# Project Highspeed F-106 vs F-110 (aka F4H aka F4B Phantom).



## Conslaw (Nov 20, 2021)

I see references online to a 1962 fly-off competition called Project Highspeed (sometimes Operation Highspeed) between the F-106 and the Navy's F4H Phantom (which the AF temporarily named the F-110). Other than the blanket statement that the Phantom won the fly-off, I can't find any detailed information. Any information my comrades can provide would be interesting.


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 20, 2021)

RRRR I just saw an Oct 10 thread F4 v F-106. Mods feel free to delete this. I did actually look, but I searched on "Highspeed".


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 23, 2022)

C
 Conslaw
,

Turns out there are ways to tilt results in your favor: The F-4's used in the test was stripped down of all non-essential equipment, was waxed and polished until mirror smooth, and the engines were fine-tuned to eke out a little extra power; From what it would appear the F-106A involved was a squadron spare (I'm not sure if it was fine tuned in any real way): The F-106 was also an earlier model which had span-fences similar to the F-102A's (This would have produced a little bit more drag than the later F-106A's that had a cleaner wing with a small longitudinal slot, which acted somewhat like a dog-tooth, and eliminated such a need).

The fact that the F-4's in test trim had lower weight, less drag, and higher thrust than it would in actual combat-trim, combined with the fact that the F-106A was an older model with slightly higher drag than the latest models, and had little to no mods clearly would have given greater advantages in terms of speed, acceleration, overall climb-rate, and range than a stock F-4 would have compared to a new stock F-106A.

There were some areas where it was agreed the F-4 had advantages of course: The radar could engage at greater distances, the Sparrow had a longer range and a proximity fuse, and the interception radius of the F-4 was also greater than the F-106A*(see footnote). The F-106A had some advantages in terms of it's ECCM capabilities, the cockpit displays were said to be of higher resolution, and the IRST was probably better.

Footnote: Interception radius involves the ability to accelerate out at supersonic speeds to the target and either engage, or decelerate loiter for a few minutes to ward them off; then cruise back home subsonic. From what I remember, the F-4's interception radius was 750 nm, with the F-106A's being around 650-700 nm. I'm not sure if these figures were based around the F-4B on internal fuel, internal fuel plus either a centerline/wing-tank, and/or the F-106A on internal fuel or internal & external fuel-tanks (if the latter is the case, the F-106A's range wouldn't have been applicable since they didn't appear to carry supersonic tanks until the late 1960's), with the variance in range figures either due the difference in the wing-design of the early and late F-106A's, or other matters (secrecy being what it is, figures have a tendency to creep up with time as matters are declassified).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 23, 2022)

Zipper730 said:


> C
> Conslaw
> ,
> 
> and the engines were fine-tuned to eke out a little extra power;


What's your reference for "fine tuned?" You can only do so much to a turbine engine - bump the fuel control up a bit so you're turbine temps might be a bit hotter, but that's about it. There are mods that can be done but if this was conducted under the supervision of the US Military, there isn't much more that can be done without violating manufacturer's maintenance manuals.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Sep 23, 2022)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What's your reference for "fine tuned?"


I remember seeing that come up on a forum called F-106 Delta Dart. I'm not sure exactly what they did but I do remember being told they did something though it could be wrong, though bumping the fuel control would be useful for some purposes.


----------

