Talk:Convair F-106 Delta Dart

Trivia

Should it be mentioned that F-106s were following the plane that D.B. Cooper jumped out of? - 70.109.72.185 22:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really, no. Koalorka (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the aircraft that landed itself after the pilot bailed out? There's a bit of info about it here along with photos. Hellbus (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a para based on that website should be included, but under "incidents", not "trivia". - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added an Incidents subsection to Operational History. Currently, the unintentional UAV is the only item in it. Hellbus (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, well done! I just made a couple of minor tweaks - moved it into its own section as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft/page_content and formatted the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I edited this entry which originally read "National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio [28] 58-787 (F-106 that landed itself with relatively minor damage in a farmer's field after its pilot lost control and ejected) It was delivered to the Museum in 1960.[29]" However, the current modified entry's information to correct the date the aircraft was delivered to the museum can be found here: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4085 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.200.246 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Two Issues:
1.) The statement "The major change was to an area ruled fuselage, enabling supersonic speed in level flight." is not exactly accurate -- the F-102A which it was derived from had an area-ruled fuselage. The difference was that the fuselage was overall revised, reshaped, and re-contoured over the original design. Those were one of the changes to the design that were so extensive that it became its own design.
2.) I think the statement about the F-102B is inaccurate... The designation change from F-102B to F-106 was in June 17, 1956: The plane didn't fly at all until December 26, 1956 so the statements about the F-102B's performance being disappointing is inaccurate since it never flew with that designation -- The early F-106 Prototypes did have the problems described however; modifications were made which became the F-106A AVKent882 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Information request.

"In December 1959, Major Joseph W. Rogers set a world speed record of 1,525.96 mph (2455.79 km/h) in a Delta Dart at 40,500 ft (12,300 m)." This line is interesting but I would like to know when its record was beaten. Perhaps another line such as "A record which stood until 19##."--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In "Variants" - What's the deal with the F-106A being an "improved" version capable of Mach 2.5 (as high as 2.85)? This section is unsupported by any references, and I've never seen any mention of that high a top speed for ANY "Six". I think this section needs to be edited. Dukeford (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the former, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record. Looks like 1961. However, for production single engine airbreathing aircraft, the Six may still hold the record. For the latter, those numbers sound an awful lot like the projected specs for the re-engined F-106X that was never built. Jmdeur (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapons Configurations

F-106A weapons configurations listed under variants in the main article appears screwy (that's a technical term). Unless the bird's configuration changed radically during its career (my knowledge only goes back to around 1970), it only had four Falcon rails (a double launcher forward and two individual launchers aft) and one Genie station aft (between the rear Falcon launchers). The latter is where the gun could go on gun-modified Sixes. The usual load would be 2 x AIM-4F (radar guided), 2 x AIM-4G (infrared guided), and either one AIR-2A or the gun. Six Falcons, as listed as an option in the list, would be a little optimistic unless the pilot kept a couple in the cockpit with him and planned on doing a reload in flight. Don't think this aircraft ever carried the AIM-26 nuclear Falcon - indeed, believe the only aircraft that did was the Deuce (although some hapless countries purchased a non-nuclear version). BTW, the two seater had to relocate some of the avionics from where the second cockpit goes and the aft weapons bay was where they got moved to. Actually, there was a rectangular cutout in the weapons bay where a boxy avionics bay was inserted - the weapons bay doors being cutdown accordingly). This eliminated the AIR-2A station on the B, so she could only carry the four Falcons. Jmdeur (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you read what the F-102 sources list, the F-102 was capable of carrying not just 1 x GAR-11/AIM-26 in the center weapons bay, but two. Technically it could carry 1 x AIM-26 and 1 x AIM-4 or 2 x AIM-26. I'm not sure if the F-106 ever carried AIM-26's but I assume it's center-bay could physically carry them just like the F-102 AVKent882 (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the F-106 weapons bay wasn't anything like that of the F-102, so your comment really doesn't make too much sense. The Six had no "center bay" - in fact, it only had a bay. As noted above, there was a double Falcon launcher forward and two single launchers aft. The AiR-2A, the nuclear weapon carried on the Six, was mounted in the center aft position in the bay on it's own "launcher." As I recall, it was just a ram that pushed the blivet away from the aircraft - there was no trapeze like the Falcon launchers that swung the rocket down (I think if you tried launching the larger AIR-2A like you would a Falcon, you'd probably have a fiery mess on your hands, so the first step was to get it far enough away from the bottom of the a/c before igniting the motor). Whether it could physically carry an AIM-26 would certainly be a first step to launch it, but the MA-1 may not have been setup for it so wouldn't do you much good even if you could hang one on the bird. Oh, the fire control system was also completely different between the two aircraft so talking about the F-102 as providing insight to the F-106 again doesn't make too much sense. Personally, I never saw an AIM-26 anywhere near an F-106 (except maybe at Tyndall where they also had Deuces) so doubt they ever went together - besides if you had a AIR-2A why would you need an AIM-26 - I think the former made a much bigger bang as it were. Jmdeur (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wing-Area Corrected

The F-102's and F-106's both originally had a wing-area of 661.5 square-feet, and with the conically-cambered wing configuration, featured a wing-area of 695 square-feet. I modified the specs sheet to reflect this to the best of my ability. AVKent882 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks okay the way you put it in the specs, but do you have a reference for these numbers? - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Air Defence Command?

What's that? Seem to recall the USAF had an Air DEFENSE Command (later Aerspace DEFENSE Command), but never anything with an intentional misspelling in the middle of it. Maybe the Air Defence Command had the base at Pearl Harbour - geez. Jmdeur (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The US word Defense is spelled Defence in most other English-speaking countries, although in this case it is referring to the USAF formation so it should be Defense. It was probably added by a Canadian or UK English editor. - Ahunt (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee, really. Speaking of condecension, the following space waster can probably be eliminated: "The F-106 was the second highest sequentially numbered P/F- aircraft to enter service under the old number sequence (the F-111 was highest), before the system was reset under the 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system." Although something of an anomaly, the F-117 certainly is a higher number, and, of course, the Air Force briefly flew some crate called the F-110 before it got a number change. Indeed rumour (sic) has it that the latter was the reason for the renumbering scheme in the first place.Jmdeur (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)