finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Jul 9, 2012 7:59:27 GMT 9
Questions about speed. 1.) I know that top speeds are mostly irrelevant. The time that a Mach 2 fighter actually goes Mach 2 is negligible. Takes a long time to achieve, burns too much fuel with afterburner, and air combat happens at lower speeds. Acceleration, time to altitude and nowadays supercruise are more important than maximum speed. However, what was the maximum speed of the Six? Wikipedia tells "Mach 2.3 (1,525 mph, 2,455 km/h"), but then the article says something odd: "F-106A : Modified F-106 with improved performance. Maximum speed at least Mach 2.5, with some estimates as high as Mach 2.85 in level flight. "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_DartSo is that a theoretical estimation, or did somebody achieve those dash speeds, briefly and unofficially? 2.) A few years back a Finnish aviation magasine "Siivet/The Wings" published a praising article about the Six. They notified the Mach 2.31, but claimed that above Mach 1.9 the plane became unmaneuverable. Any truth in that? I know that by the laws of physics more speed means larger turn radius, so a Mach 3 plane goes only very straight indeed. But did the Six have that 1.9 limit and after that in could only go straight where the nose was pointing? 3.) What would have been typical interception speeds approaching say, really attacking Bears? 4.) Somebody else here was going to ask this, but it seems not have happened so: Was there some speed limitation for launching the Falcons and the Genie?
|
|
|
Post by bear (Deceased) on Jul 11, 2012 0:08:44 GMT 9
We had one leave Edwards going to Castle.. Burner lite to shut down 19 minutes, he never came out burner till he was out of sight, how fast according to the pilot all kinds of warning lites.
Bear
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jul 11, 2012 4:37:48 GMT 9
Well, if somebody has the Dash One, V-ne should be listed in that...
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,821
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Jul 11, 2012 6:35:22 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 11, 2012 8:32:15 GMT 9
All American Speed Records and those for International records are set in a closed straight ahead run 180 deg to each other. That is to say North to South and South to North or any other compass quadrants. The only difference between air, land and water is that there is generally an altitude requirement for air... To my knowledge the Six did NOT become unmaneuverable or uncontrolable at high MACH speeds.... The only need for HIGH MACH speeds is to either catch up to a target OR to get to hell away from some bad ass. Any vehicle, regardless of whether it is an airplane, car, truck, motorcyle, or boat, all lose speed in a turning manuver, and depending on how violent the turn is, they may lose their life.... As for pilots, since sometime around 1917, or so there has be a saying" there are bold pilots, and there are old pilots, BUT there are no old bold pilots"... I have no doubt whatsoever that there are Six pilots who belong to this forum that will verify that every one of the listed envelopes for the Six performance have been exceeded by someone at sometime. As for launch speed restrictions for the Falcon series missles, I don't know, but they were suppose to be capable of M3.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jul 12, 2012 10:02:33 GMT 9
Flying clean with less than 7700 lb fuel max design airspeed was 752KCAS or Mach 2, whichever occurred first. No transonic difficulties...in fact inherent engine vibration was said to smooth out at higher/supersonic speeds. Was susceptible to "stall buzz" which was a compressor stall at speeds above Mach 1.25. Most commonly encountered when shutting down afterburner near limit speed at high altitude.
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jul 12, 2012 13:23:12 GMT 9
For the uninitiated--which I doubt any of us are, but just in case some curious sort sees this thread someday, V-ne = "Velocity - NEVER EXCEED", as in "go any faster and you WILL tear the aircraft apart"...
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jul 14, 2012 12:39:58 GMT 9
I'm used to seeing V L where L = Limit and is often refered to as the design limit. BTW the numbers I cited previously were good for 35,000 ft and higher. Below that max speed was significantly less.
|
|
|
Post by LtCol M. Ross Shulmister on Jul 15, 2012 21:34:46 GMT 9
Okay, I flew the '6 from 1968 to 1970, and in 1970 I led a flight of two that intercepted a squadron of Bears east of Gander.[/color] [/font]
1.) I know that top speeds are mostly irrelevant. The time that a Mach 2 fighter actually goes Mach 2 is negligible. Takes a long time to achieve, burns too much fuel with afterburner, and air combat happens at lower speeds. Acceleration, time to altitude and nowadays supercruise are more important than maximum speed.
However, what was the maximum speed of the Six? Wikipedia tells "Mach 2.3 (1,525 mph, 2,455 km/h"), but then the article says something odd:
"F-106A : Modified F-106 with improved performance. Maximum speed at least Mach 2.5, with some estimates as high as Mach 2.85 in level flight. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-106_Delta_Dart
So is that a theoretical estimation, or did somebody achieve those dash speeds, briefly and unofficially?[/color][/font]
I never had the opportunity (or need) to go more than Mach 1.4, but other pilots discussing a Mach 2 run suggest it was slow to achieve, and drained the fuel tanks very quickly. So, was 2.3 possible? Yeah, possible, although it may have required a descending (rather than a level) flight path. 2.85 in level flight? I'd say – no way.[/color] [/font]
2.) A few years back a Finnish aviation magasine "Siivet/The Wings" published a praising article about the Six. They notified the Mach 2.31, but claimed that above Mach 1.9 the plane became unmaneuverable. Any truth in that? I know that by the laws of physics more speed means larger turn radius, so a Mach 3 plane goes only very straight indeed. But did the Six have that 1.9 limit and after that in could only go straight where the nose was pointing?[/color][/font]
The '6 was very very stable. Several pilots did Mach 2 runs, usually as orientation for new Six pilots arriving from CCTS or upgrade (I upgraded from the F-105). There was never any mention of the least bit of instability (except, perhaps, at low speeds when it was about to fall out of the air).
As for supersonic manueverability, the elevons became less effective at supersonic speeds. In air-to-air combat practice I had the occasion to go supersonic with the nose pointed down. I followed the procedure, which was to pop speed brakes to get subsonic in order to pull out. As the Six became subsonic, the elevons became very effective, and I "pegged" the G-meter at 8.3 (inspection required, but no evidence of any structural stress – and keep in mind that there is usually a 30-50% design buffer between what appears in the manual and what actually exists).[/color] [/font]
3.) What would have been typical interception speeds approaching say, really attacking Bears?[/color][/font]
Kinda depends. Bears would fly around 350-400 kts. For a frontal or angled intercept, speed would be whatever is desired (or necessary) for a successful intercept. For a tail chase, which is what we had off Gander, I chose min afterburner, which gave us Mach 1.3. We dropped out of A/B about 20-30 miles from the intercept. Go too fast and you risk overshooting before locking onto the target.[/color] [/font]
4.) Somebody else here was going to ask this, but it seems not have happened so: Was there some speed limitation for launching the Falcons and the Genie?
[/color] Don't recall. Someone else will surely have that answer.
M. Ross Shulmister, LtCol, USAF Retired[/font][/size]
|
|
flypapajohn
New to the Flightline
Currently: Offline
Posts: 4
Location:
Joined: March 2007
|
Post by flypapajohn on Jul 16, 2012 1:38:34 GMT 9
www.f-106deltadart.com/speedrecord.htmMajor Joe Rogers sets the speed record of Mach 2.31 (average speed of 1525.95mph) at 40m in 56-0467, a stock aircraft, on 15 December 1959. (Joe only smiled when decussing this event. He liked the YF-12 even better.) The F-106 had no weird flight characteristics, in my opinion. I flew many test flights (1960-62) to Mach 2+. On one flight I reached almost Mach Two and a Half, and she wanted to got faster.. Our test profile called for Mach 2 in three minutes or less flat out at 40,000 feet. So, I usually went to 3 minutes which put me beyond Mach 2. Reaching Mach 2 in less than 2 minutes was a real ride, so why not let her go. I learned the colder to outside air, the faster she went, however, we had no way to read OAT in the cockpit. No one seems to wonder how high the f-106 will fly?? A J Kelly (AKA: A K Jelly)
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 16, 2012 2:56:56 GMT 9
OK, finnwolf and dude, I have contacted 2 of our 106 expert pilots, who have answered similar questions here before... Use the seach part and their usernames to find their posts.. Also posts here from Dick Stultz, (user name disz) SMAMA F-106 depot test pilot. As to weapons release speeds, I don't know that it made any difference- the Genie was ballisticaly ejected and the Falcons were rocket launshed off the rails. Whatever speed the aircraft was flying at time of launch was the initial speed of the weapon. Seriously doubt that any pilot would have slowed down to launch any of his weapons, which makes the question moot at the most... Flypapajohn has refuted dude's statements. I wish that when non-drivers make statements about flight characteristics on any aircraft, that they quote page and para graph as authority- ask it as a question rather than as a undocumented statement and someone here will get an answer from a qualified source
|
|
disz
New to the Flightline
Currently: Offline
Posts: 2
Location:
Joined: June 2007
|
Post by disz on Jul 16, 2012 5:23:27 GMT 9
Well placed comments Ol Sarge AND Best wishes for Sandy to get her shoulder in shape to pitch the Fall selection of pancakes!! F-106 SPEED - IS LIFE! My experience in flying the F-106s in the test hops at McClellan mostly but also Langley, Duluth and KI varied from some of the comments by the illustrious fighter pilots previously. Temperature at altitude was the major factor in achieving max speed and I would estimate that I achieved Mach 2 on slightly less than 50% of the sorties due to standard or warmer than standard temps at altitude. In talking with Joe Rogers about his many attempts to break the speed record he said his problems were the following: 1 - Round eye aircraft had a slight lag-lapse in the VVI indicator for which he had difficulty in perceiving early enough to keep him from flying out of the 500 foot criteria tunnel, SO, they drew an artificial horizon line across the windshield splitter to give him a better horizon reference when he was established into the speed run. 2 - Stall buzz caused by vari-ramp, CADC or yaw issues frequently resulted in full up compressor stall with the aircraft going into a 12-17 degree yaw resulting in one vari ramp closing and the other opening up....this would be augmented if you were flying at night by the ejection of numerous fireballs forward from the intakes. These are possibly a aggravation which led to his softspoken but rather high pitched voice. 3 - Joe said that he was also given a control switch to the vari-ramps which allowed him to exceed the full extension of the vari-ramps beyond the T.O. limits which was later incorporated into upgrades. 4 - Joe said using an otherwise, off-the-shelf F-106 from Convair in San Diego, he set the record by doing Mach 2.43 on the first run and 2.41 on the return.....anyway that's what Joe said and I believe him.
The best speed I ever got out of a 6 was a McClellan in a deep cold spell from Siberia wherein the cockpit T indicator gave me an unbelievable 76 degrees below zero readout. On the mach run it was confirmed as the airplane jumped through 1.2 mach and made it to 1.5 exceedingly fast and I still had a lot of gas to burn. I don't recall all the numbers as my mind sometimes, but not often, was slower than the airplane....and the red line normally at 2.0 had dropped below the line on the taped indicator....With good gas, a Max Maneuver light came on at just above mach 2.1 so I let her ride on out and at 2.21 decided to start the pullback to climb for slow down.....I took her up and as she slowed below mach 1.8 at 55,000 I retarded the throttle (As I had learned too often that to move the throttle, above 1.8 always resulted in a compressor stall but you could come out of AB above 1.8 as long as the throttle range did not change) I topped out at just under 65,000 and was ready to get back to a better pressurized atmosphere.....the AFM60-16 was written to allow snap up flights like this without the necessity for a pressure suit, but it was really a gamble as TUC is only 5-9 seconds if you blow pressure.
I have heard "stories" from geriatric minds that have conjured up flights above mach 2.5 and height above 70,000 feet! Guys like that need to get a job at Disneyland in Fantasyland, and since I drove and survived submarines working at Disneyland, I can get em references.
As to high speed intercepts against SR-71 we need to get my Sacramento neighbor, Gary Shepard to add his notes as he was very heavy into the Mach2 snap up attacks practiced at Hamilton in the 84th and I think worked with the Test Squadron at Tyndall when they did VMax snaps against BOMARCs on the Tyndall range......Engines I believe were torqued up EGT must have given the pilots one helluva ride and heartthrobbing experience!! That was more like work!!
INCIDENTLY - ANOTHER ANSWER - Flight test data from actual flights agree with the 106 -1-1 that missile and ATRs fired from the F-106 have minimal effect when fired at high mach.....1.8 and above......confirmed by flight test pilots that I talked to at Tyndall.
Hope this helps. Need to copy this, send it to Shep and get him to sign up. Gary Shepard is the guy that tried to drive his B-Model home down the street at Hamilton after a late night flight. Some people who came to work the next day to find his F-106 Bmodel blocking the street and just thought the guys had a particulary wild night at the Club 94.
DiSz Donch just love this stuff......Incidently, as I was leading a tour there yesterday, the Aerospace Museum of California at McClellan, for some reason, decided to take our pilot and crew chief names off the cockpit of the 106 that we brought up here and worked for two years to put on display. The Shame of It All! Heck, and with his name Martinez, and my name Stultz, we thought we had the political correctness handled with our approach to satisfy the"Diversity" protocols. Sorry this was not just a quick reply.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 16, 2012 9:40:09 GMT 9
|
|
Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2012 11:19:00 GMT 9
great story. its special listening to someone description about having fun.
btw, why is it that so many majors turnout to be villains. this perspective from an e4 who had problems with a few, but never with an LC or above!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 16, 2012 11:34:46 GMT 9
great story. its special listening to someone description about having fun. btw, why is it that so many majors turnout to be villains. this perspective from an e4 who had problems with a few, but never with an LC or above!! Don't know Ron, but these 3 are LC or above, and friends of mine.... The Old Sarge
|
|
Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2012 11:59:13 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by LtCol M. Ross Shulmister on Jul 17, 2012 3:32:20 GMT 9
AJ Kelly notes no one asks about how high the '6 would fly. I can make only a few observations:
1. In ferry configuration (no weapons, full fuel and full externals), the '6 will gradually climb to 41,000 in full military power. As fuel burns off it will get up to slightly above 45,000 feet in level flight at full military power. It won't go much higher subsonic, because the indicated airspeed sits at max L/D – the bottom of the power curve. Once you can no longer maintain max L/D, you cannot continue to fly without adding power (and you're already at max power) or descending. You can read my "There I was..." post:
www.f-106deltadart.com/thereiwas/ross-shulmister1.pdf
2. I decided once to see how high I could go, cognizent of the risks of losing cabin pressure above 63,000 feet. [The altitude at which blood could boil is thought to be somewhere between 63,000 to 72,000 – it's not fixed, because blood pressure inside your vascular system would impede boiling to some extent above the 63,000 foot Armstrong Altitude – the altitude at which water will boil at body temperature. One also needs to be aware that any nitrogen in the blood could begin to come out of solution – i.e., you get the bends.]
At any rate, the afterburner blew out around 50,000 - 52,000 feet and I coasted up to about 58,000 feet. Indicated airspeed was well below max L/D, and (as I recall) somewhere around 140 kts. The engine appeared to be still rotating but I think the fire went out around . . . I , maybe around 54,000 feet. I knew better than to put any pressure on the control surfaces.
The bird gently fell picking up airspeed and the control surfaces began to become effective as I passed 48,000. I remember feeling relieved that the engine was putting out thrust about that time (I seem to recall an automatic re-ignition feature built in). Sure would have hated to have to explain an engine out landing . . . :
I have no doubt it would have been possible to go much higher, by entering the climb while supersonic, and I suspect using that kind of tactic one could have made it up to 70,000 feet or higher. But the '6 would not have had significant maneuvering capability at those altitudes, so like going above Mach 2 – it's of little operational value.
M. Ross Shulmister LtCol, USAF Retired 27th F.I.S.
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Jul 17, 2012 7:32:51 GMT 9
Interesting observations, sir--the only reason I could see for that operationally would be lobbing a blivet as a "kinetic-energy weapon" (which LTC Komnick told me he thought could go suborbital with a good toss, but it'd take either perfect timing from a damn good stick in exactly the right place to work or some serious computer upgrades or both) or if the Six/STARM ASAT concept had been moved farther than "captive carry trial" (which would need the same things).
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 17, 2012 9:54:46 GMT 9
Comon, Diamondback- the Col's posting was not an observation- it was a statement of an actual personal performance. The lobbing of the Genie would have been used against what??? An ICBM? ?? Tossing a Genie into a suborbital path? What altitudes were the Bears generally intercepted? Sure as hell wasn't 58,000 plus!!!!!!!! Are you still sniffing? ( s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=250224 ) You are beginning to sound like robyn c !!!!! Read the Col's post again, without sniffing. The Old Sarge
|
|
|
Post by shadowgunner on Jul 17, 2012 10:22:56 GMT 9
great story. its special listening to someone description about having fun. btw, why is it that so many majors turnout to be villains. this perspective from an e4 who had problems with a few, but never with an LC or above!! because they hadn't made it to LC yet; and not getting there was weighing heavily on their mind. Think of it this way: 1Lts & Capts are on the upward arc of their career. Majors are at the threshold and LtCols have made it past the go-no-go. That's just my observations as I never made it past E6 (got out). I'm sure there are members that are far more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
|
|