Admiral Beez
Captain
Instead of buying the F-101 for NORAD, why didn't the RCAF buy the single seat F-106? Canada would have saved on personnel and would have benefited from the internal weapons bay.
Why didn't Canada use F-106 Delta Dart?
- Thread starter Admiral Beez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Was it on the table? I'm sure Convair would like the income, but would the USAF permit the sale?
- Thread starter
- #3
Admiral Beez
Captain
The single engine may have been an issue, as the CF-100 Canuck, the current NORAD fighter to be replaced was a twin engine aircraft.
Though I wonder if many F-101 or other late 1950s twins like the F-4 experienced a recoverable/survivable single engine flame out. I expect if something serious has occurred, it's impacted both engines or otherwise rendered the aircraft inoperable. But perhaps a bias for twin engines was still a factor - the single engine Canadair CF-104 Starfighter served a strike role in Europe. The F-35A (with today's much more reliable engine), if we ever get them will be the first single engine RCAF fighter for the North American air defence role since the Canadair Sabre.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4
Admiral Beez
Captain
Some insight on the twin vs single engine jet fighter, with mention of the F-106 low loss rate.
Single vs twin engined fighters
And as counter-intuitive as it may sound, single-engined fighters have better combat survivability as well. Most modern Western fighters have engines so close together that any amount of damage taking out one engine is almost certain to take out another as well. Even if a twin-engined aircraft loses a single engine without another one getting taken out, it immediately looses 50% of the thrust and 81% of the performance, making it a sitting duck and easily killed by the opponent. One of reasons for that is large amount of assymetric thrust generated by only one working engine, and designs most likely to suffer loss of only one engine in combat are also ones that have widest engine spacing and thus greatest amount of assymetric thrust and roll inertia. Due to all above factors, twin-engined fighters are more likely to get hit in combat while not being any more likely to survive getting hit.
Twin engined designs do not necessarily have better peacetime survivability either. F-106, despite being single-engined, had 15 losses in first 90.000 hours, compared to 17 for the F-4. In the first 213.000 hours, it had 26 losses, compared to 44 for the F-4. It can be seen that the more complex F-4 had worse loss rate than the F-106 despite having two engines, and while F-106s loss rate improved, F-4s grew worse. Single-engined F-105 also had low peacetime loss rate.
Single vs twin engined fighters
And as counter-intuitive as it may sound, single-engined fighters have better combat survivability as well. Most modern Western fighters have engines so close together that any amount of damage taking out one engine is almost certain to take out another as well. Even if a twin-engined aircraft loses a single engine without another one getting taken out, it immediately looses 50% of the thrust and 81% of the performance, making it a sitting duck and easily killed by the opponent. One of reasons for that is large amount of assymetric thrust generated by only one working engine, and designs most likely to suffer loss of only one engine in combat are also ones that have widest engine spacing and thus greatest amount of assymetric thrust and roll inertia. Due to all above factors, twin-engined fighters are more likely to get hit in combat while not being any more likely to survive getting hit.
Twin engined designs do not necessarily have better peacetime survivability either. F-106, despite being single-engined, had 15 losses in first 90.000 hours, compared to 17 for the F-4. In the first 213.000 hours, it had 26 losses, compared to 44 for the F-4. It can be seen that the more complex F-4 had worse loss rate than the F-106 despite having two engines, and while F-106s loss rate improved, F-4s grew worse. Single-engined F-105 also had low peacetime loss rate.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
One can also see this with the F-18, where one aircraft (iirc, on a training flight out of San Diego) lost one engine, and the pilot ejected, followed by the plane crashing. Later reports said the aircraft could not get to a landing field due to poor OEI performance. There was also an F-18 where one engine failed (blades came loose on one of the turbine stages) and took out the other engine.
One interesting and very counterintuitive helicopter fact: twin-engined turbine helicopters have to auto-rotate at least as often as singles as the twins have transmission failures causing loss of power to the rotor more often than singles have engine or transmission failures. (These data were current when I worked in the industry, quite a few years back)
One interesting and very counterintuitive helicopter fact: twin-engined turbine helicopters have to auto-rotate at least as often as singles as the twins have transmission failures causing loss of power to the rotor more often than singles have engine or transmission failures. (These data were current when I worked in the industry, quite a few years back)
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't think the F-106 was ever considered for foreign sales.
"If you have two and lose one you still have one to get you home" was a slogan used in advertisements for the F4 Phantom II in the sixties and seventies, its perceived competitors being single-engined.
The F-106 Delta Dart could have been powered (and likely much improved) with the Canadian Avro Iroquois turbojet, intended for and cancelled with the two-engined Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk II in 1959. The Iroquois had been flight-tested on a Boeing B-47 lent from the USAF. IIRC the F-105 Thunderchief powered by the Iroquois was offered to the Canadians who bought the F-104 Starfighter instead.
The F-106 Delta Dart could have been powered (and likely much improved) with the Canadian Avro Iroquois turbojet, intended for and cancelled with the two-engined Avro CF-105 Arrow Mk II in 1959. The Iroquois had been flight-tested on a Boeing B-47 lent from the USAF. IIRC the F-105 Thunderchief powered by the Iroquois was offered to the Canadians who bought the F-104 Starfighter instead.
- Thread starter
- #8
Admiral Beez
Captain
Considering that the CF-104 was intended for ground strike, I have to think the F-105 was the better choice. I imagine the Lockheed scammery and corruption played a role. Would we have called it the CF-105.... maybe too soon?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
WRONG! First the F-105 was not a foreign sale option as it had a nuclear capability. Second the only countries involved in Lockheed bribery scandals were West Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Lastly, Lockheed did nothing different than what their competition was doing at the time - they were just dumb enough to get caught!
- Thread starter
- #10
Admiral Beez
Captain
Isn't that the role we used the CF-104 for, NATO tactical nuclear capability with the the B28, B43 and B57 nuclear bombs? Did the F-105 have additional nuclear capability over the CF-104?
As for foreign sale, Canada didn't buy F-104s, we made them. I assume we could build F-105, unless the extra nuclear capability of the F-105 over the nuclear-armed CF-104 blocked the release of building plans and permits.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The F-104 WAS NOT designed to be a nuclear bomber, it was designed to be a high altitude interceptor. The F-105 was "intended primarily for supersonic, low altitude penetration to deliver a single, internally carried nuclear bomb."
Yes you did - under license.
I worked in Canada for 5 years and a very capable aviation industry exists there (despite an exodus of engineers after the demise of the Arrow) so the ability to build an aircraft like the F-105 isn't even a question. Like the -106, the US was not letting the F-105 go to foreign soil to include Canada.
An airframe's nuclear capability was no obstacle to foreign sale; the A-4 Skyhawk for example was sold to numerous air arms including 278 to Israel. The Skyhawk was purpose-designed for nuclear delivery among other options. And the F-101B Voodoo was not only designed to carry Genie nuclear missiles but from 1965 actually could carry them in Canadian service.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
It was for the F-105. I believe this decision came from Robert McNamara.
The A-4's nuclear capability was all under wing and an operator had to either buy or build the delivery system.
The F-101's nuclear capability was only air-to-air
So? (Actually IIRC the nuclear capability was limited to the central fuselage station which originally provided for a capsule insertion).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Still considered "under-wing," (center pylon) you needed specific "bolt on" components to make that aircraft nuclear capable. Those components are not easily acquired or manufactured.
As far as corroborating? I don't have time to dig for a 60 year old DoD policy statement. My comments are backed by the fact that the F-105 was not offered for sale to other countries. Same as the F-106, F-117, and F-22.
.
I did read on wiki that Convair had a lot of trouble with the 106's ejection seat and according to Wegg (General Dynamics Aircraft), it wasn't really solved until 1960. I'm just wondering if this was around the time that decision making was happening for the Canadians regarding the F-101 choice?
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
I think I threw up a little bit just reading that name.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I think there were a bundle of F-16 losses due to engine failure when they first came out. In fact IRC they didn't install new engines in F-16 but rather used engines pre-run (burned in?) in F-15s. I'm sure they fixed that pretty quickly. For someone really interested, I'm sure that one could compare F-18 loses due to engine failure compared to F-16 loses due to engine failure.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I'm sure you are right. Northrop also got caught on bribery dealing with South Korea.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Beautiful aircraft. One of my favorites and one of two I would have loved to fly, the F-8 the other. Unfortunately all were in the Air National Guard. This plane will go supersonic with wing tanks. It could also supercruise.
