA-5C). But the Dart was like the Corvette of the '50's, '60's and '70's. Ranks as one of my favorites!! -(even if it couldn't trap on a carrier)

Sincerely,

afoxbat

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, afoxbat said:

Fully agree! As far as Air Force birds go, it may take the award for being the best looking bird-ever. Back in the heady days of the Cold War and Col. Steve Canyon, it seemed like it would single-handedly win the day! ( yes, Canyon initially flew the F-102 Delta Dagger ). But I don't think General Dynamics could have  built a sleeker bird! The Navy had a few hot rods (F4D Skyray, F11F Tiger, and of course, the ubiquitous A3J/(RA-5C). But the Dart was like the Corvette of the '50's, '60's and '70's. Ranks as one of my favorites!! -(even if it couldn't trap on a carrier)

Sincerely,

afoxbat

 

Tamiya are you listening?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know- No. I've built the Monogram/ Revell Six and thought it was pretty good. The Trumpeter kit has recessed lines and rivets and dry fit looks pretty good. Caracal Models decals along with some of the aftermarket stuff should produce a fine representation. I HAVEN'T built it yet though but have two "A"s and a "B" and think they'll turn out OK. These are 1/48. I also have two Meng "A"'s and one Trumpeter "A" in 1/72.  They also look nice and hope to procure the Trumpeter "B". A little more fit work is needed on the 1/72 birds but not a lot. They build into nice kits and Meng offers additional  detail goodies (but at a price)! Trumpeter usually does a good job but they sometimes forget the proper detail in order to get the kit to market. In any event, the Trumpeter kit rivals the Monogram kit. BUT, if Tamiya did one, it'd be on par with their Mosquito- second to none (IMHO).

 

Sincerely,

afoxbat

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...