delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Aug 7, 2005 9:31:03 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Aug 7, 2005 9:31:03 GMT 9
I remember hearing about a concept design for the F-106 called the F-106X which featured a canard, some souped up engine, a new canopy, and rectangular intakes.
It supposedly won out over the F-12 (it WOULD have been a production version of the YF-12A)...
Anybody know anything about it?
-Delta2477A
|
|
|
F-106X
Aug 8, 2005 6:18:29 GMT 9
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 8, 2005 6:18:29 GMT 9
Dear Delta, Sorry if I got on you about the "Voice Intercept". I'm glad someone wants to learn.
The F-106X was a concept idea proposed after the AF decided that it did not want the F-12A in 1968. However the story goes back 10 years to 1958 when the improved F-106C and D were proposed with a hydralic powerd radar dish that was bigger a look down radar and who knows what else. This was based on the F-106A airframe, still Mach 2.5.
The 1968 proposal was to be the F-106E and F with 2 way Data Link, even better radar and AIM-26 missles that were both IR/Radar and either an AIM-47 or a Phoenix and who knows what else. The F-106X was to have a top speed of Mach 5.
Oh to dream. The AF did not want the F-12A, they didn't even look at the Six X idea. Would it have worked?
Let's look at the weapons systems. F-102, MG-10 F-101, MG-13 MG-10 modified for pilot and weapons operator and 2 AIR-2As F-106, MA-1 highly modular, digital computer F-108, LRI system, project canceled, LRI flown in weapons section of B-58 drop tank, continued improvement. F-106 continues to improve, many things happen at test Squadron at Tyndall and Holloman. F-12A ASG-18 W/AIM-47 missles. Project canceled. F-14B Phoenix Missle System. Highly succesfull.
Phoenix is an AIM-47 on steroid. AIM-47 drops 40ft below F-12A before ignition to make sure it clears the A/C.
Send me your e-mail to JackElaine2000@cox.net Got some pictures for you. Peace :-) Jack
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Aug 9, 2005 13:11:33 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Aug 9, 2005 13:11:33 GMT 9
How'd they get Mach 5 out of an F-106 design (the -X)?
I guess it was one of those designs that were so heavily modified, that they would, if constructed, be so different internally that they'd probably be a different airplane with a new designation, say F-112?
It would probably require a very special engine.
|
|
|
F-106X
Aug 9, 2005 22:54:47 GMT 9
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 9, 2005 22:54:47 GMT 9
Hard to say. It would have been a new contract, but of the same lineage.
Example though not a good one, the F-15E for the USAF is fuctional, but the best one is the F-15K that we just sold to South Korea. The only thing it lacks is vectoring engine exhausts. What a bargain.
The X was to have a single big turbofan with afterburner. The canopy looks more like the F-15 or 16. How would have the variramp system worked? Would the compressor section gone to idle for hydralic power as air bypassed the fanjet to make a ramjet like the F-12A?
The trouble with a dream machine like the X is just like the FA-22, over 20 years from concept to initial delivery.
The F/A-22 is a beautiful A/C, But is it a cold war relic?
The Navy is now getting the F-18E. They will never have another A/C as versitile as the F-14 and yet the F-14 could be redesigned and updated and a new production run made. Room for though. Jack :-)
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Aug 10, 2005 8:04:00 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Aug 10, 2005 8:04:00 GMT 9
You sure about it being structurally the same as another F-106?
I doubt it... unless the F-106 is made out of some very special high-temp alloys.
That's why the A-12/SR-71 were made out of titanium.
And I have a feeling that the JT4B-22 which was to power the F-106X was probably not a turbofan... unless you have pictures... it was probably a modified J-75 that featured bypass tubes like the J-58.
The longer inlets also make sense... the air has to be slowed from Mach 5 to 0.3-0.5 rather than ~2.5 - 0.3-0.5 at max.
-Delta2477
|
|
|
F-106X
Aug 10, 2005 23:12:44 GMT 9
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 10, 2005 23:12:44 GMT 9
Delta, The JT is a TurboFan. Skin would have had to be Titanium. Hopefully it would have had fuel bladders in the wings, even the AVRO Arrow had them.
Dimensionally it would have had to be somewhat bigger.
How long would it take to cool off???
It was a Dream. Something like it will never be built even as an experiment.
We can dream all we want, dreams are not real until they exist.
Sorry those days are over. Jack :-)
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Aug 11, 2005 8:08:00 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Aug 11, 2005 8:08:00 GMT 9
The JT-4B-22, what kind of turbofan? Did it have like a secondary bypass to dump air off the compressor into the burner, or a bleed-bypass pipe set up like the J-58 (SR-71/A-12's engines)
|
|
|
F-106X
Aug 12, 2005 0:01:25 GMT 9
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 12, 2005 0:01:25 GMT 9
Delta, Just don't know! The Six X was only a concept that never got to the drawing board.
Further insight can be had by doing a Google on the F-8U-3 Super Crusader.
The F-8U was a Navy Interceptor, pre F-106, pushed by a J-57. The Super Crusader got a lower lip on it's intake, a J-75 and 2 stabilizer fins that came out the bottom after launch.
The only problem was that at Mach 2.3 the windscreen and canopy would get to 325 degrees and turn opaque. A new windshield and canopy was in engineering, but everyone who flew these A/C said that at 2.3 there was enough throttle left to easly make 2.9 or 3.0.
That project was cancelled to the F-4 also.
If you Google F-8U-3, some of those threads will take you into the A-1 to SR-71 engine research heartaches. It's a long and interesting read.
Peace, Jack :-)
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Aug 22, 2005 7:33:50 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Aug 22, 2005 7:33:50 GMT 9
BTW, the J-58 powered the F-8U-3...
-Delta2477
|
|
TomH
New to the Flightline
Currently: Offline
Posts: 4
Location:
Joined: May 2004
|
F-106X
Aug 22, 2005 9:18:33 GMT 9
Post by TomH on Aug 22, 2005 9:18:33 GMT 9
Maybe that's the engine intended for it, but the prototype flew with a J-75.
|
|
|
F-106X
Aug 23, 2005 1:59:34 GMT 9
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 23, 2005 1:59:34 GMT 9
Delta, If you read the article that I think you did, I see how you got that impression.
That is far from the truth. The only thing the J-58 and J-75 have in common is that thy both are 47 inches wide. Thus the J-75 was used to flight test an airframe while waiting for the J-58.
As far as the F-8U-3, the J-75 was the one and only engine and the windscreen/canopy was the limiting speed factor.
By the way, the F-8U-1 with a J-57 was a good adversary. Jack
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Aug 28, 2005 11:09:37 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Aug 28, 2005 11:09:37 GMT 9
Jack,
What about fuel-bladders in the wings? Don't all aircraft pretty much (except the F-104) have those?
In regards to the Avro Arrow, how did it's performance compare to the regular F-106?
|
|
|
F-106X
Aug 28, 2005 11:41:26 GMT 9
Post by Cougar on Aug 28, 2005 11:41:26 GMT 9
What about fuel-bladders in the wings? Don't all aircraft pretty much (except the F-104) have those? The F-106 was a wet wing.
|
|
Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
F-106X
Dec 13, 2005 10:06:08 GMT 9
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2005 10:06:08 GMT 9
There is a photo of a six x model in the misc photos area of this site. I believe I've found the technology that would have enabled mach 5 flight.
It is called Mass-Injection Pre-Compressor Cooling, or MIPCC. First developed in the era of the century series fighters, it is a unit that bolts on ahead of any turbojet or turbofan. It injects either water, peroxide, or LOX, or a combination of any of these, into the airstream ahead of the 1st stage compressor. This cools and condenses the airstream, and in the case of peroxide and LOX, increases its oxygen content. This airstream cooling is like adding an intercooler to a turbocharger on your car: it tricks the turbine into thinking it is operating at a lower altitude and velocity, so it produces more thrust with less stress.
It was originally developed to allow pure turbojets to have better afterburner performance and thus higher altitude performance, but died out with the widespread use of low bypass turbofan engines in fighters. While the SR-71 was built to operate turbo-ramjet engines at much higher temperature ranges, MIPCC would have allowed the Six X to reach mach five with the use of titanium skin and other high temp materials at leading edges and the nosecone, all with the standard Six engine.
This technology was revived by DARPA recently for the RASCAL reusable launcher program, which proposed an 80' long baseline vehicle propelled by four F-100 engines using MIPCC. Destiny Aerospace proposed essentially rebuilding a Six X with an expanded weapons bay to be the payload bay for the launcher, but this was dropped in the first round due to the aircraft being so much smaller than the baseline.
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Mar 31, 2007 4:25:44 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Mar 31, 2007 4:25:44 GMT 9
Whoah!!! You mean the engines used active cooling, like some hypersonic concept proposals!!! Is the cooling system a short-lasting system (like 5 minutes) or is it long lasting. The statement you said about the SR-71 using turboramjet engines at higher temperature ranges, did that mean that the SR-71 achieved the F-106X speed-range with turboramjets? Or did you mean the SR-71 went faster than the F-106X, using turbo-ramjets? Does the F-22, F-15 and F-16 make use of MIPCC (The F-15 is about 3/4ths titanium), also did the B-1A proposal use such a system before it was stripped down into a low altitude machine?
|
|
|
F-106X
Mar 31, 2007 11:24:10 GMT 9
Post by ma1marv on Mar 31, 2007 11:24:10 GMT 9
Back in 1980 (81???), I had the opportunity to go to Hughes Acft, Conoga Park, and work with the new RADAR receiver we were to have installed. The aircraft that were initially chosen were to all get a new skin job on the wing surface. Well, I was interested more in the "OTHER " electronics they had in mind for the "6". As am avid MA-1 fan (NAturally!) I am still interested in those little electronic thingy's I got a chance to see. Unfortunately I am limited in what I can say, even with the job I presently have. The MA-1 system was modified with a newer receiver, solid state design, copied from the F-18. It was to be installed due to the manufacturer (Hughes Aft) not being able to keep up with the demand to fix the parametric amplifiers that were in use. (Though when the program was cancelled, Hughes said they COULD do it with the spares they had on hand!) The basics of the receiver were low noise, and close in capability, with a sharp response time to the echo returns. I was an Instructor at Lowry at the time, and made the suggestion that one of the original 5 receivers they had built, should be installed on one of the Crazy Nose trainers. The actually agreed! No one had made that suggestion before! They were looking for another test bed, outside of the "Wood nose" up in their 3rd floor lab, or the flight test model on 2513. While there I saw and got to touch/operate the new RADAR they were to incorporate in the "6." Along with an even faster response time for return echo's was the ability to scan the target and compare the return image to a stored mage and give the pilot a 3-dimensional look at what it was they were locked on to. Other info about the target would have also been displayed, including possible external armament it was carrying. The whole "NEW" RADAR set including a (At that time tremendous!) 100 Mega byte memory computer that was to be the size of a standard briefcase! Most of the fwd RADAR and Computer compartments would be empty! Cooling would have been greatly reduced along with the power requirements. SInce that day at Hughes, I have watched and waited to see what aircraft ended up with the new system. I can only say that there is one acft out there now that qualifies! Well, with a new engine, some new skin, and an improved avionics package, God only knows how far the "6" program would have gone! My input! Hope you enjoy the reading! MArv
|
|
|
F-106X
Mar 31, 2007 14:01:40 GMT 9
Post by Mark O on Mar 31, 2007 14:01:40 GMT 9
I read you Marv on the "what if" stuff. (Remember what I did in the Army?) Anyway, the thing that really hit me when I read your post is this. What kind of aircraft would we have today if we had the companies of the 1950's competing for those big contracts?
Just what was on my mind...
Mark
|
|
|
F-106X
Mar 31, 2007 15:46:37 GMT 9
Post by Cougar on Mar 31, 2007 15:46:37 GMT 9
Back in 1980 (81???), I had the opportunity to go to Hughes Acft, Conoga Park, and work with the new RADAR.......MArv Given the scope of military development of late I would imagine that anything developed in 1980 is pretty well antiquated by now. Never the less it would still be interesting to hear from those who participated in "Black" programs at Holloman, Tyndall or Eglin.
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
F-106X
Apr 1, 2007 5:05:14 GMT 9
Post by delta2477a on Apr 1, 2007 5:05:14 GMT 9
Wow, a hundred megabyte memory back in 1980 with 3D display!? Jeez, my computer didn't get a hundred megs until the early 1990s I think, and my first 3D program (which I was mediocre with) I first got in the mid to late 1990's. Hard to believe though that as impressive as that briefcase 100 MB hard drive was, I now have a flash-drive that can carry a gigabyte of data that's shorter in length than my finger.
Back to the MIPCC thing though. Was that system like the KC-135 water injection system that only lasted a few minutes, or did it last the entire duration of the flight? (at least a sizeable high-speed portion of the flight).
Delta2477A@hotmail.com P.S. (To MLorrey: I'm not sure if I read your statement right: Is the SR-71 as fast, or faster than the F-106X?)
|
|
|
F-106X
Apr 2, 2007 0:04:06 GMT 9
Post by ma1marv on Apr 2, 2007 0:04:06 GMT 9
Yes yes!!! Things have Certainly changed and so rapidly! As I look back on that system, it was really a compilation of technology that was available at that time, and just on the cusp of being able to really take advantage of these new fangled things called "micro computers"! Remember that we had only 32 k of RAM in the coputer on board the "6" and that was all Drum memory, on a computer drum the size of a 3 lb coffee can! We also had an extra 2 k of RAM imbedded in the computer in the form of a magnetic core system! Yep, I have a 2 gigabyte memory stick right here with me. Cost was $39.95 at the local Walmart! Just wonder what I might have been able to do with the computer programs we had in the old "HCM 204" or the "MARK VII". Especially now with much more powerful computer languages as "C" or "C++" or many others! Still, I do think about those things! MArv
|
|