# F-4 vs. F-106 (1 Viewer)



## tomo pauk (Mar 29, 2019)

Elvis said:


> I beg to differ.
> Ask anyone who flew one...F-106 could wipe the floor with the F-4, any day of the week.
> The reason the F-4 hung around longer than the F-106 was because advancing time and technology eventually developed superior _Air Superiority_ aircraft, which was the F-106's primary, if not only, job.
> The F-4 was seen as more of a "mule" that could be fitted with various munitions to carry out various jobs.
> ...



I don't have any neighbors that have driven anything beyond a bus or a boat, so, until proven otherwise I'll stick to my opinion that F-4 was the best fighter of the 1960s. It was good in doing the long-range interception, as well as in going tree-top killing the MiG-17s. Contrary to F-106, F-4 captured several world records in speed and time-to-alt categories, and was not trying to kill it's pilots that dared to eject. Always with the second pair of eyes, and fully navalized unless costumer wanted otherwise.

F-4 didn't needed saving grace.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Apr 5, 2019)

Performance
Turning
*F-106:* The lower stall-speed would allow enough lift to generate higher g-loads over a wider-range of speeds and altitudes, and the delta-wings would produce vortices at higher angles of attack, which extend the envelope somewhat further; the high drag from the delta-wings would cause a decent bleed-off at lower airspeed. Above 32,000-33,000 feet, from what I remember, turning ability exceeded any operational F-4 variant when subsonic. The light wing-loading did result in some degree of gust-response that might impose structural/maneuvering limits on turning, particularly at higher-speeds (though it was evidently better than the MiG-21). While the highly-swept wings reduced drag for supersonic flight (and, to an extent, reduced the shift of C/L in % MAC), the control-effectiveness was poor or inadequate at low altitudes (the aircraft's MAC was huge and the trim-changes would produce a substantial nose-down moment) when the tanks were fully loaded (once the internal fuel-load burned down, the main-tanks could be drained and the transfer tanks could remain totally or partially filled, which would reposition the CG to match the repositioned C/L). At higher altitudes, though few massive supersonic fighter-to-fighter maneuvering engagements occur at supersonic speeds at high altitudes, both aircraft were designed as interceptors, and that capability could be useful for engaging bombers. I have no idea which design would be better for high-altitude turning at supersonic speeds.
*F-4:* The higher stall-speed results in inadequate lift to maneuver the aircraft at lower airspeeds/higher altitudes. At lower altitudes the greater engine-power (and possibly the smaller wing) would allow for greater sustained g-loads (~7g, give or take a few tenths of a -G); the later F-4E models had maneuvering-slats, which increased maneuverability at lower speeds, placing it over the MiG-21 and F-106 until around 32000-33000' from what it appears. While the aircraft had some maneuvering limits owing to gust-response, they seemed overall, less severe than the F-106. It seemed able to readily fly supersonic at low altitude without any need for trim-tanks, as long as it was in the air-to-air configuration.
*Verdict:* At lower speeds and higher altitudes, the F-106 generally rules the roost in terms of turning performance; at higher speeds and low-altitudes: The F-4 has the general advantage due to a superior sustained agility and less significant gust-response (though both have significant gust-response); When supersonic at low altitude, the F-4 has an inherent advantage as it can maneuver under conditions where the F-106 can't.

Acceleration/Climb: Based on time to climb and speed figures, I'd guess...
*F-106:* Would likely be superior from 350-600 knots (Low-altitude, around 0.6-0.9 Mach otherwise), inferior from around Mach 0.9-1.2, and superior above Mach 1.2.
*F-4:* Would likely be superior from below 250-350 knots; inferior from Mach 0.6 to 0.9 (350-600 knots at low altitude); superior from Mach 0.9-1.2, and inferior from Mach 1.2 and up.
*Verdict:* Both had about the same time to climb and time to speed figures, so I would probably favor the F-4 for takeoff and transonic acceleration and climb.

Roll-Rate
*F-106:* It actually seemed to perform very well, and might very well have only had a few planes that could out-roll it (off the bat, the F-5), as both the F-102 & F-106 were said to have similarities to the MiG-21 (and the MiG-21 had a good rate of roll), though not sure if it was _specifically_ in roll rate (most stuff seemed to involve instantaneous/sustained turn-rates and acceleration).
*F-4:* I wouldn't be surprised if it might roll better at lower speeds because of it's design as a carrier-suitable aircraft, and possibly above Mach 2.0 (An F-106 pilot carrying out a mock-intercept against a B-58 stated something to the effect of roll-rate being slow at speeds of Mach 2.0 or above and/or stick-forces being somewhat high).
*Verdict:* The F-106 seems generally the better choice for most purposes.

Top-Speed:
*F-106:* Both had the same IAS limits (750 KIAS); the F-106 had a maximum Mach limit of around 0.1 to 0.3 faster than the F-4.
*F-4:* Both had the same IAS limits; the F-4 was able to exceed Mach 1 under a greater range of conditions at low altitudes than the F-106; the top-end speed of the F-4 was less than the F-106 by a relatively small amount (particularly when one considers the outbound leg of an interception would have been flown at around Mach 2.0-2.2, and both planes could do that).
*Verdict:* In typical fighter-to-fighter combat scenarios, the F-4 is the better choice; from the standpoint of speed on interception: The F-106 is the better choice.


Avionics/Equipment & Human-Factors
Avionics & Equipment
*F-106:* It had a radar with more operational modes, better display resolution, and ECCM from the outset; it also had the means to get the engines started rapidly, as part of ADC's requirements. Some of the IR equipped AIM-4's had either a limited or full all-aspect capability, which was something the AIM-9's used by the F-4 did not; the AIR-2 had a PK of nearly 100% over the AIM-7's and AIM-9's to within the range it could operate. While the weapons bay arguably reduced drag: It also took up more internal space, and used a compressed-gas system to cycle the doors and fire the weapons, which only allowed three launchings.
*F-4:* The radar had a larger engagement envelope than the F-106 and might have been able to track at superior range early on. It had supersonic tanks that seemed to be present from the beginning (I'm not sure when the F-106 acquired them, but it might have been as late as 1969), and had in-flight refueling capability. It was also capable of carrying a variety of air-to-ground ordinance, which the F-106 wasn't designed to carry any at all, which included conventional and nuclear ordnance. Just regarding the air-to-air mission: The AIM-7 had a bigger warhead, a proximity fuse, and a higher PK over the AIM-4, and it could also be launched at greater ranges than the AIR-2 (and could also be used offensively without igniting a nuclear war); the flush-mountings also provided little drag, and avoided the volume of a weapons bay; the AIM-9 had a proximity fuse, and a larger warhead than the AIM-4, despite being simpler. It also appeared more rugged than the F-106, and was fitted earlier on with a cannon (F-4E: 1967; F-106: 1972).
*Verdict:* The F-106 was nearly impossible to jam, making it useful as an interceptor, and with a nuclear-tipped rocket that was nearly too dumb to fool, it was quite formidable; the F-4 was more rugged, usable in both air-to-air and air-to-ground, with missiles that had marked advantages against bombers (AIM-7), and fighters (AIM-9).

Human Factors
The visibility was better directly ahead for the pilot, and better above for both crew-members.
The two-man crew, when working in a coordinated fashion, produced better situational awareness as less automation is required for the intercepts, and two people can be looking in different directions.
It didn't depend on an internal weapons bay, and could fire more than three times (the F-106 used a compressed gas bottle to open the bay and fire the missiles -- it could only be used three times).
The radar has a larger engagement envelope than the F-106 and, early on, possibly superior range.
The AIM-7 had a longer range, a proximity fuse, and a greater probability of kill. It also has a bigger warhead.
It had IFR capability from the start.
The F-4E would come online with the Vulcan Cannon giving it close-in capability in 1967; the F-106A didn't have that until 1972.
Some F-4E & F-4G models would ultimately be equipped with more sophisticated radar with ECCM modes, which would make it comparable to the F-106.



.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Apr 6, 2019)

A small contribution please. While not promoting one over the other, a friend, a retired Colonel, flew F-102's and then F106's his entire career in USAF. He, of course loved it, but one thing he told me I hadn 't heard was when about half fuel was used the thrust/weight ratio allowed the 106 to climb straight up. As a consequence, returning from training with most fuel gone, that is when mock combat happened.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 6, 2019)

My father in law flew both - he had pros and cons for both.

My father in law was the CO of a "detachment" that flew the last operational F-106s in the USAF. Their primary mission was to give chase for production B-1Bs out of flight test. After getting several F-106s operational, some in the USAF found other missions for the detachment, like providing dissimilar aircraft training. He told me on at least one occasion his 106s went up against some guard F-15s as aggressors, simulating the MiG-21. Depending on the ROEs, he was able to kill a couple of F-15s. This was during the late 1980s IIRC.

Much of what Bob told me matched what was posted by Zipper. With that said I flew in an F-4 several times and one thing I will say is you're not providing much visual assistance to the guy up front because with a helmet and gear you're a bit cramped and not turning your head much. I did fly with an old HGU 26 which was heavy and bulky so a newer, lighter helmet would have helped. I think the RIO/ WSO was better off looking at that radar screen and keeping the fight BVR!

Bob mentioned that the F-106 and F-111 were the fastest aircraft he flew, he mentioned at altitude they would just "keep going" until they both self-destructed. He felt the F-4 was the over all better value as it was a truly multi role/ multi service aircraft.

When comparing them consider each aircraft's design requirements. The F-4 had a lot of growth put into it and was designed to perform several different missions. The F-106 was designed to chase down and blast away at anything that got in it's way. Both performed their missions exceptionally well, especially when politicians didn't limit ROEs during real shooting wars (F-4). Some photos from my collection

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
10 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 17, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> With that said I flew in an F-4 several times and one thing I will say is you're not providing much visual assistance to the guy up front because with a helmet and gear you're a bit cramped and not turning your head much. I did fly with an old HGU 26 which was heavy and bulky so a newer, lighter helmet would have helped.


So, the available space of the rear-cockpit and flight-gear of the time made it difficult to look around?


> Bob mentioned that the F-106 and F-111 were the fastest aircraft he flew, he mentioned at altitude they would just "keep going" until they both self-destructed.


So, thrust above a certain mach number on both aircraft would exceed the amount needed for level flight (on afterburner, at the minimum)?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 18, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> So, the available space of the rear-cockpit and flight-gear of the time made it difficult to look around?


IMO yes - You could turn your head but pretty confined. The helmet i used at times didn't help either.



Zipper730 said:


> So, thrust above a certain mach number on both aircraft would exceed the amount needed for level flight (on afterburner, at the minimum)?


 According to Bob, yes. If the aircraft were prepared structurally who knows how fast they would have went. Bob told me he ruined the nose on an F-111 becasue he went too fast, never indicated if he exceeded VNe. Mind you this was during flight testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 24, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bob told me he ruined the nose on an F-111 becasue he went too fast, never indicated if he exceeded VNe. Mind you this was during flight testing.


That's not all that out there, it was a very slick airplane (you'd have to be to fly at Mach 1.2 or so 200 feet off the deck) with well designed variable-geometry inlets. The two combine together to produce low drag and high thrust.

BTW: The reason I usually sound dumb as dirt on this forum is that, almost all of my knowledge is not on propeller driven aircraft. Switch over to jets and I just sound ordinary to mildly knowledgeable

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Aug 25, 2021)

I would have loved to fly the F-106, or F-8 for that matter. They were my favorite aircraft. Unfortunately, when I started my flying career in 71, there were no F-106s except in the Guard, nor were their any F-8s, besides the fact I was in the AF. I was never enthusiastic about flying the F-4, maybe because AF pilots started in the back seat. Anyway, I was 13th in a class of 52 but we only go 5 fighters coming down in our block so the issue was mute.

When I was working at Northrop, one of the guys i worked with was a pretty high up SAC pilot who was picked to fly the B-58. He said that when they were at attack altitude and speed the only aircraft that gave them any trouble were the F-106s who apparently were able to fly ahead of them, turn around and attack from the front.

Another interesting guy I worked with at Northrop was Bruce Peterson, our safety guy. He was the pilot of that lifting body that is shown crashing at the beginning of six million dollar man. Lost an eye. And then there was Milo Jamison whos only claim to fame was being a flight test pilot for Douglas during the war when he was 16, crashed several times, and, was in the band in high school when Marlyn Monroe was a pom pom girl! Those guys told some great stories, one reported that when they went to install avionics in the first P-61 there were no access ports to run the wires. So, they went and got some drills and drilled access ports through the bulkheads.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Joe Broady (Aug 28, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> It was also capable of carrying a variety of air-to-ground ordinance, which the F-106 wasn't designed to carry at all, which included conventional and nuclear ordinance.


The word is spelled _ordnance_. An _ordinance_ is a law or regulation, for example, a city ordinance against spitting on the sidewalk.

One of the bases where I was stationed replaced all the street signs. The new ones looked great, but unfortunately the project was riddled with spelling errors. For instance, Ordnance Road (the road to the ammo dump) became Ordinance Road. The local paper did an humorous article on all the mistakes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Aug 28, 2021)

It's an internet forum, not a courtroom. If you knew what he meant, was the misspelling that important?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 29, 2021)

Joe Broady said:


> The word is spelled _ordnance_. An _ordinance_ is a law or regulation, for example, a city ordinance against spitting on the sidewalk.
> 
> One of the bases where I was stationed replaced all the street signs. The new ones looked great, but unfortunately the project was riddled with spelling errors. For instance, Ordnance Road (the road to the ammo dump) became Ordinance Road. The local paper did an humorous article on all the mistakes.





Thumpalumpacus said:


> It's an internet forum, not a courtroom. If you knew what he meant, was the misspelling that important?



Agree - Joe, we've had a similar discussion before and it did not end well. If the site admins feel we need a grammar Nazi, we'll consider you for the job. You bring a wealth of knowledge to this forum but for heavens sake please avoid being so anal!!!


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 29, 2021)

Joe Broady said:


> The word is spelled _ordnance_. An _ordinance_ is a law or regulation, for example, a city ordinance against spitting on the sidewalk.


Actually, I never noticed that. I didn't quite understand why they'd call weapons "ordinance" but ordnance is a different word so.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 29, 2021)

My spell check insists on changing "ordnance" to "ordinance" and once in a while it slips through.

And just before I clicked "post", I see it did it again...

I hate this phone

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Aug 29, 2021)

Before my one and only flight with ADTAC, I asked the squadron commander about losing the F-106 and its Falcon/Genie capabilities for F-4s and F-15s with Sidewinders, Sparrows, and AMRAAMs. He explained that the the "Six" was a Cadillac - amazing to fly. But in intercepting and shooting down an enemy, the 106 pilot was completely task-saturated with all three hands moving at the same time. The newer missiles made a missile attack far more likely to succeed.

BTW, before his retirement Chappie James (head of ADCOM) was pushing for a purchase of Tornado air defense fighters. Some sources say he was also interested in F-14s. Either way, neither purchase ever made it to the USAF budget proposals.

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Aug 29, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> Before my one and only flight with ADTAC, I asked the squadron commander about losing the F-106 and its Falcon/Genie capabilities for F-4s and F-15s with Sidewinders, Sparrows, and AMRAAMs. He explained that the the "Six" was a Cadillac - amazing to fly. But in intercepting and shooting down an enemy, the 106 pilot was completely task-saturated with all three hands moving at the same time. The newer missiles made a missile attack far more likely to succeed.
> 
> BTW, before his retirement Chappie James (head of ADCOM) was pushing for a purchase of Tornado air defense fighters. Some sources say he was also interested in F-14s. Either way, neither purchase ever made it to the USAF budget proposals.
> 
> ...


Whilst I like the idea of the US purchasing the ADF Tornado, there was absolutely no chance of that happening

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## special ed (Aug 29, 2021)

A retired Lt. Col. who flew 102s and then 106s his whole career told me the 106, when half fuel gone, was capable of straight up flight. He said after training missions combat sessions were a lot of fun when fuel was left.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rob23 (Aug 29, 2021)

F-4 the best fighter? The F-8 had the better kill ratio even with fewer encounters with the MiG. Robin Olds even brought a F-8 squadron to teach the USAF how to do ACM. However, I think a direct comparison is unfair as the F-8 was of the F-100-F-102 generation, the Phantom was the following generation.


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 10, 2021)

Dana Bell said:


> BTW, before his retirement Chappie James (head of ADCOM) was pushing for a purchase of Tornado air defense fighters. Some sources say he was also interested in F-14s. Either way, neither purchase ever made it to the USAF budget proposals.


I've never heard anything about Tornado's, but I do remember an interest in F-14's. There was even a variant that reached a mock-up stage for the USAF. It had some streamlining, conformal tanks, and revised pallets to mount the AIM-54's.

The USAF seemed to have killed it pretty fast because they didn't want an F-4 scenario taking hold (it appeared McNamara wanted the F-4 as the USAF's all around fighter prior to the F-111 coming online, seeing it as cheaper than the F-106, and a better fighter than the F-105, and got his foot in the door by appealing to ADC for a fly-off), and there was political infighting over the F-14/F-15.

Update: I added an image. This appears to be an image.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Yesterday at 5:33 AM)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Bob mentioned that the F-106 and F-111 were the fastest aircraft he flew, he mentioned at altitude they would just "keep going" until they both self-destructed.


That's a surprise: I remember hearing that the F-106B had a maximum mach number that was 0.1 higher than the F-106A owing to area ruling. With both aircraft having the same metallurgical construction, it seems the only thing that would have allowed one to go faster than the other was differences in drag.

Did later F-106 variants have different engines than earlier ones? That would change the balance...


----------



## Macandy (Yesterday at 5:50 AM)

Dana Bell said:


> BTW, before his retirement Chappie James (head of ADCOM) was pushing for a purchase of Tornado air defense fighters. Some sources say he was also interested in F-14s. Either way, neither purchase ever made it to the USAF budget proposals.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ...



The Tornado ADV - out performed by most bombers, but to be expected, it was a bomber


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Yesterday at 9:10 AM)

Zipper730 said:


> That's a surprise: I remember hearing that the F-106B had a maximum mach number that was 0.1 higher than the F-106A owing to area ruling. With both aircraft having the same metallurgical construction, it seems the only thing that would have allowed one to go faster than the other was differences in drag.
> 
> Did later F-106 variants have different engines than earlier ones? That would change the balance...


I don't know about later engines on the -106 but I do know that when we read about aircraft (especially high performance jet aircraft) having a top speed of XXXX or YYYY, many times those speeds (Vne) are attained at a point where either the aircraft isn't going any faster or if it's pushed will start to self destruct, the first thing to go is the nose cone which are usually fiberglass.

My father in law spoke about the F-106, F-4, F-111 and B-1B having this characteristic.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Yesterday at 1:53 PM)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know about later engines on the -106 but I do know that when we read about aircraft (especially high performance jet aircraft) having a top speed of XXXX or YYYY, many times those speeds (Vne) are attained at a point where either the aircraft isn't going any faster or if it's pushed will start to self destruct, the first thing to go is the nose cone which are usually fiberglass.
> 
> My father in law spoke about the F-106, F-4, F-111 and B-1B having this characteristic.


Could the difference in top speed (F-106A/B) be related to the level of acceleration at the top-end of the speed-range?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Yesterday at 3:00 PM)

Zipper730 said:


> Could the difference in top speed (F-106A/B) be related to the level of acceleration at the top-end of the speed-range?


Possibly - BTW he had I think 2 F-106Bs in his detachment. Never mentioned if one was faster than the other. He used to call the "B" "the station wagon."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

