Wasn't there a story like that, with some "jack of all trades" B-52 ? writting by the Da Vinci Code guy ?
The one name and title that comes to mind with respect to literary B-52 shenanigans is Dale Brown's Flight of The Old Dog, but since I never read it (and unless forced I never will, what with life being too short and all anyway, plus I got the latest book by Katie Porter on my nightstand), I honestly don't know if that scratches your particular itch, although you may be confusing the author with Dan Brown (say, you're not one of those persons to whom all Browns look the same, are you :cool:?)
 
Last edited:
Well, I'd say the F-106 fighter-bomber version was at least tested...

653731885b9cd13a8706d29a7ad0eef7.jpg
Tested in jest

View attachment 701483
That's how you end up with a fighter bomber... The general says, "Great idea! I want this..." The next thing you know, you are now having to work extra hours to rewire your plane for bomb racks...
 
Now imagine the hilarity that would ensue if said general looked at a B-52 and expressed his desire for a bomber fighter - rewiring would be the least of your troubles...
 
Wasn't there a story like that, with some "jack of all trades" B-52 ? writting by the Da Vinci Code guy ?
Dale Brown, not Dan Brown.

Flight of the Old Dog and several following stories feature very pimped out B-52s. SST nose, F15E equivalent radar, V tail, lots of radar-transparent composites, searchlight absorbent paint (think WW2 Night Fighter black), and loaded with everything in the USAF inventory short of a nuke. Some stories even swap out the old engines with 4x civilian turbofans.
 
F-106 "long nose" test aircraft and F-106X project
"F-106X (1968)
New radome and larger radar antenna. Modified FCS with lookdown capability. New AAMs. Competitor to YF-12. Added canards and revised intakes, and new engine with twice the power in the same size."

Any idea what 50,000lb thrust engine this would be?

:eek:
I cannot imagine, a J58 is only about 35klbs. Maybe a J93 or GE4?
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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: 639
  • 53070777469_f87c4585ab_o.jpg
    53070777469_f87c4585ab_o.jpg
    294.9 KB · Views: 472
  • 53070986250_0ce4d44754_o.jpg
    53070986250_0ce4d44754_o.jpg
    201.8 KB · Views: 459
  • 53070986260_df95954250_o.jpg
    53070986260_df95954250_o.jpg
    196.9 KB · Views: 424
  • 53070003937_24362c8ea9_o.jpg
    53070003937_24362c8ea9_o.jpg
    193.6 KB · Views: 421
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Not a project but studies on escape systems for the F-102B (F-106).
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (7993).png
    Screenshot (7993).png
    112.6 KB · Views: 220
  • Screenshot (7994).png
    Screenshot (7994).png
    155.9 KB · Views: 169
  • Screenshot (7995).png
    Screenshot (7995).png
    170.7 KB · Views: 141
  • Screenshot (7996).png
    Screenshot (7996).png
    152.4 KB · Views: 130
  • Screenshot (7997).png
    Screenshot (7997).png
    137 KB · Views: 125
  • Screenshot (7998).png
    Screenshot (7998).png
    155.5 KB · Views: 145
  • Screenshot (7999).png
    Screenshot (7999).png
    105.1 KB · Views: 160
  • Screenshot (8000).png
    Screenshot (8000).png
    109.1 KB · Views: 167
  • Screenshot (8001).png
    Screenshot (8001).png
    95.4 KB · Views: 271
Partial F-106C report with a poor quality drawing that includes some armament bay info and wingtip mounted Sparrows.
 

Attachments

  • 5.png
    5.png
    149.1 KB · Views: 278
  • 4.png
    4.png
    148.1 KB · Views: 176
  • 3.png
    3.png
    153 KB · Views: 168
  • 2.png
    2.png
    100.3 KB · Views: 166
  • 1.png
    1.png
    112.1 KB · Views: 267
  • Screenshot (7932).jpg
    Screenshot (7932).jpg
    231.7 KB · Views: 389
Partial F-106C report with a poor quality drawing that includes some armament bay info and wingtip mounted Sparrows.
I reached out to the SDASM archives about a month ago to get that document rescanned. We should have a better cross-section profile in only another week or two, as well as better proposed armament information.
 
https://www.f-106deltadart.com/piwigo/picture.php?/8012
From Mike Lorrey, Director International Spaceflight Museum In 2005 Mike put together a business proposal to take a 106 hulk and rebuild it to be a launch vehicle, Called it the X-106. Took out the turbine, and put in a big LOX tank in the engine bay, with a SpaceX Merlin engine on the back. Took out all the old avionics and weapons system, replace the avionics with a modern, low mass glass cockpit, make the weapons bay and the air intakes into more fuel capacity. Replace the underwing tanks with some ramjets. The idea was to use the Eclipse Project gear to tow launch the X-106 with a C-141, fully fueled, to 35k ft, drop it and light up the underwing ramjets. The ramjets would use MIPCC injecting water and LOX into the intakes to cool the incoming air mass so the ramjets could function at much higher speeds, reach the Mach 5 speed the F-106X proposal in the 60's projected, then light up the Merlin to boost further, drop the ramjets at mach 7, and power up into orbit. The nose cone and leading edges would use hafnium diboride like whats used in steering fins for MIRVs, and titanium skin for the other surfaces. Reentry would have a very low wing loading, only 11 lbs/sqft,, which is 1/9th that of the Shuttle, so it would lose most speed far higher in the atmosphere, and would have far lower heating and wouldn't need the silica tile thermal protection like the shuttle needed. We didn't get funding for the project, but it was fun to design it We had two hulks lined up for purchase in a warehouse in Texas (El Paso birds), if we got funding. Unfortunately that option to buy expired when we failed to get funding.
 

Attachments

  • X-106.jpg
    X-106.jpg
    137.2 KB · Views: 356
https://www.f-106deltadart.com/piwigo/picture.php?/8012
From Mike Lorrey, Director International Spaceflight Museum In 2005 Mike put together a business proposal to take a 106 hulk and rebuild it to be a launch vehicle, Called it the X-106. Took out the turbine, and put in a big LOX tank in the engine bay, with a SpaceX Merlin engine on the back. Took out all the old avionics and weapons system, replace the avionics with a modern, low mass glass cockpit, make the weapons bay and the air intakes into more fuel capacity. Replace the underwing tanks with some ramjets. The idea was to use the Eclipse Project gear to tow launch the X-106 with a C-141, fully fueled, to 35k ft, drop it and light up the underwing ramjets. The ramjets would use MIPCC injecting water and LOX into the intakes to cool the incoming air mass so the ramjets could function at much higher speeds, reach the Mach 5 speed the F-106X proposal in the 60's projected, then light up the Merlin to boost further, drop the ramjets at mach 7, and power up into orbit. The nose cone and leading edges would use hafnium diboride like whats used in steering fins for MIRVs, and titanium skin for the other surfaces. Reentry would have a very low wing loading, only 11 lbs/sqft,, which is 1/9th that of the Shuttle, so it would lose most speed far higher in the atmosphere, and would have far lower heating and wouldn't need the silica tile thermal protection like the shuttle needed. We didn't get funding for the project, but it was fun to design it We had two hulks lined up for purchase in a warehouse in Texas (El Paso birds), if we got funding. Unfortunately that option to buy expired when we failed to get funding.
I remember seeing those hulks years ago.
 
https://www.f-106deltadart.com/piwigo/picture.php?/8012
From Mike Lorrey, Director International Spaceflight Museum In 2005 Mike put together a business proposal to take a 106 hulk and rebuild it to be a launch vehicle, Called it the X-106. Took out the turbine, and put in a big LOX tank in the engine bay, with a SpaceX Merlin engine on the back. Took out all the old avionics and weapons system, replace the avionics with a modern, low mass glass cockpit, make the weapons bay and the air intakes into more fuel capacity. Replace the underwing tanks with some ramjets. The idea was to use the Eclipse Project gear to tow launch the X-106 with a C-141, fully fueled, to 35k ft, drop it and light up the underwing ramjets. The ramjets would use MIPCC injecting water and LOX into the intakes to cool the incoming air mass so the ramjets could function at much higher speeds, reach the Mach 5 speed the F-106X proposal in the 60's projected, then light up the Merlin to boost further, drop the ramjets at mach 7, and power up into orbit. The nose cone and leading edges would use hafnium diboride like whats used in steering fins for MIRVs, and titanium skin for the other surfaces. Reentry would have a very low wing loading, only 11 lbs/sqft,, which is 1/9th that of the Shuttle, so it would lose most speed far higher in the atmosphere, and would have far lower heating and wouldn't need the silica tile thermal protection like the shuttle needed. We didn't get funding for the project, but it was fun to design it We had two hulks lined up for purchase in a warehouse in Texas (El Paso birds), if we got funding. Unfortunately that option to buy expired when we failed to get funding.

I sent this in reply # 49 ?.
 
:cool:
Another 3-view of the Convair F-106X at SDASM Flickr Archives:
View: https://flic.kr/p/2o6KVwy
This drawing shows a study of a retrofit of the F-106A in 1971. Only the drawing is available, but it include canard surfaces,
a more modern horizontal ramp inlet, and the Pratt and Whitney F401-PW-400 turbofan engine.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/attachments/20220219_convair_f-106x_3view-jpg.730643/


Source : CONVAIR ADVANCED DESIGN Ⅱ
 
Last edited:
Hi! Larger images.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/janome_gotyou/archives/1910945.html
The main armament of the Advanced F-106 is a missile called the Sky Scorcher.

The Sky Scorcher is a 5.5-meter-long missile with a 2-Mt nuclear power, there is no visual information about its appearance.

It weighs 3400 lbs (1540 kg) and has a maximum speed of Mach 2.5~3. It has a range of 125 nm (230 km).

The guidance method is also unknown, but it is highly likely that it was unguided, considering that the warhead of the AIR-2 Genie (which began operation in 1957) was 1.5 kt and unguided.

With this much power, it doesn't make much difference whether it's a guided type or not.

The concept is to launch 14 Sky Scorchers from the Advanced F-106 into a large formation of Soviet bombers rushing to the U.S. mainland, dividing the formation. In addition, the subsequent "Advanced F-106" formation was supposed to annihilate the remaining enemies that were divided with the Ginny and Falcon.
The U.S. Air Force did not adopt the Sky Scorcher after all.

It seems that the use of a 2Mt high-power nuclear weapon over the territory of the country was regarded as a problem, but is there a problem with the 1.5kt of the AIR-2? I think it was probably a decision that involved politics.

And the "Advanced F-106" that was set with the Sky Scorcher should have disappeared with it at this time.
The F-106 is said to have faltered the F-15 in a simulated air battle at high altitudes, so if the F-106X had been adopted, it might have been possible to switch to a tactical fighter, but then-Secretary of Defense R. McNamara canceled the YF-12 along with the rival YF-12.

It continued to be used almost unchanged except for improvements to the radar and autopilot system in the 1969 Minimum System Reliability Improvement (MAISR) program, and after the disbandment of the Air Defense Force Corps in 1976, it was transferred to the Tactical Air Command and the State Air Corps. And in 1987, it disappeared from the actual combat unit without the appearance of a full-fledged air defense interceptor fighter to replace it.

https://up-ship.com/blog/?p=4514
 

Attachments

  • 6bbcc076.jpg
    6bbcc076.jpg
    175.8 KB · Views: 242
  • 64c5f878.jpg
    64c5f878.jpg
    175.4 KB · Views: 206
  • f612783c.jpg
    f612783c.jpg
    165.3 KB · Views: 260
Last edited:
Hi!
Source : CONVAIR ADVANCED DESIGN Ⅱ, AMERICAN SECRET PROJECTS and SPF.
 

Attachments

  • ADVANCED F-106.jpg
    ADVANCED F-106.jpg
    222.2 KB · Views: 221
  • TABLE of the advanced f-106.jpg
    TABLE of the advanced f-106.jpg
    170.7 KB · Views: 220
Last edited:
Hi!
I add MRI and LRI.
Source : CONVAIR ADVANCED DESIGNS Ⅱ.
This book include MRI, LRI and other interesting F-106 version drawings.
 

Attachments

  • MRI and LRI.jpg
    MRI and LRI.jpg
    266.4 KB · Views: 191
Last edited:
Partial F-106C report with a poor quality drawing that includes some armament bay info and wingtip mounted Sparrows.
Thanks RAP
Interesting that the documentation speaks of the Aim-4 Falcon armament, but nothing of the Aim-7 Sparrows clearly shown in the drawing.

Regards
Pioneer
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom