I was stationed at Carswell AFB in Texas in the '70s and 80's in a section that recovered and launched aircraft that were just passing through, usually to refuel. I soon learned that the F-106s passing through had a somewhat unique occasional requirement for starting the engine for launch...if the engine didn't start rotating on the first try, all of the pilots carried a little ballpein hammer in the leg pocket of their flight suits, which you would get from the pilot, then open a hinged panel at the right aft of the fuselage by the engine bay, then use the hammer to smack the engine starter housing. Never failed to work...pilot turned the start switch and by golly, engine fires up as advertised! Button up the panel, give the hammer back to the pilot, and marshal the jet out to the taxiway. Job well done!
Some of the footage when talking about the 106 is actually the 102. And one photo is an F101 Voodoo. Also, I think you've got the part about the "Crew escape capsule" wrong. The F-111 had that. The F-106 used 3 different ejection seat designs during it's development but they were all ejection seats, not capsules.
Until the F-4 and F-15 came along. The Starfighter was pretty good as well, back in the day, but both the F-106 and F-104 lacked the ability to carry the heavy (16,000 lb.) and diverse ordinance loads that the Phantoms and Eagles could bring to a fight, at mach 2.5. The Tomcat was no slouch either. All of this being said, the Delta Darts and Starfighters were still amazing aircraft for their time periods. Absolutely beautiful designs. 👍
I've always loved the look of Delta-wing fighters(and the B-58, too)...I always wondered what the F-106 would have been like had they added a Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan, modern avionics, and perhaps canards.....
I worked in NORAD Air Defense Radar Operations at Luke AFB; 26th Air Divison/NORAD REGION for over 4 years, 1976 thru spring of 1980, in weapons control. The F-106 was a vey fast fighter/ interceptor.With one engine it would do Mach 2.34. It also could cary the Genie NUKE and also used DATA LINk from the NORAD computers that guided it to intercept, without talking to a weapons controller.
A lot of airplane for a little weapons system; looked impressive but the Falcon missile was a dog and the Genie was unguided. Still, I remember these things scrambling out of McChord, and Deuces out of Paine, and Voodoos out of Geiger. They all looked impressive but the intercept rate was about 25% according to the Sky Shield exercises in the early ‘60s.
Think you are confusing the F-106 with the B-58. The B-58 did use escape capsules eventually. The early F-106 had a dangerous ejection system, see Jack Broughton’s book, “Rupert Red Two” about these problems.
@JackNiles-hc8yz Well, given that Col Broughton did combat tours, I’m willing to accept his version of events. That the F-106 wound up using 3 models of ejection seats would support the idea that there were deficiencies in the first two installed. Similar perhaps to the downward firing C-2 seat Lockheed put in the early F-104 being replaced by an upward launching MB in the F-104G.
@JackNiles-hc8yz To my mind the problem with the downward ejecting C1 (I stand corrected) seat was not in itself faulty, but the situations in which it was used especially low level engine failures at take-off meant it was too often unsuccessful (similar to B/N seat in B-47). My understanding is that Lockheed went with downward ejection to try and avoid pilot hitting the T-tail, when to C-2 when improved boost sequencing meant seat could clear tail without causing spinal injuries to the pilot.
If the Air Force would've given it anything close to a digital avionics suite, it would've flown until its airframe gave out (rated until 2022.) I second Proteus' point about the ejection system.
The MA-1 System was upgraded to solid-state electronics late in it's life. I've read from MA-1 techs the code-1 percentage skyrocketed after the upgrade.
It had vacuum tubes throughout the aircraft's service life. I was a MA-1 tech, and worked in the MockUp, at Griffiss AFB, from 1978 to 1985. As far as the airframe goes, that's why they retired it, the planes started developing cracks in the wing roots. Making them not safe to fly.
@@bradyelich2745 I can read a USAF Accident Report, sport. Try it sometime. You might learn something yourself. The bobsled seats worked right from the start, with a few unfortunate incidents. It never killed 12 pilots. And if you want to believe Jack "I lied to my superiors and was forced to retire in disgrace" Broughton, go right ahead.
I was expecting this video to be about lightning research that used the aircraft to attract midair lightning strikes. It is a good video about the history of aircraft itself though.
That would take knowledge and research on the part of the content creator. I gather from reading other comments that most consumers of TH-cam videos are uncritical and happy to see anything at all in a video. The number of serious inaccuracies in this video is rather stunning.
The f-102 became F-106 following a meeting in NASA of CF-105 team engineers , canada Science engineer, who contested the probable flight caracteristics et A.V.ROE , and NASA top engineer. . . . The 3 days of questions answers, other questions . . It ended by NASA top heads saying : Supersonic is at this time, more of an ART then a science. . You face the same problems as we all do in the industry. . . Your solutions seem very plausible and promising. . . So yes your Arrow is a supersonic capable . . . There were North American engineers in the group. . and they brought in the Coke Bottle , solution to the Bernoulli theory for profiling airflow. . for trans-sonic and super-sonic airplane . to. modify the F-102 . . It changes so much that it became the f-106; a truly superconic controlled airplane. .
@@WALTERBROADDUS He did say he can do better, he is just willing to criticize crap when he sees it. I guess he can't criticizes a bad Hollywood movie unless he can make a better one of those also.
Nope! The Mirage specification wasn’t issued until 1952. The original specification that lead to the 106 via the 102 was issued in 1949. The 102 flew in 1953; the Su-9 and MiG-21 (tailed deltas both)flew in June 1956, the Mirage flew in November 1956; the 106 (via-102B/C) flew a month later in December 1956.
@@WALTERBROADDUS There was a running joke or I should say observation is that "W" was actually a better pilot than Sen, John McCain b/c the F-102 was a notoriously difficult plane to fly than the sweet handling A-4 Skyhawks that McCain flew and McCain all through his flying career had a nasty habit of losing whole airframes. This is where being a full admiral's son came in handy.
My first and favorite aircraft of my active duty career. Part of the west coast air defense system in the mid 70’s Klamath Falls Oregon. 1973-1975.
I was stationed at Carswell AFB in Texas in the '70s and 80's in a section that recovered and launched aircraft that were just passing through, usually to refuel. I soon learned that the F-106s passing through had a somewhat unique occasional requirement for starting the engine for launch...if the engine didn't start rotating on the first try, all of the pilots carried a little ballpein hammer in the leg pocket of their flight suits, which you would get from the pilot, then open a hinged panel at the right aft of the fuselage by the engine bay, then use the hammer to smack the engine starter housing. Never failed to work...pilot turned the start switch and by golly, engine fires up as advertised! Button up the panel, give the hammer back to the pilot, and marshal the jet out to the taxiway. Job well done!
Some of the footage when talking about the 106 is actually the 102. And one photo is an F101 Voodoo. Also, I think you've got the part about the "Crew escape capsule" wrong. The F-111 had that. The F-106 used 3 different ejection seat designs during it's development but they were all ejection seats, not capsules.
I remember these beauties flying out of Griffiss AFB in Rome,NY. I could hardly wait to see them in the airshows there. What a plane.
What a beautiful plane.
The F106 did not have a capsule ejection seat. I spent 9 years at McChord AFB, 318th FIS, working on the Six.
I was at McChord AFB 318th FIS from 1972-1975. I was then a young sargeant as a MA-1 Mechanic.
GREAT Post.....I love your site!!! I am a USAF Brat; remembering the 102 and the 106 at Tyndall AFB FL
One of my favorites.
Mine too...I agree :)
I KNOW RIGHT
No.. it was a nothing burger of zero utility.
The most bad ass interceptor ever made.
Until the F-4 and F-15 came along. The Starfighter was pretty good as well, back in the day, but both the F-106 and F-104 lacked the ability to carry the heavy (16,000 lb.) and diverse ordinance loads that the Phantoms and Eagles could bring to a fight, at mach 2.5. The Tomcat was no slouch either. All of this being said, the Delta Darts and Starfighters were still amazing aircraft for their time periods. Absolutely beautiful designs. 👍
The English Electric Lightning much better.
@@tonyclewes8Not really. But the fan boys think so...
@@stargazer5784the mission was interception. It had no need to be a multirole.
Was'nt the F104 know as the widow maker by german pilots?@@stargazer5784
I've always loved the look of Delta-wing fighters(and the B-58, too)...I always wondered what the F-106 would have been like had they added a Pratt & Whitney F100 turbofan, modern avionics, and perhaps canards.....
A late friend of mine was the "Group Engineer" for the control systems on the F-106. His name was Björn "Andy" Andréasson, a Swede like me.
I worked in NORAD Air Defense Radar Operations at Luke AFB; 26th Air Divison/NORAD REGION for over 4 years, 1976 thru spring of 1980, in weapons control. The F-106 was a vey fast fighter/ interceptor.With one engine it would do Mach 2.34. It also could cary the Genie NUKE and also used DATA LINk from the NORAD computers that guided it to intercept, without talking to a weapons controller.
I worked on them at Minot AFB in the 70s.
The view out of the windscreen was extremely limited. Landing at night and in bad weather must have been a sphincter shrinking event
Pucker Factor to the value of Pi.
Later models of the 6 had much improved canopies with far better views.
I loved the plane! Still one of the best looking! Left Tyndall AFB in 1972 as a Ssgt and a crew chief with run up and taxi!
All those century fighters looked fantastic.
A lot of airplane for a little weapons system; looked impressive but the Falcon missile was a dog and the Genie was unguided. Still, I remember these things scrambling out of McChord, and Deuces out of Paine, and Voodoos out of Geiger. They all looked impressive but the intercept rate was about 25% according to the Sky Shield exercises in the early ‘60s.
Think you are confusing the F-106 with the B-58. The B-58 did use escape capsules eventually. The early F-106 had a dangerous ejection system, see Jack Broughton’s book, “Rupert Red Two” about these problems.
@JackNiles-hc8yz Well, given that Col Broughton did combat tours, I’m willing to accept his version of events. That the F-106 wound up using 3 models of ejection seats would support the idea that there were deficiencies in the first two installed. Similar perhaps to the downward firing C-2 seat Lockheed put in the early F-104 being replaced by an upward launching MB in the F-104G.
@JackNiles-hc8yz To my mind the problem with the downward ejecting C1 (I stand corrected) seat was not in itself faulty, but the situations in which it was used especially low level engine failures at take-off meant it was too often unsuccessful (similar to B/N seat in B-47). My understanding is that Lockheed went with downward ejection to try and avoid pilot hitting the T-tail, when to C-2 when improved boost sequencing meant seat could clear tail without causing spinal injuries to the pilot.
Strange as it may seem, the F-106 Delta Dart was as fast as the Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor. And it was 40 years older.
I remember these are the tarmac at March AFB in Riverside in the late 1980's
I built a model of one of these around 1974.
Ejecting from an airplane that later on land itself unscathed is a little bit embarrassing
He was beyond his time. Beginning of fighter aviation!
Anybody know what the helmet-mounted optical device is at O6:27?
If the Air Force would've given it anything close to a digital avionics suite, it would've flown until its airframe gave out (rated until 2022.) I second Proteus' point about the ejection system.
The MA-1 System was upgraded to solid-state electronics late in it's life. I've read from MA-1 techs the code-1 percentage skyrocketed after the upgrade.
It had vacuum tubes throughout the aircraft's service life. I was a MA-1 tech, and worked in the MockUp, at Griffiss AFB, from 1978 to 1985. As far as the airframe goes, that's why they retired it, the planes started developing cracks in the wing roots. Making them not safe to fly.
The aircraft no longer had a mission.
The Six never had escape capsules
Yes, this video is full of misinformation.
F-106 ejection seats proved fatal to the early pilots, killing all 12.
What a terrible statistic
I believe that is an exaggeration, like a lot of Jack Broughton's bullshit.
@@dukeford8893 Go do some reading and learn something.
@@bradyelich2745 I can read a USAF Accident Report, sport. Try it sometime. You might learn something yourself. The bobsled seats worked right from the start, with a few unfortunate incidents. It never killed 12 pilots. And if you want to believe Jack "I lied to my superiors and was forced to retire in disgrace" Broughton, go right ahead.
@@dukeford8893 You should enlighten us with your findings, slick. So far, nothing new. Not like the US screw up and cover up, eh Boeing?
Not a single bull shown :(
87th fis KI Sawyer 79-82
The Griff, 78 - 85.
I was expecting this video to be about lightning research that used the aircraft to attract midair lightning strikes. It is a good video about the history of aircraft itself though.
Beautiful Jet , the NY State National Guard operated them.
There is nothing of the SAGE system. The integrated ground and air based radar network.
That would take knowledge and research on the part of the content creator. I gather from reading other comments that most consumers of TH-cam videos are uncritical and happy to see anything at all in a video. The number of serious inaccuracies in this video is rather stunning.
"Lightning-proof". Lol. Some folks will take serious (and probably irrational) exception to that.
This was actually pretty good always like the f-106 they were King until streak Eagle came along I sat in the cockpit of that 😁🇺🇲
The area rule concept is often explained horribly. This video is no exception.
The F-101B could carry TWO AIR-2A rockets
The f-102 became F-106 following a meeting in NASA of CF-105 team engineers , canada Science engineer, who contested the probable flight caracteristics et A.V.ROE , and NASA top engineer. . . . The 3 days of questions answers, other questions . . It ended by NASA top heads saying : Supersonic is at this time, more of an ART then a science. . You face the same problems as we all do in the industry. . . Your solutions seem very plausible and promising. . . So yes your Arrow is a supersonic capable . . . There were North American engineers in the group. . and they brought in the Coke Bottle , solution to the Bernoulli theory for profiling airflow. . for trans-sonic and super-sonic airplane . to. modify the F-102 . . It changes so much that it became the f-106; a truly superconic controlled airplane. .
fails utterly to explain the core of the area rule.
He explained that enough for the context of the topic.
Pure speed. Looks fast sitting still.
Need a human narrator, it's F-1.0.6. not one hundred six. EGAD.
The dialog was poor. You Obvisouly don’t know about fighter aircraft. Maybe you should develop content about cooking instead.
Since you wish to play content creator; why don't you produce a video?
@@WALTERBROADDUS He didn't say he wants to be a content creator, he said this content was poor. The consumer has no right to judge the product?
@@gort8203 he seems to think he can do better? Let him try....🎬
@@WALTERBROADDUS He did say he can do better, he is just willing to criticize crap when he sees it. I guess he can't criticizes a bad Hollywood movie unless he can make a better one of those also.
@@gort8203 it's pretty easy to throw stones in a greenhouse. It's kind of hard to place those glass panels however....
i see French Mirage being copied !
Nope! The Mirage specification wasn’t issued until 1952. The original specification that lead to the 106 via the 102 was issued in 1949. The 102 flew in 1953; the Su-9 and MiG-21 (tailed deltas both)flew in June 1956, the Mirage flew in November 1956; the 106 (via-102B/C) flew a month later in December 1956.
@@joeatwood1346 🎉♥
Former President George W Bush flew the F106 in his younger days as Air Force officer
I believe he flew the 102.
@@WALTERBROADDUSYep. Your right.
@@WALTERBROADDUS There was a running joke or I should say observation is that "W" was actually a better pilot than Sen, John McCain b/c the F-102 was a notoriously difficult plane to fly than the sweet handling A-4 Skyhawks that McCain flew and McCain all through his flying career had a nasty habit of losing whole airframes. This is where being a full admiral's son came in handy.
False. He flew the F-102, not the F-106; and he flew it as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.
Bealls out in a chair while talking about capsules
THE AVRO ARROW WAS FASTER.
LOL. No it wasn't. Wasn't faster, wasn't even produced.
@@gort8203 Prototypes were built and tested. I think that @gordonbesancon709 is actually right.
Childish comment.
❤❤😂🎉😢😮