Convair F-106 Projects

Genie was to turn nukes on the bombers into duds, not to kill so much.
 
There is a whole lot of volume to fill, so not as likely to kill dispersed groups in practice. Soviet bombers flew during peace-time within visual range of others but in a hot war this was not expected to happen. The lack of effectiveness to dispersed targets made this a goldplated solution.
 
MadRat said:
There is a whole lot of volume to fill, so not as likely to kill dispersed groups in practice. Soviet bombers flew during peace-time within visual range of others but in a hot war this was not expected to happen. The lack of effectiveness to dispersed targets made this a goldplated solution.
Click to expand...
It may have been considered good enough against single bombers as well; the RAF considered chucking tactical nuclear bombs at individual aircraft.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Advanced F-106
[...]
Click to expand...
FYI, another new stack of pictures showing the development of an advanced Convair F-106 were uploaded at the SDASM Flickr archive today. :cool:
Here are some appetizers. Please notice the inlets and the canard.
Please also see @Orionblamblam 's blog post "Advanced F-106/Sky Scorcher" from 2009-11-13.
Link: up-ship.com/blog/?p=4514
https://flic.kr/p/2r8WjPj
View: https://flic.kr/p/2r8WjPj

https://flic.kr/p/2r8UDiy
View: https://flic.kr/p/2r8UDiy

https://flic.kr/p/2r7sxV8
View: https://flic.kr/p/2r7sxV8
 
Last edited:
Heatloss said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not to meddle, but did you ever get any higher quality documents?
 
Scott Kenny said:
An unguided nuke with a kill radius of about 300-500m.
Click to expand...
The assumption here is the F-106 managed (somehow) to get into shooting range. (Which makes me wonder how much range Sky Scorcher would have had. . .)
 
If you gave the F-35 the F-106's weapons, electronics, and radar, (or vice versa) it would be a more fair comparison.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
A modern-day, dedicated interceptor with most of the F-35's Avionics would be interesting... Swap the EOTS for an air-to-air optimized IRST, maybe?

edit: Thread to discuss this is: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...dern-interceptor-forum-input-requested.52021/
Click to expand...
And gas turbine technology has improved so much- even a plain-Jane turbojet but using current technology and built to the same form factor as the J75 would probably be 40-50% more fuel efficient, a lot lighter and easily in the 35-40k thrust range.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
I've got the files. Insanely high res scans, but one is quite distorted. I'll upload in a more usable format.
Click to expand...
Distorted? They appear fine on my device, so I'm not sure what you mean/you're experiencing. Also yeah. 2400 DPI scans are bit ridiculous, but this is what I was given and I was hoping to preserve at least a little bit of that quality.
 
for completists - the full resolution scans. I reduced to 1 bit (black and white) to reduce the filesize. These are far too large for the server to thumbnail. #2 is 75855 x 25398 Pixels.
 

Attachments

  • Convair F-106 1 - large 1bit.png
    4 MB · Views: 56
  • Convair F-106 2 - large 1 bit.png
    4.5 MB · Views: 27
  • Convair F-106 3 - large 1bit.png
    4.5 MB · Views: 22
Given that the F-106B cockpit improves aerodynamics, they should have just used the same fuselage contour for the single seat version and use the space for additional fuel.
Frankly, given all the redesign effort, why not just replace the J-75 with the J-93, which is 1000lbs lighter than the J-75, more fuel efficient, and would allow for higher speeds, maybe Mach 2.7. Sure, it would take a bit of shoehorning to fit it, but considering the intake mods, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
 
SCAT-15F said:
Given that the F-106B cockpit improves aerodynamics, they should have just used the same fuselage contour for the single seat version and use the space for additional fuel.
Frankly, given all the redesign effort, why not just replace the J-75 with the J-93, which is 1000lbs lighter than the J-75, more fuel efficient, and would allow for higher speeds, maybe Mach 2.7. Sure, it would take a bit of shoehorning to fit it, but considering the intake mods, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
Now I'm having visions of an F-105 with a J93. . .
 
SCAT-15F said:
Given that the F-106B cockpit improves aerodynamics, they should have just used the same fuselage contour for the single seat version and use the space for additional fuel.
Frankly, given all the redesign effort, why not just replace the J-75 with the J-93, which is 1000lbs lighter than the J-75, more fuel efficient, and would allow for higher speeds, maybe Mach 2.7. Sure, it would take a bit of shoehorning to fit it, but considering the intake mods, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
For those speeds I think you'd have to rework the cockpit, wing leading edges, and other areas, otherwise you'd probably run into thermal issues.

(Somewhere around the internet are various anecdotal accounts of F-111 drivers claiming to hit speeds close to Mach 3 at high altitude, and my recollection was that thermal damage to the cockpit was a big concern. Assuming the claims are true, of course.)
 
SCAT-15F said:
Given that the F-106B cockpit improves aerodynamics, they should have just used the same fuselage contour for the single seat version and use the space for additional fuel.
Frankly, given all the redesign effort, why not just replace the J-75 with the J-93, which is 1000lbs lighter than the J-75, more fuel efficient, and would allow for higher speeds, maybe Mach 2.7. Sure, it would take a bit of shoehorning to fit it, but considering the intake mods, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
I feel like a turbofan J75 would be a better use of time?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom