delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Feb 7, 2008 12:21:57 GMT 9
I've been told the J-58 was originally developed for a US Navy Interceptor for Mach 3+ speed and was cancelled.
I've been told it was... -An advanced version of the A3J/A-5 Vigilante -The F8U-III, who's original powerplant was to have been the J-58 -An advanced version of the F8U-III Super Crusader
Does anybody have any clue as to what that interceptor design actually was?
Delta2477A
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Feb 7, 2008 15:09:38 GMT 9
I've been told the J-58 was originally developed for a US Navy Interceptor for Mach 3+ speed and was cancelled. I've been told it was... -An advanced version of the A3J/A-5 Vigilante -The F8U-III, who's original powerplant was to have been the J-58 -An advanced version of the F8U-III Super Crusader Does anybody have any clue as to what that interceptor design actually was? Delta2477A An answer to all of your questions can be found at Google.com, located in their file cabinet under the heading J-58 Navy.
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Feb 7, 2008 20:43:16 GMT 9
Whatever it is, it'll most likely be ugly, the Navy seems to like ugly.
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Feb 8, 2008 2:16:41 GMT 9
Okay, so it was to be an advanced version of the A-3J / A-5? AND an F8U-III variant (or was that just a prototype)
Delta2477A
|
|
Black Bart
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 49
Location:
Joined: March 2007
|
Post by Black Bart on Feb 9, 2008 5:15:18 GMT 9
Delta, the Six pilots don't post much. I don't know why? I wonder just how the Six with a J75 did against an F8U with a J57.
The F8U-3 was another dream machine, except the (I believe) 3 were built. The flat windscreen, F-4, F-14 type would start to turn milky at speeds above Mach 2.3 with enough power left that a top speed of Mach 2.9 and maybe 3 was possible. So you see a Mach 2.3 limit was placed on the Aircraft. A new windscreen was was in the engineering stage, but the program was canceled. I believe the Navy wanted twin engine fighters.
Pilots seem to be funny, in that they all want exclusive rights to their lady, but what a workload. It just seems reasonable that in the F-14, the second man at least had his neck on a swivel to cover his six.
The Super Hornet is a single seater, but even with the latest Avionics, just how great is the workload? Black Bart
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 9, 2008 7:57:14 GMT 9
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Feb 9, 2008 8:39:08 GMT 9
The F8U-III had no guns right?
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Feb 9, 2008 9:19:26 GMT 9
I got to see a lot of the test flights, one of the bennies of being close to vought (and the rest of the companies it's been)
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 9, 2008 9:28:19 GMT 9
The F8U-III had no guns right? Not really sure but I don't think so. The operational Crusaders sure did. They had the best gun kill ratio of any fighter in Vietnam. Or so I've read! Mark
|
|
sixerviper
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 209
Location:
Joined: July 2007
|
Post by sixerviper on Feb 11, 2008 4:22:23 GMT 9
I've heard on several occasions that the F8U-3 Super Crusader was even faster than a Six, but never set the official record. I don't know how accurate that is, but it sure is one wicked-looking jet!! It had the same basic engine, too. Don't know if it was ever planned to fly it with the J-58; it was fast enough with the J-75...
|
|
az09
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 127
Location:
Joined: January 2007
|
Post by az09 on May 1, 2008 0:50:54 GMT 9
General modern engine designations are numbered for each service as they are designed. The NAVY have the even numbers, and the AIR FORCE have the odd numbers.
Use of aircraft and engines by cross-over services are in effect to cause the manufactorer to have sustained work to keep the line going. Yes, the Navy had to take some F-111's while they only wanted the F-14's. The TF-34 engine was built for the SA-3, a sub tracking aircraft. The TF-34 was fitted to the A-10, little knowledge that the turbine design would not hold up to the change of power settings and increases in heat as needed when chasing tanks. American politics at work.
|
|
sixerviper
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 209
Location:
Joined: July 2007
|
Post by sixerviper on May 5, 2008 1:55:55 GMT 9
That theory gets blown out of the water when you look at the F-16 blocks 30, 40, & 50 using the GE F110-GExxx engine and the blocks 10, 15, 25, 32, 42, & 52 using the P&W F100-PWxxx engines.
|
|
az09
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 127
Location:
Joined: January 2007
|
Post by az09 on May 6, 2008 5:03:38 GMT 9
six/viper - The odd and even numbers are design designation for the service when the contracts were let on the engines -- the FOR USE code is not part of the original designation.
The GE / P-W engines in same Aircraft model line is politics keeping favored engine builders in business. It comes down to money and who has the biggest - well you know.
I think they also introduced Moduel Maintenance then too. The closest I got to those engines were when I taught 2 Aircraft Maintenance Officer classes as a Ssgt jet engine instructor in 1974. One of the class leaders had arranged a Day Trip to St. Louis to the factory to see how they build F-15's. Gianormess WOW factor at the time.
|
|
loboheritage
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 8
Location:
Joined: July 2009
|
Post by loboheritage on Jul 25, 2009 4:24:05 GMT 9
I can speak to the F-106/F-8 question. I flew both, plus the F-14. F-106 and F-8 were both great aircraft. Two totally different concepts, however. F-8 was a true day fighter. Yes, we had radar, but the see-it-shoot-it concept was the way to go. It was the greatest plane I flew. The F-106 was higher and faster, but the F-8 was a "one of a kind" machine. I flew over 150 combat missions in the Crusader before I flew the F-106. Loved both airplanes more than the F-14. The F-8 would eat the 106 alive in a dogfight. Period. Besides that, the F-106 couldn't stand a landing at 800 fps on a normal carrier landing!. What was that crack about the Navy liking ugly all about? (Oh, that's right. Forgot about the A-6.) Ed Brown Captain, USN (ret) Exchange pilot to the 318th FIS, 72-74
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Jul 25, 2009 9:26:21 GMT 9
It was the greatest plane I flew. Ed Brown Captain, USN (ret) Exchange pilot to the 318th FIS, 72-74 Very cool Sir! Love the "MiG Master"! Mark
|
|
|
Post by jimpadgett on Jul 25, 2009 21:02:48 GMT 9
Amen on ugly for the A-6 but, the A-10 is no slouch in that department. Remember the frog was really a prince. Just takes the right technique to bring out the real potential. That's why America has the best pilots in the world. Thanks to one of the few who could make the comparison between these different aircraft, Capt Brown.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 26, 2009 1:31:31 GMT 9
Amen on ugly for the A-6 but, the A-10 is no slouch in that department. Remember the frog was really a prince. Just takes the right technique to bring out the real potential. That's why America has the best pilots in the world. Thanks to one of the few who could make the comparison between these different aircraft, Capt Brown. Guess the Capt has had the best of both flying circuses.....Hope that we maintainers can create enough situations to where it becomes necessary for him to chime in.......... Those Old Time Exchange pilots were something else----- in 55, we had a Marine exchange who was a Major assigned to the 72nd Ftr Bmbr Sqdn..........Due to circumstances beyound his control- he became sqdn cmdr......... This was in the days of a "pass in review" parade every and I do mean every month.. When blues were the uniform of the day (when did that disappear?) you never saw a sharper marcher than that Marine in HIS dress blues leading his sqdn of AF blue suits ( not that rag they are wearing today)... As a joke or a needle, when we made our column left to pass in review, the band would strike up "The Marine Hymn"................ We were told by the wing cmdr to wipe that grin off our faces when we passed in review with "eyes right"......... Man could he drink beer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My instructor told me that if you saw the Shraeder valve stems protruding above the wing, you went from a hard landing to a reportable controlled crash......................... The Wart Hog makes any Navy craft beautiful by comparision......................... :drunk :drunk :drunk :drunk :drunk Hopefully we will hear more from the Capt. Lobo........ The Old Sarg
|
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Sept 30, 2016 12:29:32 GMT 9
It's rare a person actually gets to conclude his own thread, but I actually have answers of interest
The J-58: It was a scaled-down version of the J91: It was funded by the US Navy, who wanted a higher-performance reconnaissance-variant of it's A3J/A-5. The design never flew, but progressed to the mock-up stage.
The F8U-3: The aircraft was designed to use the J75: While there were variants that were proposed to use the J58, none really progressed beyond the drawing-board (there were also designs that used MIPCC & J75's, but they seemed more like performance upgrade plans for the future). Like the F-4, it was designed with no guns in mind, and was designed to the same specifications (Intercept radius ≥ 750 nm; loiter of 2.5 hours no less than 150 nm from the carrier, followed by a supersonic dash; maximum speed equivalent to land-based interceptors; 4 x AIM-7C with the ability to destroy three bombers). Because of the higher fuel-fraction, and the ability to fly supersonic without afterburners, it was expected to have an extra half-hour of endurance, and the same projected intercept radius as an F-4 with 1 x 600 gallon tank or 2 x 370 gallons; because of it's greater speed, it allowed a more effective intercept, and the requirements were relaxed to 3 x AIM-7 (despite what most people say, it was to carry 3 x AIM-7C, or 4 x AIM-9B; later on the requirements were amended to require both).
There was interestingly a proposal for an export variant (RAF) that would carry a conformal nuclear-store, a drop-tank, or even a gun-pack, it didn't seem to be taken seriously by the US Navy.
Black Bart,
Workload for the F8U-3 was somewhat higher than the F-4, but it was said to be manageable: It had a HUD so the pilot wouldn't have to keep his head on the scope, the computer automatically computed and displayed intercept vectors, and the aircraft had a mach-hold feature. It was said to work pretty well as is, though they were either going to use a more advanced system which might have been similar to the F-106 (the computer would automatically maneuver the aircraft with the computed intercept vectors), and the USC-2 data-link was to be fitted (it was similar to the SAGE datalink). They were also going to replace the APQ-50 with the larger APQ-72.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Oct 1, 2016 8:44:40 GMT 9
Hey Zipper - Sorry to join the game late but I'm only on the forums via my phone, and it can be a pain sometimes. Anyway, I may have missed it, but was wondering what Six squadron you served in? I'm not a Sixer myself, but am a retired USAF Master Sergeant. I was a KC-135E/R/T dedicated/flying crew chief, and then a C-130E/H/H-1 Instructor Flight Engineer. Currently I am a crew chief on the T-1A Jayhawk in civil service.
The guys here have adopted me as an honorary Sixer. (Long story! Seriously, a REALLY long story!)
Anyway, would love to hear your background on the F-106!
Mark O
|
|