The best fighter of the 1950's. - Page 5 - Aircraft of World War II

Soren · 05-02-2009, 05:36 PM

Sticking to area rule is generally good for reducing drag at all speeds.

Also it might have been seen as a necessity for the structural intregrity of the airframe under combat conditions where abrupt dives might become necessary, and diving from great altitude could raise speed to the transonic region or even beyond. At those speeds an aircraft designed with area rule kept in mind will be able to cope, while one which isn't designed with this kept in mind will be in a very dangerous situation.

vikingBerserker · 05-02-2009, 05:39 PM

After reading more about the F-8, I wished I had voted for it instead of the F-106.

drgondog · 05-02-2009, 06:19 PM

From an air to air standpoint the 106 was a very, very good fighter.

Flyboy2 · 05-02-2009, 06:25 PM

Now I always thought that the F-106 was more of an interceptor than a turn and burn dogfighter like the F-8

Graeme · 05-02-2009, 06:37 PM

Gunston again. Obviously there is a big difference between "greatest" and "best-performance"

Flyboy2 · 05-02-2009, 06:42 PM

Why did the MiG-19 have such great thrust loading?

drgondog · 05-02-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme

Gunston again. Obviously there is a big difference between "greatest" and "best-performance"

Graeme -

Convair F-106A Delta Dart

Baugher's site is not the last word but more accurate than Wiki (a generalization) but he has near the bottom of this url a spec for the P-17 engine and states that initial climb rate was 42,000/min - a 50% delta above the chart value and well above the F-4 and F-101.

drgondog · 05-02-2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy2

Now I always thought that the F-106 was more of an interceptor than a turn and burn dogfighter like the F-8

It was the best supersonic manuevering fighter the USAF had until (maybe) the F-15. The reason I equivocate is that the F-15 had a better radar implying ability to detect and seek a favoarable position on the F-106 and the F-15 climbed faster, accelerated faster..

I don't recall a US Supersonic fighter which could turn with the 106.

Flyboy2 · 05-02-2009, 07:58 PM

Oh alright, I never really thought of the 106 as manuverable, I guess now i know

Graeme · 05-02-2009, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgondog

Graeme -

Convair F-106A Delta Dart

Baugher's site is not the last word but more accurate than Wiki (a generalization) but he has near the bottom of this url a spec for the P-17 engine and states that initial climb rate was 42,000/min - a 50% delta above the chart value and well above the F-4 and F-101.

G'day Bill. My post was to illustrate how we define “best” in threads like these but you raise an interesting point about sources. The graphs are from Mike Spick’s book “Jet Fighter Performance-Korea to Vietnam” and I have no idea where he sourced them from as he doesn't have a bibliography. Even if he did I guess the question can be raised “Where did they get theirs?” It’s like Chinese Whispers.

Wikipedia gives 29,000 fpm which corresponds to the graph and obviously one of the sources at the bottom of the site must have this figure, but I don’t know which..

F-106 Delta Dart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baughner, quotes 12 sources. Some of the books he quotes don’t have climb figures but No.2 and No.5 do. Bowers has the 42,800 figure. Again, I don’t know where he got that from-no bibliography. Wagner has 51,800 ft in 6.9 minutes and he mentions in his preface “Most of these characteristics are drawn from flights and specifications given in official documents once classified but recently made available” and has an extensive bibliography.

Hard to know what’s accurate. Who do you believe? How does 30,000 fpm initially, which drops off, making 51,800 ft in 6.9 minutes sound?

Roland Beaumont might agree?

drgondog · 05-02-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graeme

G'day Bill. My post was to illustrate how we define “best” in threads like these but you raise an interesting point about sources. The graphs are from Mike Spick’s book “Jet Fighter Performance-Korea to Vietnam” and I have no idea where he sourced them from as he doesn't have a bibliography. Even if he did I guess the question can be raised “Where did they get theirs?” It’s like Chinese Whispers.

Wikipedia gives 29,000 fpm which corresponds to the graph and obviously one of the sources at the bottom of the site must have this figure, but I don’t know which..

F-106 Delta Dart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baughner, quotes 12 sources. Some of the books he quotes don’t have climb figures but No.2 and No.5 do. Bowers has the 42,800 figure. Again, I don’t know where he got that from-no bibliography. Wagner has 51,800 ft in 6.9 minutes and he mentions in his preface “Most of these characteristics are drawn from flights and specifications given in official documents once classified but recently made available” and has an extensive bibliography.

Hard to know what’s accurate. Who do you believe? How does 30,000 fpm initially, which drops off, making 51,800 ft in 6.9 minutes sound?

Roland Beaumont might agree?

Graeme - Good questions.

I wouldn't believe anything short of either late Convair or USAF tests on the -17 engine as well as some of the mods made to improve acceleration in the 1.7-1.9 M range. It seems obvious that given the thrust and some of the known (inlet, boundary layer control on leading edge, etc) issues caused more drag than predicted.

I would 'believe' either one but don't have a basis for either performance figure.

Venganza · 05-02-2009, 09:56 PM

I went with the MiG-19 (me going with a Soviet fighter - big surprise). It had good speed - ~900mph, great thrust to load ratio, was manueverable, tough, reliable, and had those monster Nudelman-Rikter 30mm cannons, one shell of which would have been enough to seriously damage any other plane on the list. That being said, the F-8 (speed, firepower and manueverability) is hard to argue against. And of course it did very well against the MiG-19 over Vietnam, but how much of that was superior piloting? Part of the whole question of best plane comes down to the old argument about speed versus manueverability. Speed, the F-106 wins out, manueverability - ? Also, do you go with a plane with good missile capability (F-106), or excellent guns (MiG-19). This is one of those questions (best plane) that really doesn't have a solution, which is what makes it interesting.

Venganza

Juha · 05-03-2009, 03:55 AM

I can only say ditto to VikingBerserker’s
Quote:” I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.” With addition that IMHO F-8, Mig-19 and -21 were also among the very best.

Juha

Soren · 05-03-2009, 04:03 AM

Regarding the charts, is that a Harrier on the right ??

Lucky13 · 05-03-2009, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Didn't the Crusader swap bits and bobs with the MiG-21 a few times over 'Nam? How many '21's did the Crusader nail and the other way around?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The F-8 killed 19 MiGs, 4 were 21s. I think 3 were lost and if I'm not mistaken to MiG-17s

Wasn't one or two of them gun kills as well?

View Poll Results: The best fighter of the 1950's
Supermarine Scimitar	1	0.88%
Hawker Hunter	7	6.14%
MIG-19	5	4.39%
F-105 Thunderchief	5	4.39%
English Electric Lighting	11	9.65%
F-100 Super Sabre	9	7.89%
Dassault Super Mystère	2	1.75%
MIG-21	24	21.05%
F-86 Sabre	17	14.91%
F-8 Crusader	17	14.91%
F-106 Delta Dart	7	6.14%
F-102 Delta Dagger	0	0%
F-104 Starfighter	9	7.89%
Voters: 114. You may not vote on this poll

05-02-2009, 05:36 PM	#61
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	Sticking to area rule is generally good for reducing drag at all speeds. Also it might have been seen as a necessity for the structural intregrity of the airframe under combat conditions where abrupt dives might become necessary, and diving from great altitude could raise speed to the transonic region or even beyond. At those speeds an aircraft designed with area rule kept in mind will be able to cope, while one which isn't designed with this kept in mind will be in a very dangerous situation. Last edited by Soren; 05-02-2009 at 05:42 PM.

05-02-2009, 05:39 PM	#62
vikingBerserker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 6,174	After reading more about the F-8, I wished I had voted for it instead of the F-106. __________________ Take arrows in your forehead, but never in your back. - Samurai maxim

05-02-2009, 09:56 PM	#72
Venganza Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Earth Posts: 386	I went with the MiG-19 (me going with a Soviet fighter - big surprise). It had good speed - ~900mph, great thrust to load ratio, was manueverable, tough, reliable, and had those monster Nudelman-Rikter 30mm cannons, one shell of which would have been enough to seriously damage any other plane on the list. That being said, the F-8 (speed, firepower and manueverability) is hard to argue against. And of course it did very well against the MiG-19 over Vietnam, but how much of that was superior piloting? Part of the whole question of best plane comes down to the old argument about speed versus manueverability. Speed, the F-106 wins out, manueverability - ? Also, do you go with a plane with good missile capability (F-106), or excellent guns (MiG-19). This is one of those questions (best plane) that really doesn't have a solution, which is what makes it interesting. Venganza __________________ "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever." -Spinal Tap

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-02-2009, 06:19 PM	#63
drgondog Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon Posts: 4,191	From an air to air standpoint the 106 was a very, very good fighter.

05-02-2009, 06:25 PM	#64
Flyboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Posts: 677	Now I always thought that the F-106 was more of an interceptor than a turn and burn dogfighter like the F-8

05-02-2009, 06:37 PM	#65
Graeme Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,082	Gunston again. Obviously there is a big difference between "greatest" and "best-performance"

05-02-2009, 06:42 PM	#66
Flyboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Posts: 677	Why did the MiG-19 have such great thrust loading?

05-02-2009, 07:58 PM	#69
Flyboy2 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Posts: 677	Oh alright, I never really thought of the 106 as manuverable, I guess now i know

05-03-2009, 03:55 AM	#73
Juha Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Helsinki Posts: 1,560	I can only say ditto to VikingBerserker’s Quote:” I love the Lightning, but I had to go with the F-106.” With addition that IMHO F-8, Mig-19 and -21 were also among the very best. Juha

05-03-2009, 04:03 AM	#74
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	Regarding the charts, is that a Harrier on the right ??