MILAVIA Forum
Historic Aviation => Warbirds => Topic started by: valkyrian on June 30, 2007, 07:07:49 PM
-
In October 1961, the pentagon launched an air to air competition between Air Defence Command's F-106 and Navy's brand new F-4H1 Phantom. 153 sorties were flown, half for each type, from altitudes 500-62.000 ft, during which 349 valid interceptions were completed. Phantom was proved superior, mainly due to the newer APQ-72 radar which showed better availability and reliability. The -6's MA-1 was said to have some repeated problems. So Tactical command was to buy the F-4 and ADC would get no new 6's....
BUT.....
since no one likes to lose, especially when knows that he wasn't favored at all, Convair complaint that the very best navy pilots were put against the ...very worst 6 drivers, and the maintenance of the -6 was not appropriate. Convair engineers knew that the -6 had a very serious potential in dogfights, and in later years a pilot said :" the F-4 had longer ranged missile (AIM-7) but we kicked F-4 butts each and every day in the visual arena. We owned the vertical on him, we got our energy back much much faster, had as good or better sustained turn, most altitudes, and our instantaneous turn rate was also as good. He could never match our zoom when we hit the fight with any sort of knots. Falcon missiles had logic the early Sparrow were missing. Falcon loved the beam intercept (early Sparrows hated it) and also loved ECM's unlike the AIM-7.A pilot who have flown both types said : the -6, exhibited outstanding nose authority enabling the pilot to employ lag maneuvers to gain position to fire AIM-4G directly at the tailpipe, then pull the nose into a lead position to employ the AIM-4F or the guns. The altitude capability of the -6, meant that we comfortably CAP at 45.000+ ft, perform a pincer front to stern attack with IRST and slide in behind a flight of F-4's without notice.
-
YES!! :D a thread on the SIX!!
And I bet on the six too :)
In a magazine I have, an ex F-106 pilot says: Give me the avionics of the F-15 and I'll beat it anytime ;)
That means, the six couldn't even come close to the F-15 because of one little thing called AIM-120 but in the dogfight, it would outmaneuver the eagle.
I wonder why not to cheat and put a Ginny on the thing.... if they were a squadron of F-16 Fighting Falcon they would all fall like bricks!!! >:D
-
Wow! Wait a minute Thomas. The-6 better than the Eagle in close in? I don't believe it....the Eagle was designed for this, the -6 was designed to fly high and fast.........
-
But I believe what the guy said...let me find the mag'.. ::)
and the ginny is a god thing it had >:D
-
I think you mean the nuclear tipped Genie missile....pretty cool, it should exterminate not only the enemies but even the carrier aircraft....
-
Oh yeah lol the AIR-2 Genie, or MB-1 Genie...I belive the F-106 carries the MB-1 right? not AIR-2. I wondered what he was talking about...I thought it was avionics or something :D
-
yep, that one, pretty cool, would use it too for air to ground... maybe anti-personnel, futurist napalm :o >:D
And yes, I am against nuclear weapons ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I heard the AIR-2 can destroy ALL aircraft within a 5-mile radius! including the aircraft that fired it :P And its unguided. All together though, I think an AIM-120 is better and I would choose it over the Genie. And has the genie ever been test fired? I can't see the good in a missile like that. And can the pilot set the time for it too explode? like 10 miles, 15 miles, 20 miles?
-
No, it hasn't been proved in combat (at least that we know) and yes, proved yes (I don't know if with the nuclear head though), cause i have a picture of it being lauched. Wait that I have my scanner... though you'll find it if you google.
Ok, you have to position yourself back in that time, when the bomber missions were flown at high altitudes, and hence, the interceptor flown at those altitudes to. With this I mean that the interceptor, in this case the six, has the ability to fly at Mach 2.something depending on the load.
That means you're out the 5 miles in which the missile can hurt you by the time it reaches its objective. So it's ok.
And they say it was extremely maneuverable too, that's why they installed a M-61 on it ;) instead of the AIR-2 :(
-
Indeed the Six was just a great aircraft for it's time. Unfortunately the true performance of the Falcon made the M61 the only good knife it had when it entered the phone booth...Now, a Six vs. an Eagle with a typical Eagle C avionics/sensors/radar package, it could have a chance, but the same would go if you did it to the Sabre, so I think this is a bit of an overstatement lol. On the dogfight arena, the Eagle is just too specifically designed to be powerful and maneuverable for the Six to beat it. It would be a harder fight than a Phantom with an Eagle however (I believe).
What other aircraft flew for a superpower from the late 50s to the late 80s in the rapidly-changing Cold War arena. Only after the F-teen models came up did the Six become obsolete. That was quite an aircraft. We operated many of them here in Greece too and from what I've heard, we loved them too !
-
Dear Thomas, when flying at (lets say) Mach 2, the 6 would not be able to pull many g's (due to center of pressure movement) so it could take a 6's pilot to fly a huge circle in order to turn back. By that time, i think the nuclear blast would have reached him. I think that the tactic would be a missile launch at 1.2 Mach (in order to give the missile kinetic energy to reach further) then turn, and accelerate to max Mach (in order to get away from the explosion).
Icarus, unfortunately we operated F-102s not F-106s..........
-
You are so right, valkyrian. My fault there :-[
And yes, I was going to say that, only 102s for you, sorry, but they are not near as nice the 6 is :S i think Turkey also had some of them.
-
Yes, Turkey and Greece, both operated the -102.
-
Very true, my mistake ! I got confused by the similarity of the names ("Delta Dagger" vs. Delta Dart"). I still think it should be called simply "Six" ;D Thanks for the correction 8)
-
Hahaha. You operated the '102 instead of the '106? :o
I don't really care for the '6, but the two is atrocious.
-
I've always thought the 106 was an absolutely beautiful plane. It would have been interesting to see what it could have done had it been flown in combat like other century series fighters.
-
I imagine the -6 in Vietnam, where it could probably turn better than the unslatted F-4 B/C/D/J and therefore outturn the Mig-21.
It also had a gun, so it would fire with better accuracy than the podded SUU-20. Not to mention it was fast (that huge J75 rocks) and if the F-105 was faster on dry thrust than the F-4, then the -6 would have been even faster.
On the other side, it was big enough a nice visual target, with internal weapon carriage (lower rcs) but i bet no cheap Mig-15/17/19 could catch it and therefore dogfight with it, even the Mig-21 would probably run out of fuel if it was ever trying to catch the Dart....
What a great plane.........
-
What a great plane.........
that resumes it all.
-
I imagine the -6 in Vietnam, where it could probably turn better than the unslatted F-4 B/C/D/J and therefore outturn the Mig-21.
It also had a gun, so it would fire with better accuracy than the podded SUU-20. Not to mention it was fast (that huge J75 rocks) and if the F-105 was faster on dry thrust than the F-4, then the -6 would have been even faster.
On the other side, it was big enough a nice visual target, with internal weapon carriage (lower rcs) but i bet no cheap Mig-15/17/19 could catch it and therefore dogfight with it, even the Mig-21 would probably run out of fuel if it was ever trying to catch the Dart....
What a great plane.........
Actually, I don't think it would have done that much better. Okay, it had the gun, but not the training. It would still have been lured into the MiG trap. F-106 is an interceptor remember, this has huge impact on the way it is used. It would have been at too close a range to use its missiles. AIM-9B was crap, whether on a F-106 or F-4. At least the F-4 had two sets of eyes in the cockpit. The F-4 could and did also outrun the MiGs. And with no huge bomb loads on the F-106 or rocket pods, you would also need more bombers. So I don't know if it would have made a difference.
-
Ok. that does it. The F-106 was never a good looking plane. I mean, the F-104 looked like a pencil enough...
-
Well, I am not planning to start a debate here. Many people will find it ugly, and some other, like me, won't be able to find anything better looking! it's just upon you
-
Actually, I don't think it would have done that much better. Okay, it had the gun, but not the training. It would still have been lured into the MiG trap. F-106 is an interceptor remember, this has huge impact on the way it is used. It would have been at too close a range to use its missiles. AIM-9B was crap, whether on a F-106 or F-4. At least the F-4 had two sets of eyes in the cockpit. The F-4 could and did also outrun the MiGs. And with no huge bomb loads on the F-106 or rocket pods, you would also need more bombers. So I don't know if it would have made a difference.
My dear friend, the F-106 never carried the Sidewinder. It carried the Falcon missile, which in early models was far superior to the AIM-9. Since, most fights were close in, the difference in radar efficiency, wasn't a big factor in the equation. About the visibility, in the sixties, the -6 aquired a bubble (!) canopy for better pilot vision, but i agree with you it lacked the second pair of eyes the F-4 had.
It would never be an all around player like the F-4, no bombs could be carried, or anything air to ground, so its use would be limited as an air superiority fighter. It was maneuvrable, not as an F-5, but better than the F-4, due to its lower wing loading. A loaded air to air -6, had less drag than a F-4, and to the eyes of the enemy, opposed an unkonown factor. U could not tell, if it was loaded or not.
But, as with the B-58, it never saw action. The B-58s were sold as aluminium and the -6 are ending their days as drones. Did i say B-58? i'm gonna put a new thread........
-
I know, but from what I've read the AIM-4 did not do well in Vietnam and was actually replaced by the AIM-9 on the Phantom during these years, not suitable for fighter vs fighter combat at all. So if the -106 would have been in Vietnam, it would have gotten AIM-9s before it would have been equipped with better versions of the AIM-4.
Both played their role. The Six defended North America against possible Soviet bombers, and had quite a good long career, as integral part of the air defense network...for which it was conceived in the first place. The B-58 in a way did the same, but only for much shorter time, due to its inefficiencies.
-
Wasn't there these chaps in a phantom who made ace in one day using the AIM-4?
-
Yeah maybe, 5 kills were scored with the AIM-4.
-
5 kills. Pffft.Think about the legendary AIM-9 next to that. Bahahaha. Or the Phoenix. AIM-52, correct?
Cheer up, laddie buck. The yankees aren't that bad.
-
AIM-54, but that's post-Nam, actually originates from the AIM-4 via the AIM-47.
-
Right Webmaster, the mighty AIM-47 and AN/ASG 18 weapon system which became the AIM-54 Phoenix and AWG-9.....
Who shot down with AIM-4 and become an Ace? I can think of R. Cunnigham (US Navy F-4J) but he used Aim-9s)...
Guys, even though i'm a Phantom Lover, i think that the -6 was a better interceptor (of course it hadn't the F-4's radar but if the production were to be continued a new radar would be for sure!)
Some strong points of the -6 :
Less drag when loaded with weapons ( this today implies to the F-22 believers!!)
Probably lower RCS (due to the above)
Very fast !
Very automated (the pilot was essentially a weapons system manager)
and very powerful (Genie, the nuclear warheaded air to air missile)
-
Hm. Can't remember who. I think they already had a couple of kills. 2 folks, dude.
I think they were shot down just after they scored. But were picked up by their A/C carrier.
-
Right Webmaster, the mighty AIM-47 and AN/ASG 18 weapon system which became the AIM-54 Phoenix and AWG-9.....
Who shot down with AIM-4 and become an Ace? I can think of R. Cunnigham (US Navy F-4J) but he used Aim-9s)...
Guys, even though i'm a Phantom Lover, i think that the -6 was a better interceptor (of course it hadn't the F-4's radar but if the production were to be continued a new radar would be for sure!)
Some strong points of the -6 :
Less drag when loaded with weapons ( this today implies to the F-22 believers!!)
Probably lower RCS (due to the above)
Very fast !
Very automated (the pilot was essentially a weapons system manager)
and very powerful (Genie, the nuclear warheaded air to air missile)
Val, do you know if the AIM-4 ever was in service with HAF?
propably if it did it must have been with the F-102 at the early 70's....
-
Since we had some F-102 operating during the 70's, Falcon was surely in HAF arsenal....
-
does anybody know the cross-sectional area of the F-106 as compared to the '4...? It might help this discussion... Unless it's been mentioned already and i didn't notice. ::)