![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last
assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to have had its structure damaged. As far as F-111's go . . . in my years with them I heard all sorts of stories from the aircrews about amazing feats they'd accomplished in the aircraft - the stories got better after a few pints in Jandy's Pub. Had one guy in the 55th swore up and down that he'd flown TFR Manual inverted - pretty good considering that the LARAs would be pointing the wrong direction to tell him where the ground was - not to mention the TFR antennas. He became highly irate when I called him on it. Then there was the pair of Vark jocks that went into an apoplectic fit of cursing at me when I asked where their drop tanks were after a sortie. Blown ejector carts in the pylons, broken funny film on the tank jettison button, and aircraft forms entries notwithstanding, they claimed that they didn't have tanks loaded when they took off and refused to budge on their story. One of those "What are you going to believe? Your eyes or what I'm telling you?" Vygg WaltBJ wrote: That F106 was on display at the USAFA - the heat exposure am=nnealed the aluminum structure so it no longer possessed design strength and had to be grounded. I also heard the engine's RPM was cranked up way over tech order limits - interesting because a 1% increase on a dual spool engine can be a 5% increase in thrust. Supposedly went from 93% up to 97%. I also had a long phone conversation with an old squadron mate. He mentioned he used to FCF F111s - and had one out to 2.7 in a shallow dive from 50 grand. And I believe him - know him well. Don't bother telling me it's past the red line; that's just a mark on a gauge. Walt BJ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Vygg" wrote in message ... Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to have had its structure damaged. Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Pete |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane. Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane. Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106. I don't question the -106 speed, but rather where they were doing it as part of "normal operations" Pete |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane. Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106. I don't question the -106 speed, but rather where they were doing it as part of "normal operations" Question anything the Tarvernaut spouts. While some sources indicate a max speed at altitude for the F-106 as being M2.3, the 319th FIS association's website indicates it was actually a little bit below that (M2.25). And that is the *max* speed--so his assertion that the F-106 normally operated at its absolute max is crap. Now is about the time the Tarvernaut comes forth with his, "Our F-106's were actually tasked to perform nuclear strike missions with "optical nukes", and carried the AIM-7 Sparrow...", etc. All of which is complete and utter hogwash, of course. But I suspect you may already know this, and are just engaged in a bit of tail-twisting-of-the-Tarvernaut here... Brooks Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ISTR Atlantic City-based 106s doing a lot of flying over the ocean, where
going to Mach 1+ was a normal occurence. Not sure if they passed 2 very often, but it is possible. A lot of their flying was escorting Tu-95s and other planes up the coast, which they often did in relays with other National Guard squadrons. Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "Pete" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. "normal operating speed" Where was the normal AO? Going mach 2.3 in an F-106 does not harm the airplane. Going much faster than mach 2.3 is not an option in an intact F-106. I don't question the -106 speed, but rather where they were doing it as part of "normal operations" Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and then headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
Our F-106s flew to Santa Barbara, air refueled, flew to 55,000 feet and then headed for the Bearing Straight to meet their Soviet counterparts. Nose down from 55,000 feet can make a lot of speed. Christ John!...it's Bering Strait...you sound so careless, aren't you concerned with what people think of you? -- -Gord. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Tarver Engineering wrote: "Vygg" wrote in message ... Hmmm. According to the USAF aircraft database, F-106A 56-0467 was last assigned to the 329th FIS at George AFB, Ca and was destroyed in a class A accident on 14 August 1961. The aircraft on display at USAFA is 58-0761. 0467 seems to have flown in squadron service for quite awhile after making its speed run - not bad for an aircraft that's rumored to have had its structure damaged. Mach 2.3 was normal operating speed in the squadron I worked for. Our people believed the F-106 was aerodynamicly limited to that speed. Tarver, you are brown-eyed. If you really were in the 194th you'll know exactly what that means. Vygg |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | May 1st 04 07:29 PM |
bush rules! | Be Kind | Military Aviation | 53 | February 14th 04 04:26 PM |
Edwards air show B-1 speed record attempt | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 146 | November 3rd 03 05:18 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:07 AM |