Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2012 11:45:32 GMT 9
makes sense. i thought about that, but just didnt have any support for that theory. I saw majors riffed, but not any other level. I dont even remember any majors as pilots, only one LC, mostly captains. The captains were mostly crazy, the first Lts were cool. most of the seconds if not all were admin, and we had just a very few majors, if my memory isnt totally gone.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 17, 2012 11:59:12 GMT 9
i flew with 2 or 3 , 0-4 and 0-5 's....maybe cause i was a photog ..i dont know... but usually it was a maj. that hauled me around...
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jul 18, 2012 5:06:10 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 T.O. 1F-106A-1 current through supplement 212 dated 15 Feb 1983. Reference Fig. 6-1, Minimum and Maximum Speed Capabilities. Data I cited from sheet 1 on page 6-2 for Clean Configuration (no tanks) with AIR-2A, Level Flight, Standard Atmosphere, Engine J75-17, Fuel Grade JP-4, Fuel Density 6.5lb/gal. Data Basis: Flight Test, 1 Sept. 1961. Model: F-106A. :razz I believe one or both responding pilots made the excellent point that published data is conservative by necessity. Disz...I was with you and the 48th at Tell 78. I crewed avionics for Snake (Grote) on A/C 122. Remember the squadron dinner we had at the Tyndal club? I still remember the little slide show you put on for desert.
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Sept 14, 2012 7:19:34 GMT 9
Thanks for your answers! Looks like the Wikipedia top speed was an exaggeration or a mistake. Maybe some of you have a connection and prestige to correct Wikipedia? The linked PDF-form F-106 handbook is nice. I didn't know they have manuals like that not only for cars, but for military planes as well. Just as short as I have in yhe glovebox of my my Land Rover Most impressive was you real pilots and other professionals and LtCol Shulmister himself taking the trouble to answer! Thank You!!
|
|
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 Dec 23, 2012 4:58:15 GMT 9
“Was there some speed limitation for launching the Falcons and the Genie? “
The question is important. Because many air weapons have some limits. Bombs, auxiliary fuel tanks, air-to air missiles, rockets pods (and so on...) have carriage, ejecting and launching speed limits. There are, also, altitude and “max g” limits. The AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-9 Sidewinder in the ‘60s had launch limits around 1.4 Mach. The AIM-54 Phoenix’s limit was 1.6 Mach. Otherwise, the weapon may fail or damage the carrier.
The AIM-4 Falcon’s limits, however, were very high: 2+ Mach and 70000+ fts altitude. The AIR-2 Genie ? Sorry, I don’t konw. But the rocket was simply released from the bay. I don’t think it could cause any speed issues.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Dec 23, 2012 9:43:48 GMT 9
“Was there some speed limitation for launching the Falcons and the Genie? “ The question is important. Because many air weapons have some limits. Bombs, auxiliary fuel tanks, air-to air missiles, rockets pods (and so on...) have carriage, ejecting and launching speed limits. There are, also, altitude and “max g” limits. The AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-9 Sidewinder in the ‘60s had launch limits around 1.4 Mach. The AIM-54 Phoenix’s limit was 1.6 Mach. Otherwise, the weapon may fail or damage the carrier. The AIM-4 Falcon’s limits, however, were very high: 2+ Mach and 70000+ fts altitude. The AIR-2 Genie ? Sorry, I don’t konw. But the rocket was simply released from the bay. I don’t think it could cause any speed issues. See post # 11 this thread: 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. The rocket was actually EJECTED from the weapons bay
|
|
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 Dec 24, 2012 3:40:10 GMT 9
The AIR-2 Genie launch (F-106):
(F-104: 1.7 Mach speed launch)
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Jan 1, 2013 20:17:45 GMT 9
The AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-9 Sidewinder in the ‘60s had launch limits around 1.4 Mach. The AIM-54 Phoenix’s limit was 1.6 Mach. Otherwise, the weapon may fail or damage the carrier. Really? That sounds like a disadvantage. Not for Sidewinders launched while dogfighting subsonically. But I understand long-range BVR missiles would gain even more range, if they could be launched at the aircraft's top speed? How would they fail or damage the carrier?
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Jan 2, 2013 11:25:07 GMT 9
None of those weapons were assocoiated with the F-106.
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Jan 3, 2013 0:11:14 GMT 9
None of those weapons were assocoiated with the F-106. Duh, I know that!!! My question above was just general interest. (However, a Sidewinder and Sparrow-armed Six would have been neat, IMHO.) Did the better launching speed limits of the Falcons from the Six have something to do with they being lowered with rails, in controlled fashion, not just dropped or ejected? Were the Falcon motors ignited when the missiles were still attached to the rails?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 3, 2013 2:37:54 GMT 9
They were nose heavy and would drop like a bomb til the motor ignited and guidance system took over... Great loss of time and speed making that gigantic turn to find and lockon to the target The reason for launching off a rail system was to allow the rocket motor time to build up the thrust necessary for the missle to over come the speed of the aircraft- regardless of any so called limits. Any thing launched, dropped lost or ejected from any aircraft is, MOMENTARILLY, flying as fast as the aircraft.... As previouily stated by several F-106 PILOTS, SUPERSONIC APPROACH TO ANY TARGET WAS NOT AN IDEAL SITUATION due to potential overshoot..
To forestall your next question: The Genie was ejected from the aircraft, freefalling at the speed of the aircraft, the rocket motor would then ignite.... This was to give the pilot time to make his escape out of the area.
Yes the motors ignited while still on the rails- how else were they going to get off the rail in a flying condition... Also helped get them started straight, unlike the FOLDING FIN Rockets which were subject to tumbling in flight ( personally wittnessed during a salvo launch from the wing pods on a F-94C)
The Old Sarge
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jan 3, 2013 11:02:28 GMT 9
The motor on the AIM-7 ignites when the missile is ejected off the launcher and the umbilical separates from the missile...about 14 inches if memory serves. The missile then executes a roll command that rights the umbilical up to 0 degrees and English Bias commands on the fins cause it to fly not to the target but a point in space where it intercepts the CW transmission from the aircraft that is "painting" the target. At that point it becomes a beam rider until the Doppler shift between the forward and aft antennas in the missile triggers detonation. So only in cases where the target aspect was virtually 0 degrees would it ever shoot straight of the target.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 16, 2021 3:03:14 GMT 9
|
|