Convair F-106 Projects

[Hood]

Sounds like it was connected to nuclear attack alert (pre-ICBM), I guess to ferry high-rankers out of Washington DC pretty sharpish and to scattered command posts and the like or for evacuating said posts if there was an incoming second-wave.
Against a Soviet transpolar bomber threat that might have been feasible but I'm guessing the arrival of ICBMs soon after 1958 made an escape more difficult and by then the KC-135 offered a reliable means of having an airborne command post on alert so it would not be required.
Shows how big the F-106 was though if you could get four people in there and it doesn't even look too cramped either.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

 

[fightingirish]

Another picture of the Convair F-106X model at SDASM Flickr Archives:

https://flic.kr/p/2kH4JhQ

View: https://flic.kr/p/2kH4JhQ
_________________________________________________________________________________

Hi!

Source:
Aerospace Projects Review issue V3N2

Dennis R. Jenkins provides an article on a Convair concept for converting the F-106 interceptor into a small supersonic transport. [...]

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

McNamara Announces Plans For F-106 Mod

Defense Secretary Robert Mc-Namara last week announced plans to modify the Convair-built F-106 interceptor for U. S. air defense against manned bombers in the mid-1970s. Under the plans announced by McNamara, more than 200 of the F-I06 Delta Darts now in service would be equipped with new electronic systems and undergo some structural modification to accommodate new air-to-air missiles. Designated the F-I06X, the modified interceptors will fly at Mach 2 and have a range of more than 1,500 miles and a ceiling
above 50,000 feet.

In commenting on the McNamara announcement, Jack L. Bowers, Convair general manager, said a request had not yet been received from the Defense Department for a proposal on development of the F -106X.

"As builder of the F-106, the company is very interested in this new development and will respond to any such request," Bowers said.

"The F-106 is a mainstay of the Air Defense Command. With the modifications described by Secretary McNamara, it will certainly be a better interceptor. Its continued use for many years is possible because of the plane's rugged construction."

Bowers, in preparing to respond to an anticipated request for proposal, announced appointment of W. W. Fox, director of product design for Convair's research and engineering department for the past three years, as program director for t he proposed F-106X program.
Fox, in his new position, reports directly to Bowers and will coordinate all division activity contributing to the F-106X effort.

"Dan" Applegate, former chief mechanical and structural design engineer in Dept. 509-0, succeeds Fox as director of product design. Fox joined Convair as an engineering draftsman in 1939 and has held several flight test and project engineering positions. He became chief engineer in 1959.

General Dynamics News 14 February 1968

 

[hesham]

Nice Info my dear PaulMM,

and from, The American Fighter The Definitive Guide to American Fighter Aircraft from 1917 to the Present

 

[Wlaine]

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

Here are two photos of my Father (CWO4) Charles O. Laine just before jump testing the Escape System for the F-106 in 1960.

 

[Archibald]

Can someone please tell me what was the diameter of MX-1179 / MA-1 radar antenna ? I've seen 23 - 24 inch, does that sound correct ?

World's Fastest Single-Engine Jet Aircraft

Developed for the Air Force in the early 1950s as a next-generation interceptor following Convair's pioneering delta-wing F-102, the F-106 excelled in every aspect of the Air Defense Command mission. With its advanced Hughes radar system, Falcon air-to-air missiles, and a top speed in excess of...

www.google.fr

 

[Motocar]

Repost by Motocar and other web:

El “caza corporativo supersónico” de Convair

Corrían los últimos meses de 1958 y los ingenieros de Convair se afanaban en que la producción del nuevo interceptor F-106 Delta Dart se desarrollase sin problemas mayores. En ese momento la compañ…

www.google.com

 

[Helix88]

Does anyone know the length of the airspeed probe on the 106?

 

[fightingirish]

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

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

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

 

[elmayerle]

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

Here are two photos of my Father (CWO4) Charles O. Laine just before jump testing the Escape System for the F-106 in 1960.

The engine chocie for the F-106-30 seems a bit odd, 2xJ93 are going to take up a lot of volume, either in the fuselage or under the wing. Since that's the same engine fit as the F-108 featured, I have to wonder how much they scaked up the airframe to work with those.

 

[BlackBat242]

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

Here are two photos of my Father (CWO4) Charles O. Laine just before jump testing the Escape System for the F-106 in 1960.

The engine chocie for the F-106-30 seems a bit odd, 2xJ93 are going to take up a lot of volume, either in the fuselage or under the wing. Since that's the same engine fit as the F-108 featured, I have to wonder how much they scaked up the airframe to work with those.

It says right there...

2 x J93 engines, ..... , engines slung under wings like B-58

So they would be in pods.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That post is from long ago - there is much better information on F-106 variants published now.

This illustration is from Bob Bradley's Convair Advanced Designs II of the twin J-93 advanced F-106. Hardly recognisable.

 

[F.L.]

An interesting video showing a F-106 equipped with missiles outside the internal bays !
And one TF-102A fitted under the wings what looks like rocket pods.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh662SubE0Q

 

[SCAT-15F]

For the F-106C/X Why not just use the J-93-3 in place of the J-75? Its 1000 lbs lighter, good for mach 3.2 but perfectly happy at 2.7, and thrust is actually not much more than the 26.5K version of the J-75, but doesn't need water injection. Diameter is bigger but not by much. Intake area would need to be enlarged a little. I've thought Dassault Mirage style intakes would work (much simpler than the rectangular setup). I'd also go with the 106B cockpit/fuselage as it has lower drag and would give more space for fuel. Use some titanium/stainless steel on the leading edges/hot spots. Not that complicated but would be a legit mach 2.7 interceptor. The J-75 they chose for the C model was the one they used for the F-105D and had no increase in dry thrust and required water to be carried. The 17,500 lb thrust dry version they used for the P6M-2 Seamaster would have given about 27,000 lbs in AB. If nothing else, why not that?

 

[Kiltonge]

Reportedly, after the USA withdrew offshore procurement funding for the Gloster Javelin ( due to its poor performance ) the UK considered a Anglicised version of the F-106B as an alternative. No details given.

I haven't found any other sources except "Thor Ballistic Missile" by John Boyes.

For context at that time the RAF was very concerned about its lack of all-weather fighter capability and the proposed deployment of Thor IRBM to UK sites and the need to defend them further highlighted that shortfall.

 

[F.L.]

USAF F-106A (58-0795) of ADW Center, Tyndall AFB fitted with gunpod & AIM-97.

 

[MadRat]

Post #134 actually shows side-by-side TF-102 in the video, not F-106A.

 

[MadRat]

Post #134 actually shows side-by-side TF-102 in the video, not F-106A.

The thumbnail shows a TF-102A, but the whole video shows F-106s.

Some F-106s appear in the first half. TF-102 clearly in the middle. An F-102 at some point. Others are too grainy to identify in last third of video. Ironically the video is labelled with Delta Daggers in its title, then starts with Delta Darts. Just a poor video all around.

 

[F.L.]

Post #134 actually shows side-by-side TF-102 in the video, not F-106A.

Up to 3.58m, the video shows F-106As armed with missiles under the wings, that's what's interesting because unusual, furthermore it has been discussed in the thread and therefore can contribute to it. Seeing a "Deuce" firing a missile from its launch bay is not relevant to this thread.

Just a poor video all around.

It's that you didn't manage to see what was interesting in it !!!

However, I just noticed that this TF-102A carried under the wings what looks like pod rockets.

 

[Christopher Wang]

As shown below, the F-106 Delta Dart was also proposed to be turned into a tactical fighter-bomber equipped with four external underwing hardpoints. The outboard and inboard stations were planned to carry a combination of external fuel drop tanks, general-purpose conventional bombs, AIM-9 Sidewinders, AGM-12 Bullpups, gun packages, and special weapons (Barbier, 2017).


Source: Barbier, D. (2017). World's Fastest Single-Engine Jet Aircraft: The Story of Convair's F-106 Delta Dart Interceptor. Specialty Press.

 

[Christopher Wang]

According to Barbier (2017), there was a December 21, 1956, study which proposed powering the F-106 Delta Dart with an afterburning or reheating variant of the Rolls-Royce Conway turbofan (p. 77).

Source: Barbier, D. (2017). World's Fastest Single-Engine Jet Aircraft: The Story of Convair's F-106 Delta Dart Interceptor. Specialty Press.

 

[hesham]

From this book.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, I'd say the F-106 fighter-bomber version was at least tested...

 

[martinbayer]

I think a time honored rule of thumb is that in a pinch any fighter can be turned into a bomber, but not necessarily vice versa.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think a time honored rule of thumb is that in a pinch any fighter can be turned into a bomber, but not necessarily vice versa.

But to do that, requires wiring the plane for the bomb release system, and installing the necessary switches, etc., to operate it. So, it isn't simply sticking a rack and some bombs on the plane.

 

[isayyo2]

Well, I'd say the F-106 fighter-bomber version was at least tested...

Tested in jest

 

[martinbayer]

I think a time honored rule of thumb is that in a pinch any fighter can be turned into a bomber, but not necessarily vice versa.

But to do that, requires wiring the plane for the bomb release system, and installing the necessary switches, etc., to operate it. So, it isn't simply sticking a rack and some bombs on the plane.

Sure, you have to rewire or even replace/enhance some electronics. But compare that effort to what it would take to turn a B-52 into a fighter?

 

[Archibald]

I think a time honored rule of thumb is that in a pinch any fighter can be turned into a bomber, but not necessarily vice versa.

But to do that, requires wiring the plane for the bomb release system, and installing the necessary switches, etc., to operate it. So, it isn't simply sticking a rack and some bombs on the plane.

Sure, you have to rewire or even replace/enhance some electronics. But compare that effort to what it would take to turn a B-52 into a fighter?

Depends, if you put a palletized AWG-9 with a truckload of Phoenix in the bomb bay, with a SNAP RTG to power the whole thing...

 

[martinbayer]

I think a time honored rule of thumb is that in a pinch any fighter can be turned into a bomber, but not necessarily vice versa.

But to do that, requires wiring the plane for the bomb release system, and installing the necessary switches, etc., to operate it. So, it isn't simply sticking a rack and some bombs on the plane.

Sure, you have to rewire or even replace/enhance some electronics. But compare that effort to what it would take to turn a B-52 into a fighter?

Depends, if you put a palletized AWG-9 with a truckload of Phoenix in the bomb bay, with a SNAP RTG to power the whole thing...

Ooh, SNAP RTG - you should consider a career in writing techno thrillers...

 

[Archibald]

Wasn't there a story like that, with some "jack of all trades" B-52 ? writting by the Da Vinci Code guy ?

 

[Firefinder]

Need to also to be remembered that those type of mods, modding planes to take weapons they were not design for, were very common at this time and were often Squadron Mechanic level tasking.

The stuff was simpler in the 1950s and 60s with big things breaking more often.

Resulting the mechanics being allowed to work deeper in the craft then they are today.


Like in Nam, the Mechanics did switch the Air Force F4s from Aim4s to Aim9s on regular. While in the Navy it was the mainteners job to upgrade the A4 to dumb the Walleyes, which require fitting and wiring in a TV and radio datalink.

Compare to that, modding a F106 to drop dumb bombs is easy.

 

[martinbayer]

Wasn't there a story like that, with some "jack of all trades" B-52 ? writting by the Da Vinci Code guy ?

The one name and title that comes to mind with respect to literary B-52 shenanigans is Dale Brown's Flight of The Old Dog, but since I never read it (and unless forced I never will, what with life being too short and all anyway, plus I got the latest book by Katie Porter on my nightstand), I honestly don't know if that scratches your particular itch, although you may be confusing the author with Dan Brown (say, you're not one of those persons to whom all Browns look the same, are you ?)

 

[Archibald]

That's the one, yes. Even if I got my Browns wrong. Never bothered to read it, either.

(say, you're not one of those persons to whom all Browns look the same, are you

Brownies ?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9mrq4Vq_qE

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, I'd say the F-106 fighter-bomber version was at least tested...

Tested in jest

View attachment 701483

That's how you end up with a fighter bomber... The general says, "Great idea! I want this..." The next thing you know, you are now having to work extra hours to rewire your plane for bomb racks...

 

[martinbayer]

Now imagine the hilarity that would ensue if said general looked at a B-52 and expressed his desire for a bomber fighter - rewiring would be the least of your troubles...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Now imagine the hilarity that would ensue if said general looked at a B-52 and expressed his desire for a bomber fighter - rewiring would be the least of your troubles...

If you were smart, you'd slow play that one until you could retire. Then it's somebody else's problem...

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wasn't there a story like that, with some "jack of all trades" B-52 ? writting by the Da Vinci Code guy ?

Dale Brown, not Dan Brown.

Flight of the Old Dog and several following stories feature very pimped out B-52s. SST nose, F15E equivalent radar, V tail, lots of radar-transparent composites, searchlight absorbent paint (think WW2 Night Fighter black), and loaded with everything in the USAF inventory short of a nuke. Some stories even swap out the old engines with 4x civilian turbofans.

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-106 "long nose" test aircraft and F-106X project

"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."

Any idea what 50,000lb thrust engine this would be?

I cannot imagine, a J58 is only about 35klbs. Maybe a J93 or GE4?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, with a bomber, you set it up so the bad guys come to you...