# F-101 Voodoo



## Wildr1 (May 23, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 23, 2018)




----------



## Wildr1 (May 25, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 25, 2018)




----------



## Gnomey (May 27, 2018)

Good shots!


----------



## MIflyer (May 27, 2018)

I seen people write about "stretching" the F-101A to produce the F-101B, but in fact if you overlay the drawings in the Squadron book you find they are exactly the same length. The 2nd seat was added behind the cockpit but without changing the length of the fuselage

I used to work with an RF-101C pilot and asked him why it persisted in service so long after the RF-4C came out. He replied that the best cameras in both airplanes were the vertical ones in the back, between the engines. And the RF-4C's cameras back there had a problem with engine vibration. The RF-101C's had no such problem and thus got better pictures.

Some F-101B's were converted to RF-101H's. I guess that reflected the airplane's effectiveness in photo recon.


----------



## soulezoo (May 29, 2018)

I can see a legitimate role for outdated interceptors (101, 106) in the recon role. The straight line speed for egress being useful!


----------



## MIflyer (May 29, 2018)

Actually I don;t think the RF-101H's ever went overseas. I suppose they provided training that enabled more RF-101C's to stay where the action was. Who they out in the rear seat, I don't know; again, I suppose it might have been good for training. 

There was also the F-101F, which was the trainer version of the F101B.

They must have been reliable airplanes. Despite its age I worked on very little depot maintenance issues relative to it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Adrian Parker (May 30, 2018)

Sharing some pics of a rather weather beaten Canadian Voodoo. Pics taken in July 2017 at the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum near Halifax International Airport.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (May 30, 2018)

That reminds me. Do y'all know that the University of Colorado had its own F-101B it operated for a while, complete with University markings? I saw it land at Tinker AFB back in the 70's.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 22, 2018)

The F-101B had better lines than the F-101A. It was also faster due to it having bigger engines, meeting a top speed of Mach 2.4


----------



## Wildr1 (Jun 23, 2018)



Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 24, 2018)




----------



## Wildr1 (Jul 9, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 9, 2018)




----------



## Tracker (Jul 28, 2018)

MIflyer
U of Colorado's F-101B was registered as N8234 and used for thunderstorm research, USAF No. 57-0410 - on display at
Combat Air Museum, Topeka, Kansas. nickname, ‘the Gray Ghost'; previously at Colorado State University.
More info from the University





Around 1974, CSU operated an F-101B aircraft as shown in this image. During its time under CSU control, the aircraft carried the civilian serial number N8234 and the nickname "the Gray Ghost," which became its call sign. This aircraft was used to study severe storms under the direction of Prof. Peter Sinclair. It was based at Buckley Air National Guard Base in Denver.

CSU contracted with Flight Test Research, Inc., of California, which provided an experienced test pilot named Jim Lucy. Sinclair rode in the back seat running the instruments after selecting the storm to be penetrated. Most flights were over northern Colorado and western Nebraska in thunderheads of 35,000 to 45,000 feet, where the plane encountered high turbulence, lightning and hail.

The plane was returned to the Air Force and is now located at the Air Museum in Topeka, Kansas.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 15, 2018)

Nice shots!


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 15, 2018)

MIflyer said:


> the best cameras in both airplanes were the vertical ones in the back, between the engines. And the RF-4C's cameras back there had a problem with engine vibration. The RF-101C's had no such problem and thus got better pictures.


Let's hear it for Pratt & Whitney's bulletproof J-57! GE's J-79 in the RF-4 and RA-5 was more powerful and fuel efficient, but not as robust, reliable, or smooth. In the RA-5, the vibration issue was somewhat alleviated by mounting the cameras in a streamlined dugout-like pod mounted under the belly, leaving the tubular bomb bay between the engines available for additional fuel canisters. Egressing Laos to Yankee Station in the weeds at Mach++ takes a lot of gas!
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 16, 2018)

I'm curious why they designed it with such little wings...


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 16, 2018)



Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 18, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious why they designed it with such little wings...


Such little wings ?? Compared to what ?
Have you checked out wing areas and wing spans of other jets of that era meant for similiar missions ? 
F-105, F-104, F-102.
Can't really compare the F-4 since it was originally designed for carrier use.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 18, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> Such little wings ?? Compared to what ?


It's weight...


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 18, 2018)

F-101: wing area - 368 sq.ft. empty weight - 28,495
F-105: wing area - 385 sq.ft. empty weight - 35,637

EDIT: Typo altered


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 18, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> F-101: wing area - 368 sq.ft. empty weight - 28,495
> F-106: wing area - 385 sq.ft. empty weight - 35,637


First of all, that's F-105 (I remember the weight figure 35637 -- autistic spectrum presents odd skills)...


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 18, 2018)

Zipper730 said:


> First of all, that's F-105 (I remember the weight figure 35637 -- autistic spectrum presents odd skills)...


You're avoiding the point.
For it's era, and mission, the F-101 didn't have especially small wings.


----------



## daveT (Aug 19, 2018)

I found and photographed
F-101A-1-MC 53-2422
Date available 12/19/54. Date accepted 2/4/55. Date delivered 4/18/55.
- Aircraft was used for autopilot testing.
- To Minneapolis on 10/17/58.
- To Milwaukee, WI on 7/1/61.
- To Minneapolis on 7/31/62.
- To Edwards AFB, CA on 3/24/63.
Converted to JF-101A. Converted to NF-101A. To Edwards AFB, CA. Involved in an accident with Captain Thomas H. Smith on 9/19/66. The purpose of this flight was aircraft and autopilot familiarization. A normal military power takeoff was made at 0905 PST. The landing gear was then retracted normally with all indication normal. Captain Smith then climbed to 25,000 feet and flew a simulated traffic pattern. The landing gear was lowered at 240 KIAS. The indications in the cockpit were all that all three landing gear were down and locked. Captain Smith Ernst in the chase aircraft observed that the left main gear was not in the proper position. The gear was over-extended about 10-15 degrees. A closer look by Captain Ernst revealed that the end piece of the main landing gear side brace actuator was broken off. A decision was made to land on Lakebed Runway 23. Two practice approaches were made to the runway so the pilot could have a better feel for the aircraft in the landing configuration and at normal traffic pattern airspeeds. After these approaches, Captain Smith flew a flat approach to the runway and touched down at 161 knots. The drag chute was immediately deployed, the nose was lowered and nose wheel steering was used for directional control. The wheel brakes were not used. As the aircraft slowed down, the engines were shut down and the aircraft allowed to roll to a stop. When the aircraft came to a stop, the left main gear strut was bent outboard about 30 degrees. The pilot evacuated the aircraft immediately with negative injuries.

Involved in another accident with Major James G. Rider on 7/19/67. Major Rider was scheduled for a training mission with a takeoff at 1300. Major C. H. Stone was flying safety chase in an F-104. Preflight, taxi, and takeoff were normal. After 45 minutes of flight, the F-104 stability augmentor failed. A decision was made to return to the field and land. The flight entered the traffic pattern with the NF-101 as the lead aircraft. Major Rider requested a touch and go landing, while the F-104 would make a full stop landing. He had 4,500 pound of fuel remaining. Major Rider placed the gear handle in the down position on the downwind leg. He received a continuous unsafe indication and could not feel the landing gear leave the wheel wells. The landing gear handle was placed in the up position and the landing gear circuit breaker was checked. The circuit breaker was popped for some reason. Upon resetting the circuit breaker, the landing gear handle was placed in the down position. A safe indication was received and the hydraulic pressure was normal. After the chase aircraft confirmed that the gear was down and locked, Major Rider turned a long final for a full stop landing. He decided not to make the touch and go. This was a planned no drag chute landing. Aerodynamic braking was used during the first 4,000 feet of the landing roll. The nose was started down at about 110 knots and flown onto the runway at about 85 knots with 10,000 feet of runway remaining. Everything had appeared normal up to this point. Almost immediately after the nose wheel touched the runway a slight pull to the right was felt. Nose wheel steering was engaged and at first appeared to be adequate in counteracting the continuous right pull. No brakes had been applied at this time. With the aircraft decelerating faster than he desired, the right tire was felt to blow out at about 40 knots. The aircraft’s nose appeared to begin a movement to the right until the aircraft stopped. Full left rudder with the nose wheel steering engaged had no effect on stopping the skid to the right. Light left brake was followed by heavier left brake application, but it seemed to have no effect on slowing or stopping the skid to the right. Forward velocity was about 20 knots when the left tire blew out. The aircraft continued its slow skid and turn to the right until just prior to stopping, the left main gear collapsed inboard. The aircraft came to rest on the edge of the runway, settling onto the left wing tip, flap, and engine. Major Rider, having alerted the fire trucks, waited for their arrival before shutting down the engines in order to minimize the fire hazard from the fuel dumped overboard during engine shutdown. This aircraft was flown by Mike Collins Command pilot of Apollo 11.

- The aircraft was towed to the Precision Impact Range (PIRA) to be used as a radar target in 1979.
Currently aircraft remains are laying in Mojave Desert at Edwards AFB, CA.
It only needs a little bit of work to get it back in the air!


----------



## daveT (Aug 19, 2018)

Found and Photographed another F-101
RF-101C-60-MC 56-0228 From aircraft history card
Date available 4/2/58. Date accepted 6/4/58. Date delivered 7/19/58.
- To Hill AFB, UT on 7/19/58. (Depot)
- To the 15th TRS (Photo Jet) / 67th TRW at Kadena AB, Okinawa on 8/6/58.
- To the 18th TFW at Kadena AB on 3/15/60.
- To Hill AFB on 5/13/62.
- To Misawa AB, Japan on 8/7/63.
- To Kadena AB on 8/24/63.
- To the 363rd TRW at Shaw AFB, SC on 6/2/64.
- To Olmstead AFB, PA on 11/30/64. (Depot)
- Shaw AFB on 12/2/64.
- To McClellan AFB, CA (Depot) on 1/12/67.
- To the 432nd TRW at Udorn RTAFB, Thailand on 4/25/67.
- To the 460th TRW at Tan Son Nhut AB, S. Vietnam on 5/13/67.
- To the 186th TRG at Key Field, MS.
- To Key Field, MS on 1/30/74.
- To Key Field, MS on 10/31/74.

I guess nobody loves it anymore! Its abandoned in the backcountry of Mississippi.


----------



## daveT (Aug 19, 2018)

Both abandoned F-101s deserve more RESPECT and a better home. I was thinking about getting both of them and combining parts to make one really nice one. What do you guys think about that plan?

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Aug 19, 2018)

Sad, the last one is definitely a doable museum piece. Looks like most of the parts are there Dave. Awaiting your decision.


----------



## Wurger (Aug 19, 2018)




----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 19, 2018)

Is it abandoned on private land or is it still on government land?
I see some familiar looking fence and buildings in the background.


----------



## YGBSM (Aug 19, 2018)

One in a museum is worth at least two in the bush.

What is the procedure for transferring ownership, especially if they're on government land as opposed to overseas somewhere? I've heard horror stories of the Navy repossessing aircraft after the expense and trouble of an overseas recovery is made. I'd want to triple-check all procedures before taking possession of gov't property.

Then, like everything else, it just becomes a 'simple' question of money.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 19, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> Is it abandoned on private land or is it still on government land?
> I see some familiar looking fence and buildings in the background.


Key Field is a joint use ANG base/ regional airport in Meridian MS. It now hosts an aerial refueling group, but the 186th used to be a Tactical Reconnaisence Group with RF-101s and RF-4s. From the looks of the roll top chainlink fence in the background, I would guess it's part of the "back forty" of the ANGB. (And probably not officially open to civilians.) Lax security?? You wouldn't want to get caught wandering around the "back forty" on my state's ANGB. They take security seriously! (Been to 'raq , been to A'stan, repeatedly.)
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 19, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> You're avoiding the point.
> For it's era, and mission, the F-101 didn't have especially small wings.


For a plane like the F-105 maybe you're right, but for a plane that's designed for high altitude operations (i..e escorting bombers) it was crazy high.

Here's a comparison for you in terms of wing-loading with 3 aircraft, the F-100C, the F-101A, and the F-102

................................................F-100C........F-101A..,,,,F-102A
Loaded w/ 100% fuel..............84.7.............89.4.,.....,,,/42.3
Loaded w/ drop-tanks.............91.4......,,,....135.9,.....,,.47.7
Combat Weight.......................71.6.............105.96*..,,.38.2
Design Weight........................69.1....,,,.......105.5*.....,.38.2
Wing-Area...............................385.2 sqft....,368 sqft....661.5 sqft **
Aspect Ratio...........................3.898..........,,4.276......,,,2.197

* The F-101's combat and design weight seemed to evidently be based on full internal fuel with partially loaded drop-tanks
** The F-102A's came with two wings, and I put the smaller of the two for fairness


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Aug 19, 2018)

Apples and oranges. F-100: tactical fighter/fighter-bomber.
F-102: point defense interceptor
F-101: long range interceptor/escort with 2X thrust of the other two. Big airframe to shove through the air, not a lot of maneuvering envisioned (missiles, remember?), so induced drag from a large wing is a penalty for Mach reasons, not an asset.
Cheers,
Wes

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 19, 2018)

XBe02Drvr said:


> Apples and oranges.


I suppose you are right and wrong in your own ways. The F-100 was a supersonic follow-on to the F-86.

The F-86 was originally built to be a fighter with enough range to provide medium-range escort as well as carry an air-to-ground load to be an effective dive-bomber (basically a fighter-bomber). These specifications appeared to be in place prior to the decision to sweep the wings back.

Whether this decision was known to yield a sacrifice in performance or not, and whether or not this was accepted: The aircraft did have a decent radius of action when carrying drop-tanks (600 nm), and could carry 2000-4000 pounds of bombs (2000 -w- drop-tanks, 4000 w/o), and could carry a maximum load of 5300 pounds (admittedly radius would be pretty short if you did this).

Thanks to guys like Col. Boyd, Pierre Sprey, and the like, there's been a misguided belief that the F-86 was designed as an interceptor which wasn't exactly true. While early on it was fast enough and high flying enough to be able to successfully kill a B-29 type aircraft, that would have been our primary threat of the time, we had planes in the pipeline that were capable of flying faster. The F-86D/L were effectively all-weather interceptors (they didn't have any gun/cannon) however.

The F-100, unfortunately, didn't turn out to be such a good fighter: It couldn't manage as tight a turning circle as the F-86, and if it could sustain higher g-loads, I'm not sure by how much. It's handling characteristics left a lot to be desired such as violent pitch-ups, a tendency to yaw and roll all over the place (I guess those automatic slats didn't do their magic), and it had no flaps at all at first so takeoff speeds were kind of high. It could fly pretty fast, probably had a climb-rate that far exceeded the F-86, but it left a bit to be desired.

So they made it into a fighter bomber: They steadily increased it's payload, wired it to carry nuclear weapons, increased the wing-area eventually, and added a small flap as a nice bonus. It seemed both a way to make the design more versatile, and to take a design they weren't all that happy with, and make it into something they were happy with.

The F-101 wasn't designed as an interceptor at first -- that came later. It was basically supposed to be a long-range fighter that could do what the F-88 was supposed to do (except it was cancelled) except fly further and way faster.

When the penetration fighter program was initiated, they expected a weight of 15,000 pounds in air-to-air, a time-to-climb of 5 minutes to 35000 feet, with either 6 x 0.50" or 6 x 20mm with a radius of action of 900 statute miles (783 nm). They wanted the design to use engines that were either in use or undergoing testing (I'm not sure if engines in the development pipeline were allowed) which may have been overly restrictive. The altitude requirements also seemed a tad low, crazy as that sounds, as the requirements that gave birth to the B-47 called for an operating altitude of 45,000 feet, should have been the baseline, and 4 x 20mm should have probably been adequate for most purposes. The weight requirements were also unrealistic and 17500-18000 would have been a better starting point.

These requirements were amended to a 50,000 feet operating altitude, a radius of 1500 statute miles (1304 nm), and the same time-to-climb to the higher altitudes. At some point in the design, they wanted the maximum g-load to be 12g. These figures were probably unrealistic as even the P-47N was able to either do a combat range of 2310 nm or a radius of 1310 nm (I forgot which was right), the time to climb requirements were probably beyond what could be achieved, though the 50,000 foot altitude was a good step in the right direction.

The aircraft were predominantly designed to perform long-ranged roving fighter-sweeps into enemy territory, attacking any fighters they can find coming up for the bombers behind them (and in front of them on the way back), though escorting in the traditional sense might very well have been a possibility.

The XF-88 would ultimately win the competition, though would be cancelled in August, 1950. The exact rationale I'm unsure, but it was probably less maneuverable at altitude than the B-47 was. It also might have been teetering on the stall at the altitudes the B-47 flew at if it could fly at that altitude at all. The aircraft would have needed bigger wings to have been able to perform even remotely close to desired.

The interest in the F-101 started with the MiG-15's making attacks on bombers that might have indicated a vulnerability to the B-47's, though I've heard some people claim the B-47 could turn inside a MiG-15 at 51,000 feet, others claiming it couldn't fly that high at all. The MiG-15's could admittedly top off at 55000-feet.

The F-101 could do a number of things very well: Carry lots of fuel, fly quite some distance, climb like a rocket, go supersonic in level-flight, even reach Mach 2.25 at altitude. Unfortunately, it was teetering on the stall at the altitudes it was supposed to operate, and the wing/tail configuration made it prone to violent pitch-ups and post-stall gyrations.

The requirement for high-speed flight is often at odds with low-speed requirements, though the F4D-1, F-102A/F-106, Mirage III/V showed you could get around it to an extent. I suppose a delta-wing would have been a solution, though one could have used a swept wing with an aspect-ratio of around 2.65-3.0, a wing area of 750-825. You'd have a wingspan of around 46-48 feet, but it'd work.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 19, 2018)

So now you think you're a aircraft designer Zipper?

While the F-101 was still in it's design phase, ( not the F-88 ) it's planned armament was the AIM-2 Genie, a 1.5 kiloton yield, nuclear missile.
With the Genie's 6 mile range, 3.3 Mach velocity, and about 1000 ft. kill radius, the F-101 didn't need to turn inside anyone.

I performed maintenance on Genie rocket motors when I was at Hill AFB, Utah, in 68-69.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 19, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> So now you think you're a aircraft designer Zipper?


No, I based the wing area figures and dimensions on several aircraft: The most obvious being the Grumman D-97 which was a contender to OS-130 (the F8U). It lost out to the Design 98 (F11F) because of the fact that the USN was probably not going to fund both designs simultaneously, and the F11F was originally known as the XF9F-8 and XF9F-9

Names have power, call it the F11F, that's a new plane: XF9F-8/9 looks like some derivative of the F9F. Of course they eventually called it the F11F after the fact.


> While the F-101 was still in it's design phase, ( not the F-88 ) it's planned armament was the AIM-2 Genie, a 1.5 kiloton yield, nuclear missile.


Did some checking here, and found that you're sort of right. When the order was made for the F-101A, they also contracted for an all-weather interceptor variant.

Though at first, the USAF wasn't interested. When the USSR detonated their H-bomb in 1953, they reconsidered. The F-101B had a twin-seat canopy, a larger, longer nose for a better radar, the guns were removed, and a rotating-pallet was fitted to carry missiles and genies.


> I performed maintenance on Genie rocket motors when I was at Hill AFB, Utah, in 68-69.


Cool


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 19, 2018)

You're serious , you took a carrier able aircraft as a example as to the wing loading the F-101 should have ???

Let's stop this stupid sideshow Zipper and let the original poster get back to posting interesting info about the F-101.


----------



## Zipper730 (Aug 19, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> You're serious , you took a carrier able aircraft as a example as to the wing loading the F-101 should have ???


As a general rule to get more lift out of a give lifting surface, you'd increase the aspect and taper-ratios: Abruptly increasing the taper-ratio can yield tip-stalls if not designed right; excessive aspect-ratios produce aeroelastic problems that would be compensated for by beefing up the structure: The problem would be easier to deal with on bombers, that are designed to pull g-loads of around 3.0-5.25 ultimate; for fighters, these numbers are around 9.0-10.995g ultimate

High subsonic speeds require lower T/C ratios than low subsonic-speeds: The B-29's T/C ratio was far higher than the B-47; a supersonic aircraft needs thinner wings yet.

Since the F-101 was designed to fly subsonic for bomber escort missions, as well as engage in combat at both supersonic, and subsonic speeds: It would need aerodynamics that would be good for both. The large wing-area is good for lift at high altitudes and maneuvering at subsonic speeds, the low aspect ratio is good for aeroelasticity and speed, and the low T/C ratio is good for speed.


> Let's stop this stupid sideshow Zipper and let the original poster get back to posting interesting info about the F-101.


Okay, I can do that


----------



## daveT (Aug 22, 2018)

As far as those derelict F-101s go, I had permission and was escorted to the one in Mississippi. Yes it on an ANG base.No there wants it because they already have one in a museum there. The one in the Mojave Desert is owned by the USAF and they too have no further use for it. I would be doing them a favor by removing scrap from their property. Its all about the moving expense costs and where am I going to store if I did get permission? I can only dream...


----------



## special ed (Aug 23, 2018)

In reference to post #32 about the military reclaiming restored acft, consider the F-82 the CAF returned to flying status and used in airshows at Harlingen. The USAF took it back and removed all the other static display acft including a C-124.


----------



## Wildr1 (Sep 7, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Sep 7, 2018)




----------



## Wildr1 (Sep 8, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Sep 8, 2018)




----------



## Wildr1 (Jan 12, 2019)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jan 12, 2019)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 12, 2019)

Nice shots!


----------



## Tracker (Feb 20, 2019)

We will refurb this bird (hopefully) this coming summer. It is a static display but a little shabby at the moment.
George -- let me know the best forum to give updates of the progress.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildr1 (Mar 5, 2019)



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


----------



## Wurger (Mar 5, 2019)




----------



## Gnomey (Mar 6, 2019)

Nice stuff!


----------



## Wildr1 (Mar 28, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Mar 29, 2019)




----------



## Wildr1 (Apr 12, 2019)



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


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 12, 2019)

Good shots!


----------



## Wildr1 (Apr 18, 2019)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (May 16, 2019)

Nice shots!


----------



## Wildr1 (Jul 11, 2019)

View attachment 544461
View attachment 544462


----------



## Wildr1 (Jul 11, 2019)




----------



## Gnomey (Jul 12, 2019)

Nice shots!


----------

