The best fighter of the 1950's.

[Glider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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]

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]

Good post Flyboy.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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

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."

 

[drgondog]

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]

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]

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]

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.