spectre
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 10
Location:
Joined: November 2014
|
Post by spectre on Jul 18, 2015 6:01:07 GMT 9
I have a question regarding the following post made by Lt. Col. Stultz: "The F-106 proved its ultimate performance capabilities in providing aggressor "enemy" delta-wing familiarization training to the Navy's best pilots during the time they were implementing TOP GUN. The Navy jocks learned valuable lessons that the Delta winged 106 was almost unconquerable in the dogfight arena, with guns in the air-to-air environment, which you read so little about in the Navy publications. Wing loading of 43 lbs/sq ft and a .8 -1 TWT put it in a class of its own against the A4s, F-104s, F4B,C,D, F-105, F-100, F8 fighters of its time.....not to mention the many many '14s and '15s that blew engines in attempting to fight when it took them above 40,000 feet, to a guns-only environment. Good thing they finally fixed those great fighters to handle the altitudes the 106s formerly ruled." www.f-106deltadart.com/specs.htmHe says that: "not to mention the many many '14s and '15s that blew engines in attempting to fight when it took them above 40,000 feet, to a guns-only environment." My question is, why was the F-106 superior to the F-14 and F-15 when dogfighting at a high altitude? The F-106 could turn faster than the F-14 and F-15 at that altitude? If so, did it have both a faster instantaneous turn rate and also a higher sustained turn rate at 40,000 feet? Thanks very much, Spectre
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 18, 2015 8:08:38 GMT 9
WELL SPECTURE, why don't you just read the TAZ'S post one more time??? Those other FPOS crapped out trying to get to 40,000..... the 104 could get there fast, but like all rockets with stubby wings, it relies on airspeed to stay airborne. You have been gone a long time, but your questions still resemble your earlier ones. Have fwded your post to the TAZ for your benefit.. The Old Sarge
|
|
Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 27, 2016 8:38:56 GMT 9
spectre,
The reason the F-106 had an advantage over the F-14 and F-15 early on was because of the engines: The F-14 more so than the F-15, but both had trouble.
Much of this is from memory, so I'd hope other members would call out any mistakes.
The F-14 was powered by the TF30 which was naturally prone to compressor stalls and surging when maneuvering at high altitude. Many turbofans (of which the TF30 was one) tended to be more adversely affected by back-pressure caused by engaging the afterburners (particularly when maneuvering). To make it worse, the inlet of the F-14 wasn't optimized for the TF30 because, while the USN was happy with the TF30 at first; they decided around the time they cancelled the TFX and were given the go-ahead for the TFX, that they would use a derivative of the F100 (used by the F-15) called the F401. The F401 was more powerful than the TF30 and could operate at higher mach numbers. Because it would take time to develop, and the DoD required the TF30 to be used as an interim, the length of the engine was non negotiable (the speed of the airflow in the duct reaches a certain velocity at a certain position in the duct). As a result, the F401 had a lengthened afterburner to match the TF30's overall length: The engine's airflow requirements were optimized more around the F401, than the TF30 since it was expected to be the intended engine. Fine and dandy, except the F401 got cancelled, and the F-14 was stuck with the TF30 from 1973 to 1986.
The F-15 was powered by the F100, which was built around a high pressure-ratio (more power and efficiency), a low bypass-ratio (more efficient), and a higher maximum mach number (to allow it to catch a MiG-25): The engine had a bunch of problems early on, included a tendency for compressor stalls at high altitudes (particularly when engaging the afterburners). The F-15 first flew in 1972 and entered service in 1974. The F-15C entered service in 1979 and used a more powerful variant of the F100 that also had a new inlet-guide vane and digital electronic engine control that all but eliminated the compressor stall problem.
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 27, 2016 12:47:32 GMT 9
spectre, The reason the F-106 had an advantage over the F-14 and F-15 early on was because of the engines: The F-14 more so than the F-15, but both had trouble. Much of this is from memory, so I'd hope other members would call out any mistakes. The F-14 was powered by the TF30 which was naturally prone to compressor stalls and surging when maneuvering at high altitude. Many turbofans (of which the TF30 was one) tended to be more adversely affected by back-pressure caused by engaging the afterburners (particularly when maneuvering). To make it worse, the inlet of the F-14 wasn't optimized for the TF30 because, while the USN was happy with the TF30 at first; they decided around the time they cancelled the TFX and were given the go-ahead for the TFX, that they would use a derivative of the F100 (used by the F-15) called the F401. The F401 was more powerful than the TF30 and could operate at higher mach numbers. Because it would take time to develop, and the DoD required the TF30 to be used as an interim, the length of the engine was non negotiable (the speed of the airflow in the duct reaches a certain velocity at a certain position in the duct). As a result, the F401 had a lengthened afterburner to match the TF30's overall length: The engine's airflow requirements were optimized more around the F401, than the TF30 since it was expected to be the intended engine. Fine and dandy, except the F401 got cancelled, and the F-14 was stuck with the TF30 from 1973 to 1986. The F-15 was powered by the F100, which was built around a high pressure-ratio (more power and efficiency), a low bypass-ratio (more efficient), and a higher maximum mach number (to allow it to catch a MiG-25): The engine had a bunch of problems early on, included a tendency for compressor stalls at high altitudes (particularly when engaging the afterburners). The F-15 first flew in 1972 and entered service in 1974. The F-15C entered service in 1979 and used a more powerful variant of the F100 that also had a new inlet-guide vane and digital electronic engine control that all but eliminated the compressor stall problem. The USAF had two manufactures of engines for the F-15 and F-16. GE and P&W. The F-100 series engines. I believe they went through about three different variations of the engine. -100,-200 and-229. Each was more powerful and reliable. When the Navy stated using the F-114 at Top Gun they were not a match for the F-18 and were considerable less powerful. They used the TF30 series just like early F-111 aircraft. So the Navy got the USAF F-100 engines for the F-14 and it became a great interceptor/dog fighter. But because of cost they never retrofitted the fleet aircraft. So when Top Gun pilots returned to carriers, they were back into the underpowered versions. That was one reason for the demise of F-14. I was a MA-1 guy, but after retirement I worked in USAF Jet Engine SPO at WPAFB as F-16 Engine Tech Order manager. So I gained a lot of knowledge of jets, but never turned a screw on one. I did "ground" the fleet several times because the engine blades were melting and plugging air vanes in blades.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Oct 1, 2016 13:17:26 GMT 9
LBer1568,
That I didn't know: I thought the F-14A+/F-14B, and F-14D all used the F110-GE-400, I never knew any used an F100 variant.
|
|