F106 for Dcs

[Northstar98]

TLTeo said:

Anything Century Series would be great!

Yeah, they would. It's a shame ED is averse to them

Especially given that they should be far less complicated than our 2000+ BLUFOR aircraft, the only thing is simulating older RADARs and the FDM, the rest should be simpler.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TLTeo]

Eh, I think it's fine and we'll see quite a few in the next, say, ~5-10 years. We're more or less running out of fancy Western 4th gen flying ipads, and barring some miracle Flanker module, Cold War jets are the way to go for most devs. And obviously, if you start doing Cold War jets, you can't skip the Century Series. And as you're saying, given that they're simpler, they take less resources to code, so even if they sell half as much as the Hornet or Viper, they could easily end up being more profitable.

[Northstar98]

Eh, I think it's fine and we'll see quite a few in the next, say, ~5-10 years. We're more or less running out of fancy Western 4th gen flying ipads, and barring some miracle Flanker module, Cold War jets are the way to go for most devs. And obviously, if you start doing Cold War jets, you can't skip the Century Series. And as you're saying, given that they're simpler, they take less resources to code, so even if they sell half as much as the Hornet or Viper, they could easily end up being more profitable.

 

Not to mention that a lot of assets (at least for the early 70s) fit them way better than the 2000s+ aircraft, of which there's only ships (half of them graphically questionable) and a few tanks and that's it.

[Jester986]

Hopefully some day. This is my number one absurd probably never going to happen wishlist plane. Maybe if Razbams English Electric Lightning does well though interceptors will stand a chance.

[Andrew8604]

F-106A? I would buy it! We probably would need a Century Series developer. The F-100D would be an essential module for a Vietnam map. I just think aircraft modules should be built to go with maps, not just built for some whim...the way it partially seems to be now. The MiG-21. People wanted one. They always want the latest and greatest of any model aircraft. So we got the MiG-21bis. But what map, what theater does it belong to? If we were to have a Vietnam map, for instance, the MiG-21PF should be the module...and it might actually fly better. F-106A: I'd love it, but what map does it fit with? It is a cold war interceptor. It's job was to shoot down Soviet bombers...that's about it. Well, I guess you could fly THAT mission on about any map...if you are doing an "Intercept strategic bombers" scenario. For the rest of the Century Series: I think the F-100D and F-105D would be best, because they would go along with a Vietnam map...which had an awful lot of historical missions take place. F-101, F-102, F-106?...interceptors. The F-104 can be a few different things. CF-104 was a nuclear strike aircraft. F-104S was multirole tactical. F-104A and C were interceptors, mainly. They were adapted to do things they weren't really designed for, but then that happens with a lot of aircraft. Historically, I think the F-100D and F-105D are the most important of the Century Series. But I'd love to fly the F-101B, F-102A, F-104 and F-106A, too. Maybe instead of a Century-series developer, they should be an Interceptor developer. Because there was also the F-86D Sabre Dog and F-89J Scorpion and F-94 Starfire that were "interesting" interceptors. And I haven't even mentioned interceptors of countries other than the US.

 

What is really needed is a financial model that allows for a dedicated team of aircraft module developers to make it their day job. We, as customers, would have to shell out more money. I wonder if a sort of customer "bidding" system would work. You want an F-106A, for instance? All who do would have to place bids on one in, say, $25 increments. Not as in an auction, but as an investment. You really want that 106? You might purchase 20 bids on it for $500. Expensive? Well, do you want the 106 in your lifetime? And not only that, you'd want to convince as many others as possible to join you in placing their bids on it. These would be "paper" bids. You don't actually lose money...not at first. Let's say 2000 bids come in. Maybe that would be a threshold amount that would then trigger a "put your money where you mouth is" campaign. A developer wants to produce the F-106, let's say. Now everyone who bid would need to actually spend the money, as an investment, to confirm to the developer that the module can be built. If the real bids evaporate, then the deal falls through, and the module doesn't get built. In that way, popular modules would get built. Maybe more of them, more quickly. --is this possible?-- If a mixed full-time/part-time developer team could be kept busy for a year, or three, making modules that provides a living for the right, dedicated, enthusiast developers...maybe 3 to 5 modules could be produced per year instead of just 1. Now, an F-105D, for example, might get a lot more bids due to its legendary place in history in the Vietnam War. There might be some Instrument and engine systems similarities between the 105 and 106 that allows the F-106 to then be produced afterwards...J-75 engine, "tape" instruments, for example. And for the F-100D...its instrument panel has a similar layout and instruments and gunsight to the existing DCS F-86F. The F-100D flew more missions in Vietnam than any other aircraft type, I believe, and was never shot down by a MiG. It has 4 of the same guns the F-5E has. But it's going to be "manual" bombing with the F-100D just like it is in the F-86F. Would enough people place enough bids on it? There are a lot of interesting aircraft that had significant use in history that deserve to be built. But we will never see them in DCS if some new funding/production scheme isn't devised.

[upyr1]

Anything in the century series would be awesome-

[bies]

Absolutely yes. F-106 had it all. Very advanced interceptor integrated with SAGE and first supercomputer. Great radar and avionics for it's time. Infra red sensor. Air refuel capability. All weather operations.

 

Carrying unique AA weapon like Falcon missile, Genie nuclear tipped rocket, vulcan cannon - all in internal weapon bay, not adding any drag.

 

Great kinematic performance, the fastest single engine fighter ever, very low wing loading and good maneuverability in a dogfight, it was outturning F-4s and F-100s - and some units had been trained in close air combat in Nellis.

 

Oh, and some badass looking, Blackbird-like unique cockpit.

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by bies

[TLTeo]

Minor correction - the M61 on the F-106 was not carried internally, it was carried in a pod attached in the weapon bay. I think you had to take 2 fewer missiles (or no Genie) to make room for the gun pod.

 

This is the weapons bay with the gun pod:

 

And this is without:

[Fangs Out]

IMO it should be split as F-106 "The Six" 60s and F-106 Project Six shooter , minor cockpit changes as in removing the metal frames and adding a M61 Vulcan gunpod.

 

Off topic, that is a cool name for a jet and a cool program name

[bies]

1 hour ago, Bravelink03 said:

IMO it should be split as F-106 "The Six" 60s and F-106 Project Six shooter , minor cockpit changes as in removing the metal frames and adding a M61 Vulcan gunpod.

 

Off topic, that is a cool name for a jet and a cool program name

 

Changes of Six Shooter were not that big. Modified canopy, vulkan gun instead of nuclear Genie and gunsight.

Aerges is making four Mirage F.1 variants so there is no problem.

Edited January 25, 2021 by bies

[TLTeo]

Yeah, I don't know the F106 as well as other aircraft, but from what I've read the differences are in the ballpark of e.g the L39 and C101 modules, so even less than the Mirage F1 Aviodev is working on.

[SharkWizard]

They did quite a lot with the cockpit early on

 

Contrast the above picture with this one:

 

[SharkWizard]

Absolutely love these large tape instruments that were introduced to the plane quite early on I believe. (btw quite a lot of the F-106 manuals can be found at https://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals_documents.htm)

[Jack1nthecrack]

Lets revive this thread! Theres an underground F-106 movement stirring in Razbam's discord server!

[SharkWizard]

Bruce Gordon has a pretty nice video on the radar scope

 

Some good explanations on the instruments

 

 

Razbam would do us a big service to model this plane after the MiG-23MLA and the Mirage III. I hope they will.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I'd prefer the 102, but I'll def take a 106.

[Cab]

3 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

I'd prefer the 102, but I'll def take a 106.

Why the F-102?

[Jack1nthecrack]

2 hours ago, Cab said:

Why the F-102?

I dont understand it either. Its nowhere near as fast and the only thing it does thats unique is shoot rockets from the weapon bay doors.

[Jack1nthecrack]

Ive been quite a bit of searching and collecting this past week. Ive found that there is no data for turn performance as this plane was made before all the EM diagrams became popular and that the weapon manual has a good chance of being unreleaseable because of the Genie rocket. Despite that I am still going to file a FOIA request for the weapon manual and see if it bears any fruit. I have also gotten some responses from Bruce on the matter, Ill copy paste them here. 

"We didn't have turn rate data on fighters in the 1960s. It wasn't classified -- we simply didn't have it and didn't use it! We did have charts showing the number of G's available at different speeds and altitudes. You've created the need for turn rae data with DCS computing! We'd take the two planes up in formation, light afterburneres and did maximum turns. We saw which one turned tightest, and which one lost airspeed. HAVE DOUGHNUT put a MiG-21F against an F-106. They did turn, and the F-106 maintained its speed while completing the turn faster than the MiG-21, but as the MiG-21 slowed, it turned in a smaller radius so that it was pulling a gun lead on the F-106. The conclusion was that the F-106 shouldn't turn with the MiG-21, even if the F-106 maintained speed better, because the MiG-21 could shoot you down in the turn. People say that the delta wing would lose speed in a tight turn, but our J-75 engine was so powerful that we kept speed better in a turn than the MiG-21.  

The differfence in altitude was critical in turns. The F-106 had a low wing-loading of 52 pounds/sq ft, against the F-15's 73.1 psf, so the F-106 could out-turn the F-15 at altitude (I heard of someone who did it). The F-16 wing loading was 88.3 psf, so the F-106 should be able to out-turn the F-16 at altitude. However, at low altitudes the wing loading is not the determining factor in thicker air, so I expect the F-15 and probably the F-16 could could out-turn the F-106 at low altitudes. The F-106 was faster than the F-16.  

We discovered in unofficial rat-race engagements that the F-106 could out-turn the F-4, and I discovered in an exercise that the F-105 and F-106 were about the same around Mach 1.5. I flew the F-106 against the F-102, and had plenty of power to go vertical but the F-102 could always out-turn me. I heard of F-102s out-turning the F-100 in rat races. We passed around stories of engagements, but we never the measured data that you're looking for."

"this is some data that I digested from the HAVE DOUGHNUT tests in Area 51:

MIG-21F Area 51 1968 MIG-21F 8,600 lbs dry, 12,650 lbs A/B gross weight 19,235 lbs. = 0.65 thrust/weight

F-106 16,100 lbs dry, 24,500 lbs A/B gross weight 34,510 lbs. = 0.71 thrust/weight
MiG has severe buffering above 595 KIAS

Gunsight not useful above 3 G’s, pipper jitter

ACCELERATION

35,000’ starting at 200 knots, were even up to .95, then F-106 moved out to 2,000 to 3,000 feet ahead due to ease in getting through Mach. Accelerated only to Mach 1.25, where the F-106 gets better. The MiG nose cone positioning has only three positions: subsonic, Mach 1.5, and Mach 2, while the F-106 variable ramp is activated at Mach 1.2 and programs up to Mach 2+.

TURNS

35,000 feet. F-106 in optimum turn at Mach 1.2. F-106 bled down to 3 G and 250 knots. The MiG bled down to 2 1/2 G and 200 knots. Although the F-106 had more speed, the MiG was able to stay inside the F-106 turn.

INTERCEPTS

F-106 had contacts at 18-25 miles, depending on angle, enough for positioning and firing. However, when not given GCI, both the MiG and the F-106 passed through the area, most of the time without seeing each other. GCI is needed."
 

This isnt much to go off of for making a DCS module, but its always nice to hear pilot anecdotes that give you an idea of the performance of their aircraft. The F-106 was no slouch.
 

[Bremspropeller]

On 1/24/2021 at 11:35 PM, bies said:

Great kinematic performance, the fastest single engine fighter ever, very low wing loading and good maneuverability in a dogfight, it was outturning F-4s and F-100s - and some units had been trained in close air combat in Nellis.

Officially the fastest single engine jet.

F-104s were flown north of 2.5 occasionally.

[bies]

On 3/11/2024 at 11:08 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Officially the fastest single engine jet.

F-104s were flown north of 2.5 occasionally.

Wasn't F-104 limited to some Mach 2.2 - 2.3 by its tail?

[Bremspropeller]

In squadron ops.

Like any jet it's limited by a bunch of things. The biggest issue is shock-heating and the compressor inlet temperature (121°C limit on the standard 104, possibly more in the 104S), which will normally be reached first and which may be reached below "max Mach", depending on outside temperature. The warmer the temp, the earlier you'll run into the limit here. Temperature gain through the shock is pretty much fixed by geometry and Mach, so starting colder is beneficial.

If you're waiving this limitation, you can go faster. Easily. The tail area (yaw stability) is most probably tied to some arbitrary stability margin figure, which is a data-point in flight testing and will give you a flight-manual max Mach number to fulfill that criteria. Hence the bigger tail on the two-seaters introduced after a couple of F-104Bs produced (same tail as on the 104G and S) and the additional strakes on the F-104S.

The F-104C jets I have in mind (especially a "Kite Intercept" flight by Tom Delashaw in June '62) were modified, but no fancy stuff:

- larger two-seater tail instead of the small F-104C tail

- biconical shock-inlets, which weren't used on any serial 104, but which would have been an easy installation (the cones don't move anyway)

The jet used had paint flaking off, so you'll get an idea how "hot" they were.

The flight is referenced here ("top speed Mach 2.5") but I remember reading that he was actually closer to 2.6 in a different article.
https://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-records/

There were other record flights with 104s, but those were tweaked beyond what could and would be done in line ops.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 3/10/2024 at 7:59 PM, Jack1nthecrack said:

I dont understand it either. Its nowhere near as fast and the only thing it does thats unique is shoot rockets from the weapon bay doors.

By that logic, why even bother with the F-106? We have the F-16 as it is.

It's because, these old century series interceptors are interesting. The compromises and attempts to make the most sophisticated aircraft of the era make them unique.

[Cab]

3 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

By that logic, why even bother with the F-106? We have the F-16 as it is.

It's because, these old century series interceptors are interesting. The compromises and attempts to make the most sophisticated aircraft of the era make them unique.

That makes sense

[mkellytx]

On 3/10/2024 at 3:14 PM, Cab said:

Why the F-102?

The F-102 served in Vietnam and was deployed to Europe during the Cold War.  They were also used by both Greece and Turkey.