General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Gman on February 26, 2015, 01:10:44 PM
Title: F106
Post by: Gman on February 26, 2015, 01:10:44 PM
I've been reading and researching this Fighter, and many of the early F 100's series of USAF aircraft.
I came upon this video on AirBoyd's channel, and found it a brief but very interesting story about the "Cornfield Bomber" incident. Funny old world, anything is truly possible.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Rich46yo on February 26, 2015, 02:45:18 PM
Well in '78 I did a TDY to Balikesir air base in Turkey and saw, I believe, some of the last operational F-102s in the world flying around. I dont believe the Delta Daggers were much different then the 106s. That air base was ringed by radar controlled quad-0.50 cal guns and tho the equipment was old the Turks would take it real personal if you took pictures of anything so I never did. It was only a few years after Cypress and they were pissed at everyone.
Great story. Imagine the odds of the plane landing itself but you have to wonder of the configuration/design didnt play a large part in it.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Oldman731 on February 26, 2015, 09:05:51 PM
I suspect Puma might have some insight on 106s.
- oldman
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Bodhi on February 26, 2015, 10:29:14 PM
Pretty amazing story!
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Mister Fork on February 27, 2015, 03:34:21 PM
PUMA! Where are u!
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Ratsy on February 27, 2015, 04:17:30 PM
Thanks for sharing that. Who'da thunk it? Beale AFB has a U2-C model on a stick that made a pilot-less landing back in the early 60's. Of course, that was only what I was told. :)
I flew RC here in Texas with a retired F102 and F106 driver for a number of years. I believe he retired in Texas because of all the years he spent in Alaskan Air Command - many PCS's and TDY's. Even with the technology improvements in the 70's I think anybody who flew all-weather intercepts in Alaska during that era has serious brass manly bits.
:salute
Title: Re: F106
Post by: icepac on February 27, 2015, 07:52:43 PM
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Ratsy on February 27, 2015, 10:34:51 PM
Ummmm....ahhhhh...no. Doesn't look familiar at all. Jim was shorter than that. :cool:
:salute
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 02, 2015, 10:29:04 AM
The cornfield bomber story was a frequent story of discussion when loss of control came up. As the story goes the pilot got into a bad situation, couldn't regain control, and ejected. It was determined that the force of the ejection seat rocket motor was enough to break the AOA, recover from the out of control situation, and descend to a landing in a snow covered cornfield. As the story goes, a passing farmer saw the six laying in the field and went to help the pilot. As he approached the jet, it was obvious there was no pilot and the engine was still running. When fire department guys arrived, one of them walked up to the jet, reached in the cockpit and stop cocked the throttle.
As far as difference between the "Deuce" and the Six", there were a lot. Even though they look somewhat similar, they were completely different jets with the same air defense mission. The Six started out as an upgrade of the Deuce. As the planning progressed, it was deemed necessary to redesignate the new jet. The six had a much improved fire control system, engine, and airframe. The Six was designed for future growth in engine and weapons. The fuselage had approximately three inches (if memory serves me correctly) of unused space around the engine in anticipation of a future engine upgrade. Rumor had it that there were wiring bundles out to the wing drop tank stations that could be used for future missle upgrades. The AIR-2A Genie (the nuke) was a primary weapon for use against Russian bomber formations coming across the North Pole.
The Six was a dream to fly, very slick airframe, and would accelerate very quickly. All the Six bases had alert detachments. Ours at Minot was Davis Monthan at Tucson. The six cruised comfortable at .93-.95 Mach or 540 kts TAS in the mid 40,000 foot altitudes. A typical trip from Minot to DM would start with a full AB climb to 39,000 feet, set cruise power, burn out the external tanks, and climb to mid to high 40s and arrive at DN about and hour and forty five minutes later. We had an unofficial squadron competition going for the quickest return time form DN to Minot. The rules were simple. Declare an attempt on the record so the ops folks at DM would call the takeoff time to Minot ops, and go for it. Of course it started with a burner climb to cruise altitude and judicious use of winds aloft. One of our squadron ops officers held the record when I PCSed out. He set the record by lighting the burner over Rapid City and cruising supersonic the last leg into Minot. If I remember correctly, his time was 1+37.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Ratsy on March 02, 2015, 04:46:42 PM
Thanks for all that, Puma!
:salute
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 02, 2015, 06:28:38 PM
Sure thing, anytime! :salute
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Gman on March 02, 2015, 08:20:19 PM
Fantastic stuff Puma, ty for posting all that.
I was wondering about the nuclear armament. Here in Canada we once went that route with the Bomarc SAM nuclear missile, and a2a nuclear armament has always fascinated me. What kind of range would a typical Genie or various other warheads have so far as a lethal radius? I'm sure the exact figures are still classified (guessing here), and there is very little in the way of pictures and videos of tests, I've seen them all I think now. Most info says a lethal radius of 300 meters, but that seems pretty small to me. This video was impressive, the shockwave on the ground - wow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZ7FQHTaR4
This is one thing that I've wondered about in terms of the Western nations dependance on low observability tech in future fighters - what if our potential adversaries have systems which give a "good enough" location for targeting low yield bursting nuclear anti aircraft missiles, either SAMs or A2A missiles? Countries like China can be a little strange when it comes to such ideas, and I could easily see such a government convincing themselves that hitting tactical fighters and bombers with nuclear weapons is a completely different thing that hitting ground or sea based targets, sort of talking themselves into the theory that the west wouldn't retaliate with ballistic/cruise/B61 types of attacks as a response.
A much easier way for them to solve the low observable problem, instead of trying to hit targets with a rifle bullet, just shoot a huge 8 gauge shotgun at them instead sort of idea.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Oldman731 on March 02, 2015, 08:47:12 PM
Countries like China can be a little strange when it comes to such ideas, and I could easily see such a government convincing themselves that hitting tactical fighters and bombers with nuclear weapons is a completely different thing that hitting ground or sea based targets, sort of talking themselves into the theory that the west wouldn't retaliate with ballistic/cruise/B61 types of attacks as a response.
EMP.
I think it will be the same sort of deterrent that poison gas was in WWII.
- oldman
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 03, 2015, 12:08:34 AM
Gman, I don't recall the exact lethal radius but, the EMP and blast were the lethal aspects of the Genie. The Six's fire control system calculated a safe escape distance for the pilot by setting a timer in the Genie prior to launch. That was dependent on aircraft performance and altitude. At high altitude, the range was longer due to thinner air. Down low it was shorter because of denser atmosphere. Six pilots had escape maneuvers based on altitude. Up high we would roll inverted, pull through an aggressive split S, and when 180 out, light the burner and beat feet away from the impending blast. At low altitude, we would do an aggressive 135 pull away from the launch vector, light max AB, and get as far away as possible before the blast.
Every year, each Six had to live fire an inert Genie and acquire a lethal "hit" at a Firebee drone to maintain nuclear surety qualification. During my time in the jet, I live fired three Genies. It was an unguided rocket that the pilot aimed via a radar lock and fire control system guidance. When launched, the Genie rapidly accelerated to Mach 3 above the Six's speed. We always tried to have a launch speed of at least Mach 1.5. It was quite the thrill to fire a Genie. When it lit off, seeing the actual rocket was pretty much impossible because of the massive acceleration. All I ever saw was a thin contrail with a puff on the end when the firing sequence detonated the self destruct charge. One time, I flew chase on another Six pilot for his launch. There was a fleeting time the Genie was visible and then gone!
Title: Re: F106
Post by: artik on March 03, 2015, 01:04:28 AM
Why 106 it has "double" stick handle?
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 03, 2015, 10:33:23 AM
The right side is a standard fighter control stick. The left side is the radar control handle. It rotated fore and aft, left and right, and everywhere in between to control the radar range gate and other associated functions. The left side could also be locked in place to fly the Six with it if the pilot needed to manipulate equipment on the right side of the cockpit.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: morfiend on March 03, 2015, 06:50:15 PM
The right side is a standard fighter control stick. The left side is the radar control handle. It rotated fore and aft, left and right, and everywhere in between to control the radar range gate and other associated functions. The left side could also be locked in place to fly the Six with it if the pilot needed to manipulate equipment on the right side of the cockpit.
Did you have to use shift plus X to lock the stick? :devil
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Great stuff D,I know a Navy guy who flew A6's and he told me he carried a Nuke,dummy of course,I'm not sure I would want to carry that responsibility.
:salute
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Guppy35 on March 03, 2015, 08:18:58 PM
Always thought the 106 was a great looking and somewhat overlooked bird. In my college dorm room, back in 79-80, on the bulletin board above my desk, my airplane porn was a Spit IX and a 106
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Gman on March 03, 2015, 09:10:49 PM
I agree Guppy, I too think that the 106 and the 102 somewhat as well are overlooked a little, but were superb interceptors that even by today's standards so far as climb/cruise/range are pretty decent.
I'm very interested in the Navy's new program for an F18 replacement. There are so many camps with interesting opinions. I kind of like the one that says throw the stealth/Low Observe stuff down the ladder a bit, still have a low RCS, but nothing like the very expensive and difficult to maintain current stuff and coatings and whatnot. This camp wants a high performing, very long range interceptor type, that will rely on a powerful AESA radar for detecting and EW vs airborne threats, as well as very effective, fast, and long range a2a missiles and rely on these things instead of being less detectable. I've read stuff that they want a 1.6 or higher super cruise capability, range greater than what the F14D had (which was fantastic already compared to any Hornet variant), and the ability to carry 10 AAM split between internal and external rails.
Thanks for all the info Puma, it's great to hear it first hand from a 106 driver. I figured the 2nd stick was a sensor control. Did you ever train for using the Genie vs a potential ground or sea based threat? I figured such a fast missile would give you a bit more stand off capability over a B61 vs say a fleet of ships or exposed infantry/light armor in a pinch. I understand it's far outside of what the F106 was tasked and designed for, just interested if it was ever an option. Also, after the refit/design in the early 70s that added the M61, did you train a lot with it in a2a combat? It's interesting that a fighter with such a big stick with the Genie would also have the gun (not that I'd be complaining or critical, it just seems cross purpose a little, an interceptor made to hit formations with an area affect weapon, having a precise short range pewpewpew as well).
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 03, 2015, 09:27:42 PM
Did you have to use shift plus X to lock the stick? :devil
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Great stuff D,I know a Navy guy who flew A6's and he told me he carried a Nuke,dummy of course,I'm not sure I would want to carry that responsibility.
:salute
Nah, just a flip of a switch. There wasn't much in the Six that was automated, except for the auto pilot. As such, the Six was considered to have the highest workload cockpit of its time. Additionally, it had some of the most technologically advanced features of anything flying at the time, but manually operated.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 03, 2015, 09:44:35 PM
I agree Guppy, I too think that the 106 and the 102 somewhat as well are overlooked a little, but were superb interceptors that even by today's standards so far as climb/cruise/range are pretty decent.
Thanks for all the info Puma, it's great to hear it first hand from a 106 driver. I figured the 2nd stick was a sensor control. Did you ever train for using the Genie vs a potential ground or sea based threat? I figured such a fast missile would give you a bit more stand off capability over a B61 vs say a fleet of ships or exposed infantry/light armor in a pinch. I understand it's far outside of what the F106 was tasked and designed for, just interested if it was ever an option. Also, after the refit/design in the early 70s that added the M61, did you train a lot with it in a2a combat? It's interesting that a fighter with such a big stick with the Genie would also have the gun (not that I'd be complaining or critical, it just seems cross purpose a little, an interceptor made to hit formations with an area affect weapon, having a precise short range pewpewpew as well).
The Six was designed as a pure air to air interceptor and as such, there wasn't any intent other than air to air employment of the Genie. It was the basic Hail Mary against Russion bomber formations coming across the North Pole, the most bang for the buck. So, all of our training was against potential large formations. At one of our live fire deployments, we had DACT scheduled after all the jets were nuke qualed. Our DACT opponents were F-14s. We briefed full up weapons for each side, stepped to the jets, and set up in the airspace for a four v four. When the "fights on" call came, we sorted, locked, and called "Fox 3" (the Genie), kill, on each of the Tomcats or Tukeys, as they were commonly referred as. They were expecting a close in heater and guns fight. After that engagement they made sure to brief "no Genie" matchups.
The gun was developed to complement the AIM-4s that were pretty poor in a close in engagement, or any engagement actually. The Six carried four AIM-4s and either the Genie or the gun package. The gun package was essentially the same 20mm Vulcan cannon installed on the F-4E, a real hoot to pull the trigger on. With 600+ rounds of 20mm and a 6,000 rounds per minute fire rate, we planned on having three 2 second bursts before the gun was empty.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: bozon on March 03, 2015, 10:19:43 PM
I love the looks of those old deltas. The Mirage III was prettiest of them all.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: streakeagle on March 04, 2015, 09:41:19 PM
The Six was designed as a pure air to air interceptor and as such, there wasn't any intent other than air to air employment of the Genie. It was the basic Hail Mary against Russion bomber formations coming across the North Pole, the most bang for the buck. So, all of our training was against potential large formations. At one of our live fire deployments, we had DACT scheduled after all the jets were nuke qualed. Our DACT opponents were F-14s. We briefed full up weapons for each side, stepped to the jets, and set up in the airspace for a four v four. When the "fights on" call came, we sorted, locked, and called "Fox 3" (the Genie), kill, on each of the Tomcats or Tukeys, as they were commonly referred as. They were expecting a close in heater and guns fight. After that engagement they made sure to brief "no Genie" matchups.
The gun was developed to complement the AIM-4s that were pretty poor in a close in engagement, or any engagement actually. The Six carried four AIM-4s and either the Genie or the gun package. The gun package was essentially the same 20mm Vulcan cannon installed on the F-4E, a real hoot to pull the trigger on. With 600+ rounds of 20mm and a 6,000 rounds per minute fire rate, we planned on having three 2 second bursts before the gun was empty.
How ironic. Tomcats and Eagles feel cheated when they can't use their sensor/missile advantages against Falcons and Hornets. Cool to see them get a taste of their own medicine and then request restrictions the same way pre-AMRAAM Falcons didn't want Phoenix and Sparrows coming their way.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 04, 2015, 11:04:54 PM
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Mister Fork on March 05, 2015, 03:59:47 PM
(http://casmuseum.techno-science.ca/img/gallery/casm/aircraft_avroarrow_2.jpg) best delta ever (a Canuck point of view)
The cancelled Avro Arrow. Helping bring to the USA over a hundred of Canada's best aerospace engineers and designers to MD, Northrop, and other defense companies to build better jets, responsible for the F-15 and gave NASA awesome space program. :D
Title: Re: F106
Post by: pipz on March 05, 2015, 07:21:42 PM
Spiffing stuff Puma! The 106 is a beautiful aero plane! :aok
Thanks! Indeed it is. The sound it made coming up initial was unmistakable. Almost like a finely tuned Indy car goin the speed of heat. A flight of four up initial, just WOW!
Actually, it is a rocket (unguided). The smaller AIM-4s are either IR or Radar guided. And yes, the Genie is huge.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: pangea on March 06, 2015, 02:03:44 PM
I was stationed at Castle AFB in CA 1976-'78 as a jet engine mechanic on B-52's. The 84th FIS was a tenant organization there and flew 106's. What a beautiful aircraft. Whenever one would take off I'd have to stop what I was doing and watch.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 06, 2015, 02:27:26 PM
Yeah, it was always a head turner.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Rich46yo on March 06, 2015, 11:08:05 PM
Yes, from what I remember, they flew in a pairs, an E and a G. The G or Geasel, had the EWO in the back seat to do the electronic wizardry and the E carried extra iron. They were refered to as a hunter killer team. I never flew the Weasel mission but had great respect for these guys. Their moto was "First in, last out". As I recall, G had a TISIO apparatus mounted on the leading edge of the left wing.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: -ammo- on March 10, 2015, 08:27:11 AM
I serviced WWs at Dahran in 1993 with munitions for SOUTHERN WATCH . Many of our guys got "weasel bites" from crawling around underneath them. F-15Es there were easier on the noggin if you know what I mean. The WWs were still operated by a regular unit out of Nellis then but the mission transitioned not long after to the Reserve component.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 10, 2015, 03:09:35 PM
Yep, Phantom bite courtesy of the aux air doors, most of the time. But, there were many other opportunities for bites. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: F106
Post by: palef on March 10, 2015, 05:04:50 PM
If you look at a plan view of a 102 vs. a 106 you'll note the fuselages are quite different. The 102 was designed before "Area Rule" was well understood and generated more drag than expected. The 106 rectified that with a "coke bottle" shaped fuselage.
Title: Re: F106
Post by: Puma44 on March 11, 2015, 01:51:08 AM
Yeah, the Six had that slender waist that made her fly like a bolt of lightening. :bolt: