delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Aug 21, 2005 12:01:29 GMT 9
Which is faster of the two, and which has better endurance?
-Delta2477
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Aug 22, 2005 2:45:32 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 22, 2005 4:53:10 GMT 9
Delta, The F-4C, D, E were all the same airframe/J-79 combo. The only difference was the weapons control systems C and D and the internal gun on the E. Other differences were incidental, so there was no REAL change in speed or performance or handling. Jack
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Aug 22, 2005 7:30:29 GMT 9
Seein as how this is an F-106 site I'd have to say that a Dart with 30,000 pounds of thrust would do them both in ;D The J-75 produces 30,000 lbs of thrust? I thought it was like 26,000? -Delta2477A
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 23, 2005 2:39:20 GMT 9
Delta, This is an F-106 site! Cougar just crossed threads with all your oddball questions. All F-4's with 2 functional engines generate over 30k lbs of thrust. Now probably having bruised his knuckles on small and big block V8s back in the late 50's and through the 60's, perhaps he is thinking of a souped up J-75. Maybe a J75-P19W, but lets replace that water injection with alcohol. Or lets try a J-58. Seriously, lets remember, that Col. Rodgers ran a strip of masking tape along the bottom of the windscreen, about 1 inch up from the bottom. This was so he did not have to trust the ADI for his Angle of Attack but just eyeballed the horizon through the slit in the windscreen. With 30k lbs of thrust, even in a "B" model, the angle of attack would have been very low. Just for info: I changed many vertical instruments for speed over my 20 years. They were all replace because the Mach tape was broken off the end. The tape could register 2.8 Mach without breaking if I recall correctly. How these incidents occured, I do not know! Jack
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Aug 24, 2005 4:11:45 GMT 9
The J-75 produces 30,000 lbs of thrust? I thought it was like 26,000? -Delta2477A Delta.... I did not mean to leave you with the impression that the J-75-P-17 delivered 30,000 pounds of thrust. I meant that IF the F-106 had an engine capable of delivering 30,000 pounds of thrust it would blow the F-4s off the map." (The 6 design is aerodynamically superior to that of the F4) The J-75-P-17, as used in the Dart, was rated at 24,500 pounds of thrust. Its companion, the dash 19W, as used in the Thud, was rated at 26,400 pounds of thrust - with water injection.
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Aug 24, 2005 4:36:58 GMT 9
Now probably having bruised his knuckles on small and big block V8s back in the late 50's and through the 60's, perhaps he is thinking of a souped up J-75. Jack....try a printed First-On-Race-Day .030 over 406 FE pumping 12:1 slugs on a balanced shaft; breathing premium through a tri-power, ported heads, and a 324 degree stick; kicking loud-noise through a set of custom headers; and, hooked to the pavement through a B/W T-10, 4:11 gears and M/H street slicks.....all nested in a nosed and decked 57 Fairlane 2-D HT with rolled rear pan, rounded corners, filled seams, 58 Chrysler quad headlights, and lower than a pack of Pall-Malls....
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bartoszewicz on Aug 25, 2005 2:30:13 GMT 9
Cougar, those were the day's. Today it's a 94 Dakota 5.2L stock Ext Cab. Just don't like the new ones. VA lic. F-106X . Wife has 2004 Toyota Prius, gets 52.5mpg, VA lic. F-106B . Wife makes me ride in the back seat, except when Maint Req Light comes on, then I get to change the oil. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Aug 25, 2005 11:41:02 GMT 9
VA lic. F-106X . Wife has 2004 Toyota Prius, gets 52.5mpg, VA lic. F-106B . Wife makes me ride in the back seat, except when Maint Req Light comes on, then I get to change the oil. Jack You could probably be riding in the front seat if you'd change the VA lic. to F-111A.
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 26, 2005 0:41:15 GMT 9
Yes or TF-102 ;D oh my god, I'm loosing it. Just read that the TF, ALWAYS needed 2 people when flown. Must have been a wieght and balance thing. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Jack Schmieder on Aug 26, 2005 1:22:16 GMT 9
I'll ask one of my former F-102 Instructor Pilots from my Perrin days. He's on the F-100 forum.
|
|
|
Post by ma1marv on Aug 27, 2005 0:01:20 GMT 9
F-4's ---Who cares! Until I got to the "58 Chrysler quad headlights, and lower than a pack of Pall-Malls.... " I was interested! Just can't bring my self to accept those dual headlights in the 57 Fairlane front end! The 58 front was ugly enough! I can't believe that someone actually took the time to do so much work with a "Porky Pine 406" when a great engine could be had with a 429! Must like to do the work because "YA Love it!" I did some work like that with a 56 Merc Monterey. Took a 65 Police Intercepter 352 and blueprinted that engine. Put a 62 Ford high ratio 4 speed behind it with a 3.75 rear end, with "Gassed out" Thrush straight mufflers for sound! Great resonance in town! Used a Daytona AFB 4 barrel carb for inserting the gas. Found that SUNOCO 260 was the best combination to make it run. It was not the best off the line, but I could twist off the speedometer cable in 3rd gear! Sold it when I came in the Air Force! What a waste! The kid that bought it wasted it on a bridge abuttment one week before I got back from Tech school. Sorry, never took any pictures of it back then! Wish I had! Maybe even thoughts of doing another one similar! Have a great day! I'm ON my way BACK from Germany! Did you ALL TASTE the great beer I had for the past two weeks??? I tried to have one for everybody! See ya! MArv
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Aug 28, 2005 11:01:02 GMT 9
Delta, With 30k lbs of thrust, even in a "B" model, the angle of attack would have been very low. Why would the B- ride at a higher angle of attack than the -A... I thought they had the same wings? -Delta2477A
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Aug 29, 2005 20:00:41 GMT 9
Why would the B- ride at a higher angle of attack than the -A... I thought they had the same wings? -Delta2477A Maybe this will help....Note the condensation cloud over the crew area of this B1 at speed.
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 29, 2005 23:14:03 GMT 9
Good shot Cougar. Kind of proves my thoughts. Also the center of gravity was slightly further aft in the "B". Jack
|
|
delta2477a
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 101
Location:
Joined: August 2005
|
Post by delta2477a on Aug 30, 2005 6:18:45 GMT 9
You mean the AoA was higher at transonic speeds on the -B?
Because if it was at full speed, a higher AOA would produce more drag, and the -B is supposedly faster.
Hmmm...
-Delta2477
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 30, 2005 7:29:19 GMT 9
;D I do not think you are getting it Delta. The center of gravity, being a little further aft in the "B", allowed it to have a + AoA at high speed. This did not contribute to drag, but did allow more air under the delta wing, generating more lift. Also the higher AoA allowed the "B" to be faster at wide open speed. Remember if the AoA goes negative in level fligh, it will come around to kiss your ass. Fotunately the J-75 and Six were well mated and with the wing lifting like it did the Six could not get into this position, but juice the J-75 by 3 to 4k more lbs of thrust and it may have been possible. That is why the X model was to have a canard wing, to hold the nose up. Just like trimming a power boat, just at the other end. Jack
|
|
|
Post by Cougar on Aug 30, 2005 7:50:05 GMT 9
Gentlemen, analysing the airflow dynamics that occur between transonic, supersonic and hypersonic speeds was not included in the pre-flight check list so I'll defer to NASA @ www.nasa.gov/home/index.htmlIn the Find it @ NASA search box type in airflow dynamics; it should yeild 407 hits.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 30, 2005 8:31:32 GMT 9
Good shot Cougar. Kind of proves my thoughts. Also the center of gravity was slightly further aft in the "B". Jack Black Bart, If my memory from 4 yrs as the wt&bal signatory on our SIXES serves me correctly, the CG on the B was within an inch or so of the A, and on some models, there was no difference at all...And there was always a range of plus or minus from a specified CG location.......In flt- with all a/c that had moveable trim systems. the a/c was always trimmed to fly straight and level-IE- HANDS OFF- thus CG location would not be a factor.....CG location only became a factor during take off and landing- or, in the case of the SIX when going supersonic and again when going back subsonic. Thus the reason for fuel transfer by air pressure..... Any idea which way it went? ? Once the stick was moved to change attitude, the pilot controled the angle of attack- or the AFCS system controled it. This why flt control teams were established in1960-AFCS and MA-1 had a bad habit of adjusting the HEP valves to suit their system instead of adjusting their system to the newly re-rigged systems ( most a/c left Convair out of rig)........... Any a/c that had a high angle of attack, with out a corresponding change in altitude was considered to be MUSHING thru the air---at least that is what my IP told me o so many years ago..........What was the AOA transducer vane used for on the Six? ??How did it work in a TIGHT rt turn when there may not have been any air flow over it? B model 900, actually had a fwd cg for about 150 hrs til I inventoried it ( pilots were complaining about nose heavy on to and ldg) and found that before it left Convair, they had installed some electronics in the nose and failed to remove about 100# from the nose wheel well. No problems in flt. There may be some misinformation in here- so you may have to enlist the aid of Col S... to help you out...Perhaps it is the difference in wing span between the A and the B? ?Some good IRISH beer ina green bottles fer ye- the Old Sarge As Cougar says, "note condensation above canopy" - no air flow-hence some lift- note shape of B canopy.. Same as draftin ina those land bound buggies ye be a talkin bout..Have nother one on me
|
|
|
Post by John Bartoszewicz on Aug 31, 2005 3:55:52 GMT 9
Sarge, right ye be. Center of gravity we are not speaking of a foot or even a few inches, but with the roll of the leading edge not being adjustable, AoA was critical. On takeoff the flight controls were not at neutral, but at takeoff trim. The elevrons were in a positive position with a neutral stick so with no backpressure on the stick the nose would lift, if I recall, at 120 knots IAS and the mains would break at 150 while accelerating. The Air Data Computer (front left side in nww) took the Pitot Tube inputs and controled the fuel transfer AFT at high speed. (This is also why you could not bust Mach quickly after takeoff, you had to use some fuel first) This in effect controlled the position of the COG in flight. When you slowed down, the pumps transfered forward as necesary. You are correct in flying level. That is what the boresight was all about. You boresighted to different points on the board, but when airborne, all the points merge at some point and cross out there in front of the A/C. Actualy there was little flying in Direct Manual. Most was in Assist and above. Now in Assist the TRT (Turn Rate Transmitter) came into play. The TRT had pitch, yaw and roll gyroes in it. That is why it was so easy to make co-ordinated turns. There was always airflow over the AoA vane, even in a hard left turn. But here a lot occures MA-1 wise. In a left turn, the TRT puts in a little rudder deflection to the right, to hold the nose up. The ADI ball shows the bank. If while in the turn, the pilot pulls back on the stick, the ADI while at an angle / will also show a climb. That climb display starts at the AoA vane. The same display info on the radar display comes from the 289 unit (Stable Table). While both systems seem to display the same info, that info comes from different sources. The TRT came in two models. One was depot sealed (loved those) and the other was field repairable (hated those). Usually got one into the M/U for "Rudder Kicks". Had absolutly no way to reproduce a rudder kick. When you signed off on the unit, you made sure you quoted the T.O. because there was no way to be sure that it was repaired. Today, I cannot imagine how I was able to pick the right T.O. much less stay current as an "A" and a "C". Jack
|
|