Convair F-106 Projects

I really liked the F-106, whether in A or B form. Just looked like something out of Buck Rogers. The 1930s Buck Rogers not the modern one Star Wars copied from.

The response I recieved from a SAC guy in the early 80s, about why they didn't build more F-106 for protecting the country was something akin to, it looks too much like a Mirage and the Air Force will never buy more jets with turbojets because turbofans are the future. So perhaps pushing old turbojets when shiny new F-15s cost a bit more, and F-16s were quite a lot cheaper, was a bad idea. Just maybe. F-106 could not compete against the 1-2 punch of F-15 and F-16 being procured in a Hi-Lo mix.
 
MadRat said:
I really liked the F-106, whether in A or B form. Just looked like something out of Buck Rogers. The 1930s Buck Rogers not the modern one Star Wars copied from.

The response I recieved from a SAC guy in the early 80s, about why they didn't build more F-106 for protecting the country was something akin to, it looks too much like a Mirage and the Air Force will never buy more jets with turbojets because turbofans are the future. So perhaps pushing old turbojets when shiny new F-15s cost a bit more, and F-16s were quite a lot cheaper, was a bad idea. Just maybe. F-106 could not compete against the 1-2 punch of F-15 and F-16 being procured in a Hi-Lo mix.
Click to expand...
Another important question would be tooling. Did the F-106 tooling still exist in the late 1970s? Also, the F100 is significantly longer than the J75, 4.9m versus 3.66m, in addition to being 10cm larger in diameter.

As a side note, the F-4 was rated to be "marginally better" than the F-106 as an interceptor, and could be cascaded down to F-106 units as F-4 units got F-15s or F-16s.

Don't forget that the F-106 was also a 1950s design, first flew in 1956 and adopted in 1959. Those airframes were old and well used, while Phantoms were still in production through 1981.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
[...]
A two seat F-106-30 with new axisymmetric intakes with cones, canards and a single J-58 engine and a twin engine version with two J93s were both designed in 1958, but both were limited to Mach 2.5 by airframe limitations.
Click to expand...
New pictures showing the F-106-30 modell have been uploaded to SDASM Flickr Archive. :cool:
Here some new pictures as appetizers :
https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8zm
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8zm

https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9Hv
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9Hv

https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1iJ
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1iJ

https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAgW
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAgW

https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2W2
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2W2


23_0007841 Convair Negative Image by SDASM Archives, auf Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9BD
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUe9BD

23_0007826 Convair Negative Image by SDASM Archives, auf Flickr

https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2UZ
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUh2UZ

https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1cS
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUi1cS

https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAdV
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUjAdV

https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8tV
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oUj8tV
 
Last edited:
Model with various A2A and A2G loadouts and recon pods for weapons bay, also external gun pods, missile pods, bullpups and 'classified armament'.
 

Attachments

  • 53070587086_476f018960_o.jpg
    53070587086_476f018960_o.jpg
    338.8 KB · Views: 152
  • 53070777469_f87c4585ab_o.jpg
    53070777469_f87c4585ab_o.jpg
    294.9 KB · Views: 151
  • 53070986250_0ce4d44754_o.jpg
    53070986250_0ce4d44754_o.jpg
    201.8 KB · Views: 153
  • 53070986260_df95954250_o.jpg
    53070986260_df95954250_o.jpg
    196.9 KB · Views: 143
  • 53070003937_24362c8ea9_o.jpg
    53070003937_24362c8ea9_o.jpg
    193.6 KB · Views: 145
RAP said:
Model with various A2A and A2G loadouts and recon pods for weapons bay, also external gun pods, missile pods, bullpups and 'classified armament'.
Click to expand...
I was going to suggest that the "Classified Armament" was nuclear, but then I saw the AIR-2 Genie front and center.
 
Its not easy comparing engines when it comes to military hardware.

The J75 with its afterburner certainly is not smaller than an F100 and afterburner. Its double in weight and a foot wider at the afterburner. The F100 is a few feet longer, but thats not so much an issue on a 70'-plus airframe. Funny enough, the fuel consumption is fairly similar in many situations. That huge shift in center of gravity certainly would be an issue. The maintenance schedule certainly favors an F100 vs J75.
 
MadRat said:
Its not easy comparing engines when it comes to military hardware.

The J75 with its afterburner certainly is not smaller than an F100 and afterburner. Its double in weight and a foot wider at the afterburner. The F100 is a few feet longer, but thats not so much an issue on a 70'-plus airframe. Funny enough, the fuel consumption is fairly similar in many situations. That huge shift in center of gravity certainly would be an issue. The maintenance schedule certainly favors an F100 vs J75.
Click to expand...
An F-106 with an F100 engine would be a wicked airplane for sure! That re-engine would have put all the supersonic fighters using the same engine: F-106, F-15, and F-16. The A-7 was proposed to also get either an afterburning TF41 or an F100 for the A-7F, which just leaves the A-10 with a different engine.
 
Scott Kenny said:
An F-106 with an F100 engine would be a wicked airplane for sure! That re-engine would have put all the supersonic fighters using the same engine: F-106, F-15, and F-16. The A-7 was proposed to also get either an afterburning TF41 or an F100 for the A-7F, which just leaves the A-10 with a different engine.
Click to expand...
Though I should note that it would take until the F100-PW-229 before the new engine made more power than the J75, and the -229 wasn't available until the 1990s. That said, the turbofans make a lot more thrust in afterburner, so a Six with an F100-PW-229 has a power to weight ratio of right about 1:1 at combat weight.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom