F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 06:19
by thunderbolt89
If a top notch pilot were to fly an F-106 against an F-16 with an average pilot, do you think the 106 would stand a chance?

After all it is the "1954 ultimate interceptor" 8)

RE: f-106 delta dart vs. f-16 viper

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 06:46
by parrothead
Tell ya what, put me in a Viper and Gums, STBYGAIN, or Cylon in a Cessna 150 with 'Winders and I think I'd be a smoking hole in the ground :wink: .

On the other hand, remember that an interceptor was supposed to fly up towards a bogie and blast him from long range, and I think the Delta Dart had some air to air weapons with "physics packages" if you know what I mean... Now if we give the Viper AMRAAMs, who knows? Anyone else?

RE: f-106 delta dart vs. f-16 viper

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 17:07
by Guysmiley
Ah yes, the magic Genie... Hard to pull enough gees to evade that blast radius.

In a dogfight I know the 106 could make some wicked turn rates, but I think the problem was regaining lost energy afterwards.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 18:17
by hansundfranz
No.

1. Even an average (or below average) Fighter pilot was picked out of a large pool of ppl and sucessfully passed some difficult training.

2, "In a dogfight" implies that a fight has started already and both have to fly good bfm and max perform their jets to get a fireing solution.

3. The only chance the 106 pilot would have is surprise, The first indication of the enemy must be his jet exploding for the viper driver.

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2005, 21:55
by Viperalltheway
I remember reading an article in a magazine a long time ago. It was about a unit transitioning from F-106s to F-16s. In the exercises they did, the viper beat the crap out of the delta darts every f***** time. F-16As...

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2005, 00:25
by Roscoe
But any half-way smart SIX driver will simply light the blower, point to FL550, and make like a homesick angel. Viper would never catch him...

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2005, 17:54
by Guysmiley
Roscoe wrote:make like a homesick angel


:lmao: Awesome turn of phrase!

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2005, 19:22
by Roscoe
Thank you!

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2005, 05:58
by TC
Yeah, the Six would've had a very hard time turning with the Viper. It wasn't extremely aerobatic to begin with.

In a theoretical sense, you can't f*ck with something carrying a nuke-tipped rocket, designed to take out a formation of Soviet bombers. If it could take out a formation of Bears, imagine what it could do to the Viper. :shock:

In a practical sense, the Viper could out-turn the Six, and get a good medium range shot off with the AMRAAM. Oh yeah, and no one mentioned the Viper's Sidewinders are a much better choice than the Six's Falcons.

Still though, I always loved watching the Six fly. Man what a beautiful jet!

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2005, 06:44
by thunderbolt89
I know the USAF used the 106s as remote control targets for missle testing at Eglin AFB, but I wasn't aware that other countries still fly them... or maybe I'm wrong

Both France and Taiwan use a plane under the name Mirage 2000. I don't really know anything about foreign Air Forces, but it looks just like a 106

Correct me if I'm wrong

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... D%26sa%3DN

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2005, 16:02
by hansundfranz
Correcting you

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2005, 06:32
by TC
Ok, I'll help out here. :wink: No other country besides the US ever flew the Six. They were pulled from active service in 85, and pulled from ANG service in 87. Last operational unit was the New Jersey ANG at AC.

Eglin's 53rd Wing (Air Warfare Center) only presides over the drone mission. The drone mission is actually carried out at Tyndall. All drone missions are performed by Tyndall's 83rd Aerial Targets Squadron. There is also a Det. out at Holloman.

Most F-106s now reside at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. I personally watched the last 106s leave Tyndall. Two of them left on the final F-106 flights, heading towards AMARC. The other left about two or three years later on a flat-bed truck.

About all the Mirage 2000 and the Six had in common was that they were single engined and delta winged. Actually, the Mirage III's design looks like it was inspired by the 106 in many ways.

Beers, MiGs, and FSATs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2005, 01:28
by MATMACWC
This thread... are you kidding me?

Viper Hands Down

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2005, 16:59
by Guysmiley
Didn't Convair try to sell -106s to Canada? I don't think Canucks bit on the pitch though.

MATMACWC: What if the F-16's radar was disabled, the pilot was blindfolded, it was out of fuel and the -106 was carrying Phoenix missiles? And had plasma stealth. :D

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2005, 17:40
by boff180
MATMACWC wrote:This thread... are you kidding me?

Viper Hands Down


Never be too sure....

I know for a fact the first time an RAF Lightning pilot tangled with an F-16(belgian A), in a 1v1 WVR; the Lightning won.

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2005, 04:46
by allenperos
Roscoe wrote:But any half-way smart SIX driver will simply light the blower, point to FL550, and make like a homesick angel. Viper would never catch him...


NO $$$$ Roscoe, very well put! When did these square off anyway, probably the 125th FIG and 56th TTW, Jax FANG and MacDill in the mid 80's?

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2006, 21:54
by SixShooter
thunderbolt89 wrote:If a top notch pilot were to fly an F-106 against an F-16 with an average pilot, do you think the 106 would stand a chance?

After all it is the "1954 ultimate interceptor" 8)


Hello everyone,

I'm new here and this is my first post. I am a lifelong fan of the Dart (I spent my childhood summers watching the Dart fly over Eglin and Tyndall AFB) but despite my loyalty to the Six, there is simply no way short of shooting the Genie that a 106 could even hope to make it to visual range with a Falcon / Viper.

The F-106 was (as everyone here knows) designed for a different era of air combat and was developed as a bomber interceptor, not a dogfighter. Everything then was "zoom and boom" and many fighters of the day (including the Six) didn't even come with a cannon (though the Dart was later retro-fitted with a 20mm in place of the AIR-2 Genie).

Now if we want to talk about the Dart against early marks of the F-4 or Mirage III or MiG21 it would likely better a better outcome for the F-106. There was in fact a flyoff between the F-106 and the F-4 by the USAF in the early 1960's which partly led to the F-4 being adopted instead of more F-106's being built. The Dart easily won in visual engagements (at mid to high altitudes) but the stronger radar and wider array of weapons for the Phantom were too good to pass on (I've always wondered why the Dart was not retro-fitted for Sidewinder or even Sparrow, the weapons bay was certainly big enough).

The F-4 always had a better radar (APG vs Hughes MA-1) hence better search range, the early Sidewinders (and Atols) were not that much better then the AIM4 Falcons carried by the Dart (E/F as I recall).

Oh yeah, someone else here asked about the Dart being sold to other countries? Well, it never was but Convair did try to market the F-106 to both Canada and Germany (I have a picture of a Dart in "German markings" done for an evaluation by the Luftwaffe). The US did offer the Dart as a possible alternative to the CF-105 Arrow but Canada was not interested (although why they chose the CF-101 later on will forever be beyond me).

You talk to any pilot that flew the Dart and they will speak fondly of the old girl but I don't think anyone will suggest a Dart can beat an F-16.

Anyway, thanks for posting this topic!

Regards,
SixShooter

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2006, 13:12
by Darkwand
The Belgians took their time getting All Aspect Sidewinders though.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jun 2006, 18:45
by dartphantomviperpuke
I flew both, and there really is no comparison item by item with the exception of altitude (I could "turn" a "6" at 50,000 ft...never tried in a viper.)
BVR, the AMRAAM would've found the mark (and the viper turned tail) before the Genie was launched. But the "6" was my first fighter, and will forever own my heart.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2006, 00:19
by Roscoe
We tried taking B-model Viper to altitude chasing the B-2...more often than not the ECS dumped long before anything approaching FL500. Also made it to about 48,000 in a T-38 but we passed through the wake turbulence of a U-2, our engines rolled back, and we lost about 15,000 feet in the recovery.

On the other hand, at Tyndall I got a chance to ride shotgun in a Dart and we were at 51,000 or so doing Mach 1.5 and weaving...kinda...showing me that we had some extra lifties left and therefore significant more altitude available to us.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2006, 03:29
by TC
Roscoe wrote:we had some extra lifties left and therefore significant more altitude available to us.


I can second that Roscoe. I know a guy who flew the 106 in a pressure suit. I don't know how far over FL500 he was, but it was high enough for long enough to require wearing a pressure suit. If you flew a QF at Tyndall, it might even be the same guy. Who was your pilot?

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2006, 14:19
by dartphantomviperpuke
Pressure suite were/are a political limit over FL 500. We had taped instruments, and one guy boasted he "ran out of tape @ FL780"...said the re-entry was tough.
When I was at the schoolhouse (Tyndall) there was a guy who jumped out of the A/C, waited for a shrimp boat to come buy and almost drown due to the pressure suit filling up w/ gulf water.

"..the ECS dumped.."

Due to NESR(?) arcing, smoke in the c/p, I ram dumped the cabin just north of Cheyenne, whilst trying to get above t-storms, about FL480....not a fun night.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2006, 14:12
by Roscoe
TC wrote:I know a guy who flew the 106 in a pressure suit. I don't know how far over FL500 he was, but it was high enough for long enough to require wearing a pressure suit. If you flew a QF at Tyndall, it might even be the same guy. Who was your pilot?


Don't remember but unlikely. I was flying in a QF conversion, and they did not fly with pressure suits. Not sure how we got over 50K without them (required by regulation), but maybe they were waived for the drones.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2006, 01:48
by TC
Oh, sorry...should clearify here. The fella that I know who did this, had flown many years in the Six, including some time in flight test. It was in that capacity that he flew with a pressure suit. It was only after he retired and became a contract pilot that he joined the FSAT program.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2006, 13:50
by Roscoe
Then I may have flown with him. Been too long to remember names however...

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2006, 18:20
by Raptor_One
Can someone here explain what the specific dangers are of going above 50,000 ft (or thereabouts) in a late model Viper, F-15C, F-22, or whatever? I haven't studied the F-16 -1 (the ones you can find on the net) very well so I don't know exactly how the pressurization system works, but I understand that enough bleed air from the engine(s) is needed to keep the cockpit pressurized. I know that the pressure in the cockpit under "normal" conditions decreases with altitude. If you have an engine blowout at high altitude, how quickly will the pressure drop in the cockpit to unsafe levels, even with oxygen masks? I'm being a little lazy here as I could probably find this information out on my own, so feel free to chastise me. :D

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2006, 05:16
by Roscoe
At altitudes above 50,000, the air pressure is so low that physiological injury can occur. Should the cockpit pressurization fail or an ejection be required at those altitudes, the suit provides the necessary pressure environment. It has a pressure already (fairly low), but since it is less than that of the cockpit (or equal??) it appears "uninflated", but with a rapid decompression the pressure on the outside goes so low that the suit expands...no increase in air or pressure, just a larger difference with the outside.

At Edwards I was selected to be a guinea pig for new life support troops being trained in the use of pressure suits (The SR-71 was still in service at NASA and they needed to have the capability). Got a ride in the chamber at altitudes simulating 10 miles where I experienced a rapid decompression. Went from "Mr Floppy" to "Michelin Man" in a fraction of a second. Pretty cool actually.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2006, 06:09
by Raptor_One
Interesting. Thanks for answering. But now I'm curious... if no injury happened to you when you became "Michelin Man", where does the danger from cockpit depressurization come from in the real jet? Just the inability to maintain control of your jet because your suit is blown up like a balloon? Or would that inflation effect actually be so extreme that when trapped in a small cockpit you might get suffocated or otherwise rendered unconcious/injured? When you experienced the rapid decompression, were you seated in something approximating a fighter-sized cockpit? Regardless of your initial position, what did the inflation of the suit do to your ability to move your limbs, breath, etc. I assume it wasn't that bad since you thought it was pretty cool. :D

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2006, 07:29
by parrothead
Raptor_One,

The danger at that high of an altitude comes with the air pressure being so low that you get the "bends" just like a scuba diver as the dissolved gases in your blood form into bubbles and cause massive pain and possible death :shock: .

The suit has the same pressure inside it all the time. When in the pressurized cockpit, it doesn't look inflated only because the cockpit has the same pressure as the inside of the suit. Remove the pressure on the outside of the suit and now it looks inflated - think of taking a bag of chips from sea level to 8,000 or 10,000 feet. The bag looks fairly "flat" or non pressurized at sea level, but looks like it's been pressurized at altitude :wink: .

The danger comes from not having the suit and suffering the consequences. Even with the suit "inflated" due to low outside air pressure, you're still alive, conscious, and functional enough to control the jet. It may be more difficult to move, but not nearly impossible :wink: .

Here's some good links for some interesting info on the full pressure suits worn by the pilots flying the A-12, M-21, YF-12A, SR-71, U-2, and some Space Shuttle missions :) .

http://www.roadrunnersinternationale.co ... clark.html

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/press_suit001.html

http://www.davidclark.com/

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2006, 18:39
by TC
Typically, you don't see fighters flying over FL500 either. Most drivers, outside of flight test, that I know have only gone to 50K, because they were not wearing pressure suits.

The Streak Eagle pilots all wore pressure suits. That d@mn thing screamed through FL500 like it was nobody's business! :shock:

The Six could easily exceed FL500. Head to head, this is where it would've had an advantage. IIRC, the F-16 lacks provisions for the wear of pressure suits, or at least the operational variants do. Roscoe would know about the flight test birds, but I believe they also lack the necessary pressure suit connections.

Pounded Too Many Beers Last Night. Time to Find Some MiGs!

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2006, 23:33
by Raptor_One
parrothead wrote:Raptor_One,

The danger at that high of an altitude comes with the air pressure being so low that you get the "bends" just like a scuba diver as the dissolved gases in your blood form into bubbles and cause massive pain and possible death :shock: .

The suit has the same pressure inside it all the time. When in the pressurized cockpit, it doesn't look inflated only because the cockpit has the same pressure as the inside of the suit. Remove the pressure on the outside of the suit and now it looks inflated - think of taking a bag of chips from sea level to 8,000 or 10,000 feet. The bag looks fairly "flat" or non pressurized at sea level, but looks like it's been pressurized at altitude :wink: .

The danger comes from not having the suit and suffering the consequences. Even with the suit "inflated" due to low outside air pressure, you're still alive, conscious, and functional enough to control the jet. It may be more difficult to move, but not nearly impossible :wink: .

Here's some good links for some interesting info on the full pressure suits worn by the pilots flying the A-12, M-21, YF-12A, SR-71, U-2, and some Space Shuttle missions :) .

http://www.roadrunnersinternationale.co ... clark.html

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/press_suit001.html

http://www.davidclark.com/


Whoops... I misread what Roscoe wrote. I gave myself the impression that he was talking about a normal flight suit. I've been spending the last two days (and most of the last two nights too) trying to relearn C++ and it's fried my brain good. Yeah, I actually do know that stuff about pressure suits you just pointed out to me (although I sounded like a total idiot from my last post). Doh!

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2006, 02:16
by Roscoe
Raptor_One wrote:Interesting. Thanks for answering. But now I'm curious... if no injury happened to you when you became "Michelin Man", where does the danger from cockpit depressurization come from in the real jet? Just the inability to maintain control of your jet because your suit is blown up like a balloon? Or would that inflation effect actually be so extreme that when trapped in a small cockpit you might get suffocated or otherwise rendered unconscious/injured? When you experienced the rapid decompression, were you seated in something approximating a fighter-sized cockpit? Regardless of your initial position, what did the inflation of the suit do to your ability to move your limbs, breath, etc. I assume it wasn't that bad since you thought it was pretty cool. :D


They wouldn't design a suit that would suffocate or bind the pilot.

When the suit expanded it definitely became more difficult to move. In the chamber, there was a fake stick to grab and pretend to fly...it was pretty tough. Keep in mind though that as the plane descends, the pressure increases and the suit softens.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2006, 02:38
by Raptor_One
Hehe... Roscoe, I was so out of it last night I thought you were talking about some sort of special flight suit, not a pressure suit. Very silly me. :)

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2006, 19:15
by dartphantomviperpuke
"The danger at that high of an altitude comes with the air pressure being so low that you get the "bends"..."

The primary concern was the lack of TUC (time of useful consciousnous) you had with that low of an ambient atmosphere, even with diluter demand or (as in the 6) 100% O2 under pressure. That time was measured in seconds b4 you'd be gooey-woo-woo.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2006, 02:07
by parrothead
I stand corrected - thanks :) .

I wasn't thinking about time of useful consciousness, but that is one heckuva big concern up there! I must've been thinking more about the Blackbird and U-2 pilots way up high :wink: .

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2006, 08:07
by HunterKiller
Funniest competition I've ever read :lol:

F-106 against AIM-120 equipped Falcon has virtually no chance.

Even if Dart is better at high altitudes, nobody forces F-16 pilot to go that high where he cannot turn fast.

What weapons will Dart use? Nuclear-armed Genie? Or falcon? 60 years old first generation crap that will never hit 9g maneuvering target.

I think that only interceptors that really have speed advantage over Viper are Soviet Mig-25 Foxbat and Mig-31 Foxhoud. If properly driven, they have big chance to run avay even from missiles, if they get proper warning.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2006, 15:54
by SixShooter
HunterKiller wrote:Funniest competition I've ever read :lol:

F-106 against AIM-120 equipped Falcon has virtually no chance.


Agreed entirely. You cannot compare apples to oranges, nor bomber interceptors to modern fighters. The Dart will forever be my favorite aircraft but against a Falcon, there is no battle in ACM.

HunterKiller wrote:What weapons will Dart use? Nuclear-armed Genie? Or falcon? 60 years old first generation crap that will never hit 9g maneuvering target.


Well, let's see...

AIM-4 - the Falcon (F16 and not the missile) easily moves out of the way. The AIM-4 was a bomber killer and never a fighter killer (despite 5 kills in Vietnam)

M-61 20mm - The Dart would never get close enough to use it.

AIR-2 Genie - Hehe....no more F-16. 9G maneuver makes no difference against a nuke. Of course, everything has to be perfect for the F-106 pilot to escape the blast as well...presuming the Dart did not get shot down during AIR2 launch.

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 01:21
by delta2014
Out of all of the Century Series fighter aircraft, was the F-106 Delta Dart the best dogfighter of all?

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 08:57
by dragracingmaniac
F-106 vs F-16 fight...that's like the Mike Ditka vs God fight. :devil:

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 10:07
by madrat
F-106A was virtually frozen in development for its last few years. At the end of its life it probably outnumbered the in-service F-16C model.

If you limit it to F-106A versus F-16A it depends on the fight parameters. Put F-16A above 36,000 feet and it really has no advantage in the day unless the Delta Dart decided to get slow.

If F-106A had been continuously upgraded and SLEP programs kept up with the times, maybe your bay carries 2-4 AMRAAM, another pair outboard the wingtanks, and your IRST upgraded to be on the level of Typhoon. Maybe they stay with Falcon and upgrade it to 1990's technology, both radar and IR guided versions fired in paired ripples. Maybe it even gets a radar in line with 1990s technology. It wouldn't improve its dogfight attributes, but certainly you wouldn't charge into battle against one.

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 16:04
by f-16adf
Out of all the Century Series jets, it is probably safe to say the the F-106 was indeed the best dog-fighter.

I like the F-106 a lot. I remember seeing 87th FIS jets fly down from Marquette back in the early 1980's. Even though I was a young kid, I thought the Delta Dart was simply just beautiful..


I emailed CDR Chesire (US Naval Aviator who flew the F-4B/J and F-14A) a few years ago about the F-4 vs F-106. He told me that he flew against ADC F-106's in early 1970's College Dart DACT exercises. Mr. Chesire went on to say that the F-106 had a very good first turn (the first few seconds of the turn) ((a trait which deltas are generally known for))), but he said that after the first turn the Delta Dart would bleed down airspeed and he in his Phantom would wait and then pounce. He would also use the Phantom's sheer power in the vertical to defeat the delta. Generally he thought the F-106 was a tough opponent for that time, but not better.

He never flew the slatted Navy Phantom (F-4S) so I cannot add anything to that. But even Bruce Gordon (ADC F-106 pilot, on youtube) said that the slatted Phantom was at least equal to or better than the F-106 in ACM. The slats improved turn rate, radius, and G albeit at the loss of some top-end airspeed.



It seemed like a different story for the USAF hardwing Phantoms, which tended to get beat up against the Six in simulated ACM. Probably more due to lack of pilot BFM training. The Navy guys did much better (due to their training from early TOPGUN experience).

The 1961 flyoff was against a Navy squadron that generally had no dog-fight experience. The ADC guys tended to best them in some aspects of the horizontal. F-4B Phantom was better in everything else.


Sending the F-106 to Vietnam would probably have yielded a similar outcome as with the early Phantoms. No internal gun, poor missiles, No SSIFTs, a sheer giant target (even bigger than the F-4). The Mig-17 and 21 probably would not have had much difficulty at all against the delta winged jet.



F-16 v F-106, Viper wins easily in every parameter. No comparison-

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 17:38
by juretrn
f-16adf wrote:I emailed CDR Chesire (US Naval Aviator who flew the F-4B/J and F-14A)

This same Chesire?
https://www.quora.com/profile/John-Chesire

Re: F-106 Delta Dart versus F-16 Viper

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2017, 18:01
by f-16adf
Yes, they are the same person.

His personal website is: http://flitetime.net


CDR Chesire was kind enough to answer nearly every question on the F-4 and F-14 that I have ever sent him.