Talk:Convair F-106 Delta Dart
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that a photograph of NASA F-106 be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Should it be mentioned that F-106s were following the plane that D.B. Cooper jumped out of? - 22.214.171.124 22:42, 16 June 2006 (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 edited this entry which originally read "National Museum of the United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio  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." 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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
- The last sentence is incorrect. The F-106B was fully combat capable and was able to also carry the AIR-2A; along with the 4 Falcons. It was not able to carry the gunpack. I loaded sixes for 5 years. I was not around for the gun pack mod though. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 6 Aug 2013.
- You are, of course, correct - I was having a bad day, the cutout for the relocated electronics in the B bay was between the two forward missile launchers, leaving the AIR-2A launcher intact in the aft part of the bay. I don't think the B was modified to carry the gun pod (at least I don't recall ever seeing one with it. BTW, the article seems to indicate that the gun replaced the AIR-2A - it was actually a removable modification, so the aircraft could either carry the gun pallet or the AIR (but, of course, not both at the same time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2015 (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)
- I agree. There is often much confusion between F-102 and F-106's. Of the two, ONLY the F-102 was able to carry the AIM-26. The standard configuration for the F-102 was 6 AIM-4D Falcons. The F-102 had 3 weapons bays: left right and center. Each bay would contain a fore and aft Falcon. If it was an early F-102, the forward portion of the center bay doors contained 2.75inch rockets. Later the center bay was modified by removal of the rocket doors to allow the carriage of the AIM-26A Falcon with a nuke 250KT warhead. The AIM-26B was developed with a conventional warhead. The F-102 was only able to carry the AIM-26 in the center because the missile was larger than AIM-4D. AIM-26 was 6 inches longer, wingspan was 4 inches greater and it was 70lbs heavier.Advantages of the AIM-26: it was armed with proximity fuse, a 40lb continuous rod warhead and SARH with a home on jamming capability which also doubled its' effective range.
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)
- Cut back on the sarcasm, please - it's not appreciated. You asked a question with no obvious indicator you didn't want an answer, (something you could have fixed yourself without any snide comments) and Ahunt answered it in good faith. Frankly, the only condecension I've seen on this page today is from you towards other editors who weren't "priviledged" enough to see a 106 up close. Please be civil. - BilCat (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just treating this "encyclopedia" with the respect it is due. No doubt having some knowledge of the subject would help Wiki editors, but they don't necessarily have to see a Six in person (although certainly recommended), which if they then wrote about it would probably constitute original research in any case (a Wiki no no no?), to find accurate information. For example, many moons ago we pointed out the rather optimistic claims this article makes concerning the weapons load carried by the aircraft. While any Six pilot would have loved to have six Falcons (or more given their rather poor Pk), five minutes of research (we know, a radical concept) points to http://www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals_documents.htm where under "technical and performance data," one will find a copy of the USAF's own technical data page for the F-106. As we noted previously, the sheet lists the single seater's capability as one AIR-2A and four AIM-4F/G Falcons (the latter could be loaded as 4 x F, 4 x G, or our personal favorite, 2 x F and 2 x G). It is clear this is an older document, but the dedicated Wiki editor can probably spend another five minutes and find that the blivet could be sacrificed for the gun pack on gun pack converted aircraft. Personally, we know longer edit Wiki pages because accurate information is so quickly reverted to incorrect information that we find it pointless, but if one of you bang-up editors want to take a break from commenting on the appropriate level of sarcasm from those who have a clue about content to go tackle the task of correcting the mis-information being presented here, we're all for it. Have fun and don't pass up the "privilege" to accept corrections for Wiki, every article we've read has them in spades - reminds us of reading 8th grade term papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Don't know about nobility but he knows of what he speaks. Found this interesting set of old USAF briefing videos (they may have been for public consumption, but sound like they're more for internal consumption) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMT6udz7bQc Towards the end is a story on the weapons configurations of the very first F-106A aircraft and indeed the standard setup then was 4xAIM-4 and 1xMB-1 (later AIR-2A). It even talks about a six shot configuration being studied but no longer the primary path for the aircraft. Fascinating stuff and certainly in keeping with the above expert observations. BTW, there's a footnote in this article which talks about the "uncertain" knowledge of the F-106B with regards to the "gunpack." Sorry, no uncertainty - it couldn't have carried the gun pod. The removable gun pod was installed where the AIR-2A could alternatively be carried. The F-106B had an electronics bay in this location owing to the loss of black box space in cockpit area when the second seat was added up top. Therefore, they couldn't very well put the gun pod down there. There would therefore also be no reason to put in the gunsight either. God of course already knows this, but for you poor commoners reduced to getting info, spotty as it is, from ol' Wikiland, no need to thank us (ha ha ha). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Dual Joystick of the F-106
It would be great to have a color photo of the dual joystick of the F-106. We had two F-106's sitting right outside on Standby Alert. They could get off the ground fast. They looked great taking off, especially during twilight, with their afterburners going full blast.22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Sgt. Rock
- Have to agree, the Six was a great looking bird sitting on the ramp, taking off, and especially flying in her natural environment. I sometimes still hear the hard light of her a/b in my dreams and it's been 20+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Improvements to Article
Well, at least this article no longer says the aircraft carried six Falcons, but the aircraft never did carry the AIM-26 (The F-102 did until the early 70s) - dont' believe me, you can check out the Air Force's own spec sheets for the F-106 (several versions from various times in the 60s are available online). As for the gun modification, it wasn't permanent (see http://www.shaunpup2.com/gallery2/v/castle1/F-106_20Gun_20pod.jpg.html for a neat picture of the removable gun assembly on it's own little cart) and could be easily removed so the AIR-2A could be carried interchangeably as needed. Indeed, about where this article makes the claim that the gun did away with the blivet (nickname for the Geneie) in 1972 is a photo of a California ANG bird firing one at William Tell 1980. As always, wiki is great fun, just not terribly accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The section at the bottom of the page claims that "Maximum speed at least Mach 2.5, with some estimates as high as Mach 2.85 in level flight". I find this basically impossible to believe. Unless I am completely mistake, the primary material in the F-106 is aluminum, which is well known to be unsuitable for speeds over Mach 2.2. Unless someone provides a ref for this, I'd like to remove ASAP. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. It was actually in the Variants section, which isn't at the bottom of the page when editing it. The Specs section list Mach 2.3, which what I recall having seen elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Krivinyi, Nikolaus, World Military Aviation, Arco Publishing, 1977, page 150 ISBN 0-668-04348-2 says: "Convair F-106A Delta Dart maximum speed at 41,000 feet (12,500m) Mach 2.31 1525 mph (2455 km/hr), maximum cruising speed at 41,000 feet (12,500m) Mach 0.92 609 mph (980 km/hr)". Hope that helps. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Convair F-106 Delta Dart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914000635/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil:80/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4085 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4085
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106092409/http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_PilotlessLanding_580787.htm to http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_PilotlessLanding_580787.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.