# The best fighter of the 1950's.



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

So which is it in your opinion ?


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

I'd pick the F-8 Crusader me think.....


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 30, 2009)

Canadair-built F-86 Sabre.

MM


----------



## Glider (Apr 30, 2009)

Much as I love the Hunter, the F8 Crusader would also get the vote from me.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

She is a beaut!


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

II'm leaning towards the English Electric lightning, eventhough it just barely made it into this category being introduced at the very end of the 1950's, December 1959.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

Just noticed that Crusader isn't on the list  and it was introduced in '57!


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Damn how could I forget about the F8 Crusader ! One of my fav a/c !

Hey mods, add the F8 to the poll please 

The F8 Crusader English Electric Lighting are definitely top contenders.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Soren - best fighter for what (or which combination of) missions?

Delivery of nuclear weapons, fighter bomber, interceptor, air superiority, fleet defense, ???

F-106 ought to be in the list


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Bill,

Primarily air to air combat.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Primarily air to air combat.



That would cut part of your list if you actually looked at combat records in air to air?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 30, 2009)

Toss up already mentioned is a good one. But the Mig 21 also came out in 1959. That's gotta be worth a look.

Forgot one more that had it's first flight in 1959. How about the Northrop F-5. That was one very neat bird. It even looked like a fighter jet should look.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> That would cut part of your list if you actually looked at combat records in air to air?



Why ? I know the F-105 for example primarily was used as a fighter-bomber, but it could was also used for aircombat, acquiring a decent score.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

The F-106 Delta Dart actually should be on the list, I haven't heard much about this a/c before but its stats look impressive.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> The F-106 Delta Dart actually should be on the list, I haven't heard much about this a/c before but its stats look impressive.



The 106 was very agile, but slower in acceleration relative to the Lightning and the MiG 21. Probably the best manuever aircraft in the US inventory in the 50's. However it was pure missle in the 50's.

The F-105 actually had better than 1:1 - at least in the 355th which got 20 in the air in NVN... but the favorite saying for the Thud drivers was "Check your 12" simply because speed was its out manuever. Nothing could touch it on the deck - not even the F-4.

The 355th had three guys score 2 in one mission, plus Thorsness got one and a probable when he got his Medal.

Having said this it was TAC spec all the way. Fast, on the deck, deliver a big Nuc and get outta town and really doesn't get votes as an air combat fighter.


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

I wonder how the F-106 Electric Lightning would've compared. The Lightning was said to be extraordinarily maneuverable and a great turn fighter, which in no doubt was because of the massive amounts of available thrust.


----------



## dmeephd (Apr 30, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> She is a beaut!



The Crusader was my first plastic airplane model that I built, a Monogram kit with a hinged fuselage and a removable engine. Boy, did that picture bring back the memories...


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

Have to ask Soren, old sport. With this poll, is it meant those that first flew in the 50's or introduced into airforce service? Why I ask is that the Mirage first flew in '56 but entered service in '61.... Then I wouldn't mind to howl for the Swedish J 35 Draken which entered service....oh cr*p!....March '60! B*ll*cks!
But, again, it first flew in '55. How does the F-102 Delta Dagger fit into this compared to the F-106 Delta Dart already mentioned? Aaand the Starfighter, is that a fighter or an interceptor here?


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 30, 2009)

I'm italian so i need to vote F-104 (italian air force is longer user of 104. and there is one as gate guardian in my town)


p.s. 104 operational service in italy 1962/2004


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2009)

Lucky,

I was aiming for a/c who saw service within the 1950's, and sadly a few nice a/c just miss out because of that.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2009)

I knoooow....Draken, with THREE months!


----------



## timshatz (Apr 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The 106 was very agile, but slower in acceleration relative to the Lightning and the MiG 21. Probably the best manuever aircraft in the US inventory in the 50's. However it was pure missle in the 50's.
> 
> The F-105 actually had better than 1:1 - at least in the 355th which got 20 in the air in NVN... but the favorite saying for the Thud drivers was "Check your 12" simply because speed was its out manuever. Nothing could touch it on the deck - not even the F-4.
> 
> ...



Dragon, is there a site (or book) that covers the F105 in Vietnam? Especially the Air To Air stuff. I didn't know there were guys who got 2 in one flying the Thud. Thought they were rare one here, one there.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Have to ask Soren, old sport. With this poll, is it meant those that first flew in the 50's or introduced into airforce service? Why I ask is that the Mirage first flew in '56 but entered service in '61.... Then I wouldn't mind to howl for the Swedish J 35 Draken which entered service....oh cr*p!....March '60! B*ll*cks!
> But, again, it first flew in '55. How does the F-102 Delta Dagger fit into this compared to the F-106 Delta Dart already mentioned? Aaand the Starfighter, is that a fighter or an interceptor here?



The 102 was a dog, the 106 was a major mod to incorporate Whitcomb Rule fule fuselage plus extend the fuselage somewhat forward of the exhaust inlet and upgrade the engines.

The 106 was a super manuever fighter that was only finally defeated by the F-15 (from the USAF inventory) and very fast in level flight. It had the same WL as a P38, 50% better T/W than the F-104 and was a Mach 2.3 ship with 1300mi operational range, 1600 mi normal ferry range.. 

Initial climb about 42,800 f/m - one 20mm M61, 4x Falcons, 1x Genie. This and the F-14 were our best interceptor until the F-15 arrived.

I just looked up the Lightning on wiki. 

It cites 2.27M vs (2.31 for 106) and 50k/min intial climb but strangely the WL is 87+ (vs 52+ for 106) and T/W is .63 (versus .65 for 106) and ceiling of 60k (vs 53K for 106) - which leads to a little head scratching

It sounds like the Lightning was a little cleaner and the engines performed better at high altitude - otherwise the 106 should climb faster.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> I knoooow....Draken, with THREE months!



And F-4, even though first flight was '58


----------



## Waynos (Apr 30, 2009)

I voted MiG 21, before I read the thread, Duh. MiG 21 is obviously the most successful but the reports from British and US test pilots featured in R P Beaumonts book Testing Early Jets seems to put the Lightning at the head of the list as the best in terms of a pilots aircraft, one USAF test pilot dscribes as 'as hot as the F-104 but handles like the F-86 followed by excited excalamations of its sheer brilliance that I can't remember the exact wording of. The Lightning was also described as the only pure fighter in the Western arsenal and the fastest climber until the arrival of the F-15 in service, both pretty impressive claims so that would seem to give it the edge from the mouths of people who flew it.

An article penned in the early 80's and published in an RAF yearbook also has a Lightning pilot claiming that while he wouldn't try to turn with an F-16, it didn't scare him and he could defeat it with his Lightning quite happily. Sheer bravado? Quite probably, but the old girl sure was loved!

Also, it wasn't the F-106 that introduced area rule, it was the F-102A as the previous YF-102 model could not exceed mach unity in level flight.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2009)

F-102 was much slower though. Thrust/weight doesn't seem much different, though it's also a lot lighter. (106 has much more powerful engines) Wingloading's lower for the 102 though.

I din't know the F-106 was that good a dogfighter, kind of figured with the Delta wing (low AR + elevons, tailed deltas like the MiG 21 avoiding the latter issue) it wouldn't be that great. I know delta's have the weird, super high AoA characteristics thing, but I would have though the high parasite drag in such conditions woud limit utility in a dogfight. (too much loss in speed)


----------



## davparlr (Apr 30, 2009)

Soren said:


> Damn how could I forget about the F8 Crusader ! One of my fav a/c !



I’m voting for the F-8 just because it has always been my favorite jet.



Drgondog said:


> The F-105 actually had better than 1:1 - at least in the 355th which got 20 in the air in NVN... but the favorite saying for the Thud drivers was "Check your 12" simply because speed was its out manuever. Nothing could touch it on the deck - not even the F-4.



It was greased lightning on the deck!



> The 102 was a dog, the 106 was a major mod to incorporate Whitcomb Rule fule fuselage plus extend the fuselage somewhat forward of the exhaust inlet and upgrade the engines.



As Waynos stated, the F-102A was a “coke bottle” airplane, I believe, the first. But it certainly was a dog, relatively speaking.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Dragon, is there a site (or book) that covers the F105 in Vietnam? Especially the Air To Air stuff. I didn't know there were guys who got 2 in one flying the Thud. Thought they were rare one here, one there.



Brestal got 2 on 10 Mar 67, the 355th TFW got 5 on 19 Apr 67, the only a/c that topped that was three wings of F4's on Jan 2, 1967. The F-105s shot down the second higest total (32) of any aircraft in the US. The 355th had a 2:1 air to air ratio better than most US fighter wings. (I was wrong about two doubles)

The 355th (21) shot down more Migs w/105s than all the F-8 USN/USMC Air Groups in the combined (14). Only the F4 shot down more (70) spread across 5 AF wings and the USN.

The 8th TFW (Olds-F4) killed 20, the 355th shot down 21 making it the single top MiG killer wing of USAF and USN.

Go Thuds!!! Little known fact of Viet Nam. One helluva aiplane which dropped more bombs from just the 355th than any BG in 8th AF (202,000 tons) and maybe more than even any Lanc Wing (I don't have the numbers)

But NEVER designed as an air superiority fighter or strategic bomber - but it did ONE HELLUVA JOB!


----------



## drgondog (Apr 30, 2009)

davparlr said:


> As Waynos stated, the F-102A was a “coke bottle” airplane, I believe, the first. But it certainly was a dog, relatively speaking.



Dave I don't believe the 102 was the first area rule fuselage. My data has the 106 design as a direct result of huge disapponitment with F-102A! The F-102 B was a radical redign from the F-102A and led to the F-106


----------



## Flyboy2 (Apr 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dave I don't believe the 102 was the first area rule fuselage.



Actually I think he might be right. From what I've managed to scrape up the 102 was the first aircraft to operationally use the area rule in its truest form. Aircraft such as the Tu-95 Bear were modified to take advantage of this by adding fuselage buldges but they weren't truly designed for the Area rule... It was actually first patented by Junkers in 1944.

As for the best aircraft, I'm going to have to say on combat record with usage and longevity its got to be the MiG-21

But I've always loved the F-8 and the Sabre so I think I'm voting Crusader


----------



## parsifal (May 1, 2009)

is the A-4 classified as a fighter or a bomber? I ask this because even though it was designed as a bomber, it was used ooperationaly bysome of its operators as a fighter


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2009)

Area rule??


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2009)

From the Wiki....

"A USAF comparison study of the accident rate of all the Century Series, F-4 Phantom, A-7, and F-111 aircraft over 750,000 flying hours showed that the F-100 Super Sabre led the table with an accident rate over double that of the F-104 (471 accidents for the F-100 versus 196 for the F-104) which had the second-highest rate, closely followed by the F-102 Delta Dagger. It should be noted that the F-104 figures in this study were taken over 600,000 hours since that type had not reached 750,000 hours at the time."

How many of the '104's accidents was due to the aircraft itself, as in construction, manufacturing etc.?


----------



## Graeme (May 1, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Area rule??



Area rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Flyboy2 said:


> Aircraft such as the Tu-95 Bear were modified to take advantage of this by adding fuselage buldges but they weren't truly designed for the Area rule.



G'day FB2. Did you happen to read that from the Wiki site above? 


> The Tupolev Tu-95 'Bear', a Soviet-era bomber, was modified by adding large bulged nacelles behind the two inner engines, instead of decreasing the cross section of the fuselage next to the wing root.



Seems an odd statement (Wiki) as from what I understand they're not "Kuchemann Knuckles" as seen on the Convair 990 but a box fairing for the undercarriage. This prevented having to cut into the highly stressed wings and was first(?) seen on the Tu-16, which does look to be area-ruled...





...and the Bear followed suit. It was elongated (Item No.71) on latter versions but there is no proof that this was for aerodynamic reasons...


----------



## Lucky13 (May 1, 2009)

Thanks Graeme...gave me a headache though!


----------



## renrich (May 1, 2009)

Good book on VN and F105s called "Thud Ridge" I read it perhaps 20 years ago. Have a friend who flew the Thud in VN, was later a Braniff pilot. Is in his seventies and still flies a twin. I talked with him about flying in general but never asked him about the Thud specifically. For ACM, I picked the F8U.


----------



## davparlr (May 1, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dave I don't believe the 102 was the first area rule fuselage. My data has the 106 design as a direct result of huge disapponitment with F-102A! The F-102 B was a radical redign from the F-102A and led to the F-106



I think it is pretty obvious in the attached picture. Note the added bulges at the exhaust exit area.


----------



## drgondog (May 1, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I think it is pretty obvious in the attached picture. Note the added bulges at the exhaust exit area.



Dave - you are correct. It was the redesign of the YF-102 to the F-102A that resulted in the Whitcomb Area Rule change to fuselage because of disappointing speed performance of the YF-102.

The F-102B was a further and major redesign of the A and became the basis for the F-106 because the B was so significantly different.


----------



## drgondog (May 1, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Area rule??



Google "Whitcomb Area Rule".. 

the theory behind it is complicated but the resulting cross sectional areas as you move aft of the cockpit must be reduced at the wing/body intersection to achieve necessary wave drag reductions.

The effect of adding wings to a cylindrical (straight) body added approximately 2x Wave Drag.


----------



## Waynos (May 1, 2009)

These two images show the evolution of the F-102 to accomodate area rule. Ther first one from 1955 describes the F-102A but illustrates the YF-102 as the images of the update were still secret, the second picture is from the 1956 edition when the images were released. Incidentally, I read that the Lightning 'accidentally' benefitted from area rule by the addition of the belly tank, which may have been the first CFT's in the world, despite what Lockheed says when they try to sell you an F-16


----------



## Waynos (May 1, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Dave - you are correct. It was the redesign of the YF-102 to the F-102A that resulted in the Whitcomb Area Rule change to fuselage because of disappointing speed performance of the YF-102.
> 
> The F-102B was a further and major redesign of the A and became the basis for the F-106 because the B was so significantly different.



Er, hello? Who was correct? 

no offence Dave, you too


----------



## drgondog (May 1, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Er, hello? Who was correct?
> 
> no offence Dave, you too



did not see your post 25


----------



## The Basket (May 1, 2009)

Supermarine Scimitar?

Best of 1950s?

No!

Garbage.

The Spitfire was still in service so I vote for that!


----------



## timshatz (May 1, 2009)

Ok, one more. How about the Mirage 3. That was a very good fighter.

This is harder than I thought. None of those fighters listed is a dog. Not a single Brewster Buffalo in the bunch.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 1, 2009)

I'm a little fuzzy on 1950's aircraft, (well, anything past World War II I guess.  )

I do know the Mig 21 was an amazing fighter when it came out, and was better than a lot of the other fighters out there.


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 1, 2009)

> =Graeme;490938
> G'day FB2. Did you happen to read that from the Wiki site above?



Ya I did, and actually thought that was a little wierd as well, but thought they might be referring to some Tu-95 versions with the buldge in the front.



> do know the Mig 21 was an amazing fighter when it came out, and was better than a lot of the other fighters out there.



It sure was, some versions of the MiG-21 still service in airforces today. The MiG-21 was small and manuveurable, and even gave American pilots some headaches in Vietnam... 

Now nobody shoot me over this statement, but I believe the MiG-21 was roughly the equivalent to the F-4 Phantom in regards to how many entered service and the variability of the design.


----------



## pbfoot (May 1, 2009)

Its kinda tough to choose since some of the aircraft on the list are 1st generation and some were 2nd verging on 3rd ,


----------



## Graeme (May 1, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> As for the best aircraft, I'm going to have to say on combat record with usage and longevity its got to be the MiG-21



That choice and reasoning would make Bill Gunston very happy!  







Flyboy2 said:


> Ya I did, and actually thought that was a little wierd as well, but thought they might be referring to some Tu-95 versions with the buldge in the front.



This? As far as I know it's a radar randome known as the "Crown Drum" nose randome. I think Richard Whitcomb would be ashamed of the Bear with all its lumps and bumps.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 1, 2009)

Just a thought, but is not the MIG-21 also the most "shot down" fighter on this list??

I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 2, 2009)

On the Tu-95 comment, as it's a subsonic (or transsonic) aircraft, why would area rule even be considdered? (or matter)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> It sure was, some versions of the MiG-21 still service in airforces today. The MiG-21 was small and manuveurable, and even gave American pilots some headaches in Vietnam...
> 
> Now nobody shoot me over this statement, but I believe the MiG-21 was roughly the equivalent to the F-4 Phantom in regards to how many entered service and the variability of the design.


The MiG-21 was respected by US pilots but there were a few incidents where a good portion of the NVNAF MiG-21 force were almost wiped out (Operation Bolo). Also consider that the US imposed "rules of engagement" on fighters that was later lifted in May of 1972. 

The MiG-21 performed better than the F-4 at certain altitudes, but the F-4 could easily exploit and better the MiG-21. Never the less the MiG-21 was a very good design despite some limitations.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Its kinda tough to choose since some of the aircraft on the list are 1st generation and some were 2nd verging on 3rd ,


Agree...

If you want to base combat career and over all impact I'd say the F-86. Performance and longevity - the F-106


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2009)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the Tu-95 comment, as it's a subsonic (or transsonic) aircraft, why would area rule even be considdered? (or matter)



KK - I don't have all the data so just speculating.

The Tu-95 was faster than the F-80 and Me 262, the wings were swept the same as an F-86 which meant they knew they were in transonic regime (of course) - and that is where the major wave drag rise occurs.

I have zero idea one way or the other whether an 'area rule' fuselage was considered as part of the design or whether the many bulges on this a/c had some other purpose like housing radars, etc., but if they did (I don't have a plan view handy) it would be very noticable wasp waist at the wing/body intersection..


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Just a thought, but is not the MIG-21 also the most "shot down" fighter on this list??
> 
> I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.



air to air - it might be. "All in" combat losses, probably the 105 in VN but 90% of those were Sams/flak/ops rather than air to air


----------



## davparlr (May 2, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Er, hello? Who was correct?
> 
> no offence Dave, you too



I gave you credit. See post #27.


----------



## Waynos (May 2, 2009)

Yeah, I saw that, sorry, I meant you were right too


----------



## Lucky13 (May 2, 2009)

Didn't the Crusader swap bits and bobs with the MiG-21 a few times over 'Nam? How many '21's did the Crusader nail and the other way around?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 2, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't the Crusader swap bits and bobs with the MiG-21 a few times over 'Nam? How many '21's did the Crusader nail and the other way around?



The F-8 killed 19 MiGs, 4 were 21s. I think 3 were lost and if I'm not mistaken to MiG-17s


----------



## Soren (May 2, 2009)

I believe the Lightning outperforms the MIG-21 in most areas really.

Very few if any 1950's fighters can be compared to a fighter like the F-15, the Lightning is perhaps the only one.


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 2, 2009)

kool kitty89 said:


> On the Tu-95 comment, as it's a subsonic (or transsonic) aircraft, why would area rule even be considdered? (or matter)



Yeah, I don't think the area rule would count there, and I don't think it was used



> This? As far as I know it's a radar randome known as the "Crown Drum" nose randome.



Thats what I was thinking of, I knew if it was a radar but didn't know if thats what was counting. I guess not.


----------



## Soren (May 2, 2009)

Sticking to area rule is generally good for reducing drag at all speeds.

Also it might have been seen as a necessity for the structural intregrity of the airframe under combat conditions where abrupt dives might become necessary, and diving from great altitude could raise speed to the transonic region or even beyond. At those speeds an aircraft designed with area rule kept in mind will be able to cope, while one which isn't designed with this kept in mind will be in a very dangerous situation.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 2, 2009)

After reading more about the F-8, I wished I had voted for it instead of the F-106.


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2009)

From an air to air standpoint the 106 was a very, very good fighter.


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 2, 2009)

Now I always thought that the F-106 was more of an interceptor than a turn and burn dogfighter like the F-8


----------



## Graeme (May 2, 2009)

Gunston again. Obviously there is a big difference between "greatest" and "*best*-performance"


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 2, 2009)

Why did the MiG-19 have such great thrust loading?


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Gunston again. Obviously there is a big difference between "greatest" and "*best*-performance"



Graeme - 

Convair F-106A Delta Dart

Baugher's site is not the last word but more accurate than Wiki (a generalization) but he has near the bottom of this url a spec for the P-17 engine and states that initial climb rate was 42,000/min - a 50% delta above the chart value and well above the F-4 and F-101.


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> Now I always thought that the F-106 was more of an interceptor than a turn and burn dogfighter like the F-8



It was the best supersonic manuevering fighter the USAF had until (maybe) the F-15. The reason I equivocate is that the F-15 had a better radar implying ability to detect and seek a favoarable position on the F-106 and the F-15 climbed faster, accelerated faster..

I don't recall a US Supersonic fighter which could turn with the 106.


----------



## Flyboy2 (May 2, 2009)

Oh alright, I never really thought of the 106 as manuverable, I guess now i know


----------



## Graeme (May 2, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Graeme -
> 
> Convair F-106A Delta Dart
> 
> Baugher's site is not the last word but more accurate than Wiki (a generalization) but he has near the bottom of this url a spec for the P-17 engine and states that initial climb rate was 42,000/min - a 50% delta above the chart value and well above the F-4 and F-101.



G'day Bill. My post was to illustrate how we define “best” in threads like these but you raise an interesting point about sources. The graphs are from Mike Spick’s book “Jet Fighter Performance-Korea to Vietnam” and I have no idea where he sourced them from as he doesn't have a bibliography. Even if he did I guess the question can be raised “Where did they get theirs?” It’s like Chinese Whispers.

Wikipedia gives 29,000 fpm which corresponds to the graph and obviously one of the sources at the bottom of the site must have this figure, but I don’t know which..

F-106 Delta Dart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baughner, quotes 12 sources. Some of the books he quotes don’t have climb figures but No.2 and No.5 do.* Bowers has the 42,800 figure*. Again, I don’t know where he got that from-no bibliography. Wagner has 51,800 ft in 6.9 minutes and he mentions in his preface “Most of these characteristics are drawn from flights and specifications given in official documents once classified but recently made available” and has an extensive bibliography.

Hard to know what’s accurate. Who do you believe? How does 30,000 fpm initially, which drops off, making 51,800 ft in 6.9 minutes sound?

Roland Beaumont might agree?


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2009)

Graeme said:


> G'day Bill. My post was to illustrate how we define “best” in threads like these but you raise an interesting point about sources. The graphs are from Mike Spick’s book “Jet Fighter Performance-Korea to Vietnam” and I have no idea where he sourced them from as he doesn't have a bibliography. Even if he did I guess the question can be raised “Where did they get theirs?” It’s like Chinese Whispers.
> 
> Wikipedia gives 29,000 fpm which corresponds to the graph and obviously one of the sources at the bottom of the site must have this figure, but I don’t know which..
> 
> ...



Graeme - Good questions.

I wouldn't believe anything short of either late Convair or USAF tests on the -17 engine as well as some of the mods made to improve acceleration in the 1.7-1.9 M range. It seems obvious that given the thrust and some of the known (inlet, boundary layer control on leading edge, etc) issues caused more drag than predicted.

I would 'believe' either one but don't have a basis for either performance figure.


----------



## Venganza (May 2, 2009)

I went with the MiG-19 (me going with a Soviet fighter - big surprise). It had good speed - ~900mph, great thrust to load ratio, was manueverable, tough, reliable, and had those monster Nudelman-Rikter 30mm cannons, one shell of which would have been enough to seriously damage any other plane on the list. That being said, the F-8 (speed, firepower and manueverability) is hard to argue against. And of course it did very well against the MiG-19 over Vietnam, but how much of that was superior piloting? Part of the whole question of best plane comes down to the old argument about speed versus manueverability. Speed, the F-106 wins out, manueverability - ? Also, do you go with a plane with good missile capability (F-106), or excellent guns (MiG-19). This is one of those questions (best plane) that really doesn't have a solution, which is what makes it interesting.

Venganza


----------



## Juha (May 3, 2009)

I can only say ditto to VikingBerserker’s
Quote:” I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.” With addition that IMHO F-8, Mig-19 and -21 were also among the very best.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2009)

Regarding the charts, is that a Harrier on the right ??


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Didn't the Crusader swap bits and bobs with the MiG-21 a few times over 'Nam? How many '21's did the Crusader nail and the other way around?





FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-8 killed 19 MiGs, 4 were 21s. I think 3 were lost and if I'm not mistaken to MiG-17s



Wasn't one or two of them gun kills as well?


----------



## Graeme (May 3, 2009)

Soren said:


> Regarding the charts, is that a Harrier on the right ??



Yep, fast climber, eh? I didn't make the charts.  Also 'sliced' off is the F-108 and F-103 projects in the thrust loading chart.


----------



## red admiral (May 3, 2009)

None of the posts here have really looked at the armament of the types listed. This really hurts the F-106 given the all missile nature. The Genie unguided rocket is a useful weapon against bombers in an all out nuclear war, but in anything less its left to the AIM-4 Falcons which are by all accounts pretty poor and fairly ineffective against maneuvering targets. Elsewhere, the missiles are all fairly poor so really you need a gun armament to be effective.


----------



## renrich (May 3, 2009)

I am not sure the F8U was operational in the 1950s. I was working at Temco Aircraft in 55-56 and I know they were not in production with the F8U(Temco was next door to Vought) and I am not sure they had a prototype at that time. We did hear they were going with a variable incidence wing to solve some of the problems of the F7U,(high AOA during landing) but it seems a stretch to call the F8U an AC of the 50s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Wasn't one or two of them gun kills as well?


I believe 2 of them were gun kills


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

red admiral said:


> None of the posts here have really looked at the armament of the types listed. This really hurts the F-106 given the all missile nature. The Genie unguided rocket is a useful weapon against bombers in an all out nuclear war, but in anything less its left to the AIM-4 Falcons which are by all accounts pretty poor and fairly ineffective against maneuvering targets. Elsewhere, the missiles are all fairly poor so really you need a gun armament to be effective.



The F-106 did have a M-61 vulcan kit, complete with lower cowl, which installed in the aft left missle bay. It was available but never used against an actual adversary.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 3, 2009)

renrich said:


> I am not sure the F8U was operational in the 1950s. I was working at Temco Aircraft in 55-56 and I know they were not in production with the F8U(Temco was next door to Vought) and I am not sure they had a prototype at that time. We did hear they were going with a variable incidence wing to solve some of the problems of the F7U,(high AOA during landing) but it seems a stretch to call the F8U an AC of the 50s.



commonly is indicate 1957 as year first assignation to navy squadron (VF-32 and 154)


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

I see no MiG-19s shot down in VN. Out of 122 total awards, 26 were MiG 21s and most of the rest (except two AN-2's) were MiG-17s

Of the 14 shot down by F-8's, one was a Mig 21, 13 were MiG 17s 

The MiG 21 was shot down by Sidewinder, four MiG 17s were 20mm/9 Sidewinder.

Of the 122 air to air awards, 33 were USN - 89 USAF

I'll dig for F-8 losses but don't recall any air to air. I have to research this.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

_During the war, 42 Navy F-8s and 20 RF-8s and 12 Marine F-8s were lost to flak and small arms fire over Vietnam. SAMs accounted for 10 Navy Crusaders. All twenty of the reconnaissance Crusaders from VFP-63 and all twelve of the reconnaissance Crusaders from VMCJ-1 lost in action were downed by flak or by SAMs, with none being lost to MiGs. At least three Navy Crusaders were lost to MiGs, all of them being the F-8E fighter version. 

It was to be in air-to-air combat against North Vietnamese fighters that the Crusader was to gain its reputation as "MiG Master". The first encounter with North Vietnamese MiGs took place in early April of 1965. On that occasion, the MiGs only damaged one F-8, but they shot down two F-105s the next day. The first confirmed Navy kills came on July 17, 1965, when two F-4Bs from VF-21 shot down a pair of MiG-17s. The Crusader got its first MiG kill on June 12, 1966, when Cmdr Harold L. Marr of VF-211 shot down a MiG-17 while escorting an A-4 strike against targets in the North.

All of the Crusader MiG kills (with the possible exception of two or three) were made by the Sidewinder air-to-air missile. There were only two "guns-only" MiG kills by Crusader pilots. The cannon armament of the Crusader proved to be somewhat troublesome, and the guns would frequently jam. During rapid turns and high accelerations, the ammunition belts would often develop kinks, causing the ammunition feed to be disrupted and the guns to jam. For a time, the Crusader was the leading MiG-killer over Vietnam, accounting for a total of 18 confirmed victories. All of them occurred within a two-year span (1966-1968), and after that all Navy MiG kills were by F-4 Phantoms. The last Crusader MiG kill took place on September 19, 1968, when Lt Anthony Nargi of VF-111's Det II destroyed a MiG-21. _

F-8 Crusader


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

From Wiki...

_Back side and table in Appendix B in Peter Mersky:F-8 Cusader Units of the Vietnam War _

Name Squadron Aircraft Date 
CDR Harold L. Marr VF-211 MiG-17 12 June 1966 
LT Eugene J. Chancy VF-211 MiG-17 21 June 1966 
LTJG Philip V. Vampatella VF-211 MiG-17 21 June 1966 
CDR Richard M. Bellinger VF-162 MiG-21 9 October 1966 
CDR Marshall O. Wright VF-211 MiG-17 1 May 1967 
CDR Paul H. Speer VF-211 MiG-17 19 May 1967 
LTJG Joseph M. Shea VF-211 MiG-17 19 May 1967 
LCDR Bobby C. Lee VF-24 MiG-17 19 May 1967 
LT Phillip R. Wood VF-24 MiG-17 19 May 1967 
LCDR Marion H. Isaacks VF-24 MiG-17 21 July 1967 
LCDR Robert L. Kirkwood VF-24 MiG-17 21 July 1967 
LCDR Ray G. Hubbard, Jr. VF-211 MiG-17 21 July 1967 
LT Richard E. Wyman VF-162 MiG-17 14 December 1967 
CDR Lowell R. Myers VF-51 MiG-21 26 June 1968 
LCDR John B. Nichols VF-191 MiG-17 9 July 1968 
CDR Guy Cane VF-53 MiG-17 29 July 1968 
LT Norman K. McCoy, Jr. VF-51 MiG-21 1 August 1968 
LT Anthony J. Nargi VF-111 MiG-17 19 September 1968 
LT Gerald D. Tucker VF-211 MiG-17 22 April 1972


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I see no MiG-19s shot down in VN.



Madden and DeBellevue got 2 on Sept 9, 1972


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

Joe - here is my list of air to air and I'm still working on it... I just noticed I looked only through 1967

As to F-8 losses - all three in 1966 to Mig 17's.

As to F-8s being leading MiG killer, the 355th alone had more MiG kills in F-105s than all the F-8s combined in all the USN units.

I just tried to upload my Awards spreadsheet and noticed the site won't take it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

You're right about the 355th - I just caught that.

As far as your spead sheet - is it word or excel?


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> You're right about the 355th - I just caught that.
> 
> As far as your spead sheet - is it word or excel?



Excel. This is what I started from..
U.S. Air-to-Air Victories during the Vietnam War, Part 2 

Interesting (to some) notes

20mm kills
28/53 = F-105
17/53 = F-4
5/53 = F-8
2/53 = A-1H
1/53 = F-100

F-105 killed more w/20mm than all other ships combined

On the MiG 19 I have 7 shot down air to air, all in 1972, 2 USN, 5 USAF - all missle kills, all F-4 kills.

My stuff differs from Wiki


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Excel. This is what I started from..
> U.S. Air-to-Air Victories during the Vietnam War, Part 2
> 
> Interesting (to some) notes
> ...



Its hard to download stuff from that site but I take their info over wiki.

In reality the real gunfighter of the Vietnam War was the F-105!


----------



## Doughboy (May 3, 2009)

F-86 Sabre.


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Its hard to download stuff from that site but I take their info over wiki.
> 
> In reality the real gunfighter of the Vietnam War was the F-105!



Desparation is the motherhood of necessity! But yep, they did amazingly well considering the lack of agility.

But the Thud drivers loved their beast. We just got "Mary Lou" done at Heritage park at DM. It (replica F-105D/354FS/355TFW) was the top mig killer 105 with two different pilots and Brestel's bird when he doubled on Mig 17s.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Desparation is the motherhood of necessity! But yep, they did amazingly well considering the lack of agility.
> 
> But the Thud drivers loved their beast. We just got "Mary Lou" done at Heritage park at DM. It (replica F-105D/354FS/355TFW) was the top mig killer 105 with two different pilots and Brestel's bird when he doubled on Mig 17s.



Very cool!


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

"Bud" Anderson of "Old Crow" fame flew 105 in 'Nam....still named "Öld Crow".


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> "Bud" Anderson of "Old Crow" fame flew 105 in 'Nam....still named "Öld Crow".



He did indeed - with the 355th TFW, the same wing we are talking about as top 105 mig killer wing. He was 355th Wing King in 1970


----------



## Soren (May 3, 2009)

So far it is my opinion that these five a/c are the top contenders:

Electric Lightning
F-8 Crusader
MIG-21
F-106 Delta Dart
MIG-19


----------



## Lucky13 (May 3, 2009)

Try to think here fellas, none of the crates on this list is missiles only, or am I wrong?


----------



## koutsivtom (May 3, 2009)

To my opinion Mig - 21 is the best fighter of the 50's.It didn't had radar when it was first arreared,without an ergonomical copkit,it had a very poor engine,very poor armor and technicaly it was an plane of the 40 with a jet engine but it is one of the BETTER PLANES OF THE CENTURY for only one reason!Because it is the only of the planes of the list that it is still in service with many air forces around the world!(we forgot the F-4 or am i wrong?)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 3, 2009)

koutsivtom said:


> To my opinion Mig - 21 is the best fighter of the 50's.It didn't had radar when it was first arreared,without an ergonomical copkit,it had a very poor engine,very poor armor and technicaly it was an plane of the 40 with a jet engine but it is one of the BETTER PLANES OF THE CENTURY for only one reason!Because it is the only of the planes of the list that it is still in service with many air forces around the world!(we forgot the F-4 or am i wrong?)


You are wrong - one of the main reasons why there were so many around was because they were inexpensive to purchase and for the most part operate.

I think many air forces still operate them more out of necessity and economics than anything else.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 3, 2009)

I have to agree, if longevity was the only rule of thumb to judge military hardware, then the best ship in the world would be the HMS Victory (251 years old).


----------



## drgondog (May 3, 2009)

Craig Baker put "Mary Kay", as flown by Paul Seymour on his last tour, on the homepage. "She" is the only 3 kill F-105.

Mary Kay Seymour passed away this March - which brought out a large turn out at her funeral.

Craig Baker's F-105 Site, The Awesome Thunderchief

This is the BEST Thud website - the Baker's put together a fitting tribute.

This Mary Kay at Davis Monthan


----------



## Lucky13 (May 4, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to agree, if longevity was the only rule of thumb to judge military hardware, then the best ship in the world would be the HMS Victory (251 years old).



What about Regalskeppet Wasa in Stockholm, she's from 1628 which make her 381 years young! 
Yes, I know that she did sink on her maiden voyage.....


----------



## timshatz (May 4, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> What about Regalskeppet Wasa in Stockholm, she's from 1628 which make her 381 years young!
> Yes, I know that she did sink on her maiden voyage.....



I dunno on that one. I think once there is more water over your bridge than under your keel, you kinda lose the arguement about being an effective warship


----------



## Lucky13 (May 4, 2009)

timshatz said:


> I dunno on that one. I think once there is more water over your bridge than under your keel, you kinda lose the arguement about being an effective warship



What ya mean losing the argument of being a effective warship? Look at how efficient she was on her maiden voyage, she sank! 
Ask any enemy, if that isn't the most efficient of all ships, those that do that....  

You should visit her in Stockholm in her muesum, well worth it.... 8)


----------



## timshatz (May 4, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> What ya mean losing the argument of being a effective warship? Look at how efficient she was on her maiden voyage, she sank!
> Ask any enemy, if that isn't the most efficient of all ships, those that do that....
> 
> You should visit her in Stockholm in her muesum, well worth it.... 8)



I've heard it's a very nice exhibit. Also that if she'd been two feet wider, she wouldn't have rolled over and sank. 

Stockholm is on my list of places to see before I die. Sounds like a fun place.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 4, 2009)

During the summer it's MAGIC man! Lived there for 7 years before I moved up north to Östersund and later Glasgow. Been there plenty of times, Old Town is a must with it small pubs and cafés...8)


----------



## Venganza (May 4, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Try to think here fellas, none of the crates on this list is missiles only, or am I wrong?



In the 1950's, the F-106 was all-missile. I believe later they had the ability to carry a Vulcan cannon (already alluded to in this thread), but in the 1950's I don't think they had that capability.

Venganza


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.



Personally, I think it would have been the best choice for US. The USAF went 'astray' when missles clouded judgement regarding how air supremacy was to be achieved - and the systems (fire control and missle guidance/fusing) did not live up to expectations - leaving the 'missle carier' few options.

Credit Robin Olds and Bob Titus for carrying the message back to the Pentagon and driving not only the F4-E but also energizing John Boyd's 'anarchy' at the Pentagon - resulting in the F-16 and F-15.

That the 105 was leading killer of MiGs in VN was a credit to the M-61 and USAF pilots learning to not tangle in a turning game... which they learned quickly. 

Joe Baugher's site is the best on the F-106 development challenges and Venganza is correct about the Gun mod not being installed until the experience in VietNam indicated a gun could be useful


Convair F-106A Delta Dart


Soren - Many of the 1967 losses (and beyond) were NVA skill at manuevering their MiGs in Cloud cover to a six o'clock position on 105s (and F-4B/C) striking NV before we had any really effective AWACS to warn them.

First awareness was often an Atoll hitting you from behind.

So, in my opinion the Lightning would have been the best 'escort' and air superiority fighter of the VietNam war.

I chose the F-106 (when avionics finally matured and for models equipped with Vulcan kit) but my close second was the Lightning, then MiG 21.

Absent gun and -17 engines, the 106 IMO was inferior to the Lightning.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I wonder how well the Lightning would've done in Vietnam, it had guns missiles and a performance like no other.


Not well IMO - remember, political leaders placed "rules of engagement" requirements on fighters and sometimes they would have to have a visual on their target. The Lightning was fast as hell but was not maneuverable and aircraft like the MiG-17 would have had a field day with her had she got into a turning fight. In the vertical the Lightning would have had the advantage and I also think one on one against the MiG-21 would have done well. Another negative was her range; I don't think the Lightning had long legs.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not well IMO - remember, political leaders placed "rules of engagement" requirements on fighters and sometimes they would have to have a visual on their target. The Lightning was fast as hell but was not maneuverable and aircraft like the MiG-17 would have had a field day with her had she got into a turning fight. In the vertical the Lightning would have had the advantage and I also think one on one against the MiG-21 would have done well. Another negative was her range; I don't think the Lightning had long legs.



It's funny Joe - I went through the same checklist you just presented. The reason I concluded it would have done well was that the Lightning pilot would also figure out that turning was not the best place to use its' performance attributes - but like the F-4 it owned the vertical and accleration and had the choice of guns or missles at all times.

What I don't know however was whether the Lightning had refueling capability - if not it simply would not have been a good fit - even from Ubon or Takhli.

Virtually most of the 105s and F-4s had to hook up to get home from Route Pack 6


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> It's funny Joe - I went through the same checklist you just presented. The reason I concluded it would have done well was that the Lightning pilot would also figure out that turning was not the best place to use its' performance attributes - but like the F-4 it owned the vertical and accleration and had the choice of guns or missles at all times.
> 
> What I don't know however was whether the Lightning had refueling capability - if not it simply would not have been a good fit - even from Ubon or Takhli.
> 
> Virtually most of the 105s and F-4s had to hook up to get home from Route Pack 6



I don't know if the Lightning had air-to-air refueling capability, but the "built in" cannons would have made a huge difference.

I read somewhere that during NATO games, F-5s from Holland and Norway would have a field day with the Lightning when she played in their back yard.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

I have to agree with Bill, the Lightning does seem like the ideal choice for the USAF during the Vietnam war as an escort and air superiority fighter. It would need to either carry some drop tanks or get refueld by air for every mission nearly though.

As for the Lightning's turn performance, it was one of the best turn fighters of 1960's jets according to Roland Beamont the chief test pilot of the a/c, being able to outturn the Mirage I with ease.

But the Lightning was such a fast climber that it didn't have to turn with the slow MIG-17's, it could simply B&Z fight them, like the Fw-190 did the Spitfire.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I have to agree with Bill, the Lightning does seem like the ideal choice for the USAF during the Vietnam war as an escort and air superiority fighter.
> 
> As for the Lightning's turn performance, it was the best turn fighter of 1960's jets according to Roland Beamont the chief test pilot of the a/c, being able to outturn the Mirage I.


Eh, I don't thing Beau made that statement at the time of the Vietnam War. I know the F-5 could turn circles around the Ligntning as well as the MiG-17, 19 and probably 21.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

The F-5 Tiger ? It's got a wing loading of somewhere between 500 to 600 kg/m^2, and the climb rate is lower than that of the Lightning.

I think the fact that the Lightning has been compared to the F-15 says it all really.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> The F-5 Tiger ? It's got a wing loading of somewhere between 500 to 600 kg/m^2, and the climb rate is lower than that of the Lightning.


No F-5As, check out their turning performance at about 450 knots, They ate the Lightning for lunch!


Soren said:


> I think the fact that the Lightning has been compared to the F-15 says it all really.


In climb performance and radar capability, aside from that it couldn't turn and wasn't designed to do so. And it's combat range? About 800 miles.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No F-5As, check out their turning performance at about 450 knots, They ate the Lightning for lunch!



Hmm.. well wing loading is far from all there is to turn performance, available thrust is just as important, and the lightning as plenty of that. I suspect that the Lightning will simply power itself through turns that a/c with a lighter wing-loading can't even perform.



> In climb performance and radar capability, aside from that it couldn't turn and wasn't designed to do so. And it's combat range? About 800 miles.



It couldn't turn ? I beg to differ!

_"The late Roland Beamont (Lightning development-programme chief test pilot), after flying most of the 2nd Generation Century series US fighters of that era, made it clear that in his opinion, nothing at that time had the inherent stability and control and docile handling characteristics of the P1 series prototypes and Lightning derivatives throughout the full flight envelope. Its turn performance and buffet boundaries were well in advance of anything known to him, the Mirage 1 included. This remained so right up until the next generation of fighter/interceptors was developed worldwide, with underbelly intakes and straked leading edges, or canards.
"_


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

The F-5A was compared to the MIG-21 in terms of flying characteristics, and AFAIK that a/c wasn't a great turner.

When fitted for combat I'm pretty sure the F-5A wasn't such a splendid turner.


----------



## red admiral (May 4, 2009)

Wing loading isn't the whole story. Rapid changes in direction means rapid acceleration and high thrust/weight ratios. The drag rises with the square of the lift coefficient and when you're banked over hard you need large amounts of lift from the wings. Because of this you need large amounts of thrust to pull hard turns and maintain/gain altitude. The fast role rate and large amounts of excess thrust makes the Lightning very maneuverable. Twin Adens and Firestreak missiles give reasonable armament against all targets.

Range plagued the Lightning (and most of the other period fighters) when it wasn't performing intercept missions, but for rapid acceleration to Mach 2 and 50,000ft to shoot down incoming nuclear armed bombers its the best available.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Exactly. That is the reason for why the Lightning was considered such a great turn fighter, it simply powered itself through extremely tight turns that other low wing loading a/c couldn't perform.

Today most fighters are also designed to have a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1:1 as that means much greater maneuverability at all speeds, esp. in turn performance. With a T/W ratio greater than 1:1 wing loading generally doesn't make much difference.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hmm.. well wing loading is far from all there is to turn performance, available thrust is just as important, and the lightning as plenty of that. I suspect that the Lightning will simply power itself through turns that a/c with a lighter wing-loading can't even perform.
> 
> It couldn't turn ? I beg to differ!
> 
> ...


Soren, I saw that on Wiki, - do the math on the Lightning and the F-5 at about 450 knots - speeds at which the F-5 and MiG-17 excelled. The F-5E had an even tighter radius than the A (I got it backwards). Beau may of had that opinion but the exact opposite occured during NATO exersizes. Even our own "Plan D" spoke of the Lightning getting wooped by F-5s as his dad worked on them.

Later model Lightnings had better turn performance (I believe the F6) but in the end they were designed as a high speed interceptor designed to shoot down Soviet bombers.

In the vertical or straight out zoom, almost nothing was going to touch the Lightning, once it started turning it placed itself at a disadvantage.

_"Despite its acceleration, altitude and top speed, the Lightning found itself outclassed by newer fighters in terms of radar, avionics, weapons load, range, and *air-to-air capability*. More of a problem was the obsolete avionics and weapons fit, particularly the 30 mile (very short) range 1950s radar sets: the avionics were never upgraded in RAF service since Lightnings were always supposedly just about to be replaced by something better."_

English Electric Lightning: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

That problem is that 'opinions' are just that = opinions. They're pretty worthless without supportive facts. 

As you know turn performance is not all about wing loading, its just as much about the thrust to weight ratio, and the Lightning actually has the advantage in both areas over the F-5A/B/E. 

The F-5 was compared to the MIG-21 in terms of flying characteristics, one of the reasons it was used as a mock up enemy a/c at top gun for so long. And the MIG-21 was known for its high roll rate, climb rate and speed, not its turn performance.

Also the mentioning that the Lightning lacked the air-to-air capability of newer fighters doesn't relate to its maneuverability as far as I can tell, just the fact that its' radar and avionics were outdated.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> That problem is that 'opinions' are just that = opinions. They're pretty worthless without supportive facts.
> 
> As you know turn performance is not all about wing loading, its just as much about the thrust to weight ratio, and the Lightning actually has the advantage in both areas over the F-5A/B/E.
> 
> ...


Points taken but I would like to compare both aircraft, 450 knots in an operational configuration. "D" was one of two people I've heard this from and he being a Lightning fanatic would seem like a reliable source since he had a direct source to Lightning operations.

Wiki tells us the Lightning has a wing loading of 87.9 lb/ft², I show 132.44 lb. per Sq. ft for the F-5E.


----------



## red admiral (May 4, 2009)

The F-5 might be able to turn tighter at 450knts, but why is the Lightning going to be fighting in that regime? If you're limited to that speed you may as well have a Follant Gnat and fly rings around the F-5 again. Given the large amount of thrust and excellent accelration, even if you bleed off a lot of speed in a tight turn, you're soon flying fast again.

The air to air capability came from the inability to mount newer weapons and the newer weapons being cancelled. The dish diameter was fairly small which limited the range of the radar. However, the radar guided missiles were all cancelled at various stages leaving only Firestreak and Red Top IR missiles. The problem comes with the cancellation of the generation after the Lighting around 1960. Large aircraft for M2.5+ with longer range and various new missiles. The most likely to be built was the Fairey "Delta III" which was a large delta. Climb to 75000ft in 1.5minutes with reheat. Because of the aluminium construction max speed is limited to M2.27 but M1.9 is possible without reheat. It was later planned to use stainless steel construction for M3.0. Much larger fuselage for a larger radar dish and either Red Top, Red Dean or Red Hebe missiles. Not really air superiority fighters. With the cancellation of that generation, attention turned to VG and VTOL aircraft, which were in turn cancelled apart from the Harrier. The more advanced missiles were also cancelled so Red Top remained.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

You sure he was talking about maneuverability then FLYBOYJ, and not just refering to the fact the F-5 features more modern avionics, weapons outfit radar ?


Here's an old but very good BBC clip:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-sDdVkGVDs_


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Oh and the Lightning apparently did have the inflight refueling capability:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPPMr8eIoTc_

At 2:50 min forward.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

red admiral said:


> The F-5 might be able to turn tighter at 450knts, but why is the Lightning going to be fighting in that regime?


Point taken, but if it found itself in Vietnam(as we started discussing) it might have been brought down to that speed to engage the MiG-17



Soren said:


> You sure he was talking about maneuverability then FLYBOYJ, and not just refering to the fact the F-5 features more modern avionics, weapons outfit radar ?


Perhaps it was "all the above." Radar, pilot skill and just finding a right spot where the F-5 could exploit the Lightning.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Btw, the normal weight of the Lightning is from would I can gather around 15,500 kg. 18,900 kg is with maximum load out.

So the combat wing loading of the Electric Lightning is a respectable 351.4 kg/m^2. The F-5E on the other hand has a wing loading of over 500 kg/m^2.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Perhaps it was "all the above." Radar, pilot skill and just finding a right spot where the F-5 could exploit the Lightning.



Roger that, cause according to all the data we have the Lightning was indeed one of the best turn fighters out there and should outturn the F-5E at all speeds.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

So all in all I've got to agree with Bill, the Lightning would've been an ideal a/c for the USAF during the Vietnam war. But the US also had a good fighter in the F-8 Crusader, which unfortunately didn't get the role it deserved during nam.


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> So all in all I've got to agree with Bill, the Lightning would've been an ideal a/c for the USAF during the Vietnam war. But the US also had a good fighter in the F-8 Crusader, which unfortunately didn't get the role it deserved during nam.



Actually, while the MiG 17 was the prime air weapon I would have gone back to late model F-86's (F-86K) - but I agree the Crusader..and the range was insufficient for F-86


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2009)

There is no doubt that the Lightning became outdated and that its electronincs which were not seriously updated held it back. However it would be wrong to believe that when it entered service that the electronincs were behind its contemparies.
The Lightning had a number of firsts in this area, it had the Red Top missile which had a much greater operational aspect than most and was sometimes described as a limited all aspect missile. In truth the head on only worked aganst a high flying aircraft which was going at sufficient speed to warm up the airframe.
I think (and am happy to be corrected on this) that the radar was the first that could automatically track more than one target at a time. 
As for its agility the climb and acceleration speak for itself and whilst it had a good roll rate its actual turn was not shall we say its strength.

One last point they could and often were fitted with a fixed air to air refuelling probe that was on the port side of the aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Agree folks.

I always wondered how things work have worked out sending in F-8s to take care of the MiG-21 and having F-86Ks to take on the MiG-17s.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Here's how 4 MIG-17's were dealt with by one F-8 Crusader. Pretty amazing: 
Clip 1: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tFX78bLM-Y_
Clip 2: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFU6-43t7s_


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Here's how 4 MIG-17's were dealt with by one F-8 Crusader. Pretty amazing:
> Clip 1:
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tFX78bLM-Y_
> Clip 2:
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzFU6-43t7s_




Great flying - good thing the 17's didn't have Atolls when he was going vertical on them.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

Yeah that would've ruined his day no doubt. The MIG's were also lucky that his belt snapped later.


----------



## Waynos (May 4, 2009)

I agree with Soren (and others) about the Lightning and its turn capability. To say that the Lightning was not a turning fighter is just plain wrong. If I could only find the exact quote from Beau's book that I mentioned earlier in the thread I could put it up here but the words of a USAF test pilot with experience of all then current types leave me in no doubt that the Lightning was phenominally manouverable and in fact, turning, as well as acceleration and climb, numbereed among its greatest strengths.

One reason put forward for this, which I have not seen mentioned here yet, was that in addition to the high thrust and low frontal area the Lightning enjoyed, there was also the Lightnings unique wing design which benefitted from the highly swept leading edge acting in a similar way to the LERX of later types, the perpendicular hinge line of its 'tip' ailerons which gave a positive and rapid response, but it also lacked the inherent drag of a delta such as the Mirage/F-106, the wing resembling, as it does, a delta with the inboard trailing section removed. Later models benfitted from even better manouverability thanks to the 'cranked and drooped' leading edge mod to the F-2A and F-6. It was also these models which had the larger ventral CFT (with the guns and ammo in the front half of it) plumbing for overwing ferry tanks and the wing mounted IFR probe.





I'm not an aerodynamiscist myself so I can't furnish graphs and formulae on this but thats how the Lightnings high agility is explained in all the reference works I have read on it from the likes of Beau, Charles Gardner, etc


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2009)

I wonder if the 86 belongs here as it was introduced operationally in 1949?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I agree with Soren (and others) about the Lightning and its turn capability. To say that the Lightning was not a turning fighter is just plain wrong. If I could only find the exact quote from Beau's book that I mentioned earlier in the thread I could put it up here but the words of a USAF test pilot with experience of all then current types leave me in no doubt that the Lightning was phenominally manouverable and in fact, turning, as well as acceleration and climb, numbereed among its greatest strengths.


I read the report by the USAF pilot you mention and he did give accolades to the Lightning's turning abilities. I've seen others mention that its turning ability wasn't its greatest strength but considering its size, it turned well. 

Going back to the original point here, could it turn with a MiG-17?

Wiki tells us the Lightning has a wing loading of 429 kg/m2, the MiG-17 237 kg/m²


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I wonder if the 86 belongs here as it was introduced operationally in 1949?



Good point


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I read the report by the USAF pilot you mention and he did give accolades to the Lightning's turning abilities. I've seen others mention that its turning ability wasn't its greatest strength but considering its size, it turned well.
> 
> Going back to the original point here, could it turn with a MiG-17?
> 
> Wiki tells us the Lightning has a wing loading of 429 kg/m2, the MiG-17 237 kg/m²



Just to be fair the actual combat weight of the Lightning was around 14,500 to 15,500 kg, so the wing loading was only 328 kg/m^2 to 351 kg/m^2.

So for comparison..

Lightning:
Wingloading = 328 kg/m^2 to 351 kg/m^2
T/W ratio = 0.96 to 1.02

MIG-17:
Wingloading = 237 kg/m^2
T/W ratio = 0.63


From the above data my best educated guess is that they would be very close in turn performance at low speeds, the MIG-17 benefitting from its low wing-loading while the Lightning simply powers through any turn with brute force. But this assuming a fight in the horizontal plane. A fight in the vertical with looping turns the Lightning will quite effortlessly win.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> Just to be fair the actual combat weight of the Lightning was around 15,000 to 15,500 kg, so the wing loading was only 351 kg/m^2.
> 
> So for comparison..
> 
> ...



On the 17, knock off about 1000kg. Loaded 5,324kg, fully loaded 6,286 kg.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

An Electric lightning F.6:


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> On the 17, knock off about 1000kg. Loaded 5,324kg, fully loaded 6,286 kg.




I did, the wing loading is 237 kg/m^2 and the T/W ratio is 0.63 at 5370 kg weight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I did, the wing loading is 237 kg/m^2 and the T/W ratio is 0.63 at 5370 kg weight.



Ok

Well the Lightning with a third more power to weight ratio and the MiG-17 with 114kg less wing loading - interesting.

A properly trained Lightning pilot should best the MiG from medium distances, I would still avoid a turning fight.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2009)

I wouldn't be scared of a turnfight with a MIG-17 if I was in a Lightning, and for three reasons primarily:

1. I know I can power through the tightest of turns
2. If it turns out that the MIG-17 can turn slightly better than me in a plain horizontal turnfight, well then I simply point my nose up abit and force the fight into a climbing turnfight.
3. I know that if he even as much as starts to gain an advantage on me in a turnfight I can either simply point my a/c directly up into the sun and climb away effortlessly or level out and speed out of there in no time.

But I am quite convinced that because of the Lightnings huge advantage in T/W ratio it will outturn the MIG-17 at any speed. Esp. the later Lightning F.6 should be able to outturn the MIG.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 4, 2009)

Soren said:


> I wouldn't be scared of a turnfight with a MIG-17 if I was in a Lightning, and for three reasons primarily:
> 
> 1. I know I can power through the tightest of turns
> 2. If it turns out that the MIG-17 can turn slightly better than me in a plain horizontal turnfight, well then I simply point my nose up abit and force the fight into a climbing turnfight.
> 3. I know that if he even as much as starts to gain an advantage on me in a turnfight I can either simply point my a/c directly up into the sun and climb away effortlessly or level out and speed out of there in no time.


I could agree with the first two to a point - I don't think the third item will come into play because things are going to happen so quickly you probably won't have time to think about that and if he's already on you're tail, you're dead.

I did jet combat simulations in lumpy T-33s, L-29s and 39s and things happen very quickly in those slugs, I could only imagine how much quicker a visual dogfight would be in a 17 vs, Lightening.




Soren said:


> But I am quite convinced that because of the Lightnings huge advantage in T/W ratio it will outturn the MIG-17 at any speed. Esp. the later Lightning F.6 should be able to outturn the MIG.


The F.6 was introduced in the late 60s if we put this in a Vietnam perspective. I think the MiG-17 might hold its own against the earlier heavier Lightning in a turning contest.

For me, I wouldn't take the chance - I'd exploit the full advantage of my aircraft and stay in the vertical.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2009)

Wouldnt it be better for the Lightning to exploit its missile fitout, to which the Mig has no answer at all ???? How efficient were the Red Top missiles carried by the Lightning???


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Wouldnt it be better for the Lightning to exploit its missile fitout, to which the Mig has no answer at all ???? How efficient were the Red Top missiles carried by the Lightning???



Very efficient, just very expensive


----------



## Graeme (May 5, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I wonder if the 86 belongs here as it was introduced operationally in 1949?



I think it does Bill, based on the fact that numerous new variants were produced and flown throughout the Fifties, including the CA-27, whereas the Lightning to me is more of a sixties aircraft. Until very late in the decade the "Lightning" was the "big mouth" P.1A/B, which demonstrated a number of problems.





But that's just my opinion.

This is Gunston's list from "Fighters of the Fifties" which includes prototypes and projects.

He has very high praise for the Avro CF-100 (and the Arrow  ), Hunter and the Vought XF8U-3 Crusader - "By far the best fighter we (the US) ever cancelled".


----------



## unix_nerd (May 5, 2009)

In my opinion the Mig-21F-13 was a quit good 50’s fighter. Fast agile good climb cannon and rocket armed. Less radar, but with radar range finder coupled to gyro gun sight. Pilots how flow it called it “sports car”. Even ten years later in Vietnam a challenging dogfighter…..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2009)

unix_nerd said:


> In my opinion the Mig-21F-13 was a quit good 50’s fighter. Fast agile good climb cannon and rocket armed. Less radar, but with radar range finder coupled to gyro gun sight. Pilots how flow it called it “sports car”. Even ten years later in Vietnam a challenging dogfighter…..



But it could only stay in the air for a half hour! Although formidable in Vietnam, they still were pretty much mauled.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2009)

And with only 20+ of them in the inventory, they sure as h*ll couldn't afford to lose them....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 5, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> And with only 20+ of them in the inventory, they sure as h*ll couldn't afford to lose them....



Depending who you talk to during operation Bolo, the NVNAF lost 2/3rds of their MiG-21s, 7 of them. There would have been more if the F-4s had a gun or had more reliable Sparrow Missiles. I believe at least 4 of them were duds during the engagement.


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2009)

The Mig -21 was very small, about the size of an F-5, so adaptability was limited. I also think it was somewhat limited at low level by the delta wing.
Light and powerful typically makes a good dogfighter, but for the broader terms of fighter, it was limited.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 5, 2009)

True! They really got their *rse whipped that day thanks to the late Mr Olds!


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2009)

So what about a comparison between the Lightning and the F-106. Who's got the edge in your opinion ?


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2009)

Lightning:
Wing loading = 328 kg/m^2
T/W ratio = 1.02

Delta Dart:
Wing loading = 254.7 kg/m^2
T/W ratio = 0.70


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> Lightning:
> Wing loading = 328 kg/m^2
> T/W ratio = 1.02
> 
> ...



At the same load (4038 lbs) as what generated the 1.02 T/W of the lightning, I get .86 of for the F-106 (loaded weight of 28458 lbs).


----------



## davparlr (May 5, 2009)

I knew a B-58 pilot who, if I remember correctly, stated that the only aircraft he encountered that could run an intercept on the B-58 was the F-106.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2009)

davparlr said:


> I knew a B-58 pilot who, if I remember correctly, stated that the only aircraft he encountered that could run an intercept on the B-58 was the F-106.


My father in law ran the last operational F-106 squadron in the USAF. These were the chase planes used on the B-1B program. He said he also had a chance to fly dissimilar air combat simulations against F-15s, and depending on the pilot and scenario, sometimes the -106 would come out on top.

He said it lost a lot of energy in turns and didn't accelerate fast, but would continue to accelerate to the point where it would self destruct, one of the fastest aircraft he flew.

This is him in his aircraft


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

Cool pic mate, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

*Update!* J35A Draken was first delivered to fighter squadron F13 in December 1959! So this crate fits in here in this club.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2009)

I just found this after someone sent me a piece on the -106. My father in law is either flying the B-1 or the chase plane.


----------



## davparlr (May 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> My father in law ran the last operational F-106 squadron in the USAF. These were the chase planes used on the B-1B program. He said he also had a chance to fly dissimilar air combat simulations against F-15s, and depending on the pilot and scenario, sometimes the -106 would come out on top.
> 
> He said it lost a lot of energy in turns and didn't accelerate fast, but would continue to accelerate to the point where it would self destruct, one of the fastest aircraft he flew.
> 
> This is him in his aircraft



Lucky guy. I love the looks of the F-106, one of my selections of best looking aircraft. Unfortunately, when I graduated from pilot training, the only F-106s were in Guard units. We only had five fighters come down in our block, one of which was an F-100 which switched to an OV-10 for the unlucky guy, of a class of 52, I was 13. It would have been great to move into the 106, as one of my classmates did, who was in the Guard.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

I have to ask though.... Wasn't it bl**dy annoying to have that frame right infront of you, like the early P-47's?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> I have to ask though.... Wasn't it bl**dy annoying to have that frame right infront of you, like the early P-47's?



I asked him about that and he said you just got used to it.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

Right... Thanks!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2009)

Just got off the phone with him - In the picture I posted on the previous page, he's in the -106.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 6, 2009)

The lucky s-o-b.....whoops...sorry!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 6, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> The lucky s-o-b.....whoops...sorry!


 

_"On July 4th 1987 86-0098 broke four existing world records and set 14 new ones during Freedom Flight I. The aircraft flew 2000 km with a payload of 30000 kg , breaking records for 1000 km and 2000 km at a variety of payload weights. The crew consisted of pilots *Lt Col Robert Chamberlain *and Capt Michael Walters, OSO Maj Richard Fisher and DSO Capt Nathan Gray. The records were all set in Class C-1q for aircraft with a takeoff weight of 150000 kg to 200000 kg."_

Target Lock: B-1B : Squadron Service 1985 to 1992

Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) - Aviation and Space World Records


----------



## drgondog (May 6, 2009)

Soren said:


> So what about a comparison between the Lightning and the F-106. Who's got the edge in your opinion ?



If you look at the mission - namely bomber killing interceptor - and maybe take on some unlikely escort with those bombers - I would go F-106 all day long. Far greater range for 106 vs Lightning and near equivalency against each other but superior to the 'other guy'

The intangible is that the 106 also had the lowest accident rate of any of the Century fighters for USAF. It was one helluva ship when all the bugs were ironed out of the fire control systems.


----------



## davparlr (May 6, 2009)

drgondog said:


> It was one helluva ship when all the bugs were ironed out of the fire control systems.



If it was available, I would have jumped on that plane in a flash, even if F4s would had been available. Hot jet, single seater, and great looking. The F4 slots were all, I believe, back seaters. The AF used pilots as Weapon Systems Officers in the F4. You had to pull a tour in the back before you move up front.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

davparlr said:


> At the same load (4038 lbs) as what generated the 1.02 T/W of the lightning, I get .86 of for the F-106 (loaded weight of 28458 lbs).



The loaded weight of the F-106 is 38,700 lbs according to this place, which seems to be a very reliable source: F-106 Delta Dart - Specifications

So that's actually a wing loading of 285 kg/m^2 and a T/W ratio of 0.63. Abit worse than before when using the figures from Wiki.

Max loaded weight is 41,831 lbs according to the site.


----------



## Soren (May 7, 2009)

drgondog said:


> If you look at the mission - namely bomber killing interceptor - and maybe take on some unlikely escort with those bombers - I would go F-106 all day long. Far greater range for 106 vs Lightning and near equivalency against each other but superior to the 'other guy'
> 
> The intangible is that the 106 also had the lowest accident rate of any of the Century fighters for USAF. It was one helluva ship when all the bugs were ironed out of the fire control systems.



I'd choose the Lightning I must admit. The reason being that the Lightning turns climbs much better than the F-106, plus it's got a higher ceiling as-well.

The only two things the F-106 seems to have going for it is its' speed range. 

So apart from the fact that the F-106 has over double the range, I can't really see why you'd choose it over the Lightning ? Atleast not for defense. For escort, yes, then I can see why and I'd agree.


----------



## red admiral (May 7, 2009)

From reading more about the F-106 I'm beginning to be even more unsure about the weapons system. There were a lot of problems with the MA-1 integrated fire control system and its coupled to missiles that aren't particularly good. The performance of the AIM-4s is not great and they have very small warheads (The US is using 8lb warheads to shoot down bombers whilst at the same time the UK is using 150lb warheads?) with contact fuses. Guidance is a bit so so, but salvos of missiles would make it a bit more effective. Even so, assuming the hit probability of the AIM-7 a decade later things don't look too good. It pretty much leaves the Genie unguided nuclear rocket as the only effective armament.

The Lightning has Firestreak and cannons in this period. Firestreak is more complicated but has a wider engagement range, much larger warhead and actually seemed to work reasonably well.


----------



## neilf92 (May 7, 2009)

Scimitar - just 'cause I used to see them low level near my school as a youngster . Made a big impression.


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'd choose the Lightning I must admit. The reason being that the Lightning turns climbs much better than the F-106, plus it's got a higher ceiling as-well.
> 
> The only two things the F-106 seems to have going for it is its' speed range.
> 
> So apart from the fact that the F-106 has over double the range, I can't really see why you'd choose it over the Lightning ? Atleast not for defense. For escort, yes, then I can see why and I'd agree.



The fact the 106 manuevered extremely well against the F-15 is a very high testimonial on it's manueverability with a fighter 20 years younger.

It would be nice if we had access to a Red Flag type exercise between the 106 and Lightning but I haven't found anything of that nature.

It had no role as an escort. The 102 performed that a couple of times in Nam but that wasn't its mission either.


----------



## Waynos (May 7, 2009)

If there are any 106's available maybe Thunder City could arrange a flyoff. How cool would that be!


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The fact the 106 manuevered extremely well against the F-15 is a very high testimonial on it's manueverability with a fighter 20 years younger.



It probably maneuvered very well at some speeds, esp. in roll rate, but the Delta wing isn't suited for turn fighting. And that coupled with the much lower T/W ratio means that the F-106 most likely got its ass handed to it in any form of turn fight with either the Lightning or F-15.



> It would be nice if we had access to a Red Flag type exercise between the 106 and Lightning but I haven't found anything of that nature.



Agreed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 8, 2009)

As mentioned earlier, my father in law took his -106s up against F-15 and sometimes they (the -106 guys) would come out on top and I think in the exercises they exploited their speed and roll rates as Soren mentions. At the same time a few of his aircraft were brought back to the Rockwell facility with some screw heads popped off wing panels. His maintenance chief would have fits. BTW, he's one of the guys who put together this page.

F-106 Delta Dart - B1B Chase Program

Looking around, I found this. Again my father in law's airplane

erv40large

This is what the last operational 106 flight line looked like 

erv44large


----------



## Glider (May 8, 2009)

I must admit that the US do keep their planes in immaculate condition. When I see European aircraft that are reaching the end of their service lives they always look tired for want of a better word. US aircraft always seem to look factory fresh.


----------



## drgondog (May 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> It probably maneuvered very well at some speeds, esp. in roll rate, but the Delta wing isn't suited for turn fighting. And that coupled with the much lower T/W ratio means that the F-106 most likely got its ass handed to it in any form of turn fight with either the Lightning or F-15.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.



I tend to agree


----------



## davparlr (May 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> The loaded weight of the F-106 is 38,700 lbs according to this place, which seems to be a very reliable source: F-106 Delta Dart - Specifications
> 
> So that's actually a wing loading of 285 kg/m^2 and a T/W ratio of 0.63. Abit worse than before when using the figures from Wiki.
> 
> Max loaded weight is 41,831 lbs according to the site.



Well, I never trust published loaded weight unless detail of the load is defined, especially fuel. As you know, I am mostly interested in comparing aircraft at comparable loads. The Lightning has an empty weight of 28040 lbs and thrust of 32720 lbs which gives an empty T/W of 1.17. The F-106 has an empty weight of 23646 lbs and a thrust of 24500 lbs giving a empty T/W of 1.04. Now assuming the pilot is similar in weight and weapons expendables (ammo for two 30mm and two missiles for the Lightning, and ammo for one 20mm Vulcan and four, although lighter, missile) are equivalent, and we load up the aircraft with equal fuel, the amount of load should be similar. If we add these loads to the empty aircraft, and compare the T/W, it will change a lot from the empty thrust to weight. Let's say 4000 lbs of load, then we get a T/W of the Lightning of 1.02 and for the F-106, .89.

I think this is a more accurate comparison of the two aircraft.

I don't disagree with you on your opinion of comparisons of the two aircraft. The Lightning seems like a stronger performer. I think the F-106 may have maneuver advantages at very high altitude, since this is where a delta typically shines. Also, it should have a reasonable speed advantages since the missles are carried externally on the Ligthning and the F-106 missiles are internal. This would affect high end mach.


----------



## Soren (May 8, 2009)

Davparlr,

At very high altitudes you generally always want long slender wings with a very high L/D ratio, i.e. not a delta wing. So in terms of the turn performance the F-106 is most likely inferior over the whole height band.

Speed is the F-106's force.


----------



## drgondog (May 9, 2009)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> At very high altitudes you generally always want long slender wings with a very high L/D ratio, i.e. not a delta wing. So in terms of the turn performance the F-106 is most likely inferior over the whole height band.
> 
> Speed is the F-106's force.



*A couple of points. 

First high L/D, long slender wings have a tendency to 'depart' at supersonic speeds - and neither of the wings in comparison fit high AR description

Second, we will go down a rathole without data if not careful - but the 106 had a significantly lower wing loading than the Lightning - empty or max - as it has 40% more wing area for nearly the same weight profiles.

Third - the 106 was faster despite having lower thrust than the Lightning - indicating significantly lower drag. A delta has a tendency to bleed energy faster but the 106 had a lot of excess thrust to maintain high speed/high G turn - and lower drag. For reasons noted below the wing advantage in turn for the Lightning may not be significant.*

The Lightning should out accelerate and out climb the 106. The 106 should out turn and go faster. In a long sustained turn fight the Lightning may have an advantage - and it may not.

The Delta wing has advantages relative to stability and control by virtue of the small lift distribution movement when passing through transonic speeds but I am curious how much of this effect was also captured by the Lightning wing as the planform is a delta with the aft/inboard piece cut out.


----------



## Soren (May 9, 2009)

Both have a very high critical AoA, so much so that the thrust is very much important even for the initial turn rate. So my guess is that in a turn fight the Lightning is the superior of the two.


----------



## thom regit (May 9, 2009)

The aircraft that actually did the most (shoot down enemy aircraft) to deserve to be called the best would have to be the F-86. It also bested the Hunter in air to air during the Pakistan vs. India war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 10, 2009)

Soren said:


> Both have a very high critical AoA, so much so that the thrust is very much important even for the initial turn rate. So my guess is that in a turn fight the Lightning is the superior of the two.


That will depend on altitude and airspeed being carried by both aircraft IMO - I think we also neglected the fact that the Lightning carried its armament externally, while the F-106 had an internal weapons bay. Additional I doubt you see any of these aircraft in a pure "turning fight" that was so common in WW2.



thom regit said:


> The aircraft that actually did the most (shoot down enemy aircraft) to deserve to be called the best would have to be the F-86. It also bested the Hunter in air to air during the Pakistan vs. India war.


While I agree with you on the F-86's record, I think during the Indo-Pakistan wars the Sabre/ Hunter square off was about equal.


----------



## Soren (May 10, 2009)

FLYBOYJ,

I am basing much of my opinion on the F-06's performance in comparison to the F-15, which shares a similar wing thrust loading with the Lightning. But I agree that we're merely speculating at this point.


----------



## pbfoot (May 10, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> . Additional I doubt you see any of these aircraft in a pure "turning fight" that was so common in WW2.
> 
> 
> .



Bang on... straight line til as directed by GCI they can launch weapons then RTB to what they hope will be an airfield


----------



## Soren (May 11, 2009)

It wasn't that simple in the 50's pbfoot, missiles weren't that reliable, esp. not in head on shootouts.

But I agree that sustained turn fights would've been rare, they even became so in WW2 once the a/c got faster.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 11, 2009)

some have info on sukhoi fighters of '50?
The Su 9 interceptor and Su 7 fighter bomber maybe to squadrons in very late '50.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2009)

At out family's Mother's Day gathering I cornered my father in law and told him about this thread. His feelings.

_*"I know the Lightning was a rocket from take off to altitude, I always thought its primary role was to kill bombers. The 106 wasn't as fast off the line but had the legs to intercept bombers and fighters of the day at a considerable distance. Below 25,000 feet I think the Lightning would be superior, I have questions at above that altitude. Although the 106 had that delta wing and lost energy in a turn, it wasn't as bad as an F-4 (which he also flew). In both aircraft it would be a matter of how much airspeed could be sustained during the turn. A 106 going about 600 knots would loose about 125 knots if turned about 4 gs at 30,000 feet, and F-4 would loose about 220. I suspect the Lightning would be in the same boat although having 2 engines. I also suspect wing pylons and under wing weapons would also reduce speed and performance. We had 2 on the F-106 for drop tanks that slightly diminished our performance when carried, all other weapons were in the weapons bay.

It wasn't until the F-15 where you started seeing fighters with real good sustained turn performance. At altitude the 106 really excelled and would continue to build up speed until it self-destructed. The B-1 and F-111 did the same thing.

I think both aircraft might be close in turning performance but I think the 106 would work better at altitude, it would be a matter of how much energy each aircraft would sustain."*_

I have some more comments from him I'll try to post later today.


----------



## timshatz (May 11, 2009)

Good post Flyboy.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 11, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Good post Flyboy.



Thanks.

A little more.

*"The Lightning has that long thin swept back wing which I don't think lends itself to turning at altitude, but I'm speculating having never flown the aircraft. From what I've heard about the aircraft, it's a good "boom and zoom" aircraft like the F-106. In comparing the -106 to the F-15, the only way you're really going to get the "jump" on the F-15 is if you're vectored by GCI and the F-15 driver is asleep at the wheel. You might also be able to utilize speed (energy) in the early part of the engagement, but after that you better bug out as the F-15 will kill you pretty quickly. 

I know the Lightning had a cannon, great if you're in close and get the opportunity to use it. Remember if all the cards were on the table, the 106 was armed with nuclear tipped Genies. Forget the dogfight; one missile could take out an entire formation and everything within a 30 mile radius."*


----------



## davparlr (May 11, 2009)

Thanks. I clung to each word. I would have loved to fly that plane.




FLYBOYJ said:


> Thanks.
> 
> A little more.
> 
> ...


----------



## drgondog (May 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ,
> 
> I am basing much of my opinion on the F-06's performance in comparison to the F-15, which shares a similar wing thrust loading with the Lightning. But I agree that we're merely speculating at this point.



Soren - it would be a stretch to say the F-15 and Lightning share 'similar wing and thrust loading' if I understood your statement to mean Lightning similar to F-15?

It is hard to find a definable data on the operational weight of the lightning but the difference between empty and max from all the data I have seen so far is about 14,000 pounds (28K to 41.7K). The wing area is stated as 474 sq ft for the F6 with max thrust at afterburner of 32K pounds.

The F-15C also has an empty weight of 28K, a stated op weight of 44.5K (3,000 more than Lightning Max Gross weight) and a a Max take off of 68K

The Op weight comparison against the Lightning max seems a first case reasonable comparison - to look at nominal intercept fuel and weapons load which is still more than 3,000 pounds more than the Lightning can carry - all up.

Then the F-15C
Wing Area = 608 sq ft
Thrust = 58,000 pounds (P&W 100-229 in a/b)
Weight = 44,500 pounds

The W/L 
Lightning F6 = .77 @ 41,700 pounds
= 1.14 @ 28K pounds (empty)

The F-15C = 1.30 @ 44,500 pounds
= 2.07 @ 28K pounds (empty)
= .85 @ 68,000 pounds (max ferry take off weight > 40K more than Lightning empty weight)

So the F-15C carrying the equivalent of 1 1/2 empty Lightnings (or an 1.5 empty F-15)has a much higher T/W than a Lightning carrying 1/2 of an empty Lightning (or .5 F-15).

Then the W/L figures show the same disparity. 28K/474 vs 28K/605 for empty and 41.7/474 (87.9) vs 44.5/605 (73.5)

These a/c both had a similar climb rate and altitude but under nominal combat conditions the F-15 would retain energy, accelerate and turn much better than the Lightning (up to a pilot's g tolerance). 

The higher top end speed of the F-15 should give it a slight edge in engage or flee in a gun fight but shouldn't matter much in a missle fight but the avionics advantage in the F-15 would be huge

So, dropping back to base of argument, the anecdotal recitals of F-106 and F-15 Red Flag engagements put the Subjective recollections, that the F-106 gave suprising accounts for itself, into an interesting perspective. 

Again - it would be more meaningful if similar Lightning/F-15 tangles in a controlled and recored Red Flag scenario were also available.


----------



## Amsel (May 11, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Remember if all the cards were on the table, the 106 was armed with nuclear tipped Genies. Forget the dogfight; one missile could take out an entire formation and everything within a 30 mile radius."[/I][/B]



Very interesting. I have not heard to much about the "nuclear tipped genies". I imagine that they are for intercepting Soviet strategic bombers who are possibly armed with nuclear bombs.


----------



## drgondog (May 11, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Very interesting. I have not heard to much about the "nuclear tipped genies". I imagine that they are for intercepting Soviet strategic bombers who are possibly armed with nuclear bombs.



The Genie was intended as an 'offshore' formation destroyer with a .5 kiloton yield. 

Both US and USSR attack doctrines in the 60's changed forever from massed formations to many single/multiple heading and different altitude attacks with stand off capability - neutralizing all possible effective use of the Genie.


----------



## dragonandhistail (May 12, 2009)

My vote is the F-86. There are too many Apples and Oranges to compare roles on this list. many of these aircraft were more prominent in the 1960s and shouldn't be on here. F86 was the best aircraft as an air superiority aircraft for its time and the pilots amade the difference.


----------



## pbfoot (May 12, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> My vote is the F-86. There are too many Apples and Oranges to compare roles on this list. many of these aircraft were more prominent in the 1960s and shouldn't be on here. F86 was the best aircraft as an air superiority aircraft for its time and the pilots amade the difference.



I agree that most of these aircraft are from the 60's but might give the edge to the Hunter over the 86 only because it came out much later


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> I agree that most of these aircraft are from the 60's but might give the edge to the Hunter over the 86 only because it came out much later


About a year ago or so Glider and I had a discussion about the Hunter vs. the Sabre and I think on the world wide battle field, they came out about even in kills against each other. The -86 smoked a few MiG-21s over India/ Pakistan


----------



## Graeme (May 12, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Very interesting. I have not heard to much about the "nuclear tipped genies". I imagine that they are for intercepting Soviet strategic bombers who are possibly armed with nuclear bombs.



The Genie mission profile...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 12, 2009)

Nice post!


----------



## pbfoot (May 12, 2009)

antbody notice there is not one US Navy aircraft on the list such as the Grumman F11f Tiger ,Panther and Cougar,also missing is the Ouragan and Mirage ll although I wouldn't include it in the best fighterthe F89 and Cf100


----------



## Glider (May 13, 2009)

The Crusader is on the list


----------



## renrich (May 13, 2009)

I think a lot of these fighters were not truly operational until the 60s but i I just thought of one that was a 50s AC with fine performance, the F4D Skyray. Supersonic in level flight and a very fast climber.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 13, 2009)

Here's a picture of the Skyray.


----------



## Clave (May 14, 2009)

The Lightning was/is truly unique.

True, it lacks range and multi-missile carrying ability, but as an _interceptor_ it was hard to beat...

Oh, and the Skyray will always be one of the most beautiful 50s jets - what a great shape!


----------



## renrich (May 14, 2009)

I read that the F4D could climb from SL to 50000 feet in something over two minutes. Pretty fast.


----------



## timshatz (May 14, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> antbody notice there is not one US Navy aircraft on the list such as the Grumman F11f Tiger ,Panther and Cougar,also missing is the Ouragan and Mirage ll although I wouldn't include it in the best fighterthe F89 and Cf100



All operational in the 50s, some of them in the early 60s. But, I think the thread has drifted from the first gen fighters (which most of those were- or early 2nd gen) to the late 2nd gen aircraft such as the 106 and the 21. 

But a good point. Always though the Panther/Cougar combo were two very pretty jets. Ouragan was a wierd looking, porky shapped bird.


----------



## Jgonzalez (May 15, 2009)

I dunno if it's fair to compare the Mig-21 with the Mig-19 or the Sabre, besides howcome the F-86 is an option an the MIg-15 (its counterpart) was omited, both built and first flawn in the late 40's. Actualy the F-4 Phantom did her maiden flight in 1958, making her technicaly a 1950's A/c. Between the a/c proposed I must pick the Mig-21, although she's more comparable with the Phantom. The F-104 was a great plane, so good she serviced for almost 50 years!!!! (italian AF retired the last servicing f-104s in 2004), but I'm not sure if she was as effective as an actual combat/fighter jet.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 15, 2009)

I have to admit that I like the Skyray too...and the Cutlass.  Am I right in understanding that the Cutlass was pretty much a failure?


----------



## renrich (May 15, 2009)

The F7U was pretty much a failure. As with several Vought creations it was too advanced for it's time and had many operationl problems. One problem I heard about that was trying to be fixed when I worked next door to Vought at Temco was that when the guns were fired the engine flamed out. I was involved in the flight test engineering of the Temco TT-1. LOL I don't know why the Skyray was not continued in service.


----------



## Graeme (May 15, 2009)

renrich said:


> The F7U was pretty much a failure.



Pity. Always loved the look of the Cutlass. Some early designs...


----------



## Glider (May 15, 2009)

renrich said:


> The F7U was pretty much a failure. As with several Vought creations it was too advanced for it's time and had many operationl problems. One problem I heard about that was trying to be fixed when I worked next door to Vought at Temco was that when the guns were fired the engine flamed out. I was involved in the flight test engineering of the Temco TT-1. LOL I don't know why the Skyray was not continued in service.



The first Hunters had the same problem and at certain altitudes, even the later versions you could only fire two Adens as firing four caused flame out.


----------



## renrich (May 16, 2009)

Unless I am mistaken the Cutlass was the first US fighter fitted with afterburning. Paul Thayer who was working for Vought at the time was doing an air show at Pautuxent in an F7U, came over the crowd, cut in the burners, something came loose, the airplane caught on fire, whereupon he steered it over the water and ejected. When he got back to the field some of his Navy buddies said "Gee Paul, that was really a spectacular stunt."


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

I have now uncovered the Beaumont book I referred to previously. Here is the report I was referring to earlier in support of the Lightning.














Also in the same chapter Beaumont writes "the Lightning was likely to remain superior (to the F-106) on many counts. These included acceleration and time to altitude, * and hard turning capability and sustained g at all altitudes* due to the Lightnings low tailplane configuration which produced significantly less lift-loss and induced drag in the turn than the all-elevon wing of the F-106"

"Of the first three generations of subsonic, transonic and mach 2 capable jet fighters the North American F-86 Sabre was undoubtedly the classic of the first era. The English Electric Lightning will always be held, by its pilots at least, to be the finest of the first mach 2 fighters, the F-106 and Mirage running it in all departments *except combat manoeuvrability in which the Lightning was supreme* " (my emphasis)

I don't know why the middle page came out smaller when all I did was press 'scan' three times?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Good post Waynos but again I think the "proof of the pudding" would have been a fly off between the -106 and Lightning. It seems like that never happened.


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

True, but as these are experienced test pilots with experience of both types it is probably as close to a fly off as we are likely to find.


----------



## pbfoot (May 17, 2009)

renrich said:


> . One problem I heard about that was trying to be fixed when I worked next door to Vought at Temco was that when the guns were fired the engine flamed out. .


The same problem was also present in those F 86's with the 20mm cannon in Korea


----------



## Glider (May 17, 2009)

Can I ask for the details of that book as its one that I would like to read properly.
Thanks
David


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

Certainly David, happy to oblige

It is 'Testing Early Jets by Roland Beamont, published by Airlife in 1990 and the ISBN is 1 85310 158 3

Got mine off ebay for £2.50, might be worth a punt.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I have now uncovered the Beaumont book I referred to previously. Here is the report I was referring to earlier in support of the Lightning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great post Waynos! 

This pretty much confirms my guesses.

Gotta love the Lightning, a spectacular a/c for its time, the best fighter in the world during that period IMO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Great post Waynos!
> 
> This pretty much confirms my guesses.
> 
> Gotta love the Lightning, a spectacular a/c for its time, the best fighter in the world during that period IMO.



I'm still skeptical as no one (including me) could provide performance data at altitude on both aircraft. The comparisons are being made with contemporary aircraft of the time and the F-101 wasn't exactly the top of the century series fighters in many respects. The Lightning was a spectacular aircraft and in a real time combat situation it would have done its damage way before any opportunity to dog fight would have presented itself, as similar to the 106. I still question its turning and performance ability at altitude.

It had short legs and although a tanker was a solution, it isn't always that easy to get a tanker on station in an intercept situation however for the role it was designed for, I think during its operational career the Lightning was the perfect aircraft.

Don't forget that later in its career the Lightning was structurally limited in G loading, especially during take off.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2009)

I don't understand how you can doubt its turning performance at altitude FLYBOYJ, what is the reason behind your doubts ? 

According to Beaumont the Lightning was clearly a much better turn fighter than the F-106 Mirage, and it climbed accelerated much faster as-well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> I don't understand how you can doubt its turning performance at altitude FLYBOYJ, what is the reason behind your doubts ?
> 
> According to Beaumont the Lightning was clearly a much better turn fighter than the F-106 Mirage, and it climbed accelerated much faster as-well.



Is there any proof that Beaumont even flew the 106? Here did fly the F-104 but I see no reference of him flying the 106. He was a great pilot but I would prefer to believe what the -1s (POH) for each aircraft tells me and if possible compare actual flight data from both aircraft.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2009)

But it's not just Beaumont FLYBOYJ, it's also Capt. Dan Schuyller who it seems did fly the F-106.

I dunno wether Beaumont flew the F-106, but since he makes a comparison between the two I would assume he did.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> But it's not just Beaumont FLYBOYJ, it's also Capt. Dan Schuyller who it seems did fly the F-106.
> 
> I dunno wether Beaumont flew the F-106, but since he makes a comparison between the two I would assume he did.



Read the article, Schuyller makes only one reference to the 106. The only other comparisons were between the F-86 and F-101.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2009)

Yes but Schuyller later states than the Lightning was the most combat maneuverable Mach 2 fighter in the world at the time.


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

Yes, Beamont did fly the 106 as well as the F-102A, F-101 AND F-104. The flight test reports are contained in chapter 5 "Testing 2nd Generation American Jet Fighters, 1958" which is the same chapter that Dan Schuyllers report is taken from and is a direct comparison between these aircraft and the Lightning.

Part of this report states that "Performance, which during the climb phase promises well, is disappointing at altitude and, as measured, does not approach the standard at present achieved with the P.1B series"

a little further down the page he reflects " on the way back to the UK it was pleasant to reflect that in the Lightning it was now clear that the RAF had a fighter which could handle anything in the USAF's inventory up to and including the F-106"

I am conscious that this is now starting to resemble a hatchet job on the F-106 from me so I want to point out that Beamont was very fulsome in his praise of the F-106 thoughout the five pages in the book that this report covers, he just felt that the Lightning, in terms of performance, was better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Yes but Schuyller later states than the Lightning was the most combat maneuverable Mach 2 fighter in the world at the time.


One opinion from an exchange pilot. No indication on how many hours he had in the -106 or if he was even really qualified to give a full assessment of either aircraft. Had the article stated Schuyller's hours, training, time in both aircraft and if he any experience as a test pilot, his statement would catch my interest more. Again, show me the -1 for both aircraft and we might be able to determine how both aircraft would have performed at altitude.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Yes, Beamont did fly the 106 as well as the F-102A, F-101 AND F-104. The flight test reports are contained in chapter 5 "Testing 2nd Generation American Jet Fighters, 1958" which is the same chapter that Dan Schuyllers report is taken from and is a direct comparison between these aircraft and the Lightning.
> 
> Part of this report states that "Performance, which during the climb phase promises well, is disappointing at altitude and, as measured, does not approach the standard at present achieved with the P.1B series"
> 
> ...


That's what I'm looking for.


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

What the whole report? It basically gives all the figures for the F-106 recorded on that particular test flight interspersed with Bea's judgement ie the weapons system was better than on the Lightning, the handling was excellent, the Lightning was easier to fly and was faster, more manoeuvrable etc. Is that what you want scanning? Or do you mean something else?


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2009)

So do we have a settlement ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> What the whole report? It basically gives all the figures for the F-106 recorded on that particular test flight interspersed with Bea's judgement ie the weapons system was better than on the Lightning, the handling was excellent, the Lightning was easier to fly and was faster, more manoeuvrable etc. Is that what you want scanning? Or do you mean something else?



No that's it, but don't scan it, I'll take your word for it!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> So do we have a settlement ?



Just about....


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read the article, Schuyller makes only one reference to the 106. The only other comparisons were between the F-86 and F-101.




Notivce he mentions the turning ability of the F-86 and the power of the F-101, a much larger fighter. He does not mention the performance of either, but id clearly highly impressed with the manouverability. Exactly what words were used and not used can be analysed to death but the meaning is clear.

Oh, and was that sarcasm I detected? 

I was just a bit shocked at the prospect of scanning and uploading 5 pages of a book at 3 am, but don't mind me


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Notivce he mentions the turning ability of the F-86 and the power of the F-101, a much larger fighter. He does not mention the performance of either, but id clearly highly impressed with the manouverability. Exactly what words were used and not used can be analysed to death but the meaning is clear.
> 
> Oh, and was that sarcasm I detected?



No sarcasm, but agree


Waynos said:


> I was just a bit shocked at the prospect of scanning and uploading 5 pages of a book at 3 am, but don't mind me


That's what I call "thread dedication!" 

What years did Beau fly the 106?


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

Done it! I just hope they aren't upside down! 

I don't know about later on but the tests in this book were done on a tour in 1958.
This also raises another question. Did the F-106 have any future develop0ments aimed at improving manoeuvrability? The Lightning on which Schuyller flew was a F.6 which, like the F.2A, had a revised wing planform with cranked and drooped leading edgewhich enhanced the turn rate. This was not in use at the time of these tests


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Great info Waynos! And yes, I think it would be a bit unfair to compare the XF-106 with its -9 J-79. The 106 went through countless mods as initially it was being looked upon as a "dog." Here's a good run down of the 106 mods.

F-106A

The -9 engine was only putting out about 15,000 lbs thrust, by the time we had the matured F-106A you were looking at almost 25,000 pounds.


----------



## Waynos (May 17, 2009)

I'm now going to bed, I may read a bit more of that book, if I find anything of significance to the thread I'll put that up too, night night guys.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 17, 2009)

Waynos said:


> I'm now going to bed, I may read a bit more of that book, if I find anything of significance to the thread I'll put that up too, night night guys.


Good night!


----------



## Glider (May 18, 2009)

Waynos said:


> Certainly David, happy to oblige
> 
> It is 'Testing Early Jets by Roland Beamont, published by Airlife in 1990 and the ISBN is 1 85310 158 3
> 
> Got mine off ebay for £2.50, might be worth a punt.



Thanks for the info, at £2.50 it sounds like a bargin.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 18, 2009)

This is a GREAT thread guys!

Edit: Which are the jets that they're testing in the book?


----------



## Waynos (May 18, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> This is a GREAT thread guys!
> 
> Edit: Which are the jets that they're testing in the book?



Hi, the aircraft discussed in the book are as follows;

1 - early compressibility issues - Spitfire, Hurricane, Typhoon, Bf 109B, Fw 190A-3, Fw 190V-1, Me 262, Me 163, Gloster Meteor, Vampire, Hawker P.1052, DH 108, Tempest.

2- Flight test reports (all by Beamont himself) - P-80, P-84, B-45, XP-86, Canberra, English Electric P.1, Lightning Mk 3, TF-102, F-102A, F-104A, XF-106, F-106A, TSR 2,.

3 - Resume discussing Concorde and placing it in context with the X-15, SR-71, and Space Shuttle 


Plenty to get stuck into.


----------



## pbfoot (May 18, 2009)

Was just reading Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 71-72 and it states the lightning had a non steerable nose wheel ...How would you steer ..Brakes? another thing is the flaps were wet would that lead to excess of plumbing or complications for servicing


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Was just reading Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 71-72 and it states the lightning had a non steerable nose wheel ...How would you steer ..Brakes?


I would guess it had a set up like the Soviets were famous for, a castering nose wheel worked with differential brake pressure - actually the soviets got that set up from the British


pbfoot said:


> another thing is the flaps were wet would that lead to excess of plumbing or complications for servicing


Yep - they stuffed fuel anywhere and everywhere they can.


----------



## Stitch (May 18, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I would guess it had a set up like the Soviets were famous for, a castering nose wheel worked with differential brake pressure - actually the soviets got that set up from the British
> 
> Yep - they stuffed fuel anywhere and everywhere they can.



. . . . and, of course, light planes do the same thing; I remember very well trying to steer a Cessna 337 on the ground at 0 IAS with nothing but the brakes and the throttle.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 18, 2009)

Stitch said:


> . . . . and, of course, light planes do the same thing; I remember very well trying to steer a Cessna 337 on the ground at 0 IAS with nothing but the brakes and the throttle.


Actaully Cessna models do have a nose steering system. Grumman American has castering nose gears but still uses toe brakes. On Cessna models you have to use brakes in tight turns, but once rolling they do have a system connected to the rudder pedals.


----------



## Graeme (May 19, 2009)

pbfoot said:


> Was just reading Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 71-72 and it states the lightning had a non steerable nose wheel ...How would you steer ..Brakes? another thing is the flaps were wet would that lead to excess of plumbing or complications for servicing



That edition describes the F.Mk. 53 export version, which is related to the F.Mk 6, and in a cutaway describes a "*Castor* auto disconnect" (No.23)...





In the 66-67' edition however, the F.Mk 1A is described as having a "hydraulically-*steerable* nose wheel".



FLYBOYJ said:


> I would guess it had a set up like the Soviets were famous for, a castering nose wheel worked with differential brake pressure - actually the soviets got that set up from the British



Beamont, in his flight report on WG760, mentions "restricting* light brake* to the main wheels for* steering*".
Interestingly he records that the main wheels are good for fifteen landings, which he describes are "reasonable". 

The family...


----------

