Convair F-106 Projects

overscan (PaulMM)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
27 December 2005
Messages
16,934
Reaction score
21,844
F-106 "Fighter Bomber"
One proposal based on two seat F-106B with 3 x KA-8 cameras and ECM pods.

F-106A "Economy Fighter Bomber"
New search and bombing radar and nuclear capability. IFR socket in front of windshield. MTOW limited to 40,000lb to remain compatible with existing landing gear.

F-106 "Fighter Bomber"
Two seat version of above with strengthened undercarriage.

F-106 "strike aircraft (RCAF)"
Production by Canadair or Lockheed envisaged.

F-106 Japanese multirole
two pylons on each wing, MG-10 FCS.

F-106 with 1 x J58 engine

F-106C
F-106A with 40in radar antenna. Production F-106C would have new engine, new fuselage structure, and other changes.

F-106D probably a two seat version of F-106C

F-106-30 all weather interceptor
2 x J93 engines, 2 man crew, engines slung under wings like B-58, and a horizontal tail surface. Pulse doppler radar, and GAR-9 missiles.

F-106X (1968)
New radome and larger radar antenna. Modified FCS with lookdown capability. New AAMs. Competitor to YF-12. Added canards and revised intakes, and new engine with twice the power in the same size.

F-106E/F (1968)
Lookdown/shootdown radar and AIM-47 AAM, UHF two way voice and datalink.

Source:

Robert F. Dorr, Convair F-106 Delta Dart, Wings of Fame 12, 1998
William G. Holder F-106 Delta Dart, Aero Series 27, 1977
 
Or F-106 SST Bizjet, described for example in Scott´s Aerospace Projects Review V3N2...
 

Attachments

  • minibanv3n2.jpg
    minibanv3n2.jpg
    9.7 KB · Views: 3,172
Matej said:
What about this one? With three engines (!), but not any info available :(
Click to expand...

That looks like a testbed NASA flew with two J85s underwing to evaluate supersonic inlets. I believe it was in support of the SST effort.

Also, with regard to some of the versions mentioned in Overscan's original message, the Detail & Scale on the F-106 had at least F-106C drawings if not more.
 
Thanks Orion!

Thats really interesting for me. A design that was aerodinamically taylored to give optimum performance in a highly especialized role (interceptor) can be adapted to perform a totally different one? (carrier based attack aircraft) ???
 
Big nose drawings- thats all I could find in the Detail & Scale book, Evan, along with a B&W version of the canard F-106X pic above.
 

Attachments

  • F106C.jpg
    F106C.jpg
    146.9 KB · Views: 1,621
the f-106x looks alot like covairs model-200 vtol fighter from the 70's
 
Was the F-106 SST a civil version of the transport proposed for SAC, IIRC?

Matej said:
Or F-106 SST Bizjet, described for example in Scott´s Aerospace Projects Review V3N2...
Click to expand...
 
I've heard the F-106X mentioned many times and I do know some things about it.
-It was capable of Mach 5
-It's engines were substantially more powerful than the traditional F-106 powerplant
-It had canards, redesigned intakes, and a raised-cockpit with improved visibility
-It featured an AN/ASG-18 radar, and carried an AIM-47 and either two AIM-26's or four AIM-4s
-It had fuel-bladders in the wing

However it pretty much ends right about there...

I don't know, for example, is *WHAT* engine actually was selected to power the plane. I've heard claims that it was a bypass J-58 derivative (like the A-12/YF-12/SR-71/M-21 powerplant), a turbofan of some sort, a high-powered J-75 derivative, possibly using MIPCC (especially for the non-specified turbofan and J-75 derivative) to allow it to fly fast enough.

I've never heard anything in regards to the airplanes composition in regards to metallurgical changes. To achieve Mach 5, the plane would almost certainly require radical changes at the very least to the metallurgy of the airplane. Aluminum can't withstand that temperature unless it had some kind of thermal protection like the Space-Shuttle's tiles.

It has never been clarified to my knowledge if the airplane's Mach 5 performance was in the form of a dash, or a continuous cruise although for what it seems it probably was in the form of a dash, however I cannot state this with 100% accuracy.

I've also wondered if the plane featured any geometrical changes to the wings in terms of sweep-angle, t/c ratio, cross-section, and leading-edge sharpness.


Does anybody have any answers in regards to the F-106X?


Kendra Lesnick
 
Kendra,

have you already tried the Forum's Search Tool for F-106X info?
 
I think I did a search for it awhile ago. To my knowledge, all the information I found was the data that I said I already knew...
 
According to the link, the F-106X was to be powered by a turbo-ramjet version of the J-75. I guess it was a type of bleed-bypass system of some sort. I would almost swear that I heard at least once that it was a turbofan/turbofanned J-75 design (It's possible it could have been a turbofanned J-75 with a bleed-bypass somewhere on the engine's compressor)

To Michael Van,
What's solid hydrogen? (It was mentioned in the link that when mixed with a 5 percent boron additive to solid hydrogen would produce a 107% benefit)


KJ
 
What's solid hydrogen? (It was mentioned in the link that when mixed with a 5 percent boron additive to solid hydrogen would produce a 107% benefit)
Click to expand...

if Hydrogen cooled down under −434.45 °F it becomes Ice
or better say Solid Hydrogen.

but how to use Solid Hydrogen as Fuel for Aircraft or Rocket ?
the USAF made a lot Study for use of Solid Hydrogen (also with Boron) in Aircraft
but no one has build a working engine...
 
Michel Van said:
but how to use Solid Hydrogen as Fuel for Aircraft or Rocket ?
Click to expand...
1) "Slush" hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen cooled to it's freezing point, but not totally frozen. Density is increased, and only a small heat input is required to melt hydrogen so it can be fed through the engine. This was to powetr the X-30 NASP, for instance.
2) True "solid" hydrogen: UTC (and probably others) have study solid rocket motors that use4 solid cryogens for propellant. For example, UTC built small solid rocket motors that used stacked alternating disks (whith holes in the center of solid oxygen and, IIRC, ethane. Solid hydrogen would be theoretically possible, but the structual properties of solid hydrogen are Not Good (approximate mechanical strength of warm butter). Another possibility would be to somehow embed solid hydrogen "pellet" in a matrix of solid oxygen. The performance would be fantastic, but practical problems are immense.
 
What's metastable metallic-hydrogen?

From what I remember, metallic hydrogen is basically a proton...
 
Michel Van said:
True "solid" hydrogen
Click to expand...
so called Metastable metallic hydrogen ?
Click to expand...

No. Hydrogen ice.


If you have metastable metallic hydrogen, you don't *need* any other propellant additives. They'll just get in the way.

Metastable metallic hydrogen is a theoretical possibility with amazing potential... *if* the physics backs it up. Here's the story:

You know how when you compress and heat carbon it'll form diamond? That's because the carbon atoms slip into a new matrix, one that just happens to produce a solid that is extremely hard, transparent, and denser than other forms of carbon. If you compress hydrogen, it'll do the same thing. Problem is, the compression needed is essentially *millions* of atmospheres. And while carbon compressed to diamond is essentially stable (one rarely sees exploding diamonds these days), nobody is really sure whether hydrogen would be stable.

The sad likelyhood is that if you create metallic hydrogen (such as the cores of Jupiter and Saturn are imagined to have), and then release the pressure, it'll simply turn back into regular hydrogen. But the possibility exists that once created, it can be stabilized (thermally, careful release of pressure, whatever), and you will end up with a solid lump of metallic hydrogen that you can hold in your hands. Metallic hydrogen would be about as dense as water, and , IIRC, a thermal and electrical superconductor. The neat thing is, if you can get it to decompress, it'll *explode* - hense "metastable." It'll sit there like a happy fun ball until you whack it with a hammer, pour acid on it, heat it, shock it or taunt it... then it'll spontaneously disassemble.

And when a lump of metastable hydrogen goes "bang," you have your very own "chemical Orion," Isp about 2000 seconds or so.

Nobody has managed to make the stuff in quantites of more than micrograms, and certainly nobody has managed to *keep* the stuff solid.
 
Metallic-Hydrogen would yield an impulse of 2,000?

What does a typical gas-turbine yield?
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
Metallic-Hydrogen would yield an impulse of 2,000?

What does a typical gas-turbine yield?
Click to expand...


On that order for a high-mach number jet. A Met-H pulse rocket would be approximately as efficient as a turbojet engine, with the benefit that it wouldn't really care how fast or how high it was. It'd run from underwater to orbit just fine, with a max specific impulse of 1,600 to 1,800 seconds (sources seem to vary on that point).

If, that is, you could get it to run at all.

Specific fuel consumption numbers according to Wiki run from the equivalent of 3012 seconds for the Rolls Royce Olympus at full blast to 11,700 seconds for the GE CF6. The CF6 is a great big turbofan, so the bulk of the "reaction mass" is efficiently-used air going through the fan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_fuel_consumption#Typical_values_of_SFC_for_thrust_engines
 
From what I remember, rockets perform better at higher altitudes as the atmosphere doesn't hinder the exhausts expansion. It's power to weight ratio is also way superior to that of a turbojet, or to my knowledge, even a ramjet.

The one thing I'm wondering about metallic hydrogen is... what happens to the electrons. From descriptions i've heard, it was a bunch of protons with the electrons seperate, which seems to me more like plasma than hydrogen... I take it there's probably some difference.


Kendra
 
about metallic hydrogen is... what happens to the electrons ?
Click to expand...

in Metallic Hydrogen the electrons jumping from atom to atom
so is also room-temperature superconductor!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

i work (years ago) as Adviser for German SF Pulp series MADDRAX
they had A Space Shuttle like SSTO for low orbit, but later they had to go to Moon.
and ask me for help. so i take Metallic hydrogen as fuel
 
To Michael Van,

So it's like the protons have orbiting electrons that jump from one orbit to another to another over and over and over again? How does charging current through the metallic hydrogen not cause it to seperate or explode into gaseous hydrogen?


Back to the F-106X,

Does anyone have anymore data regarding the modified J-75 powerplant that was to power the Six-X? It had a bleed bypass cycle apparently, although I'm not sure exactly how much air was bled/bypassed -- did it also have a turbofan cycle too since I was told by some people that the powerplant was a turbofan as well?

Was this plane designed to cruise at Mach 5, or just to dash to that speed quickly?
 
Still not seen a reputable source for the Mach 5 claim.

A two seat F-106-30 with new axisymmetric intakes with cones, canards and a single J-58 engine and a twin engine version with two J93s were both designed in 1958, but both were limited to Mach 2.5 by airframe limitations.
 
to Metastable metallic hydrogen keep stable
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen
Solid metallic hydrogen consists of a crystal lattice of atomic nuclei (namely, protons),
with a spacing which is significantly smaller than a Bohr radius.
Click to expand...
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability_in_molecules
For example, at room temperature, diamonds are metastable because the phase transformation to the stable graphite form is extremely slow. At higher temperatures, the rate of phase transformation is increased and the diamond will transform to graphite.
Click to expand...

back to F-106X Mach 5 rumor
the F-106 is limited to Mach 2.5 by airframe limitations.
you have to redesign Air-intakes, Aircraft Frame, Engine, Replace the Aircraft Skin by Inconel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconel
and still at Mach 5 the Inconel will be red hot.

is "cheaper" to design and build a new Mach 5 Aircraft
as to Retro fit a Mach 2.5 Aircraft to Mach 5
 
Michael Van,

From what I remember the F-106A could go above Mach 2.5. If I recall they could do something on the order of 2.8 or so according to an F-106A pilot. An ex-USAF ground-crewman who got a ride up in an F-106B stated that in a shallow dive they achieved what would amount to 1,800 kts.

Consider the following
-The F-106A had a lot of honeycomb in it's construction -- more so than the F-102A: Honeycomb is better at dispersing heat than regular standard sheets of metal allowing higher speeds than normally allowed
-The J-75's could achieve speeds slightly over mach 3 at least during dashes.
-Not Sure About This One: The F-102A and F-106A if I recall had a type of thermal-paint coating that was originally applied to the F-102A to avoid the heat from the rockets causing damage. The paint seems to be applied all over the plane which would probably allow it the ability to reflect more heat away.

Regarding the F-106X, it did have revised inlets actually -- look at the design. Regarding the metallurgy, I'm not sure Inconel is required. There are alloys of titanium, and honeycomb stainless-steel, and various composites that can go that hot. I'm not sure exactly *WHAT* they planned to build the F-106X out of though.


KJ
 
KJ_Lesnick said:
Michael Van,

From what I remember the F-106A could go above Mach 2.5. If I recall they could do something on the order of 2.8 or so according to an F-106A pilot. An ex-USAF ground-crewman who got a ride up in an F-106B stated that in a shallow dive they achieved what would amount to 1,800 kts.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the ground guy got km and kts confused. This from an F-104 pilot:

"SprstdlyScottsmn,

Remember Sharkbait set a squadron record for 1,588 indicating Mach 2.5 on the airspeed/Mach meter for over two minutes then he pushed it up and had a compressor stall at 2.6 indicated. He also zoom climbed to over 92,000 feet on the same flight.

For everyone else,

That was with his stock F-104C wearing wingtip mounted missile rails and no special prep. Tom did say he singed every insignia on the jet!

The F-106... I used to fly with a great friend that flew the 6. He and Tom were talking about the differences in the 6 and the Zipper. He said he was in a shallow descent with his left hand against the stops chasing two Zippers and they ran off and left him... "
 
USAF a/c instrumentation of the era weren't marked in KM were they? In civil foreign a/c types, the primary flight instruments have to be replaced with knots/miles instruments. Even so, 1800 KM is only 971 knots. However, I have no idea what the -106 indicates as opposed to TAS.


sferrin said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
Michael Van,

From what I remember the F-106A could go above Mach 2.5. If I recall they could do something on the order of 2.8 or so according to an F-106A pilot. An ex-USAF ground-crewman who got a ride up in an F-106B stated that in a shallow dive they achieved what would amount to 1,800 kts.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the ground guy got km and kts confused. This from an F-104 pilot:

"SprstdlyScottsmn,

Remember Sharkbait set a squadron record for 1,588 indicating Mach 2.5 on the airspeed/Mach meter for over two minutes then he pushed it up and had a compressor stall at 2.6 indicated. He also zoom climbed to over 92,000 feet on the same flight.

For everyone else,

That was with his stock F-104C wearing wingtip mounted missile rails and no special prep. Tom did say he singed every insignia on the jet!

The F-106... I used to fly with a great friend that flew the 6. He and Tom were talking about the differences in the 6 and the Zipper. He said he was in a shallow descent with his left hand against the stops chasing two Zippers and they ran off and left him... "
Click to expand...
 
This pic was over on the What-If modelers forum. Exactly how much 'what-if model' it is I don't know, as no one responded to my inquiry. It just doesn't look like a 'whif' model to me, but maybe a real proposal for an Aggressor Dart. Anyone here know anything about this kind of plan?
 

Attachments

  • aggressor106.jpg
    aggressor106.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 1,553
Frank,

I believe I posted that picture - I didn't see your enquiry, so sorry about not replying over there. The picture represents a real proposal to the USN - in fact the picture originates from a display at a briefing to the Joint Chief of Staff in 1973.

Regards,

Greg
 
Thanks, that answers my enquiry. It's no surprised you overlooked it, as I came upon the thread late in the game. The other part of my question was if anyone knew the markings on the tail. What I can make out, just looks like ho-hum white codes. I think I may have asked if there was a reason they used black & white ID triangles rather than the Israeli yellow & black, since it's obviously intended to be a Mirage or Kfir.


GTX said:
Frank,

I believe I posted that picture - I didn't see your enquiry, so sorry about not replying over there. The picture represents a real proposal to the USN - in fact the picture originates from a display at a briefing to the Joint Chief of Staff in 1973.

Regards,

Greg
Click to expand...
 
Orionblamblam,

I was told in regards to the B-58 that it's use of honeycomb allowed it to fly faster than traditional aluminum sheets. There may have been more to it than that, perhaps the fact that they featured some kind of composite core, or who knows what else. However, Convair probably used similar honeycomb technology on the F-102 and F-106 as well...

KJ_Lesnick
 
Honeycomb structure is quite common, from jets to helos to light planes. Grumman-American's AA series of piston singles use it. It ain't rocket surgery.


Orionblamblam said:
KJ_Lesnick said:
Orionblamblam,

I was told in regards to the B-58 that it's use of honeycomb allowed it to fly faster than traditional aluminum sheets.
Click to expand...

Yes... because the new structure weighed less for the same strength.
Click to expand...
 
I recently got the American Secret-Projects (Fighters/Interceptors), and I found something quite interesting. Mentioned in page 108, it says that the rectangular-intaked F-106, that is often called the F-106X was a design that came along after the F-106 and puts it into a later time-bracket even suggesting it as a replacement... The F-106X was mentioned earlier in page 82, and it never mentioned this...

How odd...


Kendra Lesnick
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom