chr2011
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7
Location:
Joined: February 2011
|
Post by chr2011 on Feb 16, 2011 4:34:14 GMT 9
Dear Sirs:
I have a few questions regarding F-106 turn performance.
- If the F-106 was flying at sea level, and was going at a speed of 400 knots, and the pilot pulled all the way back on the stick in a level turn, would he exceed the 7 g structural limit at that speed and altitude? Would he be able to attain 9 g's? How long would it take the F-106 to bleed its speed down to 300 knots when performing such a turn?
- If the F-106 was flying at sea level, and was going at a speed of 650 knots, and the pilot pulled all the way back on the stick in a level turn, would it be possible for the aircraft to exceed 10 g's at such a high airspeed? How long would it take the F-106 to bleed its speed down to 300 knots when performing such a turn?
Is it true that some century series jet aircraft, at high speeds at sea level, could actually sustain high G turns without bleeding much airspeed, but if they pulled a high G turn at lower airspeeds they would not have the same amount of thrust at lower airspeeds, thus they would bleed off airspeed much more rapidly?
In the F-106A Pilot's manual, is all the data provided to answer such questions and to understand the turn performance of the F-106?
Thanks very much,
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 16, 2011 6:06:08 GMT 9
Have fwded your query to 6 106 airplane drivers in the hope that they will endeavor to help you out.... Not sure what you mean by a level turn- no gain or loss of altitude versus a/c remaining level in a turn??? That is a hell of a lot of yaw and in some a/c could induce a flat spin............
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 16, 2011 9:36:33 GMT 9
One reply from M Ross Shulmister, LtCol USAF retired 27th FIS.. The Old Sarge..........
These were questions posed long ago. I never did see anyone answer them.
First, the F-106 structural limit was 12 g, and anything 8 g or over required a structural inspection (I pulled 8.2 during air-to-air "training" - the bird was fine). As I recall, altitude was irrelevant to g-limits. Drop tanks affected g-limits (even if empty) - don't remember what they were.
At 8.2 g's I grayed out, even with a g-suit and grunt maneuver. At 10 g's a pilot in an F-106 would black out. Pilot tolerance of g's is a function of physical fitness, height, and other physiological conditions (g-suit increases tolerance).
Power settings affect the answers to the other questions. Trying to pull g's without increasing power would result in a rapid loss of airspeed, under any conditions.
The F-106 was the most nimble of the Century series. The question about sustained high g's at sea level would have to define "high g's". The Dart could easily fly at 3 g's sustained, and I suspect it could handle 4 g's sustained. But I don't know, and I don't recall whether the Dash One had charts in it to get that info. If you kick in the afterburner, I suspect that you could get well over 4 g's sustained (but you might run out of fuel pretty fast).
I have bcc'd a copy to an expert F-106 pilot - he may decide to jump in with some data (or not).
M. Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 16, 2011 9:39:06 GMT 9
2nd reply from another 27thFIS pilot...........Capt. Roger D'entremont
This reply is coming from way out of the woodwork because my memory is a bit cloudy.
But it is nice to relive my wayward youth.
I don't know about pulling way back on the stick. That was not my consideration when at high speeds and pulling Gs.
The high speeds at low level caused a lot of Gs just by turning sharply.
The standard rate of turn in the 106 required a 45 degree bank angle. GO forces were minimal.
A 90 degree wing angle at low level high speed could be mild or have considerable GO force.
I used to pull back on the stick until I got tunnel vision, which was around 7 or 8 Gs.
Normally at lower altitudes it was better to reduce the throttle when trying to get the shortest turn radius, therefore combining a high GO turn and reducing the turn radius at the same time.
A very true example of high speed and GO force.
Armed Forces Day, May 1964
The Canadian NORAD Command Center at North Bay, Ontario, Canada wanted a flyby of all current NORAD fighters.
I volunteered to fly the F-106 at this wonderful event. Colonel Thompson said OK, but reminded me that I had a wife and 3 kids.
The flyby briefing was that each aircraft was to fly over the runway at about 1000 feet and 300 knots.
We were then supposed to make a 90-270 degree turn and reverse our course.
Each aircraft was allotted 3 minutes for the entire maneuver.
The crowd was about a half mile to the left of the runway.
All the aircraft were in a holding pattern about 5 miles from the field.
I was at 9 or 10 thousand feet because I was the newest model and the last of the boring show.
I remember stopping my descent in the holding pattern at around 5,000 feet.
I intended to make a fast run, way over the 300 knot limit.
Note: I was getting out of the USAF in July and figured that if they busted me from flying status I'd only loose about 3 months flight pay.
I dove the 6 towards the crowd and passed over the mob at 50 feet and 700 knots (I didn't want to break the sonic barrier over the crowd)
I banged the afterburner over the crowd and commenced A 90 degree bank climbing right turn.
I came out of burner before turning 90 degrees on the compass.
When I had turned 90 degrees from my original heading (still climbing) I rolled left to complete the 270 degree turn which lined me back up with the crowd.
I came back over the crowd at 50 feet and 700 knots.
Elapsed time 45 seconds
Max Gs (I didn't pull the stick hard at all) 8 Gs
Max altitude at top of reverse turn 10,000 feet
All the above due to the high speed at low level.
I entered the traffic pattern and then pulled into parking.
Two USAF Generals met me as I deplaned.
"That a way kid, about time someone livened up this show"
I thought I was going to be severely reprimanded, but thankfully that never happened and I lived out my remaining USAF months in peaceful harmony at Loveable Loring.
Fondest memories of another time.
Roger
Will add to post as I receive replies back........ The Old Sarge
.
``````````````````````
-----
|
|
|
|
Post by steve201 (deceased) on Feb 16, 2011 10:18:38 GMT 9
man...reading that last story ...I sure miss the 6!!!....still an awesome airplane....
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Feb 16, 2011 11:03:50 GMT 9
Pilot tolerance of g's is a function of physical fitness, height, and other physiological conditions (g-suit increases tolerance). M. Ross Those are both great stories. Great info actually. I recall taking a tour of the Fairchild AFB aviation phsyiology lab back around 1979/1980, and one of the speakers talked about the "ideal" physical type to fly high-Gs. As I remember it, this "specimen" would be short (less distance from the heart to the brain), very strong (self-explanatory), and with somewhat of a gut (to assist with grunting, and the like)! So much for the tall, lean-mean, fighting machine type! Of course, with the USAF requiring a waist measurment of no more than 39" these days, those guys will be out of here soon enough. I am so glad I'm retiring!! Great stories guys! Mark |
|
MOW
Administrator 
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,822 
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Feb 16, 2011 19:59:10 GMT 9
Great stories! And as for the "ideal" physical type... I've got the gut covered :salute :salute I had 3 different incentive rides in B model sixes, rewards for awards, and loved every one of them. My first was prior to getting my taxi license at K.I. After I did get my taxi license it was always a thrill taxiing down the taxiway to the trip pad just remembering that first ride. And no, I never had the urge to try and lift off :  like some other guys I know used to try and make us believe they did... I never fell for the 3 yards of flight line gag either  |
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,822
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Feb 16, 2011 20:02:10 GMT 9
I moved this to the There I Was War Stories. I think this one could grow :2thumbsup
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 17, 2011 0:17:45 GMT 9
For you 48th guys, here is a reply from one of your drivers AJKelly
From: John Kelly <flypapa@>
To: viperpilot1; MRoss849@Cc: 106-Jim Gier The Old Sarge <irishafone@q.com>; rdent12@ disz@ 106-Ted Feasel <tfeasel@>
Sent: Tue, February 15, 2011 9:21:54 PM
Subject: Re: 106 flight characteristics
Beware of EXPERTS, I know too many of them!
FYI - After F-86L training, I checked out in the F-102 in 1959, and transited into the F-106 in 1960 in a bright new "Six." In '62, went back to the Deuce when I went to USAFE. In 1966, assigned to IWS as a F-106A/B Weapons Instructor, but mostly flew the F/TF-102, until 1969 when I went to SEA flying F-4C/D. In 1971, I was back in Six, and by 1972, I was giving check rides again in both the Deuce and Six, as well as, the T-Bird. In 1974, someone said "you can't do that" and they took me out the F-102. After AWC, I flew the RF-5A & F-5B/E/F (Some F-4E) with the IIAF, until coming back to the F-106 in 1978, In 1980, the day before I retired I flew three F-106 sorties to say "goodbye" to units in 25AD. Maybe, I should have stayed for President Reagan?
I only want to now say, "Been There, Done That." I was deeply involved with ACM/ACT/DACT, or whatever, for my entire 22+ years of flying Fighters and/or Interceptors, including several highly classsified programs, some that are now being de-classified. I remember every detail.
The F-102 was far more nimble that the F-106, as Six pilots discovered in College Dart training. As I recall, the G-limit was 7.3, but that was exceeded easily and regularly with no ill effects. However, I remember clearly when Jim Price "pulled the wings off" trying to recover a F-106A from straight down, and when Howard Dean could not in a F-106B. Their wingman could only watch and report the facts.
Convair cleverly designed both aircraft so, at high Q-speeds, there was not enough hydraulic pressure to over-G the aircraft. The F-106B was much worse than the "A model." Strangely, the Dash One for the F-102 covered this in great detail, but did not for the F-106A/B. Howard Dean and I discussed this very subject in detail just days before he was killed. I was in the Pentagon arguing the design of the Low-Ball2/FX/F-15 concept, when the meeting was interrupted to tell me about Howard's death.
Inertia-coupling was also covered in F-102 book, but not for the F-106. I always thought the F-106 book was written by engineers, and the F-102 written by test pilots, who had been there. Apparently, political correctness had begun! I wish, I had not turned in those books and still had mine.
I can say now without fear of courtmartial, that the F-106 is the only aircraft that I personally flew well beyond the IAS/Mach, Altitude, and G limits. I never hurt one either! I always told my crew chief, of an over-G.
I did break engine mounts on the F-4C when my GIB pulled on the pole coming off a MK-36 laydown at 600 knots IAS, 100AGL. Ten Gs were registered. While the F-4C/D/E, etc..., was a great airplane and fun to fly, I have always felt sorry for guys that never flew anything but. I wish, I could flown the 104 and 105, but I am satisfied with what I have done.
The crew chiefs were, and have always been, my idols and heros, particularly, Mine!
A J Kelly, LtCol, CAP & USAF Retired
Commander, Skagit Composite Squadron WA-046
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:13:23 -0500
The Viper Pilot <viperpilot1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It would be interesting to compare notes ....
>
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 17, 2011 0:23:45 GMT 9
Looks like I might have put 2 former 48th guys in touch, remember the Tazmainian Devil?  ?? From: richard stultz Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 10:44 PM To: John Kelly ; viperpilot1@; MRoss849@Cc: 106-Jim Gier The Old Sarge ; rdent12@; 106-Ted Feasel Subject: Re: 106 flight characteristics Hey, Greetings, AKJelly, Awesome bio! When you came to the 48th I thought you were just another Pentagon wienie!! I had that drawing of you and the composite air-defense system you had proposed....you can see them in the attachments. OK, so now what are your answers to Jim's questions? I'm saving mine but I'll tell you why,.....later! Dick Stultz |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 17, 2011 6:40:11 GMT 9
As Col Shulmister promised, here is some more info.............
From my buddy who is an authority on the Delta Dart:
Ross
I'll send these to you and you can send on.
G Limits
A less than 7700 lb fuel Max Manuever Warn Light Out Symmetrical -3 to 7 Rolling 0 to 5
Max Manuever Warn Lignt On -2.3 to 5 Rolling 0 to 3.6
A more than 7700 lb fuel Symmetrical -2.4 to 5 Rolling 0 to 3.9
B less than 7300 lb fuel Max Manuver Warn Light Out Symetrical 2.4 to 6.0 Rolling 0 to 4.3
Max Manuver Warn Light On Symetrical -1.8 to 4.5 Rolling 0 to 3.3
B more than 7700 Lb Fuel Symmetrical -2.4 to 5 Rolling 0 to 3.9
A & B with 360 Gallon External Tanks with fuel Symmetrical -2.4 to 5 Rolling 0 to 3.9
A & B with empty 360 gallon tanks same as clean airplane
At 400 knots and sea level the F-106 could exceed 7 Gs The dash one does not show bleed offs or g capability beyond the limit. It could do this from 365 knots up to mach 1.
Supersonic, the '6 wasn't good at pulling G's. Elevons lost their effectiveness at Mach 1. One would not want to be diving supersonic. The tactic was to slow to subsonic, and then pull out.
As with any airplane the F-106 weight to thrust ratio would determine how may g's the plane could sustain. The Six with the delta wing had a very high drag when it was loaded up. At low altitude high airspeeds you could easily over g the plane.
I seem to remember stories of guys pulling 9 to 10 gs so that could be possible.
I do not have the Dash-1 so don't know if that could answer any of the other questions.
I don't know how you describe nimble but the "Deuce" could turn much tighter than the six but with less thrust couldn't do it very long. If I had the choice of the two in a fight I would take the six every time.
Tom
Me, too. Always take advantage of your opponent's shortcomings. Pilots who do not, will end up on the losing side.
As a cadet, I got to ride in a tub - sold me on the delta wing fighter - like flying a Cadillac.
Had to settle for Thuds out of pilot training, but that got me a Dart assignment after SEA . . .
M. Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 17, 2011 8:26:27 GMT 9
OK, chr2011, Col Dick Stultz former SAMA f-106 test pilot and former 48th FIS driver has answered each of your questions... The Old Sarge
To Jim, and other air to air officionados
Answering some queries from the old Sarge who used to fix what we used to break in air to air in our "Interceptors."
My old-guy-best-guess-without-Boyd's EM charts, while flying from the seat of my pants here at my MAC which is capable of handling 1.5Gs answering your questions, best I can, regarding F-106 turn performance: (Apologies for my ancient dialogue which, I am sure has been much approved upon by the "Teens Fighter Pilots."
- If the F-106 was flying at sea level, and was going at a speed of 400 knots, and the pilot pulled all the way back on the stick in a level turn, would he exceed the 7 g structural limit at that speed and altitude? NO, it shouldn't exceed the limits theoretically, but due to rapidity of input you can cause an overshoot; it is not fun and you must be physically prepared to handle a snap stick input at 400 as it could hurt the pilot more than the plane. With ANY adverse coupling the 106 could be damaged. I have seen rivets popped on the bottom leading edge of the wings just outboard of where the wing joins the fuselage. Also, where the backbone meets the vertical stabilizer, the rivets and sheet metal coverings have been warped and rivets pulled through the skin. The major breaks came in engine mount breaks which were found on engine removal. Also, wing tips have been ripped off and have a tendency to hit the tail or speed brake areas. Over Gs were getting to be routine especially when ACT training mission #6 was flown because a last "ditch maneuver" was supposed to be demonstrated and practiced until the student got it right. (Do not do this below 5k for altitude recovery considerations or above 30K for spin/stall warning considerations) That consisted of defending yourself from a enemy close in gun attack, by quickly changing stick and rudder controls from a rudder down, high G stick back position (in a defensive hard turn of 6-7 Gs) and then rapidly, but in almost a timed controlled (to no more than one to 1.5 seconds) maneuver, push the stick to the opposite corner of the turn, maintaining down rudder which reverses turn direction as you go into a negative G situation, and then rapidly coming back on the stick smoothly enough to control your turn in completely the opposite direction, at which time, if you have executed the maneuver correctly, had your seat belt tied down Very tightly, and no loose objects in the cockpit, would have reversed on your opponent for enough time to disengage or reposition. Interestingly, this very same maneuver is described by Eric Hartmann in his book, The Blond Knight of Germany. Turning the 106 in such a fashion is tantamount to performing like a biplane doing a modified lomchevak. At lower altitude with hi Q, it was easy and routine to exceed the assymetric load limits...the Convair Engineers went bonkers when it was explained to them what we were routinely doing, by the syllabus. Many IPs ignored the last ditch maneuver all together (AJ Kelly probably didn't, but I know every time the ride #6 came up on the schedule, Flight instructors Glen Connally and Jim Aycock would substitute me to fly their mission. With full afterburner you have just under 7 Gs available and can maintain max performance turn down to 350 knots(Corner Velocity) if you are at a less than half fuel state and tankless, at sea level. An F-4 can out accelerate the 6 but a six can stay inside the turn but will be flying a slower corner speed, smaller circle until ground impact. Due to speed problems at hi Q, a Mig 21 would have control as well as visibility problems in a turning fight below 15K.
Would he be able to attain 9 g's? NO! 9G capability at 4Gs How long would it take the F-106 to bleed its speed down to 300 knots when performing such a turn? As the hydraulic limit of the hinge moment on the 106 theoretically limits its maximum turn, rapid input to a snap pull can cause an overshoot into a stall condition where you lose ALL speed.
- If the F-106 was flying at sea level, and was going at a speed of 650 knots, and the pilot pulled all the way back on the stick in a level turn, would it be possible for the aircraft to exceed 10 g's at such a high airspeed? YEP! As described above. Seen it. Never done it!
Negative 7!! Been there, done that. Assymetrically! Popped them backbone rivets. Found a lot of grit and tools that were on the floor of the cockpit! (Later FCF and BFM/ACT inflight negative G cockpit checks became routine and cockpit FOD disappeared. I hated to see "wrenches" float by!! And sometimes my camera broke out of the tape!
Is it true that some century series jet aircraft, at high speeds at sea level, could actually sustain high G turns without bleeding much airspeed? IF you took all the century series fighters (imagine an F-104, think F-101, think Hun), clean, 1/2 fuel load and align them at just under supersonic and executed maximum performance turn, ALL , if they had enough wing, will eventually bleed off airspeed. No century series (maybe the Israeli Kfir) had a thrust to weight of greater than 1 to 1 so they all would lose energy at the max limit of the G turns....and that is where airplanes used to dogfight because it meant getting the guns onto the enemy in the fastest way possible. If you had really good eyesight and visual calculating skills, you would go for a gun kill on the front! Sooner, faster, ZIP, ZOW, RRRIPPP, unload and GO AWAY!
but if they pulled a high G turn at lower airspeeds they would not have the same amount of thrust at lower airspeeds, thus they would bleed off airspeed much more rapidly? Theoretically, they have the same thrust, it is a matter of loss of lift, increased drag, and that old thrust to weight formula, complicated now by thrust vectored nozzles!
Well that's my take from the comfort of my stuffed chair...I am tired and old now from attempting to pull Gs, so here to waking you up! I need Dennis Pearson to confirm this and for AJKelly to send me the EM comparative charts, unless Dennis can do that!
Dick
The TAZ
YOU OLD AFCS guys can explain what Q forces/imputs are and did
|
|
Jim Scanlon (deceased)
Senior Staff 
FORUM CHAPLAIN
Commander South Texas outpost of the County Sligo Squadron
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,075
Location:
Joined: July 2007
Retired: USAF
NBA: Spurs
NFL: Niners
MLB: Giants
NHL: Penguins
|
Post by Jim Scanlon (deceased) on Feb 17, 2011 10:16:46 GMT 9
:salute :2thumbsup
Thank you to all who contributed information and experience about the Six turn subject.
It is fascinating information about the Ultimate Interceptor.
Jim Too
:god_bless_usa
|
|
chr2011
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 7
Location:
Joined: February 2011
|
Post by chr2011 on Feb 17, 2011 16:01:51 GMT 9
Thank you, Lt. Col. Shulmister, Capt. D'entremont, Lt. Col. Kelly, and Col. Stultz. I am going to save everything that was posted for my notes. And of course, thank you Jim!
I was studying the F-106 chart from the manual, and it looks like, at sea level, the Six can enter a 7 G envelope at just about mach 0.54, which would be 348 knots.
Here's the data from the chart (doing the best I can buy looking at the chart which only gives mach numbers in even numbers along the bottom of the chart):
1 G: Mach 0.20 (129 knots)
2 G: Mach 0.27 (174 knots)
3 G: Mach 0.36 (232 knots)
4 G: Mach 0.41 (264 knots)
5 G: Mach 0.45 (290 knots)
6 G: Mach 0.50 (322 knots)
7 G: Mach 0.54 (348 knots)
No information is given for G envelopes past 7.
Could someone fill in these G's also?
8 G:
9 G:
10 G:
11 G:
12 G:
Thanks a lot,
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Feb 18, 2011 1:15:12 GMT 9
Chris, believe I have finally run out of experts with Dennis Parson's reply to Col Stultz........................ Sounds like you have a copy of the dash one flight manual, or are you buliding a flight simulator? ? Subject: Re: 106 flight ? Hey Taz, Looks to me like you pretty much nailed it. It's all about corner velocity. 'Corner' being that magical speed at which you can create the maximum allowable G without overloading (Over-G ing) the aircraft. That speed varies with aircraft weight (primarily) and air density. Now -- being able to SUSTAIN that speed while maintaining maximum G is a function of thrust and any outside influences which may increase the aircraft's performance (such as lower altitudes and cooler temperatures). As an example; the F-15C, with the PW-220 engines, had a typical 'corner' of about 418KCAS. But, at 20K feet, you could touch 9g's, but immediately and rapidly bleed off airspeed and, therefore be too slow to even attain 9 G's. Take that same jet up to Cold-Lake Canada, drop down to about 3K MSL, push it up to 435KCAS and now you can make a sustained, 9 G turn and keep it turning until you ran out of fuel -- or blood in the brain! Comparison between aircraft requires overlaying energy diagrams (Ps curves). Cheers, Wood Man Believe that Wood Man has also provided you with the means to calculate answers to your last question....... The problems would be the same whether it was a Cessna 172 or an F-22------------ when I was younger, 7-8 g was nothing, as I got older (til I lost my license 42 years ago) 4-5 gs was getting to be my limit............... Basically, it amounts to who gives up first, the a/c or the driver....... BTW, it doesn't make too much difference whether they are pos or neg gs- they both have an affect on performance.......... On the a/c they are accummulatively detrimental ....... The Old Sarge |
|
Gian Vito
F-106 Qualified
Airman first class in the '90 (2nd wing, italian air force)
Currently: Offline
Posts: 30
Location:
Joined: September 2007
|
Post by Gian Vito on Mar 17, 2011 4:01:47 GMT 9
This is a very very interesting argument ! May I ask you something else ?
What about the Dart’s acceleration?
From the “history” of the F-106, in this website:
“…In addition, the F-106A's acceleration was significantly below Convair's estimates, and it took almost 4 1/2 minutes to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 1.7 and another 2 1/2 minutes to accelerate to Mach 1.8. With such poor acceleration, it was felt that Mach numbers above 1.7 would not be tactically usable.
The poor speed and acceleration was cured by altering the aircraft's air intake cowling and charging ejectors. The capture area of the intake ducts was enlarged and the duct lips were thinned down. “
So, after many improvements, the F-106 did well. But I didn’t find anything about the acceleration of the improved 106. Do you know ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 17, 2011 10:48:31 GMT 9
This is a very very interesting argument ! May I ask you something else ? What about the Dart’s acceleration? From the “history” of the F-106, in this website: “…In addition, the F-106A's acceleration was significantly below Convair's estimates, and it took almost 4 1/2 minutes to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 1.7 and another 2 1/2 minutes to accelerate to Mach 1.8. With such poor acceleration, it was felt that Mach numbers above 1.7 would not be tactically usable. The poor speed and acceleration was cured by altering the aircraft's air intake cowling and charging ejectors. The capture area of the intake ducts was enlarged and the duct lips were thinned down. “ So, after many improvements, the F-106 did well. But I didn’t find anything about the acceleration of the improved 106. Do you know ? Gianvito, have forwarded your question to the SIX drivers that provided the previous answers and will post them as I get them............... The Old Sarge |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 17, 2011 23:10:20 GMT 9
First reply Gianvito, from Lt Col AJ Kelly
Hi Jim
In 1960-62, at 40,000 feet in level flight, if the Six didn't go from Mach 1 to Mach 2 in less than 3 minutes, it was a failed functional check flight. I flew several of these flights, and not many were rejected because of poor acceleration.
On one flight, Mach 2 was on the meter in less than 2 minutes, and at just under Mach 2.5, I came out of afterburner. I had already pulled the "go-fast" lever back some to stay under than 106.5 % RPM limit.
This was before much was said about the outside air temperature at 40K in weather briefings.
AJK
|
|
Gian Vito
F-106 Qualified
Airman first class in the '90 (2nd wing, italian air force)
Currently: Offline
Posts: 30
Location:
Joined: September 2007
|
Post by Gian Vito on Mar 19, 2011 6:29:27 GMT 9
Thank you very much ! That’s incredible !
If I remember correctly, the F-104G and Lightning F.6 performances were 0.9-2 Mach in 3 minutes, perhaps at 36000 ft. Nowadays the EF 2000 Typhoon makes 0.9-2 Mach in 2 minutes.
It’s difficult to compare, because of the higher drag between 0,9-1 Mach, but the 106’s acceleration was surely amazing !
|
|
like some other guys I know used to try and make us believe they did... I never fell for the 3 yards of flight line gag either 
