RpRHow can anyone dogfight in a F-106? It’s forward view is worse than the rear view of most fighters.
You think so , eh?
RpRChina is still working overtime to develop a reliable fifth generation turbofan and now they have to see this. It must be very demoralizing for them.
]
With apologies to Billy Roberts, the Chines military is probably sitting round the old fire moaning:
Hey Joe, where you goin with that plane over there
Hey joe, where you gonna be fly’n with that plane over there.
RpRNow the revealing of this information could mean:
A- Its successor, or a related project, is being developed
B- They want to imply to the Chinese, how far behind they really are as far as tech.
I have often wondered if Russia does not have something similar, partly done, sitting in some shed.
RpRthe mig-31 can do exactly the same thing due to it’s superior thrust/weight and top speed— No one has said that the Foxhound cannot do the burn part of turn and burn. It simply cannot turn worth a damn.
really doubt that the F-4 was said to be more maneuver at lower altitude and superior to mig-21 in vertical at most altitude , the F-5 is quite the same as mig-21 — Then you are wrong, as it is the U.S. Air Force tests that showed the Six was more maneuverable than a Phantom.
The Phantom did have a greater thrust to weight advantage at some altitudes but Six pilots have said that while a Phantom could reach its mach limit quicker at some certain altitudes, the Six had a higher mach limit and used far, far less fuel meaning that if a Six and a Phantom got into a real fight the Phantom could not run as it would be out of fuel long before the Six was, plus the fact the Six could simply run it down.
The Six pilots said it was very important though to not let turning inside some one bleed off too much speed, which is what can happen with a delta wing.
Why the Six never got an uprated engine is something Six people say it is best to let that sleeping dog lie.F-106 wing loading = 255 kg/m2
F-22 wing loading = 375 kg/m2
EF-2000 wing loading = 312 kg/m2
rafale wing loading = 306 kg/m2
f-16 wing loading =431 kg/m2
Gripen wing loading = 283 kg/m2
mirage 2000c wing loading = 337 kg/m2
wow so now by follow your logic the F-106 simply much more maneuver than any other gen 4 , gen 4. or gen 5 fighter , the f-22 simply a brick , it only better than the f-16 in the list ????????— Hmmm just what are you talking about?
The Six could theoretically turn inside of any of these, that is the turn part, thrust to weight and recovery of speed , the burn part determines how well that can be used and that depends on altitude.well top speed of mig-31 = mach 3 much faster than mach 2.7 , top altitude 125 K feet so much higher than 83 K feet too ?— Yes the Foxhound could get away with speed, but then the test showed the Six cold fly that speed without destroying an engine and the scenario for a Six on a tail chase of A Foxhound never existed, yet if it had happened the Foxhound would have eventually self-destructed at speeds above 1,864 mph.
Now at Mach 2.8 the Foxhound could have simply slowly pulled away.One incident a Six crew chief said, from North Dakota 5th FIS I believe, was a Six pilot came in with all the leading edges missing paint from heat blistering.
They checked the airframe and found nothing out of order but the incident was never spoken of by anyone at anytime. The pilot said not one word what had happened and the crew chief knew on such things you did not ask.btw for how far can the F-106 fly at mach 2.7 ? 100 miles or 200 miles ? i can dont think it can ever mach the mig-31 range — Theoretically, it could go approx. 500 miles , plus or minus, before needing a tanker.
not to mention F-106 have quite a short range missiles so high speed quite useless ( it’s weapon bay is too short for the aim-120 or other long range missiles
— There you have it right, beyond the gun, they never gave the Six different missiles.
The bay was plenty long but the avionics for other weapons were never adapted although there is a picture of one carrying a standard missile on a wing pylon.
While it could have been done, they never even put in the system for the Six to carry the Aim-26 the F-102 carried.
R. Strange McNamara was the real reason for that, and a lot of other cluster-f decisions the Air Force had to live with.
RpR“
This or a early version of it, has probably been flying for quite some time.
A remark by a former SR-71 pilot, at the Six site, hinted at said same strongly.
RpRthe mig-31 go alot higher and faster than the f-106 man , and no the f-106 is not the best dogfighter of it’s time , it may be the the best interceptor but not dogfighter and never come close to the like F-8 , F-5
The F-8 was a Navy plane and the Six could spank a F-5 by the simple fact it could pull away and re-engage at will.
By the U.S. Air Force’s own test and commentary, the Six was the only aircraft that could take on a Mig-21 heads-up, and it was those tests that brought about the Six getting a gun.
The Six had a wing loading of 52 lb/ft squared, the F-5 had 133 lb/ft squared.
You continually spewed out performance at the not recommended limits of the Mig-31 as standard, well the Air Force’s unofficial official tests of the Six showed it was capable of flying at Mach 2.7 and flying at, not zoom and drop, 83,000. ft.
So if I were to use your standards I would quote those continually and say, do to the fact that the Six was an excellent dog-fighter it was the best of all time, blah, blah, blah.
The Mig-31 is an excellent interceptor which I am sure the Chinese have great respect, and maybe fear, for but that is all it is, period.
RpRno you are wrong — Only in your mind with blinders on.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/1v1_zero_wildcat.htm— So what?
What does that have to do with jets, although the Douglas F4D had the same thin skin problem of sorts.
The Douglas F4D could out handle any jet of its time, and from reading, probably any jet in existence, but it was retired early because it did not have the grunt, or fuel, to pull away and re-engage (although the matter is more complex than just that, at that time the ability to burn was of a top priority.)tell me what fighter could do better than that ? it 650 miles at mach 2.5 , even the super uber f-22 that everyone keep praying can only go 100 nm at mach 1.7
— No existing fighter and the only one in the past that could come close was the Six, as a pilot told me– if you put the pedal to the metal she would go like a bat out of hell but in twenty minutes or so you would be looking for an airfield or a tanker.
The Mig-31 was actually the Soviet Unions response to the F-106. The Mig could go a little higher and was a little faster but the Six was the U.S. Air Force best dog fighter till the F-16 came along.
Funny how the Soviets missed that part.
RpRyou are wrong on so many part probably you should re-read the different between ” turn and burn ” vs ” boom and zoom ” vs ” energy fighting ”
turn and burn become much much less important since WW II
Are you just obtuse or what.
In a dogfight, with modern jets, a pilot will use what ever tactic he thinks will work, not just to win but if necessary to clear out and come back another day.
In ‘Nam, some pilots used variations of the WWI Lufberry Circle.
There was no turn and burn before Korea and it is the after-burner that really gave it the name turn and burn.
You just cannot accept the fact that the Mig-31 as a fighter has an very serious Achilles Heel.
The one thing you forget in your six hundred plus miles above the Mach item you keep trotting out, is that if that aircraft did not find a tanker soon after that, he would have taken the silk-road home.
It did not cruise for that distance, it was a high speed dash.
If you do not know the difference, you are obtuse.
The author in the book I mentioned said the lack of fuel was a problem. Especially if one compares it to the Tu-128, which it replaced in the late eighties, which had a VERY long range by any standard.
RpRI’m not saying the MiG-21 design is not a smart design at all – it certainly is. I don’t think the MiG’s ‘turn ‘n’ burn’ was the key to any of it’s success in the Vietnam war, I’d say it was its speed and rate of climb were more important – how can you take on an F-4, F-105 or F-8 if you can’t even reach them in the first place?
In a dogfight, turn and burn means one has the g capability to out turn, or turn with an opponent but also has the speed to get clear and clear out or re-attack at the pilots prerogative.
The Mig’s greatest failing was short fuel supply.
Speed and rate of climb is the burn part of turn and burn.
One advantage U.S. pilots said the Mig-21 had was while it could not super cruise, it could at altitude go round and round and round at a very high rate of speed while burning little fuel taunting U.S. pilots.
The fuel penalty U.S. aircraft would suffer, to go up and attack, meant they often simply could do nothing except break-off and go home.
A Mig-31 can only burn.
RpRThe MiG-21 was never designed as a ‘dog-fighter’ (some early MiG-21s didn’t even have guns), it was an interceptor for the Soviet territorial air defence.
Simple fact it COULD turn and burn, I doubt very much that the Russians ignored how that helped in “Nam.
Are you saying they are lucky, not smart?
RpRSo, we’ve described the MiG-31 as a pretty capable interceptor, but its lack of air-to-air maneuverability is a limiting factor when considering it as a “fighter”. I mean, it doesn’t even have DSI…
The is the odd thing.
The Russians know how to build a dog-fighter, i.e. Mig-21 good example.
There must be something in the rigid way the way the Russian govt. deals with industry that the Mig-31 lacks that.
If it could turn and burn, it would be twice as deadly.
RpR:love-struck:
Ignorance is not a virtue. Try reading about the history of Russia, 1917-22.
I am well aware of how the Communists came to power so Stalin could butcher his own country men.
That has nothing to do with this thread and for the poster to bring it up was asinine and moronic.
Have a nice day. :love-struck:
RpRRpRMaybe for the same reason they attacked last time.
Gee, I must have missed that war.
Who won?
RpRfine let assume mig-31 in production dont have performance of the prototype , it can still fly at 80-90K feet where missile like R-77 , Aim-120 and meteor simply can’t turn
I don’t know what source you picked your Mig info from but here is the performance stats. as written by Dmitriy Kkomissarov in Soviet Air Defense Aviation:
Max. speed- 1,864 mph above 55,000 ft.
Service ceiling- 67,585 ft.
Range without drop tanks:
Above the Mach- 869 miles.
Below the Mach- 1,864 miles
Combat range:
Supersonic- 447 miles
Subsonic- 745 miles
Endurance on internal fuel:
3.6 hours
Sign In
