Convair F-106 Projects

[MadRat]

I really liked the F-106, whether in A or B form. Just looked like something out of Buck Rogers. The 1930s Buck Rogers not the modern one Star Wars copied from.

The response I recieved from a SAC guy in the early 80s, about why they didn't build more F-106 for protecting the country was something akin to, it looks too much like a Mirage and the Air Force will never buy more jets with turbojets because turbofans are the future. So perhaps pushing old turbojets when shiny new F-15s cost a bit more, and F-16s were quite a lot cheaper, was a bad idea. Just maybe. F-106 could not compete against the 1-2 punch of F-15 and F-16 being procured in a Hi-Lo mix.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I really liked the F-106, whether in A or B form. Just looked like something out of Buck Rogers. The 1930s Buck Rogers not the modern one Star Wars copied from.

The response I recieved from a SAC guy in the early 80s, about why they didn't build more F-106 for protecting the country was something akin to, it looks too much like a Mirage and the Air Force will never buy more jets with turbojets because turbofans are the future. So perhaps pushing old turbojets when shiny new F-15s cost a bit more, and F-16s were quite a lot cheaper, was a bad idea. Just maybe. F-106 could not compete against the 1-2 punch of F-15 and F-16 being procured in a Hi-Lo mix.

Another important question would be tooling. Did the F-106 tooling still exist in the late 1970s? Also, the F100 is significantly longer than the J75, 4.9m versus 3.66m, in addition to being 10cm larger in diameter.

As a side note, the F-4 was rated to be "marginally better" than the F-106 as an interceptor, and could be cascaded down to F-106 units as F-4 units got F-15s or F-16s.

Don't forget that the F-106 was also a 1950s design, first flew in 1956 and adopted in 1959. Those airframes were old and well used, while Phantoms were still in production through 1981.

 

[fightingirish]

[...]
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.

New pictures showing the F-106-30 modell have been uploaded to SDASM Flickr Archive.
Here some new pictures as appetizers :

https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8zm

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8zm

https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9Hv

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9Hv

https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1iJ

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1iJ

https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAgW

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAgW

https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2W2

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2W2


23_0007841 Convair Negative Image by SDASM Archives, auf Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9BD

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9BD

23_0007826 Convair Negative Image by SDASM Archives, auf Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2UZ

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2UZ

https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1cS

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1cS

https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAdV

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAdV

https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8tV

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8tV

 

[RAP]

Model with various A2A and A2G loadouts and recon pods for weapons bay, also external gun pods, missile pods, bullpups and 'classified armament'.

 

[yasotay]

The Six Shooter was my boyhood dream of what a fighter pilot should fly.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Model with various A2A and A2G loadouts and recon pods for weapons bay, also external gun pods, missile pods, bullpups and 'classified armament'.

I was going to suggest that the "Classified Armament" was nuclear, but then I saw the AIR-2 Genie front and center.

 

[MadRat]

Its not easy comparing engines when it comes to military hardware.

The J75 with its afterburner certainly is not smaller than an F100 and afterburner. Its double in weight and a foot wider at the afterburner. The F100 is a few feet longer, but thats not so much an issue on a 70'-plus airframe. Funny enough, the fuel consumption is fairly similar in many situations. That huge shift in center of gravity certainly would be an issue. The maintenance schedule certainly favors an F100 vs J75.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Its not easy comparing engines when it comes to military hardware.

The J75 with its afterburner certainly is not smaller than an F100 and afterburner. Its double in weight and a foot wider at the afterburner. The F100 is a few feet longer, but thats not so much an issue on a 70'-plus airframe. Funny enough, the fuel consumption is fairly similar in many situations. That huge shift in center of gravity certainly would be an issue. The maintenance schedule certainly favors an F100 vs J75.

An F-106 with an F100 engine would be a wicked airplane for sure! That re-engine would have put all the supersonic fighters using the same engine: F-106, F-15, and F-16. The A-7 was proposed to also get either an afterburning TF41 or an F100 for the A-7F, which just leaves the A-10 with a different engine.

 

[Scott Kenny]

An F-106 with an F100 engine would be a wicked airplane for sure! That re-engine would have put all the supersonic fighters using the same engine: F-106, F-15, and F-16. The A-7 was proposed to also get either an afterburning TF41 or an F100 for the A-7F, which just leaves the A-10 with a different engine.

Though I should note that it would take until the F100-PW-229 before the new engine made more power than the J75, and the -229 wasn't available until the 1990s. That said, the turbofans make a lot more thrust in afterburner, so a Six with an F100-PW-229 has a power to weight ratio of right about 1:1 at combat weight.

 

[Deleted member 4286]

There was also a VIP passenger project

 

[RAP]

Not a project but studies on escape systems for the F-102B (F-106).

 

[blackkite]

Hi F-106X.

Advanced F-106C Super Dart by Erik Simonsen

Advanced F-106C Super Dart by Erik Simonsen

erik-simonsen.pixels.com

 

[blackkite]

Hi! F-106J and YF-106C.

Photo Galleries | F-106 Delta Dart

Photos of the F-106 Delta Dart the Ultimate USAF Interceptor

www.f-106deltadart.com

 

[blackkite]

Photo Galleries | F-106 Delta Dart

Photos of the F-106 Delta Dart the Ultimate USAF Interceptor

www.f-106deltadart.com

From Mike Lorrey, Director International Spaceflight Museum In 2005 Mike put together a business proposal to take a 106 hulk and rebuild it to be a launch vehicle, Called it the X-106. Took out the turbine, and put in a big LOX tank in the engine bay, with a SpaceX Merlin engine on the back. Took out all the old avionics and weapons system, replace the avionics with a modern, low mass glass cockpit, make the weapons bay and the air intakes into more fuel capacity. Replace the underwing tanks with some ramjets. The idea was to use the Eclipse Project gear to tow launch the X-106 with a C-141, fully fueled, to 35k ft, drop it and light up the underwing ramjets. The ramjets would use MIPCC injecting water and LOX into the intakes to cool the incoming air mass so the ramjets could function at much higher speeds, reach the Mach 5 speed the F-106X proposal in the 60's projected, then light up the Merlin to boost further, drop the ramjets at mach 7, and power up into orbit. The nose cone and leading edges would use hafnium diboride like whats used in steering fins for MIRVs, and titanium skin for the other surfaces. Reentry would have a very low wing loading, only 11 lbs/sqft,, which is 1/9th that of the Shuttle, so it would lose most speed far higher in the atmosphere, and would have far lower heating and wouldn't need the silica tile thermal protection like the shuttle needed. We didn't get funding for the project, but it was fun to design it We had two hulks lined up for purchase in a warehouse in Texas (El Paso birds), if we got funding. Unfortunately that option to buy expired when we failed to get funding.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Photo Galleries | F-106 Delta Dart

Photos of the F-106 Delta Dart the Ultimate USAF Interceptor

www.f-106deltadart.com

From Mike Lorrey, Director International Spaceflight Museum In 2005 Mike put together a business proposal to take a 106 hulk and rebuild it to be a launch vehicle, Called it the X-106. Took out the turbine, and put in a big LOX tank in the engine bay, with a SpaceX Merlin engine on the back. Took out all the old avionics and weapons system, replace the avionics with a modern, low mass glass cockpit, make the weapons bay and the air intakes into more fuel capacity. Replace the underwing tanks with some ramjets. The idea was to use the Eclipse Project gear to tow launch the X-106 with a C-141, fully fueled, to 35k ft, drop it and light up the underwing ramjets. The ramjets would use MIPCC injecting water and LOX into the intakes to cool the incoming air mass so the ramjets could function at much higher speeds, reach the Mach 5 speed the F-106X proposal in the 60's projected, then light up the Merlin to boost further, drop the ramjets at mach 7, and power up into orbit. The nose cone and leading edges would use hafnium diboride like whats used in steering fins for MIRVs, and titanium skin for the other surfaces. Reentry would have a very low wing loading, only 11 lbs/sqft,, which is 1/9th that of the Shuttle, so it would lose most speed far higher in the atmosphere, and would have far lower heating and wouldn't need the silica tile thermal protection like the shuttle needed. We didn't get funding for the project, but it was fun to design it We had two hulks lined up for purchase in a warehouse in Texas (El Paso birds), if we got funding. Unfortunately that option to buy expired when we failed to get funding.

I remember seeing those hulks years ago.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

東京ソリッドモデルクラブ TSMC 第２８回ソリッドモデル全国例会 - 福岡エアロレプリカクラブ（ＦＡＲＣ）小僧日記

東京ソリッドモデルクラブTSMC第２８回ソリッドモデル全国例会B-58ハスラー1/32白根会長ボーイングB3071/50木林会員F7Uカットラス1/24三浦会員九七艦攻三型1/24三浦会員CONVAIRVTOL1/72松崎会員F-106-301/72松崎会員F-106X1/72松崎会員航研機1/32寺沢会員DFS-1931/32樋口会員F-86D1/24北原会員F-102A1/24武田会員Mig-21UM1/72ペーパーモデル武田会員宗谷1/500ペーパーモデル武田会員X-3(withトレーラー)1/32安土会員DH88COMET1/32安土会員※福岡エアロレプリカクラブ会員の作品一覧を...

blog.goo.ne.jp

 

[sferrin]

Hi F-106X.

Advanced F-106C Super Dart by Erik Simonsen

Advanced F-106C Super Dart by Erik Simonsen

erik-simonsen.pixels.com

There are books out there that say this one was good for Mach 5. Not sure why,

 

[hesham]

Photo Galleries | F-106 Delta Dart

Photos of the F-106 Delta Dart the Ultimate USAF Interceptor

www.f-106deltadart.com

From Mike Lorrey, Director International Spaceflight Museum In 2005 Mike put together a business proposal to take a 106 hulk and rebuild it to be a launch vehicle, Called it the X-106. Took out the turbine, and put in a big LOX tank in the engine bay, with a SpaceX Merlin engine on the back. Took out all the old avionics and weapons system, replace the avionics with a modern, low mass glass cockpit, make the weapons bay and the air intakes into more fuel capacity. Replace the underwing tanks with some ramjets. The idea was to use the Eclipse Project gear to tow launch the X-106 with a C-141, fully fueled, to 35k ft, drop it and light up the underwing ramjets. The ramjets would use MIPCC injecting water and LOX into the intakes to cool the incoming air mass so the ramjets could function at much higher speeds, reach the Mach 5 speed the F-106X proposal in the 60's projected, then light up the Merlin to boost further, drop the ramjets at mach 7, and power up into orbit. The nose cone and leading edges would use hafnium diboride like whats used in steering fins for MIRVs, and titanium skin for the other surfaces. Reentry would have a very low wing loading, only 11 lbs/sqft,, which is 1/9th that of the Shuttle, so it would lose most speed far higher in the atmosphere, and would have far lower heating and wouldn't need the silica tile thermal protection like the shuttle needed. We didn't get funding for the project, but it was fun to design it We had two hulks lined up for purchase in a warehouse in Texas (El Paso birds), if we got funding. Unfortunately that option to buy expired when we failed to get funding.

I sent this in reply # 49 ?.

 

[sferrin]

I sent this in reply # 49 ?.

The F-106X was a concept decades before SpaceX was a thing. I saw the pic with the Mach 5 claim back in the 80s. Thought for sure it was in the Detail & Scale or Squadron Signal on the F-106 but it isn't.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

There are books out there that say this one was good for Mach 5. Not sure why,

I've seen that claim before, even in new sources, even though it there doesn't seem to be any way that it can go that fast. Probably a circular sourcing issue now.

 

[sferrin]

I've seen that claim before, even in new sources, even though it there doesn't seem to be any way that it can go that fast. Probably a circular sourcing issue now.

Maybe the "2." got left off of "2.5", which would be completely believable.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

That seems most likely.

 

[blackkite]

Another 3-view of the Convair F-106X at SDASM Flickr Archives:

https://flic.kr/p/2o6KVwy

View: https://flic.kr/p/2o6KVwy

This drawing shows a study of a retrofit of the F-106A in 1971. Only the drawing is available, but it include canard surfaces,
a more modern horizontal ramp inlet, and the Pratt and Whitney F401-PW-400 turbofan engine.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/20220219_convair_f-106x_3view-jpg.730643/

Source : CONVAIR ADVANCED DESIGN Ⅱ

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Larger images.

蛇乃目伍長の「エアフォースの英国面に来い！」 Mk.2 : Advanced F-106

blog.livedoor.jp

The main armament of the Advanced F-106 is a missile called the Sky Scorcher.

The Sky Scorcher is a 5.5-meter-long missile with a 2-Mt nuclear power, there is no visual information about its appearance.

It weighs 3400 lbs (1540 kg) and has a maximum speed of Mach 2.5~3. It has a range of 125 nm (230 km).

The guidance method is also unknown, but it is highly likely that it was unguided, considering that the warhead of the AIR-2 Genie (which began operation in 1957) was 1.5 kt and unguided.

With this much power, it doesn't make much difference whether it's a guided type or not.

The concept is to launch 14 Sky Scorchers from the Advanced F-106 into a large formation of Soviet bombers rushing to the U.S. mainland, dividing the formation. In addition, the subsequent "Advanced F-106" formation was supposed to annihilate the remaining enemies that were divided with the Ginny and Falcon.
The U.S. Air Force did not adopt the Sky Scorcher after all.

It seems that the use of a 2Mt high-power nuclear weapon over the territory of the country was regarded as a problem, but is there a problem with the 1.5kt of the AIR-2? I think it was probably a decision that involved politics.

And the "Advanced F-106" that was set with the Sky Scorcher should have disappeared with it at this time.
The F-106 is said to have faltered the F-15 in a simulated air battle at high altitudes, so if the F-106X had been adopted, it might have been possible to switch to a tactical fighter, but then-Secretary of Defense R. McNamara canceled the YF-12 along with the rival YF-12.

It continued to be used almost unchanged except for improvements to the radar and autopilot system in the 1969 Minimum System Reliability Improvement (MAISR) program, and after the disbandment of the Air Defense Force Corps in 1976, it was transferred to the Tactical Air Command and the State Air Corps. And in 1987, it disappeared from the actual combat unit without the appearance of a full-fledged air defense interceptor fighter to replace it.

Advanced F-106/Sky Scorcher – The Unwanted Blog

 

[flateric]

Was posted in this thread 15 years ago

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
Source : CONVAIR ADVANCED DESIGN Ⅱ, AMERICAN SECRET PROJECTS and SPF.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
I add MRI and LRI.
Source : CONVAIR ADVANCED DESIGNS Ⅱ.
This book include MRI, LRI and other interesting F-106 version drawings.

 

[blackkite]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UA9vapAd3c&t=348s

 

[TomcatViP]

There are some confusions in the narrative. Among them, F-106 were not equipped with Capsule ejection seat. Those were for the B-58. F-106 initially used Rotational-B Convair designed seat and then Weber designed 0-0 seats:

Photo Galleries | F-106 Delta Dart

Photos of the F-106 Delta Dart the Ultimate USAF Interceptor

f-106deltadart.com

Later Convair Stanley designed Rotational-B seat:

The Ejection Site - Weber F-106 Delta Dart seat

Final Weber 0-0 design:

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Sixshooter.

https://flic.kr/p/KAa22u

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/28609861346/in/photostream/

 

[blackkite]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sD7cOpBgJQ

 

[blackkite]

Convair F-106 Delta Dart Ideas and Inspiration

Convair F-106 Delta Dart Ideas and Inspiration

beyondthesprues.com

 

[TJDougherty01]

F-106 Delta Dart at Pima Air Museum, Tucson, Arizona.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-105 at Pima Air Museum, Tucson, Arizona.

psst! Typo

 

[Christopher Wang]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Barbier (2017) explained there was a December 21, 1956, study which proposed powering the Convair F-106 Delta Dart with an afterburning or reheating variant of the Rolls-Royce Conway turbofan (p. 77). Although the Conway ended up being very successful, Rolls-Royce never produced an afterburning variant of the Conway.

The Delta Dart stayed in Air National Guard service until its retirement in August 1988, around the same time that the Pratt & Whitney F100 and General Electric F110 afterburning turbofans were powering the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle / F-15E Strike Eagle.

In terms of dimensions and performances, would the P&W F100 and GE F110 have been viable afterburning turbofan replacements for the Delta Dart's Pratt & Whitney J75 afterburning turbojet?

 

[Scott Kenny]

In terms of dimensions and performances, would the P&W F100 and GE F110 have been viable afterburning turbofan replacements for the Delta Dart's Pratt & Whitney J75 afterburning turbojet?

The biggest concern is probably mass flow needed, how big the intakes need to be.

But an F110 is also a bit bigger in diameter, 2000lbs lighter, and ~4ft shorter. Which is going to do weird things to weight and balance, how weird depends on where the engine mounts line up.

I expect the engine mounts to be close to the engine center of gravity, so the F110 would sit farther back in the airframe than the J75 would. This helps your overall CG problem, by putting the weight of the engine farther back. Any "extra" space in the fuselage you address by relocating where the inlets combine farther aft, and then turn that "extra" space into fuel tanks.

 

[BlackBat242]

Lets see... it looks like the main issue would have been intake air mass-flow.

J75-P-17 (F-106A/B): thrust 17,200 lb (24,500 lb afterburning)*; weight 5,875 lb; length 144.1" engine only (214" overall); diameter 43" engine body (58.5" over afterburner); SFC .80 (2.15 a/b) lb fuel/lb thrust/hour; intake air mass-flow 200 lb/sec

F100-P-220 (1986, F-15 & F-16): thrust 16,750 lb (27,000 lb)**; weight 3,365 lb; length 208" oa; diameter 40" (46.5" a/b); SFC .74 (2.05 a/b); intake air mass-flow 250

F110-GE-100 (F-16 1986): thrust 16,600 lb (28,000 lb)***; weight 3,920 lb; length 110" (181.9" oa); diameter 40" (46.45" a/b); SFC .735 (1.97 a/b); intake air mass-flow 250



* the -19W (F-105B/D/F/G): thrust 17,200 lb (26,500 lb), and the -5A/6 of the XF8U-3 produced 16,500 lb (29,500 lb); intake air mass-flow 225.

** the later -229/229A: thrust 17,800 lb (29,100 lb/32,000 lb); weight 3,705 lb; intake air mass-flow 280

*** the -129 (F-15 1986): thrust 17,000 lb (29,500 lb)
-132 (2002): thrust 17,000 lb (32,500 lb); weight 4,050 lb; SC .735 (2.09 a/b); intake air mass-flow 270

 

[blackkite]

Hi! F-106A three side view and F-106B side view.
Source : FAMOUS AIRPLANES OF THE WORLD CONVAIR F-106A DELTA DART.

1082469 - Online Store

Find Quality Clothing, Furniture, Toys & Baby Products and Sports Merchandise for Men and Women!

parbestmk.best

 

[blackkite]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6aEjEKy7GE&t=178s

F106gun

Breal

www.alfredsmind.ca

 

[FrankM]

Lets see... it looks like the main issue would have been intake air mass-flow.

J75-P-17 (F-106A/B): thrust 17,200 lb (24,500 lb afterburning)*; weight 5,875 lb; length 144.1" engine only (214" overall); diameter 43" engine body (58.5" over afterburner); SFC .80 (2.15 a/b) lb fuel/lb thrust/hour; intake air mass-flow 200 lb/sec

F100-P-220 (1986, F-15 & F-16): thrust 16,750 lb (27,000 lb)**; weight 3,365 lb; length 208" oa; diameter 40" (46.5" a/b); SFC .74 (2.05 a/b); intake air mass-flow 250

F110-GE-100 (F-16 1986): thrust 16,600 lb (28,000 lb)***; weight 3,920 lb; length 110" (181.9" oa); diameter 40" (46.45" a/b); SFC .735 (1.97 a/b); intake air mass-flow 250



* the -19W (F-105B/D/F/G): thrust 17,200 lb (26,500 lb), and the -5A/6 of the XF8U-3 produced 16,500 lb (29,500 lb); intake air mass-flow 225.

** the later -229/229A: thrust 17,800 lb (29,100 lb/32,000 lb); weight 3,705 lb; intake air mass-flow 280

*** the -129 (F-15 1986): thrust 17,000 lb (29,500 lb)
-132 (2002): thrust 17,000 lb (32,500 lb); weight 4,050 lb; SC .735 (2.09 a/b); intake air mass-flow 270

Your numbers for the J75 und the F100 appear to be a bit off.
Everything I´ve seen on the former is in between about 250 and 260 lb/s (e.g., Tommy Thomasons excellent book on the F8-U3 gives 261 lb/s @ 26.000 lbf of thrust) and around 230 lb/s for the latter, with a thrust of about 23,800 lbf.
Upwards of 120 lbf per lb/s of airflow is something you wouldn´t get till about 1990.

Best regards,

Frank M.