johnrcarroll
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 10
Location:
Joined: October 2012
|
F-106X
Oct 25, 2012 2:08:49 GMT 9
Post by johnrcarroll on Oct 25, 2012 2:08:49 GMT 9
I've attached another photo that shows the intake and canard configurations. It's significantly different that the artist conception. Ya suppose that difference has anything to do with the wind tunnel testing, or could these be two similar, but different designs? This model was going to have a big honkin' engine installed. The JT4B-22 . The inlet placement, shape and size all reflected that. |
|
MOW
Administrator 
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,822 
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
F-106X
Oct 25, 2012 18:38:27 GMT 9
Post by MOW on Oct 25, 2012 18:38:27 GMT 9
Roger that, MOW. I'm going to make a complete set and then remove the blue baint and pin striping tape that was obviously an early attempt by the previous owner to do something with this. Then an ultrasonic cleaning bath at 15Khz to clean out the dirt and dust in the pitted surfaces. Still won't be pretty but it'll shine a bit and I can halt the deterioration. Looking at the boom in the LSWT at the San Diego Museum site.... I'll bet this model would go right on it and probably was at one time. The canard and other control surfaces are all mechanically operated through the boom. Please provide an address to send the pics to. Or some way to zip up the lot and post them. You can send me zip files or whatever you have to mcgeepj2@hotmail.com Yes, need a page for this for sure! Good stuff :2thumbsup |
|
johnrcarroll
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 10
Location:
Joined: October 2012
|
F-106X
Nov 5, 2012 7:13:58 GMT 9
Post by johnrcarroll on Nov 5, 2012 7:13:58 GMT 9
Sending the high res photos as jpegs now.
One pic at a time.
Very cool stuff.
And the history is as odd as it is typically American.
Or something.
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,822
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
F-106X
Nov 7, 2012 19:45:43 GMT 9
Post by MOW on Nov 7, 2012 19:45:43 GMT 9
John - got them all just haven't been back in town yet to work with them. Should be leaving the PI here in a few days and will have more time.
|
|
johnrcarroll
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 10
Location:
Joined: October 2012
|
F-106X
Nov 19, 2012 23:45:58 GMT 9
Post by johnrcarroll on Nov 19, 2012 23:45:58 GMT 9
Collectair has the model listed. www.collectair.com/f106xwindtunnelmodel.htmlI'm just leaving everything "as-is" for now but if it doesn't move I'm going to clean it and begin a restoration. I'm also going to create a solid model of it in my computer. That will be something of a pain but worth the effort. I'll keep you informed. And thanks to all for the info. |
|
|
|
F-106X
Nov 20, 2012 1:52:58 GMT 9
Post by Mark O on Nov 20, 2012 1:52:58 GMT 9
Good luck on the sale. I really hope that someone will purchase it for a museum. That definitely needs to be shared.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
F-106X
Oct 20, 2016 14:32:59 GMT 9
Post by zipper730 on Oct 20, 2016 14:32:59 GMT 9
I figure you guys all know this, but there were several proposals for advanced F-106 variants, and these are just those I know about
1. F-106 -w- AN/ASG-18: It had a longer nose and otherwise didn't seem too different from the other F-106 variants.
2. Skyscorcher: It had redesigned inlets with conical spikes and a canard. It carried a multi-megaton warhead that was rocket-propelled. I'm not sure if it used an ASG-18 radar, but if I recall it did have a different engine, which I'm uncertain if it was a J58 (pre bleed-bypass)
3. F-106X: There may have been several proposals (looking at the model depicted), with evidently the final model being the one with the rectangular intakes, the canards, and a transparent clear-fit canopy. It had the provision for 1 x AIM-47, 2 x AIM-26 or 4 x AIM-4 (though Tony Butler's "Secret Projects" described 2 x AIM-47 or AIM-54, this can be taken with a grain of salt). Some sources have stated a top-speed of either Mach 5, or even comparisons in speed with the F-12B proposal. The JT4B-22 was often listed as the engine, though some sources (whether accurate or not) described some other engine such as a J58.
The JT4B-22 (the JT4 is just a civilian designation for the J75) was listed by some sources as a turbofan (which is interesting as most of Pratt & Whitney's turbofans had a -D suffix such as JT3D, which is where the tradition started), a bleed-bypass J75 (like the J58), a turbofan with a bleed-bypass, or a J58 with bleed-bypass. Mach 5 was theoretically possible with any of the following combinations as MIPCC would provided adequate cooling to get it up to such a high speed (provided the airframe was modified to all titanium or honeycomb steel, and enough coolant existed to get it up to speed and keep cooling it as it slowed down below around Mach 2.5-3.0); the bleed-bypass arrangements can obviously achieve substantially greater speed by unloading the compressor, lowering turbine temperatures, and boosting the afterburner. The J58 used JP7 to cool the engine as well as used it as fuel. I've been told that, in theory, JP-4 could be used if the tanks were sufficiently insulated (not sure what this would do for fuel capacity), though another coolant might have been needed for the engine components for maximum top-end speed.
I've seen this come up on the forum years back, and I've researched it to some degree out of of interest.
|
|
|
|
F-106X
Oct 21, 2016 0:32:53 GMT 9
Post by Jim on Oct 21, 2016 0:32:53 GMT 9
I figure you guys all know this, but there were several proposals for advanced F-106 variants, and these are just those I know about The JT4B-22 (the JT4 is just a civilian designation for the J75) was listed by some sources as a turbofan (which is interesting as most of Pratt & Whitney's turbofans had a -D suffix such as JT3D, which is where the tradition started), a bleed-bypass J75 (like the J58), a turbofan with a bleed-bypass, or a J58 with bleed-bypass. Mach 5 was theoretically possible with any of the following combinations as MIPCC would provided adequate cooling to get it up to such a high speed (provided the airframe was modified to all titanium or honeycomb steel, and enough coolant existed to get it up to speed and keep cooling it as it slowed down below around Mach 2.5-3.0); the bleed-bypass arrangements can obviously achieve substantially greater speed by unloading the compressor, lowering turbine temperatures, and boosting the afterburner. The J58 used JP7 to cool the engine as well as used it as fuel. I've been told that, in theory, JP-4 could be used if the tanks were sufficiently insulated (not sure what this would do for fuel capacity), though another coolant might have been needed for the engine components for maximum top-end speed. I've seen this come up on the forum years back, and I've researched it to some degree out of of interest.  ??JP-4 was a non-conductive liquid, prone to build up static electricity when being moved through pipes and tanks. As it is volatile and has a low flash point, the static discharge could cause a fire. Beginning in the mid-1980s an antistatic agent was added to the fuel to lower the charge buildup and decrease the corresponding risk of fires. Flow rates must be controlled, and all the equipment used must be electrically interconnected and well grounded.
Commercial aviation uses a similar mixture under the name Jet-B, though without the additional corrosion inhibitors and icing inhibitors included in JP-4. For your edification, please note: Boiling point, 176 °C (349 °F; 449 K). Wish I knew why you rub me the wrong way, because I think you might be a nice guy instead of an obnoxious arse.......... |
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
F-106X
Oct 21, 2016 5:40:41 GMT 9
Post by zipper730 on Oct 21, 2016 5:40:41 GMT 9
Jim,
1. MIPCC: Mass Injection Pre Compressor Cooling. It's a means by which an engine can be made to operate at temperatures beyond that normally possible by shooting a coolant into the airflow path ahead of the compressor (this can be water, LOX, and probably a variety of other compounds). Somebody suggested on this forum that MIPCC could allow an aircraft with a top speed of 2.5 mach to make it to 5.0 depending on the degree of cooling. I assumed it was true.
2. I did not know JP-4 had issues with static electricity build-up: On that note, I think I'll take back the insulation statement (though I meant thermal insulation)
3. I'm not sure why we don't get along: I don't set out to be an obnoxious ass
|
|
