The best fighter of the 1950's.

[Soren]

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]

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

 

[drgondog]

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

 

[Flyboy2]

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

 

[Graeme]

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

 

[Flyboy2]

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

 

[drgondog]

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]

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]

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

 

[Graeme]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Lucky13]

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

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

 

[Graeme]

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]

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]

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]

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

I believe 2 of them were gun kills

 

[drgondog]

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.