Why didn't Canada use F-106 Delta Dart?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

SaparotRob said:
Did Ed Heinneman have a hand in the TBF? My "what if" is, a stripped down torpedo plane like the AD1 instead of the TBF. Maybe that's for a different thread.
Click to expand...
Ed was a designer for Douglas Aircraft; TBF was a Grumman design that preceded AD1 by five years and a whole generation of aeronautical technology. AD1's designers had far more horsepower available to play with than TBF's. AD1 could survive in combat due to speed, maneuverability, and ruggedness rather than defensive firepower, largely because of its greater power available and its role as a general purpose attack aircraft. TBF's design role as a torpedo bomber dictated its low and slow flight profile, the aerodynamic characteristics of which impeded its high speed performance. Different aircraft designed to different requirements.
An AD1 philosophy TBF with an R2600 instead of an R3350 would have been Zero fodder as well as an inferior torpedo bomber.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Zipper730 said:
It's highly likely to be a mock-up: If this happened in flight, it's likely the speed would not only have put a hole in the building -- momentum would have carried it through into the ground.
Click to expand...
And the airframe totally trashed, not sitting there intact.
 
At several Hard Rock Cafes in Thailand they have "crashed" a DC-3 into the side of the building. It seems a rather undignified end for these wonderful machines. I hope that "F-102" is just a mock up.
 
XBe02Drvr said:
You never really know 'til you stand next to a TBF or an A1 and look up at that cockpit towering above you like Mt Everest. Even more impressive if it's in a low roofed hangar and the upper prop blade is barely clearing the rafters.
Click to expand...

Not in a hangar, but impressive anyway.
(War Remnants Museum in Saigon-Ho Chi Minh).

 
XBe02Drvr said:
This "elephant boat" would almost certainly turn out to be a single mission one trick pony. Unless it had gargantuan elevators and hangar decks, its massive nuke bombers would have to live topside full time
Click to expand...
Far as I know, it had elevators that could hoist the aircraft up and down.
Thus it would depend on other carriers to provide interception, CAP, AEW, conventional strike, and ASW functions, as well as defensive AAA and SAM direction.
Click to expand...
It had the ability to operate fighters and bombers off its deck. Many models had F7U's depicted.

While the F7U had a bit to be desired, it was the best performer next to the F-86 and, with only a few modifications, it could have been made to have work by the early 1950's, ironically. The thing is, you'd have to have a well maintained crystal ball to have avoided running into the land-mines that crippled it. These land-mines were run into by other aircraft designers, such as Douglas, with the F4D, though the F7U ran into it worse.

As for the lack of radar, in addition for the possibility of a command ship that would provide it with data, it was intended to operate in a task force that had a Midway Class, two Essex Classes, with the United States at the heart of it. The plans called for four fleets of this nature.

Here's some images I've found

Looking at these overhead shots, and the listed width: They were inches away from an angled-deck as it was. All they needed was to add an island on the right side, shave off anything that didn't need to be there; then lengthen and skew the deck on the port-side.





I'm not sure if the rear elevator was the only one suitable to operate bombers off of, but it was definitely the biggest elevator. That said, the aircraft depicted seems to be nondescript.




As for the retractible island, it's interesting, but not very practical. It looks like it'd jam very easy in a wet environment.



This thing really was intended to have all the trimmings: The thing is, it turns out exterior escalators have issues with moisture and debris.


Money better spent on B52s and KC135s
Click to expand...
Actually, it would have been B-36's at the time. That said, by the time it would have seen operational service, the B-52 and KC-135 would have been flying. The idea of a carrier that could have operated a 100,000 pound plane would have been pretty cool.

I'm not totally sure what the exact design proposals were for the bomber design, but they seemed to be running overweight. It appears if you want a 100,000 pound design, you ask for an 85,000 pound plane with the assumption that it'll balloon up to 100,000. The problem is, if you make the requirements too low, all the contractors will say "there is no fucking way in hell we can produce this -- buh-bye".

From what it appeared, the requirements for the aircraft was for an aircraft that would have a crew of three, a defensive gun (possibly with a automatic gun-laying radar), a radius of action of 1700 nm while carrying a 12,000 pound nuclear-bomb of Fat Man style rotundness. Obviously, it would have to land on a carrier-deck, possess folding-wings, and for early nuclear weapons, it was often important for the bombardier to crawl into the bomb-bay.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

V
F-51D Korean War interior
Replies
16
Views
956
MIflyer
M
M
Fixing an F-80 Problem
Replies
2
Views
643
SaparotRob
Death Of An Interceptor: MiG-21's Ambush F-102 Delta Daggers, Laos, 1968....
Replies
0
Views
624
Lucky13
Y
F-105D combat routes from Thailand to Vietnam in the late 1960s
Replies
0
Views
247
yahya
Y
F-5 Freedom Fighter Jet. Northrop Supersonic Light Warbird | Documentary
Replies
2
Views
625
Gnomey