F-106 vs F-104 Dogfight

[@spiritofattack]

You asked for more stories. We had an exercise in Korea, where the F-4s would attack and the F-106s would defend. One of my friends attacked an F-4 that was flying very low and very fast. The F-106 came in faster, got the "kill" and called "splash one F-4". As the F-106 was passing the F-4, the controller called "get his tail number". My friend chopped the power to idle and opened his speed brakes, but went past too fast to get the tail number. That evening, at the Officers Club, the F-4 pilots were at a table near the F-106 pilots. One of the F-4 jocks came over to us and complained: "We were coming in fast and low when suddenly this F-106 zoomed past us WITH HIS SPEED BRAKES OUT! What an insult"!

[@pedroelmont7593]

+Bruce Gordon Hilarious sir. A great tale.

[@videomaniac108]

Love it! Buy that 106 driver a beer.

[@michaelcosyngroup886]

Wow, that's awesome!!!

[@jwagner1993]

Bruce Gordon hahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!

[@jwagner1993]

😂😂😂😂👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[@williamcobb422]

I spent 3 years working as a crew chief on F-106's during the mid 60's at Kincheloe AFB in Michigan. They leaked fuel all over the place and the hydraulics were a nightmare, but oh what a beauty when they hit the runway and took off. We were always told that if something was ever chasing one all the pilot had to do was to go to burner and throw the stick in one of the upper corners. The plane would roll over and head straight down...nothing could catch them. It was also said that they had enough wing area to do a "wing over" a U-2 at 60K ft.. Changing from that to f-100's when I went to Viet Nam in 69 was a drastic change! I loved the 106's! Our base was the first to put external fuel tanks on them and break the sound barrier with the tanks on,,,,,we couldn't do it until one of the tech advisers from the manufacturer suggested actually waxing the plane and the intakes with plain Johnsons paste wax. We spent all day, the engine guys trimmed the engine hot and the plane broke through with ease....what a difference! Thanks for the memories!!!

[@tommy35ss]

Thank you for producing and sharing these videos. I feel this era is being lost, and you being able to tell your story, with so much experience, on so many different airframes gives great light to the subject and the era. Thank you for your service and also continuing to inspire others including a pilot like myself just beginning my career.

[@spiritofattack]

Thank you, Tommy. Good comments like that give me the motivation to keep going! I'm 83 years old now, and I've got more stories to tell. BTW, my "Spirit of Attack" book sells on Amazon for $35, but I've got about 300 of them in my home and I'd be glad to sell them for $20, shipping included! Just send $20 to Bruce Gordon, 105 Broadbill Ct., Georgetown KY 40324. I'll endorse it if you wish!

[@spiritofattack]

Readers are saying that the Delta wing is not a good fighter platform. I disagree. I flew the F102 Delta and the F 100 sweptwing fighters myself, and the F-102 could outmaneuver the F100. The F106 could outmaneuver the F-4 and had much better range than the F-4. At high altitudes the F-106 even out maneuvered the F-15. However, the F-106 could not carry bombs.

[@Franky46Boy]

+Bruce Gordon The Dassault Mirage III (delta wing!) in Israeli service was an excellent dogfighter against Hawker Hunters and Mig 21's. So I agree with you.

[@spiritofattack]

Ben -- nobody said the F-106 could "hang with" an F-15 in all environments. The F-15 was 20 years after the F-106 and obviously would be better. The F-106 outmaneuvered the F-15 at high altitude -- where the light wing loading of the F-106 was superior -- but that's an exceptional case. There was a design plan to put canard wings on the F-106 to make it able to outmaneuver the F-15, but that was never put into practice. In reality, the F-106 improvement money was put into the F-15. That was probably the correct decision over the long run.

[@TheDarwiniser]

You do realise you're arguing with an actual fighter pilot. I think he knows more than you about this topic. Dont embarrass yourself.

[@spiritofattack]

Ben -- no proof, as the F-106 was being phased out as the F-15 came in. There were no formal combats between the F-106 and F-15, although they may have occurred during Red Flag. I heard F-106 pilots tell me that they had outmaneuvered the F-15 at high altitudes, probably because of the light wing loading of the F-106. The F-106 wing loading is 52 lbs/sq ft, while the F-15 is 73.1 lbs/sq ft. The F-106 was generally king of the skies above 40,000 feet. There is no claim that the F-106 could beat the F-15 at lower altitudes.

[@spiritofattack]

Ben - I'm talking about high altitudes, where NO aircraft can pull all those G's because the air is too thin. At high altitude, the light wing loading of the F-106 would be critical, and the most that any plane could get would possibly be even less than 4 G's. You can't get those 7 G loads except at low altitudes where the air is denser.

[@couchfighter]

I FOUND YOU!!!!! YOUR THE MAN BRUCE...!!! My uncle was a f15/16 pilot but it was tough as a kid to get him to talk about anything real!!! thanks man!!! your a bad ass!

[@spiritofattack]

It amazes me how few fighter pilots can tell stories so non-pilots can understand -- and even fewer pilots write books about it. My Spirit of Attack book has had the beneficial effect of making me interested in today's fighters and in the comments of today's young men. I'm 86 years old now, but I spend hours each day on my computer answering questions -- and researching data on Wikipedia so I can give good answers. I'm so lucky -- so many old farts like me have nothing to talk about but fishing or politics, while I can talk to people about the influence of air power on today's geopolitical situation! Every day is fun!

[@seeingeyegod]

So glad I found this channel! I love this stuff!

[@spiritofattack]

Maybe I'll make a video about a dogfight with Korean War vintage F-84Fs against the F-106. I was leading a flight of two F-106s to land at Hullman Field, Indiana in 1965 when we saw two F-84Fs also entering the pattern to land. The F-84F's turned sharply toward us, and the fight was on! They were lighter and didn't have as much wing sweep, so at low speeds they could out-turn the F-106. Our advantage was POWER! Their engine had 7,220 pounds of thrust, while in afterburner we had 24.500 pounds of thrust! We lit afterburners and pulled right up to vertical. They tried to follow us, but ran out of airspeed and fell off the top. I pulled down on the lead, and was at his 6 o'clock in less than one turn. My wingman broke for their wingman. We were all low on fuel, so the leader turned for the airfield and I joined on his wing. We came in for a formation pitch-out and I gave extra room for him on landing because he would probably stop shorter than an F-106 landing roll. I was turning off the runway when the second F-84F came in with my wingman a quarter mile back at his six o'clock. The F-106 had beaten Korean War fighters in a low speed turning battle!

[@spiritofattack]

People are drawing some incorrect conclusions about my battle with the F-104 over in this video. The F-104 was OUTSTANDING in its design role - supersonic dogfighting. In this battle, I won by making my turn when I was SUBSONIC, getting behind him and using my radar to track him as he ran away from me. My F-106 won with a subsonic turn and then using radar. In other engagements, I mixed with F-104s in supersonic turns, and the F-106 could not beat the F-104 in supersonic turns. In actual combat, VERY FEW hard turns are made supersonic. This series of engagements over the Gulf of Mexico was set up to test supersonic dogfights. It showed me that RADAR is critical, but nobody can beat the F-104 in supersonic turns. HAVE DONUT showed that the MiG-21 was very poor at turning when supersonic, especially at moderate to low altitudes with high Q forces. Tactics is the art of fighting the battle on your terms, and into the flight realm where the enemy is at a disadvantage.

[@spiritofattack]

I expect there were two main problems: 1) The F-104 had no radar, and the battle was over North Vietnam where our own radar was limited; 2) The North Vietnamese MiGs would not fight with planes that were hunting for them. They would only attack the strike forces loaded down with bombs. If the enemy wouldn't fight, there was nothing for the F-104 to do except be a target for AAA and SAMs. The F-104 was a lot better than current Web stories indicate. Most of the high accident rates happened to Germans in Germany and were due to pilot errors. The German Air Force was using a lot of former East German pilots, and they did not follow the training and procedures that we were teaching. Other nations had much lower accident rates, but it was politically incorrect to blame the German pilots.

[@spiritofattack]

Star Trek: Thanks for your comment - I had to do some research to answer. The USAF F-104 had only gun ranging radar. In the European versions, a more advanced radar was put into the F-104, but this required that the internal gun had to be removed. Even then, they didn't have radar or an attack computer anything like the F-106.

[@spiritofattack]

Star Trek - I'm not sure of the scenario you're talking about, but over North Vietnam they had radar coverage and we usually didn't - or our radar coverage was spotty. We seldom knew where they were. Without your own fighter radar, you'd probably never see a MiG unless it was suddenly at your 6 o'clock. If you chased a MiG, it would run for cover of their many AAA guns and SAMs. You imagine a fight where the F-104 knew where the MiG was, but that seldom occurred.

[@spiritofattack]

Star Trek -- what often happened was that the MiG-17s would stay low, hidden from radar. As the US strike force would come over the mountain ridges, it would be picked up and tracked by North Vietnamese radar. As we came over a ridge, the MiG-17s would attack from underneath and behind, fire, and run. It was all over in a couple of minutes -- chases seldom lasted more than two minutes. The MiGs would not attack if we had escort fighters nearby. The one great day when Robin Olds tricked the MiGs was done by having his Wolf Pack pretend to be F-105s loaded with bombs. The "escort" made a "wrong turn" and got separated from the "F-105s" The MiGs then attacked the planes they thought were F-105s, but turned out to be F-4s ready for a fight! Most of the time, the North Vietnamese would not fight if they thought we were ready to fight.

[@spiritofattack]

Star Trek -- No, I haven't heard of James Kasler. As for MiG-17s performing head-on attacks, they only had guns and guns are almost useless in a head-on attack. The MiG-17 was a subsonic fighter, but was highly maneuverable and was faster than an F-105 loaded with bombs. I heard mostly of its attacks from below. The F-105s were pretty low themselves (loaded with bombs, I hear they usually came in low to be under radar. The F-105 was faster than the MiG-17 if it jettisoned its bombs, so the F-105 could get away if it jettisoned its bombs. If the F-105 jettisoned his bombs, the MiG had done its job and went home happy.

[@theorangeandblue5969]

Sir, I thank you for your service and your contributions in tactics development. I also applaud your steady handling of armchair pilots, statistics gurus, conspiracy nuts. Without names, one who admits he isn't a pilot but continues to argue with an Air Force tactics instructor. Another who believes 1940's technology could defeat 60 years of advancements and development, and of course, the one who insinuates you to be a liar because you weren't filming your F104 engagement. And, I only just began to read the comments! You have a far more patient demeanor than myself. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us, it is appreciated.

[@spiritofattack]

+theorangeandblue Thanks for your comments! Modern video games do not include all the limitations of different aircraft, such as the high control loads on MiGs at high indicated airspeeds which made them difficult to maneuver at high speeds. The American planes were actually better than the MiGs in Vietnam, but the MiGs would not fight unless the tactical situation was in their favor. We were going into their airspace, where they had far better radar coverage than we did, and the choice of engaging us with SAMs, anti-aircraft guns or fighters. Our goal was to put bombs on target -- they were successful if they forced our fighters to jettison their bombs, then run home if our planes were ready to fight. Allied planes were in the area, so we could not shoot without visual recognition, which negated our BVR missiles and better airborne radar. Give me an F-106 over a MiG in an equal contest any day, especially at high altitude -- but a MiG would not engage in an equal contest. Getting the advantage BEFORE THE FIGHT BEGINS is the heart of tactics and war.

[@bobstafford2068]

My all time favorite fighter jet was an is the F-104 Starfighter. I've built several model jet of the F-104s. As fast as they are, they can't withstand combat from small children. As a very young boy of 4 or 5 years old; my dad, who worked full time for the NC Air National Guard, sat me in the cockpit of an F-104, during an Air Show. I'm 60 years old now and can remember it like it was yesterday.

[@bjjace1]

these videos are aviation treasures. Thank You Mr. Gordon for doing these. I read all your content on Quora too

[@spiritofattack]

Thanks! I'm 89 years old now but still going strong. My most important videos are "Something BIG #1" and "Something BIG #2", but they don't get as much attention. I saw proof that Nixon's Madman Nuclear Alert of 1969 came at the same time as the Sino-Soviet dispute had the Russians ready to attack China. I saw a Soviet fleet off of North Korea. Probably the most important moment of my career -- I gave a talk about it at our local Library a few day ago... I think it's the least known major Cold War event.

[@jimrobbins4259]

Great story, thanks. I was at Tyndall from 1980-82 and was an assistant crew chief on a 106, 80903 tail#. We were mostly a training operation, then. There were a couple of 106s across the runway in the alert barns. We had 101s there then too, and some 102 drones. Had a great time. Awesome plane. 17 years old and working on them was an amazing experience. My favorite part was riding in the back of a B model, taxi down to the trim pad and really open her up. Even being on the ground at the trim pad was a wild time. Nothing like sticking your head up into the engine compartments, while at full burner, checking for leaks!

[@spiritofattack]

Wow -- those trim pads were noisy from across the runway - the noise in the engine compartment is awesome to even think about!

[@bradleycampbell5933]

hey Bruce thank you for your service and thank you very much for sharing your knowledge and experience here.take care and i hope you are in good health !

[@spiritofattack]

Thanks for the well wishes, Bradley. I'm 82 years old now, but doing fine. Have you seen my other videos?

[@bradleycampbell5933]

yes some earlier today about Ploesti, and will be along for more soon :)

[@spiritofattack]

I need to take action to re-circulate some videos that I've already made. Some of my earliest videos could be improved upon, but those earliest videos were some of the best subjects.

[@bradleycampbell5933]

i appreciate your first hand knowledge. i see some videos on the german planes and so many people trying to re write history by saying plane XX was better than allied because it was faster .i think the differences between all the later ww2 planes were not that huge a gap. it really boils down to pilots. we rotated our successful ones out to train the new ones. the germans same deal, no way to properly train the new ones, and the japanese even worse--their pilots seemed like special warrior class that took years to train. and for Korean war--the MIGS and F86 came down to aggressive quality pilots. still amazed to hear about 4 P51's taking on 40 Germans! they had to have been supremely confident in their planes and training, and abilities to do so.the flying tiger same deal, never had the numbers but always had the right men flying who learned to fight their fight, and not fight to the enemy's strength.liked hearing about the f106, i never knew much about them. did i see right where it had guns? i also like how the new f35 has the same idea of quick opening doors for keeping the weapons internally stored. i better go before i write a novel here --thanks again i will be watching more soon!

[@spiritofattack]

Since I made this video, I have read the HAVE DONUT reports of testing a real MiG-21F against top American fighters, including the F-106. HAVE DONUT tests occurred about the same time that I was flying against the F-104 in my video report. The MiG-21 had many limitations that we did not know about at the time. Most important, the MiG-21 had very poor cockpit visibility and had an aerodynamic limitation at about 580 KIAS which made it virtually uncontrollable at very hight speeds. The F-106 limit was 752 KIAS, so the F-106 had a major speed advantage over the MiG-21 at lower altitudes that we didn't even know about. At high airspeeds the F-106 had much better roll response than any of the MiGs. Add that to our tremendous advantage in radar, and the F-106 was clearly superior -- but we didn't even know it! That knowledge would have changed our tactics considerably!

[@spiritofattack]

Backwoods -- we did not have good radar coverage of North Vietnam, while they had good ground-based radar of the area. They could engage or disengage when they wanted. We did use the F-100 for ground attack in the north early in the war, but later used the F-100 exclusively in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, because we had enough F-4s to fight up north. The F-100 was probably better than the F-4 for ground attack (we could get closer to the targets) but the F-4 was better for air-to-air and for carrying big loads of bombs long distances. In any case, we were at a tactical disadvantage because the MiGs could engage when the tactical situation was best for them, and avoid battle if the situation favored us. That's a matter of geography and who is attacking. Note that they almost never tried to attack to the south, because they would have lost badly if they were fighting in our airspace where we had the advantages.

[@spiritofattack]

Martin -- you are correct. The F-106 was a specialized air defense fighter, and had no ground attack capability. It was not intended as a dogfighter (although we later found that it was one of the best). As a result, it was never intended to have a large production run. The radar and computer development on the F-106 was probably the genesis of much more advanced systems that we have today.

[@spiritofattack]

The F-105's first flight was Oct. 22, 1955 and it was officially retired Feb. 25, 1984. It had a very long development with many versions. It was supposed to be a nuclear strike bomber, but ended up being one of our best fighter-bombers in Vietnam. We used them in the highest-risk missions, and they were effectively retired because they were all shot down.

[@spiritofattack]

Backwoods -- no, the A-10 did not take the place of the F-105, which was a very high speed low-altitude penetrating aircraft. The A-10 could not have survived in the defensive environment that the F-105 faced. The A-10 might be a replacement for the A-1 Skyraider, but not for the OV-10 Bronco, which was small, used for FAC (Forward Air Control). The Bronco had a long loiter time but a light weapons load, so it was used to call in air strikes by planes like the A-10. The A-29, Super Tucano (now used in Afghanistan) is probably the best replacement for the Bronco, but is not being used for that purpose right now. Forward Air Control now seems to be done by specialized ground teams, not from the air. U-2 aircraft apparently cover all air strikes so central command posts have live updates on air strikes, so air strikes may well be controlled from command posts using video relayed from the U-2 or drones.

[@spiritofattack]

Backwoods -- a bit more info for you: The FACs used the O-1, O-2, and the OV-10 in Vietnam. The O-1 and O-2 carried smoke rockets to mark the targets. They few very slowly, but usually above small-arms range, where they could watch troops on the ground and still were hard for the enemy to hit. Shooting at an O-1 or O-2 was dangerous for the enemy because the FACs would call in air strikes by fast-movers (mostly F-100s). The VC called the O-1 "the little plane that drops big bombs" because it would call in the F-100s or other fast movers. The OV-10 was faster and carried more weapons, so had a limited strike capability of its own. It was used mostly in the higher-threat areas of the northern part of South Vietnam or in Laos. I even heard that an OV-10 in Laos was attacked by a MiG-21. The Bronco was warned by radar as the MiG-21 zipped into Laos looking for the Bronco. The Bronco saw the MiG-21 coming down at him, so he pointed his nose toward the MiG-21 and launched a barrage of 2.75" unguided rockets at the MiG. The MiG saw the rockets coming, broke off the attack, and returned to North Vietnam.

[@spiritofattack]

In all wars, there is an attempt to say which side shot down the most enemy planes. My long experience with wars (I'm 80 years old) says that the numbers of enemies shot down is unreliable for all nations. In one of my WWII videos "P-38s over Ploesti", the Romanian fighter pilots claim to have shot down all the P-38s that we lost during the big raid. However, there were also German fighter planes and lots of anti-aircraft fire which we know shot down some of our planes, so the Romanian claims must have been wrong. Meanwhile, our pilots claimed to have shot down many more Romanian planes than they say they lost. In the Korean War, we first claimed to have shot down 20 MiGs for each Sabre lost -- but we later lowered that to 10 MiGs for each Sabre. Our original numbers probably could not be justified by postwar analysis. One of my friends had to bail out fifteen minutes after he was hit by a MiG, so the MiG never saw him crash. Nations are more accurate in counting their own losses. Even counting our own losses, we often did not know why the plane went down. Was it MiGs, was it surface-to-air missiles, was it anti-aircraft fire? We lost planes when pilots dive-bombed or strafed and pulled out too late in mountainous terrain. One of our F-100's came back with branches in its wings after flying through a tree. One of my friends was killed when he flew into a house on a hill above his target. One of my friends was too low when he dropped his bombs and probably was hit by his own shrapnel -- but he was over enemy troops, so maybe it was enemy ground fire. Your own bullets ricochet off the ground ahead of you and you fly through your own bullets. We have documented on gunnery ranges of pilots "shooting themselves down" by firing a burst, then nosing down a bit to correct their aim -- thus accelerating their dive -- and catching up with their own bullets! In Vietnam, I often dropped bombs at low altitude and felt the shock wave of my own bombs. If I could feel the shock wave, I knew that my own bomb shrapnel was probably catching up with me, too. There are "normal" aircraft malfunctions during wartime. One of my friends died due to an engine oil system failure -- or was he hit by enemy small-arms fire from the guerrillas who infested the mountains around our base and shot at us during takeoff or landing? Bottom line - don't trust the claims of either side about who shot down what.

[@ericbrammer2245]

+Bruce Gordon This, is a great example of the 'Root Cause' used by machinists to find just' why' things go wrong. Great examples, and great explanation. Our Politicians should be so wise!!

[@slobodanmitic1354]

+Bruce Gordon This is probably the most accurate statement on the subject I 've ever read!

[@justforever96]

+Bruce Gordon That is extremely true; the numbers claimed are never, ever reliable, whether through honest mistake or intentional distortion. Same applies too all sorts of air combat, whether the number of ground targets destroyed, bombing effectiveness, enemy aircraft shot down by gunners: always take the numbers with a big grain of salt.

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

Bruce Gordon I have nothing to add the discussion, I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your wisdom with us. That was an excellent comment analysis of Air Combat losses.

[@freedomvigilant1234]

Bruce Gordon I have just subscribed. Airplanes, and the Cold War has always fascinated me. Thanks for producing these videos , and sharing your knowledge.

[@tonysullivan9552]

Bruce, thank you for the video. The F-106 has always been my favorite and I love to read or watch videos of how it performed. There is a story online about how some 106 instructors taught some F-16 pilots a thing or two about the Six. Thanks again for your video and your service.

[@spiritofattack]

The F-106 ruled the high altitude skies. Bring an F-16 to 40,000 feet, and the F-106 would out-perform it. Down below 20,000 feet, the F-16 would probably be best. Altitude is important!

[@edanderson2242]

My favorite too, Tony. I had 3 years of experience as an aircraft maintenance officer on 106s and 1 year on F-100s. The maintenance hours per flying hour was significantly lower for the "Sixes." Plus, the 106's were a lot prettier.

[@danpatterson8009]

This was barely 20 years since the end of WWII. Incredible progress. And they didn't know where the limits were until they went up and met them. A few weeks ago I toured the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson- it was like walking through every model kit I ever built as a kid.

[@CopperCityPatriot]

Nice video, Bruce. Formany years, my family enjoyed watching the F-106,at Griffiss AFB as we lived directly in the back of the runway. Some of the high G turns they made in that aircraft were amazing. Sometimes, they would actually play with the Boys From Syracuse,when they had the F-16. Today, a Griffiss F-106 of the fighting 49th, is displayed at Evergreen Air & Space Museum. Loud jet. Not as loud as the twin-turbine F-4 or the single-engine Harrier. Oh. and how the house would shake at first-light of dawn, when the B-52's & KC-135's would scramble take-off. That was a sight me and my Father truly miss.

[@spiritofattack]

Alexander William Zaleski -- I liked the F-106 afterburner. The A/B added almost 50% more power, but cost 200% more fuel than military power. I hear the F-35 has an even louder noise! The F-106 had 24,500 pounds of thrust in A/B, and the F-35 now has over 40,000 pounds of thrust! The F-35 weighs more and is slightly smaller than the F-106. The F-35 weighs 29,000 pounds empty, while th F-106 weighed 24,420 pounds empty. The F-35 has a 35' wingspan, while the F-106 had a 38' wingspan. That's why the F-106 had a much lower wing loading - 52 lbs sq/ft for the F-106 and 107 lbs/sq ft for the F-35! That's why the F-106 would probably be able to outmaneuver the F-35 at high altitude, where the air is thin and wing loading really matters. At low altitude, the F-35 would be far superior.

[@ConvairDart106]

As You can see Mr. Gordon, I am a HUGE F-106 fan! I was stationed at McChord AFB in the 70's, while the 318th was flying them. As a firefighter, we scrambled whenever they did. It was an overcast day, with an 800 foot ceiling, common here in Washington. We heard the 106's fire off and fast taxi to the runway. As they went by us, gear up and in burner, I had my fingers in my ears to dampen the roar. They then went nearly vertical and into the overcast. About 40 seconds later, there were two sonic booms in quick succession! I have been hooked on the Dart ever since!! I read several accounts of the 106 excelling in red flag exercises. I wonder how fast she could have gone with a newer engine with a bit more thrust? I am sad that Discovery Wings never dedicated an episode to this amazing airplane! I would love to hear more stories of your time in the cockpit. I have read that many pilots considered this plane to be their favorite as far as supersonic handling. What are your thoughts on that? And, could the airplane have been upgraded to HUD to reduce all the head down time required of the MA1 fire control system? This plane looks supersonic sitting on the ground! I am seriously thinking of building an turbine model of one as my first R?C Jet build! Do you have any pictures of your F-106? I had to give up private flying in the 90's to raise a family, and now have spent as much on R/C models as I could have spent on a good used Cherokee!!

[@spiritofattack]

ConvairDart106 Go to my Facebook / Spirit of Attack page to see a lot more of this. Facebook is easier to use than KZbin. Only 342 F-106s were built, and they were really needed for air defense. For many years, maybe until the present, they'd be viable in Air Defense because the Russians haven't upgraded their bomber fleet. A new radar would have been an inexpensive upgrade. The J-75 engine was probably OK for air defense. The F-106 was built for high altitude and could rule the skies; I hear that it can beat an F-15 over 35,000 feet. It could sure beat F-4Ds at almost any altitude. I think the F-4E was such an upgrade that the F-4E may have been able to beat the F-106. The war in Vietnam was fought at a very low altitude, usually around 5,000 feet. The F-106 likes to fly and fight at 43,000 feet. If the fight was at 5,000 feet protecting the strike force, the F-106 would have to come down into the thick air where the other planes are in their element. People talk about the high Mach number battles, but down below 15,000 feet the battle is subsonic. The MiG-17 was one of the deadliest fighters because it was designed for high speed subsonic flight. Yes, I think the F-106 could have been fitted with canard wings, new radar, and a new engine to become equal to or superior to the F-15. However, it was really needed for air defense, and all it needed for that was an updated radar. We didn't have enough to send them to Vietnam.

[@mitchellkaye9619]

Thank you very much. I am a competition aerobatic pilot and I can appreciate the principles that you have elucidated. We are thoroughly subsonic !!! Nice video site.

[@spiritofattack]

Bradley Campbell - So much to discuss! I have two videos that apply to your question about pilot skills vs. technology. The first video is "Breaking the Sound Barrier". The Bell X-1 gave us the a technical advantage because we had to figure out how to make the plane stable in the transonic region. We learned to use a solid slab elevator, instead of a horizontal stabilizer with an elevator attached. We also added hydraulic flight controls for elevator and ailerons. We put these into the design of the F-86. The MiG-15 and MiG-17 did not have these control modifications. When the planes met in Korea, the F-86 was a controllable, stable gun platform at high speeds, while the MiGs became virtually uncontrollable as they approached the Mach. While the radar gunsight and better pilot training also played a part, I believe that the SLAB ELEVATOR and hydraulic flight controls, which we learned with the Bell X-1, were the reason we had such a high kill ratio against the MiGs. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y2bCZJ2LprVpiZY

[@spiritofattack]

I recently found a copy of the HAVE DONUT tests on the Web. A real MiG-21F (which we got from Israel) was put against several American fighters in Area 51 in 1967. The MiG-21F had limitations that we pilots didn't know about, but could have exploited in our tactics. The MiG-21F had high control forces above 510 knots indicated airspeed, was uncontrollable above 590 KIAS, and could not go supersonic below 15,000 feet. The F-106 was stable to 750 KIAS and could go Mach 1.4 at 15,000 feet. MiG cockpit visibility was poor, with the large nose blocking visibility forward and down, the ejection seat blocked the view in a 35 degree cone around the tail, and plate of bulletproof glass reduced visibility directly ahead. The MiGs radar was range-only and not comparable to the excellent F-106 radar & computer system. Their radar gunsight was useless in a hard turn with high angles off, and pipper jiggle made the sight useless after the first shot was fired. The MiG could turn with the F-106, but the MiG lost speed more rapidly in a hard turn. We could have used this information at the time, but we weren't told about it!

[@spiritofattack]

+Mamkaprishla I I saw the data on Wikipedia about the climb rates, but it is wrong. The HAVE DONUT tests put a real MiG-21F against an F-106, starting in flight together and climbing in full afterburner. When the MiG-21 airspeed dropped to the minimum safe speed for flight, and called off the climb test, the F-106 was faster and 1,000 feet higher than the MiG-21.

[@spiritofattack]

The SU-15 was introduced TEN YEARS after the F-106. Must compare fighters in the same decade! Many people have compared the F-104 to the MiG-21. There are so many versions to compare that I won't even start. I think they were indeed comparable, but my experience was against the F-104A and it was dammed fast, but had "short legs" and poor radar. I think the same was true of the MiG-21.

[@edanderson2242]

I was an aircraft maintenance officer in an F-106 squadron in Washington state for 2 years and in North Dakota for a year. Despite my 3 years of experience on the "Sixes" I never heard anything about that fuel transfer capability that the 106's had. What an amazing option! And what a beautiful airplane.

[@spiritofattack]

I flew maintenance check flights after engine changes, and we would take the F-106 to Mach 2 to test the systems. One of the systems we checked was the fuel transfer. At Mach 1.2 the fuel would start transfer aft to maintain the center of gravity near the center of pressure as the CP moved aft. We could watch it on our fuel gauges. I could hear or feel it transfer. As we came back below Mach 1.2, the fuel would transfer forward. During a dogfight, with a hard turn, we might go from Mach 1.5 to subsonic rather quickly, leaving the fuel still in the aft tanks. If we were in a hard turn, the transfer aft made the F-106 tail heavy, creating a tendency to "dig in" with a sharper turn than expected. This could over stress the plane with excess G's. There was a warning about the possibility of "digging in" in the Pilot's Manual.

[@edanderson2242]

@@spiritofattack Technologies always have their plusses and minuses. Were there procedures and training for what to do if your aircraft started to "dig in" or was it just up to the pilot and his feel of the plane?

[@spiritofattack]

@@edanderson2242 It was just up to the pilot and his feel of the plane. I could feel the tendency when flying against the F-104s and pulling G's while supersonic. It was clearly briefed to us before the mission, so I was not surprised to feel the "dig in" start and I simply eased the back pressure on the stick for a few moments. The aft shift of the Center of Pressure during supersonic flight was quite noticeable in turns, but was not noticeable in normal straight supersonic flight. An odd situation occurred with the supersonic dogfights. We had a "dinghy stabber" on the aft side of the stick which was intended to pop the inflatable raft in the survival kit if it accidentally inflated (which happened once). The "dinghy stabber" was a series of sharp points on a bar right behind the stick. When we were pulling G's in supersonic flight, we pulled the stick all the way back and the "dinghy stabber" tore up the pilot's seat cushion!

[@edanderson2242]

@@spiritofattack That "dingy stabber" was something else about the sixes that I had never heard of. Guess that wasn't on the Maintenance Officer's need to know list. Of course, if you never entered the cockpit, you would never encounter any of these sharp points, and I never entered any cockpits.

[@spiritofattack]

@@edanderson2242 The "dingy stabber" may have been a temporary fix that they used before making a permanent fix to the problem of the life raft inflating without warning. It doesn't show in the aircraft manuals, and I remember it from a fairly short period. It sure tore up the pilot's seat cushion after we did our aerial combat maneuvers!

[@hockey3761]

Just heard an interview you had on another KZbin channel and was so happy to find out you have your own KZbin channel! Great video! Always loved the f-106 and to a slightly lesser extent the f-104. Always wondered how they performed against each other but also to other planes like the f-4 and migs

[@spiritofattack]

There was the HAVE DOUGHNUT program in the 1970's where the USAF had some MiG-21Fs and flew them to compare to USAF and some USN fighters. HAVE DOUGHNUT is available online. The F-106 was not part of the main program, but at the very end of HAVE DOUGHNUT some F-106s were compared to the MiG-21F under test conditions. Just a few missions, none of them a dogfight. The F-106 proved marginally superior to the MiG-21F, mostly because the F-106 had a more powerful engine. As a former F-106 pilot reading the report, I concluded that the F-106 should stay at high altitude, where its radar was most effective and its light wing loading was important in thin air. The F-106 was bigger and heavier than the MiG-21, but its big delta wing gave a ligher wing loading. The F-106 wing loading was 52 lbs/sq ft, and the MiG-21 wing loading was 92.7 lbs/sq ft. The MiG-21's 15,650 pounds thrust was less than the F-106 24,500 pounds. The F-106 also had BETTER visibility from the cockpit than the MiG-21. The F-106 was king of the high altitude sky, but its advantages vanished at low altitudes where the air was thicker and ground clutter degraded the F-106 radar.

[@hockey3761]

@@spiritofattack what a great reply. Will watch your video on it and others. Very interesting! Must have been a pleasure to fly such an airplane. I'm nearly finished with flight school in a 172...not really a fair comparison lol

[@michaelsnyder3871]

Even though the air frame, guidance and motor limitations on the AIM-4 as a dogfight missile were partially addressed in the AIM-4D, it retained an impact fuze, part of its heritage as an anti-bomber missile, where it was designed to impact and explode inside Soviet bombers, not explode with a proximity fuze like the AIM-9. Hughes was working on further mods, but these were cancelled, as the USAF finally decided it already had a dogfight missile in the Sidewinder, even if it was developed by the Navy. It is interesting that the AIM-4 was adopted by Switzerland for its Mirage IIIS interceptors and the Swedes adopted the AIM-26 Super falcon for their J35 interceptors.

[@MrFirstdance2000]

F-104 still the best looking fighter visually...and still my favorite!

[@spiritofattack]

A great day fighter -- faster acceleration than the F-106 -- its biggest limits were fuel capacity and small radar.

[@MrFirstdance2000]

@@spiritofattack And perhaps the German Air Force giving it a black eye?? :) Thanks so much for this Bruce. I grew up reading Robert Heinlein and this plane was the closest thing to what I could see myself in...terrestrial or extraterrestrial :) It also left me each late night with High Flight....which still brings tears to my eyes! Thank you sir.

[@spiritofattack]

@@MrFirstdance2000 The F-104 was designed as a day fighter. In Europe, it was modified to be a low level strike bomber -- loaded down with fuel tanks and weapons, opposite to its original design. It did not have the really good all-weather flying capabilities of the F-4 or F-106, so it had problems with the notoriously bad weather of eastern Europe. Germany had an extra problem of absorbing a lot of East German Air Force pilots who were trained in Soviet methods and were not well trained in all-weather operations. As a result, the Germans had very high losses of the F-104 which other nations did not have.

[@edwardpate6128]

Back in the mid 60's the F-104 intercepted a Federation Starship!

[@MrFirstdance2000]

Edward Pate Seems like a tractor beam tore it apart though?

[@MajDogMeat]

Worked on the F106 (The Six) from 81-85 in Minot. Great bird and great times. Great vids you put out Sir!1

[@spiritofattack]

Why not Minot? I flew over Minot one winter, and there was a huge area of snow with one dark spot -- which was Minot! Thanks for your service!

[@MajDogMeat]

Thanks for your service Sir!

[@jamestrexler6329]

I had no idea about this, but it's kinda thrilling to know that one of my all time favourite aircraft was so much more capable than I'd previously thought. It's such a gorgeous airframe and it really doesn't get its due. I have a model of one that I built about twelve years ago sitting on my desk at work. I'm pretty sure almost none of my cadets would be able to identify it, but I'll be happy to include this tidbit in anything I tell them about it.

[@arthursulit]

I was in the groundschool portion of Top Gun, Summer '95, perhaps the last class at Miramar before they merged and relocated to Fallon. Yes, we analyzed the legendary fight between Randy Cunningham and Col. Tomb (Toon? Tuan?). But hearing you talk here, I now in hindsight regret to say that we did not talk at all about the previous era's F-106 or F-104 fights. Some of us as kids in the 70s built F-104 plastic models, but had no clue what its strengths and weaknesses were (until I read your stories below!). That plane just "looked cool". Now I am beginning to see the picture! Nowadays, with our knowledge of flying bodies and LERX, our eye might more quickly spot the shortcomings of an F-104 just by looking at it. But I am glad you have taught me its stealthy strengths at low level high speed bombing. One wonders if the former East Germans would've taken IFR rules more seriously, then such a plane would still pack a punch. Many other F-14 drivers who were guests, sitting in the back, did not know the different strengths and weaknesses of the past-era planes either, such as the WW I Pfalz & Albatross D.III's or the S.E.5 vs Sopwith Camel vs. Fokker Triplane. Most just knew the planes of their present (90s) era. Yet kids playing 'Red Baron' game distributed on PC floppies at the time would've learned slash and run vs turn and burn lessons from the original pioneers, and of Oswald Boelke's dictums. Well, there was too much to cram anyway in the 1st 2 weeks. The AIM-9X was only just beginning to blossom, the new AIM-120s as well, and the F-14's knew they were on their way out, to be replaced by the then-controversial F-18E's still on the drawing board. The YF-22 and YF-23's were still a big mystery, public films of them only showed easy turns and skeptics were criticizing their apparently slower roll rates than the A-4. The whole JSF debate at the time had a ton of skeptics in our ranks about overloading one airframe with "too many multiroles", at the time not knowing what Networked Warfare would be all about (and all this just before the Internet exploded into new paradigms of controllable devices and intel now avail to civilians). We were still in the 1985 Top Gun movie mindset, with BVR, AWG-9 and old fashioned helmets... So now 20 yrs later, I am amazed at the F-22's airshow maneuvers, the KZbin vids of modern helmets allowing lookdown though the floor, and present coverage of this JSF which everyone once hated, seems to be turning out quite the quantum leap forward! So my only question would be, now that civilians can cheaply launch thousands of jet-speed RC aircraft, any SAM grid could be easily...well, enough said for now :-) So trying to write an updated Top Gun movie would be interesting: no more compressor stalls or flat spins out of such primitive aircraft such as Tom Cruise's F-14 killing Goose. No more simplistic Split S's to reverse from a T50 on your tail. High Tech sensor fusion leaving little room for "romance" scenes between Maverick and Charlie (K. McGillis), since it's no longer about guns. So I guess we'll have to research your Aussie parties to find another movie angle, lol! So it looks like they'll have to bring back those nuke A-A missiles. But where's the dramatic excitement in that? So meanwhile, I stare at this screenplay, still a blank page...

[@spiritofattack]

Excellent description, Arthur! No, we don't want nuke A-A missiles. I flew with them, and one of them going off would probably blind a lot of people on the ground as well as your fighter pilot friends. Current missiles are deadly enough, we don't need nukes. Anyway, all of us were completely prepared to kamikaze ourselves into Russian bombers if our missiles failed. As the French said in WW I at Verdun: "ILS NE PASSERONT PAS!" "THEY SHALL NOT PASS!". If you want a new screenplay, look at my KZbin video "Madman Nuclear Alert Radio Interview", link here; kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWqudnqpl8iJlac I have been trying to write a screen play for the Madman Nuclear Alert, but I can't get around the fact that it has no hero and is not funny. It was real, but is largely unknown by the US public. I am in contact with a Canadian video company which is in contact with the History Channel about it, but progress is very slow. It really needs a screen play. I took the story as written in my book, "The Spirit of Attack", to producers at an event in Las Vegas. Some were interested, but one comment sums it up: "I need a hero, who meets an obstacle, and emerges victorious. Some sex would help". In this incident, there are many fools but no heroes.

[@arthursulit]

OK, I'm beginning to see the picture...a Taboo romance between a Female Top Gun commander and a male cafeteria seaman recruit who looks like Clark Gable...no, scratch that. (Running away ducking while everyone pelts me with vegetables...) BTW: I was there during the whole Tailhook and ADM Boorda thing.

[@spiritofattack]

Keep thinking!

[@joelynn1103]

Hey fellas, I was a USMC pilot in the late 50 s. I flew a really hot number.... a Gooney Bird. It was the military version of the civilian DC-3. I could cruise at 180 at over 15,000 feet. The USMC jet fighter in 1956 was the FJ-3 Fury. My best friend was picked for fighters and flew the FJ-3. I was satisfied going low and slow.

[@edwardpate6128]

That aircraft still going strong!

[@bravo0105]

Thank-you very much for sharing this!

[@tigerpjm]

Awesome video and two awesome planes. This had to have been the Golden era for jet fighter combat.

[@mikefm4]

I absolutely loved this story!!! Amazing era in aviation. This story is priceless! Thank you so much for sharing

[@spiritofattack]

Claims of enemy planes shot down are similar to claims of enemy trucks destroyed on the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Vietnam. I strafed and bombed 5 trucks that I could see, and don't think I hit any of them. The Forward Air Controllers always gave me credit for destroying more trucks and bunkers than I thought I hit. I was told that if the FAC (Forward Air Controller) didn't give a high BDA (Bomb Damage Assessment) the DASC (Direct Air Support Center) wouldn't send him fighters the next time he saw a target. The result was great inflation of our reported combat results. I expect that all military forces tend to inflate reports of the damage they inflict on the enemy.

[@spiritofattack]

Thanks for your comment, Jorge. I saw the F-104 too soon and turned too hard for him to have got me with a gun attack. Remember that you've got to LEAD the target to hit it with bullets. A Sidewinder would be more of a problem, but our early Sidewinders had low reliability. They tracked the tailpipe in a "curve of pursuit" where they always pointed at the hot tailpipe, because without range information they could not lead the target. Also, they had troubles with afterburners, and would track the center of the afterburner rather than the leading edge of the afterburner. Use your hands and make one hand the missile and the other the target. Keep the missile pointed at the tailpipe of the target, as the target turns hard. At the very end, the missile must turn HARDER than the target in a "button-hook", pulling many more G's than the target. Also, the Sidewinder accelerated to very high speed, and the turning radius of any aerial vehicle increases at the square of the speed. So a fighter could actually outmaneuver a Sidewinder because it was going too fast to turn with us. Our AIM-4G, fired from the F-106, would accept the range from our radar (if locked on) so the AIM-4G could make a "lead collision" course, leading the target. Modern infrared missiles use a number of techniques to figure range, including aiming just AHEAD of the tailpipe. The technical superiority of the AIM-4G over the Sidewinder is a reason that the Air Force tried putting AIM-4G's on the F-4 Phantom, but success was low, probably because the Phantom's computer was not communicating with the AIM-4G, which was carried externally and subject to weather, while the F-106 carried the AIM-4G in an internal missile bay, protected from the weather. The F-106 was very successful with the AIM-4G, while the Phantom failed with the same missile.

[@pedroelmont7593]

+Bruce Gordon So many questions answered here. I always wondered about the Falcons on the F-4. Now I understand that scenario. Man this is a great education. I always thought that the Falcons were nearly useless; I know better now.

[@spiritofattack]

+Pedro Elmont The F-4 carried the AIM-4D Falcon, the version carried on the F-102. The F-106 carried the AIM-4F and AIM-4G Falcons. I do not know if the newer versions of Falcons carried on the F-106 may have also been a major reason why the F-106 Falcons were much better than the F-4 Falcons.

[@justforever96]

+Bruce Gordon How "successful" could he F-106 have been with the AIM-4 if they never actually fired one in combat? I can see in theory that the AIM-4 is better than the AIM-9, but then again, so isn't the AIM-7, which was kind of disappointing in Vietnam. Just saying, if the F-106 had gone to Vietnam with the AIM-4, they may have found it didn't work so well in the real world, internal carriage or not. Then again, maybe it would have worked fine.

[@AgentPepsi1]

Hi Bruce... I saw your videos... sent them to my dad, who is one of your colleagues. He was a Phantom driver originally, later F-15s.

[@maximilliancunningham6091]

Thanks for this Bruce. I envy you guys who flew the century series.

[@istemihanvarisli]

Dear Bruce, thanks for sharing. Very infomative video indeed. Greetings from Ankara :)

[@spiritofattack]

I think your other post was a translation from Turkish -- thanks for passing it on to others!

[@istemihanvarisli]

@@spiritofattack Yes, Bruce. It is a resume in Turkish about the 106 pilot's narration.

[@josephdupont]

Great Video and thank you for serving our country.. General Boyd must have been an amazing man.

[@chainlightning58]

That's a great story! I've always been interested in those Century Series fighters. Thanks for sharing!

[@flyingcatsofthesalishsea.]

Hard to fathom a supersonic dogfight, wow, thanks for the insight and upload!

[@foxrecon19d]

This is an amazing video. To this day, the F106 remains my most favorite of the Century Series fighters and, like Col. Jack Broughton wrote, I wish I had one parked in my drive way. I guess my question would be, how does the F104 compare with the MiG21 in maneuverability when conducting dissimilar air combat against the F106? I would imagine that the F5 might have been a better match. That said, it is a shame that the F106 wasn't able to deploy to Vietnam. I have no doubt that F106 pilots would have become legendary MiG killers. It breaks my heart that the F106 is ending its career as target drones

[@spiritofattack]

Foxrecon -- I'm planning a new video of a test of speed between my F-106 (with wingman) against two F-4's off the coast of Korea in 1969. To make a long story short, we had been flying together as a 4-ship on combat air patrol, all configured for air combat. When it was time to go home, they suddenly lit afterburners to try to leave us behind. We lit burners, too. They got a half mile ahead of us, but then we began to catch them. We passed them at Mach 1.5, accelerating faster than they were and leaving them somewhere behind us. I added an insult to it by aiming my sonic boom at their cockpits and requesting a return cruise altitude of 45,000 feet, while they cruised slower and lower, at 35,000 feet.

[@foxrecon19d]

Bruce Gordon Again...Amazing! My heroes have always been the real men who have been there and done that. In fact, at a club where I work part time as a bouncer, there is an elderly gentleman who will never have to pay for any of his drinks. He was an F8 Crusader pilot during Vietnam and being that the F8 is my favorite Navy fighter, his drinks are always on me. Currently, I am deployed on my forth tour of duty and I plan to order your book! Just finished Fighter Pilot by Gen. Olds. I actually stumbled on your video when I was surfing youtube to see if there were any videos posted of the F101 or F106 in the William Tell Competitions

[@saburusakai]

Bruce Gordon Amazing. I always wanted them to upgrade those during the 70s and 80s, heard they were the hottest thing in the inventory.

[@chiefmuddybear5759]

m163 .vulcangun F106s guarded the USA from attack. I used to guard them at Dover AFB DE in the early 1970s

[@edanderson2242]

My thoughts also.

[@videomaniac108]

Thanks for the very interesting and informative commentary. I've been a military aviation enthusiast all my life and was wondering how the F-8 Crusader might have fared against the F-104 in this matchup. Also, do you think that the J-79 would have been a good upgrade engine for the F-8's J-57?

[@spiritofattack]

Jim - I believe the J-79 was physically smaller than the J-57. I flew with the J-57 in the F-102, and it was a very good engine. The F-106 was like the F-102 in size, and upgraded to the J-75, which was more powerful and bigger than the J-79. The J-79 was for a two-engine aircraft. The bottom line is that new engines are not simple upgrades, but involve so many changes that a major upgrade is a big project.

[@margraveofgadsden8997]

I realize this is rather late, but there was an experimental version of the f-8 that had a j-75. It was competing with the f-4 to be the navy’s primary fighter. It had excellent performance, better in many ways than the f-4, but the navy wanted a aircraft with two engines. They also thought that having one person control the aircraft and the radar/missile systems would be too great a work load.

[@FerretMasterXX]

I was one of the MA-1 mechanics that maintained the F-106 avionics system at Duluth and K.I. Sawyer AFB(s) in the late 60's and early 70's. I recall that our squadron, the 87 FIS sent a few aircraft to Miramar and flew against the F-8's in particular to see if the "6 was up to the task of the ASF roll, and also as prep work for the Vulcan cannon "6 Pack" mini-gun upgrade. Let it be known that the F-106 kicked some serious ass in those engagements. This also included encounters with the F-4. Same results! Talking with the pilots after their return to Home Station, their common reply to "how did it go?" was to point to the red "kill" silhouettes painted under the canopy and grin! Turn and burn seemed to be the preferred tactic as they reported NOTHING stayed with the "6" in a turning engagement. Not sure how things worked out if the engagement went vertical, perhaps you can enlighten us? Many thanks for a GREAT series!

[@spiritofattack]

+FerretMasterXX Ferret -- wow, I hadn't heard of those tests of the F-106 against the F-8 Crusaders. Wikipedia shows the F-106 beats the F-8 in just about every category. Keys to maneuverability are wing and maximum thrust. F-8 wing loading is 73 lbs/sq ft, while the F-106 is 52 lbs/sq ft. Maximum thrust F-8 is 18,000 lbs while the F-106 is 24,500 lbs. So, the F-106 has lower wing loading and greater thrust, so the F-106 should be able to beat the F-8 easily.

[@spiritofattack]

+WanderfalkeAT I used square feet, which takes most of the wingspan into consideration. True, a longer wing helps the turn, but Navy planes have short wings to fit on the carrier deck. The F-106 wingspan is 38.25 feet, while the F-8 wingspan is 35.66 feet, so the F-106 even has a little longer wingspan.

[@spiritofattack]

+WanderfalkeAT That's why wing loading, which is weight divided by wing area, is so important and takes weight and wing size into consideration. The F-106 had a LIGHTER wing loading than the F-8 (56 pounds vs 78 pounds /sq ft) and more power, so the F-106 was naturally the more maneuverable plane -- and MUCH faster, too.

[@FerretMasterXX]

+WanderfalkeAT I sure hope that some of the F-106 pilots from the 87th can be found that were at the Miramar NAS test. They kicked theF-8 all over the sky. Fun to watch them liking their chops when the second assignments for that testing came up. Just sayin'

[@spiritofattack]

+WanderfalkeAT I was an instructor in aerial combat tactics in the F-106, and also practiced ACT in the F-100. If your F-8 is down to 180 knots, it is dead meat. The F-106 could engage and disengage at will. Never get sucked into the other guy's strength. Maintain speed, and he can't touch you. Use radar and missiles. The F-106 was the best fighter of its day -- but we didn't know how good it was until toward the end of the Vietnam War. F-106 pilots told me that the F-8 had one sharp turn - when it raised its wing to landing position -- but once its wing was up its acceleration was very slow and its maneuvering was over.

[@publicmail2]

Love Bruce Gordons stories and interviews, like to see more new ones...

[@ArnoldVeeman]

Wonderful storytelling! 🍀 Want to hear more!

[@spiritofattack]

More stories are coming! It will take about a week before I'm ready to tape a new story...

[@ArnoldVeeman]

wonderful Bruce, I've subscribed so if you post any new story I will see it on my time line. Thank you!

[@MrRadioshoppe]

Very interesting story about the the F106 vs the F-104. Thanks for sharing. There was mention in the comments about the AIM-4D missile and especially in SEA. I was in the Air Force Air Launched Missile field from 1962 until retirement in 1982. I was pretty much in on the ground floor of the air launched missile field from near it's beginning in the Air Force. I was stationed at Naha AB, Okinawa in 1968 when the AIM -4D was Introduced in SEA. The missiles were modified from AIM-4C's to AIM-4D's at the Hughes factory in Tucson, AZ and then flow to Naha for theater receiving inspection and then on to Thailand. The AIM-4A thru D series were originally designed to be fired in a salvo of three. The original design was never to be fired singularly. The tech order specifications for tracking loop time constant and crosstalk was based on that. It could be made much tighter during theater receiving inspection. The "suitcase" test set in Thailand was little more than a "Go-NoGo" test not allowing refined adjustments should the tech order specifications every change. The competing AIM-7 and 9 series missiles went through several modifications to improve reliability where as the AIM-4D only had one modification. A throttleable seeker head cooling cryostat could have been incorporated in the guidance unit with little effort and cost changing the cooling time from several minutes to nearly an hour. The AIM 4D was mounted in an area of maximum buffeting under the leading edge of the F-4 wing causing premature failure of the missile guidance. AIM-9's were mounted further back under the wing where buffeting was less. The AIM-7's were mounted on the aircraft fuselage.. Employment tactics were poor for the AIM-4D. Pilots got a one hour briefing using a 20 slide Power Point type presentation and then sent off to war. During the first half of the Vietnam air war there was little to no control of fighters over the target area. No warning of impeding attacks. It was a dogfight gun type environment. Not a standoff missile engagement scenario. Even after pilots identified a hostile target the tendency was to make it a gunfight with missiles rather than a standoff missile engagement. All missiles need to be fired from a mile or so out to allow it to steer out launch errors. Trying to "pump it up the tailpipe" is counter productive. But, alas, the Air Force has learned, albeit the hard way. The last gun kill by the US Air Force was in 1973 in Vietnam. All air-to-air kills by the Air Force since then have been by missiles. The last air-to-air gun kill in the world was by the Israeli Air Force in 1988. I would be glad to add more if anyone is interested.

[@spiritofattack]

MrRadioshoppe -- I am very interested in your data. I have just been reading a long and detailed history of the Falcon missiles uploaded by Gary Bruder: www.ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.htm which shows that over half the AIM-4Ds launched in Vietnam were outside the missile parameters. It confirms my opinion that the failure of the AIM-4Ds in Vietnam was caused by the F-4 airplane, not by the missile. Your comment about its location being an area of maximum buffeting is very interesting. Yes, I'll enjoy hearing more from you!

[@jimharris5616]

Just to add a bit more about the AIM-4D modification. There were actually two parts of the mod. The first was a beefing up of the control surfaces (flipper) attachment point to the servopositioner that moved the missile control surfaces in missile flight. The buffeting caused the metal to metal join to loosen. A small clamp like plate was added to each side of the control surface to keep it solidly fastened to the servopositioner shaft. The second modification was a solid state vibrator added to the missile power supply in place of the mechanical vibrator. The mechanical vibrator caused a large amount of electrical "noise" in the pilots headset when he was listening for the "growl" of the target before launch. The purpose of the vibrator was to chop up the 12.6 VDC from the missile battery so a transformer could boost it to about 300 volts for the B+ voltage used by the missile vacuum tube circuits. Back to the missile control surfaces for just a moment. The AIM-4C/D was carried externally on the F-101 aircraft for about 10 years before they were carried on the F-4. On the F-101 there was no problem from buffeting. The problem was only on the F-4 aircraft. There was an attempt to put a laser proximity fuze detector on the AIM-4D. About 50 were produced but they did not reach SEA before the missile was withdrawn from service in that theater of operation. The AIM-4D with the laser proximity fuze was designated the AIM-4H. There is some question as to how effective they would have been. The missile had a small explosive weight warhead and the kill radius would have been very small. The small warhead was selected because a larger weight was not needed. The closing velocity of missile on the target was several hundred miles per hour. The contact kinetic force of the missile was as important or more so than the explosive force of the warhead. I can add more if anyone is interested.

[@jimharris5616]

Bruce, sorry to report but the link you mentioned seems to have gone dead. I don't doubt the info about half the missiles were launched outside of it's parameters. Some pilots used the tactic of launching a missile, sometimes out of envelope, when within visual range of a MIG to try to get his attention and draw him into a gunfight scenario. The AIM-4F/G missile used on the F-106 was based on the earlier AIM4A/C/D. However, the only common parts were some fasteners (screws). All other hardware was of a newer design. The guidance principals were the same but with refined processing. A salvo of two was standard on the F-106 with a better Pk than a salvo of three on the F-102.

[@spiritofattack]

Jim -- I liked and trusted the AIM-4F and AIM-4G. Is there anywhere we can find the official PK of these missiles from all our firings from the F-106? BTW - I saved the link as a web archive. I have just converted it to a PDF and will try to upload it here: /Users/brucegordon/Personal.Data/Spirit of Attack/16-06 Falcom missile.pdf

[@spiritofattack]

MrRadioshoppe I would be very interested in further comments about the AIM-4 series of missiles. I was told that the AIM-9 had a long high boost phase during which it could not guide, but the AIM-4 had a very short high unguided boost before the sustainer rocket took over. This allowed the AIM-4G to guide on much closer targets. I killed a target drone at very close range. Comments?

[@Dacman767]

Brilliant video. Fascinating. Thanks a bunch!

[@spiritofattack]

+Dacman767 The many comments on this video have made me think out the aerodynamics and tactics in detail. I now think that ALTITUDE is the key. The F-106 had a light wing loading, so it could out-turn any other fighter at high altitude. We also had far better radar than anyone else, and radar is best at high altitudes where there is no ground clutter. At low altitudes, the air is dense and even stubby wings like the F-104 have plenty of lift. At low altitudes, ground clutter reduced the effectiveness of the F-106 radar. My battle with the F-104s was at medium altitudes, about 20,000 feet. Most of the air battles of Vietnam were at low altitude, below 10,000 feet. The F-106 was king of the high altitude skies, but should not give battle at low altitudes.

[@BenTLH]

I've always thought that the F-106 was one of the best ever fighters produced and your video seems to vindicate that statement. I've been a fan of the "SIX" since I first saw one delivered to the 95th FIS back in 1959 when they were stationed at Andrews AFB, Maryland. Your videos have brought back fond memories. Question: Do you think that with upgrades in avionics, engine and weaponry that the F-106 would be a viable fighter aircraft today??? Thanks! For sharing these marvelous videos with us all.

[@spiritofattack]

Pointeman1 Good question, Pointerman! The Six already had a gun and a new canopy. New radar and radar warning receivers would make it king of the skies above 30,000 feet. However, it does not have jamming, and it is not stealthy, so it could not penetrate current highly-defended airspace. The Six would have to be in a defensive role. It could be a defensive interceptor today, at a much lower cost than buying new F-35s. It could defend against current Russian bombers. However, the new F-22 and F-35 can beat anything, including the Six. The new MiG-29 could probably beat the Six, even with modifications. So the answer is no, the F-106 would no longer be a viable first-line fighter. I hate to admit it, because I loved the Six so much -- but its time has past.

[@paulgrignot6432]

Pointeman1 I totally agree; i had the privilege of flying the Six for over 20+ years. 13 on active duty and 7+ in the Drone program as the six was given a VIKINGS death. On Active Duty, I flew many ACM (Air combat Missions ) . Against most Navy types including the F-14, F-4, A-4, F-8 etc etc. & most Airforce A/C F-15, F-16, F-4E. Even some British fighters. I found that properly flown the Six could handle most. The biggest or should i say the toughest fight was with the A-4F it had better than 1 to 1 thrust and could turn with the SIX.. The F-15, & 16 in a dogfight was superior. Our main limitation was our Missles, The Gun was exceptional & i had the honor of Being the Lead IP in checking out the Squadron IP's (2 at a time when deployed to Tyndall AFB, FL). The sixes engine the J-75 was tough reliable and fuel efficient. the F-4's J-79 was a newer really good engine even more efficient BUT it took Two of them and that shot the Efficiency down.. Sadly, after the six became a Drone A/C it was given modifications to carry Chaff and Flares and counter ECM Pods and sidewinders (the sidewinder by being modified to carry the ACMI Pod). As the chief Test pilot in the drone program for out seven years of fly that great A/C the Six, i can verify even in late 1990's she was able to Do MACH 2 and turn with the best. As you may know most engine work on Single engine Jet fighter requires an FCF (Functional check FLight) and at Tyndall there was a special area set up for these so we did not Sonic BOOM the folks below or the Fishing / pleasure boaters in the Gulf of Mexico... I had the opportunity to fly the F-4 as well and she was a great A/C in her own right but she was not an F-106. I have over 3000 hours in the Six and a little over 800 in the F-4 and was blessed to be Dual current for about a year and a half in both. BOTH have there strong areas and both have there weak areas but in comparison the six was a sports car and the Rhino (F-4) was a SUV. In the end i finished with over 6900 fighter hours in my 20 year Air Force career and 21 years in my Drone program career. My first Drone was the F-100 and clean she was a joy to fly; did leave me down once with Engine hard failure on T/O. She was a big F-86 and without a bomb load was perky and quick. Not really surpersonic except for a short time and very limited but she could turn well but not long. Underpowered wth the J-57. Paul G.

[@spiritofattack]

Paul Grignot Wow! What a career, Paul! I want to hear more from you. Recently I have begun to consider that the F-106 was a high-altitude bird, and could out-perform almost anything between 35,000 and 50'000 feet. However, in Vietnam the fighting was usually below 10,000 feet. I never flew the F-106 in high performance maneuvers at low altitude, and don't know how it would perform against the competition at low altitude. Ideas?

[@BenTLH]

Paul Grignot Grignot. I salute both you and Bruce. I would've given just about anything to have flown the F-106. I understand that when the SIX was used in the adversary role many times it came out the winner against newer aircraft. Happy Ladings to you both.

[@topsecret1837]

+Bruce Gordon Well, I'd say the performance of the missiles would also vary on the air pressure and the quality. You were flying at high altitude, where the air would be very low in pressure, therefore the AIM-4 missiles would've had a better time tracking the targets, In Vietnam, it would have been quite hot and humid at low altitudes, so the AIM-4s used by phantoms would be less effective due to the moderate amount of IR masking. Regardless, Even if the F-106 has internal weapon storage; a stealth technology on its own, it would have a hard time locking MIGs. I'd say if the sidewinder and the falcon were compared side by side, in the same conditions, I'd agree with you, although the AIM 9 was probably more cost-effective.

[@newrunner91]

Very informative. Love those century generation planes, they were beautiful. Subscribed

[@spiritofattack]

Sorry that this video about the F-104 and F-106 starts with a photo of the F-4. I'd have to re-do the entire video to put an F-104 in the beginning. KZbin is hard to manage. I try to respond to all comments, but I think some get lost. I also put these videos on Facebook / Spirit of Attack.

[@sfounta541]

Love your stories Bruce!!! Thank you! :-)!!!

[@joetorsney]

This is amazing. Thanks for sharing ;)

[@pascalchauvet4230]

What a highly interesting video!!! Thank you very much for that.

[@obfuscated3090]

Got pr know of any GOOD audio recordings of a 106 hitting burner? The hot streak ignition was unforgettable. (I didn't get to wrench any Century series, just Bronco, Phantom and F-16s but 106 visits were memorable.)

[@spiritofattack]

Ob Fuscated (I like the name!) Sorry, I don't have any recordings. Yes, the noise was memorable! What was really impressive was to be in a wingman position, lined up for a night takeoff. The leader releases his brakes from right beside you, rolls just a few feet ahead, and lights his burner! The noise rattles your teeth, but the flame from the afterburner is huge at night from so close!

[@joemd7775]

Hello Bruce, I am a lifelong fan of the F-106. I would like to get your opinion of the F-106's IRST. What was its typical range against a fighter sized target or even bomber sized? Could you use the IRST in conjunction with your Falcon missiles for an intercept? I love your youtube page, it has to be one of the most informative out there. Thank you for all the superb videos.

[@spiritofattack]

Joe d777 - The range of IR is like asking "how far can you see?". It depends on many things - I'll attach a link to a discussion. Specifically to the F-106, our system was cooled by liquid nitrogen to the 3.5 micron range - this was a big improvement over the earlier non-cooled systems like the original Sidewinder. By cooling the seeker, we avoided much of the natural IR and got less background IR. However, it was a physical scan by a small "telescope" which was like looking through a soda straw - and it didn't give range information. Radar was my primary attack mode. IR provided a dot that went across the scope and gave a blip if it detected IR -- it was not a photo of the target. I never looked for a target more than 20 miles away. The real advantage of IR was to use it if your radar was malfunctioning or if you received ECM. Yes, I did use the IR with my Falcon missiles to actually shoot down a drone target over the Gulf of Mexico. My radar malfunctioned on a live fire mission and I had a live Falcon AIM-4G IR missile loaded. I could detect the drone with my radar, but could not lock on. I used the radar to swing into a trail position on the drone, then used the IR to lock on and track. When radar showed me close enough (the drone was so small I didn't see it) I pulled the trigger. The computer opened the missile bay door, extended the missile, with the missile seeker pointed directly at the target. The computer fired the missile, which hit the drone solidly and detonated. The drone blew up and was closer than I thought, so I actually flew through the explosion fireball. I was fortunate to get only a few scratches on my F-106 paint from the drone debris. The bottom line to answer your question: IR was a backup to radar, and was linked by computer with the missiles.

[@spiritofattack]

joe d777 Here is the video about IR: facebook.com/SpiritofAttack/videos/1656708384401639/?v=1656708384401639

[@spiritofattack]

I this is the KZbin link:

[@fidelquintela7128]

Neat story. My father was stationed at Griffiss Air Force base in upstate NY during the early to late 80's. It was a SAC base with B-52 and KC-135's but also had a squadron of 106's. I loved the odd flat sides of the fuselage that met at the top like a triangle and the delta wing. I always wondered about it's flight characteristics...any literature at that time touted the manueverability of the F-15 & F16. I could never find anything about the sixes.

[@spiritofattack]

I understand that the F-106 could outmaneuver both the F-15 and F-16 at higher altitudes. There was a proposal to upgrade the F-106 with a completely modernized radar system, possibly a new engine -- it would have been the best interceptor and fighter in the US inventory. However, it could not drop bombs. With the end of the Cold War, there is less need for specialized interceptors to protect the US homeland. There was only a limited amount of money in the budget, and the F-106 upgrade was cut so the money could be used on the F-15. Similarly, right now, the A-10 Warthog is being cut to give money for the F-35 multi-role fighter. The A-10 is clearly the best attack plane, but we have gone to multi-role planes which can do all jobs, but can't do any of them to perfection.

[@EmmEff3168]

Bruce Gordon Just discovered your informative videos - keep up the great work! IMO Not upgrading the F-106 was a good idea, even though I worked for Hughes Aircraft (mfr of the MA-1 FCS, AIM-4 Falcon and the F-15 / F-18 radars. Most of the non-radar 'black boxes', displays and controls would have to be replaced and integrated with a new radar and different missiles - not a cheap, simple or short project. The airframe would have be completely stripped down and strengthened for longer life and more sustained G's. The Six was a great combo of airframe and engine for the time, but it had to come to a close. Too bad most were destroyed as drone targets. Mike

[@spiritofattack]

Fidel Quintela Thank your for your perspective, Fidel. You are probably correct. Technology changes, and our needs change. The USAF needed long-rang fighter bombers, and the F-15 provided. As for maneuverability, the new Russian aircraft are more maneuverable than any of ours. We have bet that advanced electronics and stealth are more important than maneuverability, and I believe that is the correct bet for the future.

[@spiritofattack]

Em Eff I agree. The time had come to move on. The F-106 was king of the sky for its day, but nobody realized it until late in its life. It was designed to attack bombers, and nobody even considered the possibility of encountering fighters until the 1962 Cuban crisis. We did not start even basic air-to-air maneuvering until about 1967. The delta wing was great, but now we know a canard wing up front, a gun, and completely new radar and computers would have been great -- but that would have been a new aircraft!

[@rbilleaud]

An interesting debate would be who's the better dogfighter against the MiG-21 between the F-106 and F-8 Crusader. Navy pilots are pretty much unanimous that the F-8 was the best dogfighter in Vietnam, but I don't know how you would compare those two vastly dissimilar aircraft.

[@spiritofattack]

Bob Billeaud - What scenario are your thinking about? Above 20,000 feet, especially in poor weather, and I'd take the F-106. Below 20,000 feet, and especially below 10,000 feet, the Crusader would be better. The difference is the F-106's superior radar. However, in those days we did not have the look-down, shoot-down that fighters had today, so the F-106s radar was not as effective at low altitude. The MiG-21 did not have significant radar at all (even the later models), so they would have been at a big disadvantage against the F-106 at higher altitude.

[@touristguy87]

Rob Billeaud the problem was that dogfighting and supersonic missile combat are two very different things

[@MrLuvOldies]

Thank you,Bruce.

[@istemihanvarisli]

Turkish resume/ Türkçe özet: "Vietnam Savaşının tam ortasıydı. F-4'lerimiz, Kuzey Vietnam'ın Mig-21'leri karşısında cidden zor anlar yaşamaktaydı. Pilotlarımız da radarlarımız da daha iyiydi ama muharebe zafer/kayıp oranımız 1'e 1 idi. Albay John Boyd "enerji-manevra imkan formülü" geliştirdi ve bu bir süper bilgisayara yüklendi. Hangi savaş uçağı, hangi savaş uçağını manevra konusunda alt edebilir... diye hesaplama yapıldı. Görüldü ki Mig-21, manevra yapmakta F-4'den hemen hemen her irtifa ve her sür'atte daha üstündü. Peki, Amerikan Hava Kuvvetlerinin hangi uçağı, manevra açısından Mig-21'e denk ya da üstün diye soruldu. Bilgisayar: "F-106" dedi. 106 pilotları hava muharebe manevraları eğitiminden geçirildiler. Sonra da bizi tatbikata yolladılar. Kuzey Vietnam'a bir hava saldırısı benzetimi yapacaktık. Sahilden ve yüksek sür'atle gelecek ve iç kısımdaki hedefe yönelecektik. 2 tane F-101, alçak irtifadan ve olabildiğince yüksek sür'atle girdi. F-105'lerin benzetimini yapıyorlardı. 4 tane F-106 yüksekte kalıp onlara koruma sağlıyordu. Mig-21'lerin benzetimini de 4 tane F-104 yapmaktaydı. Ve bize saldırılarını radar kontrollü olarak icra edeceklerdi. Bizim ise radardan ikaz alma imkanımız olmayacaktı. 104'ler peydahlandığında arkamızdan ve ses üstü sür'atle yaklaşıyor olacaklardı. Ses altı uçuşta uçağın ağırlık merkezi ortada, kaldırma merkezi onun az gerisindedir. Emniyet içindir bu tasarım. Sorun yaşarsanız, uçağın burnu kendiliğinden aşağı çöksün ve uçak da sür'at kazansın diye. Fakat ses üstü uçuşta kaldırma merkezi daha geriye kayar ve burnun daha ağır bastığı bir uçuş karakteri yaratır. Bu da manevra yapmayı zorlaştırır. F-106'nın kendi bilgisayarı, ses üstü uçuşta koşan uçağın gövde yakıt yükünü, deponun arka kompartımanına pompalar ki ağırlık merkezi geriye, kaldırma merkezine yanaşacak şekilde kaysın, manevrası kolaylaşsın. Diğer çok az uçakta bu özellik vardır. Yani ses üstü uçuşta onun manevra yeteneğiyle kapışamazlardı. 104'ler ses üstü sür'atle yetiştiler ve hava angajmanı başladı. Sola burgulu keskin dönüş yaptım. 104 tutunamadı ve önüme geçti. Benden sıyrılmak için derhal daldı. Gaz kolunu tam takât ard yakıcıya itip, peşinden ben de daldım. Mach 1 nokta 1, nokta 2-3-4 derken o hâlâ benden uzaklaşıyordu. Radarıma baktım. Saatte 280 km artı sür'atle benden uzaklaşıyordu. Çok sür'atliydi be! Radar kilidi atmıştım ama o kadar ilerimdeydi ki artık göz temasım yoktu bile. Sonra radarım bana onun tırmandığını ve hatta üstümden aşarak tırmandığını gösterdi. Yarım lup atarak tekrar muharebeye girmek istiyordu. Lövyeyi çektim. Onu nişangâha oturttum, tetiği çektim. 1 adet F-104 hakladım. F-104 hayret verici şekilde sür'atliydi. Fakat bir F-106'nın radarını, bilgisayarını, füzelerini ve saldırı kararlılığını alt edemedi." (Bruce Gordon)

[@spiritofattack]

Paul- as for WHY the F-104 did an Immelmann is open for discussion. We were in a high supersonic 20 degree dive. He was about 5 miles ahead of me, and I could not see him, only had radar lock-on. He was running out of altitude and had plenty of excess energy. He probably did not know that I was still behind him. The Immelmann used his excess energy to reverse his turn and get back into the main battle, which was around 20,000 feet. It would have been a good maneuver if I had not been radar locked on and got him toward the top of his Immelmann.

[@xyossiy]

Hi! from Japan,Mr,Gordon. Thank for the interesting info about F106. I like this fighter, because its figure is simple but the VERY jet fighter equipped with highly advanced intercept system. Japan had many F104 for JSDF, I know Grumman F11F Super Tiger was nominated for air defense. F104 is very fast, but I hear its speed is the only advantage. For political reasons, F104 was chosen .For my part, I think Grumman Super Tiger is best interceptor to Japan in those days, though my parents ran away from F6F in WW2. :)

[@spiritofattack]

+xyossiy Hello, xyossiy! Yes, the F6F Hellcat was the "Zero killer" of WW II. The Zero was the best fighter as WW II began, and our Buffalo and Wildcat fighters were outclassed by the Zero. Japan seemed to think that the Bushido spirit would overcome all obstacles, and was slow to give oxygen to its pilots -- and without oxygen, your eyesight is not as sharp and you don't think as fast -- Bushido or not, pilots need oxygen above 10,000 feet. The Zero also could not roll as fast as American planes, especially a roll to the right. The F6F finally had a powerful engine, and .50 caliber guns (instead of .30 caliber) had extra hitting power. While America kept improving its fighters with more power and armament, Japan did not upgrade the Zero much during the war. The Zero started the war as the best fighter, but by the end of the war it was outclassed. If you have more information, I would like to hear it.

[@xyossiy]

+Bruce Gordon -san,Thanks for the cordial reply. My parents are quite old,upper 85 years old.Whenever they talk about WW2, they always say the beautiful formation flight of B29s sparkling their silver bodies high in the sky ,and the F6Fs firing six 13mm canons to the ground,destroying everything perfectly.Yes,it was the victory war of U.S.A.No more ZEROSs at that time. They also say there were few fighters available to intercept any U.S fighters. Time passed and now USA and Japan are very important friends together. JSDF will buy F35 --this is nice.

[@spiritofattack]

+xyossiy History has shown that those beautiful formations of B-29s often MISSED their targets by long distances. The great formations of B-17s over Germany MISSED their targets -- so "precision bombing" was volume, not accuracy. About 50% of our bombs WERE MORE THAN 5 MILES FROM THEIR TARGETS! In Vietnam, we could only hit targets if we went in low -- where we were hit by anti-aircraft fire. Now, precision weapons are worth every dollar we spend on them. I am glad Japan is buying the F-35, because its technology is far advanced over current fighters. The F-35 is very expensive, but it will be worth it in the long run. America is not getting weaker, but the rest of the world is getting stronger. America needs Japan as a reliable ally!

[@xyossiy]

+Bruce Gordon -san,many thanks for the further info. >America needs Japan as a reliable ally! I entirely agree with you. Especially China and North Korea we have to watch out and disturb their absurd ambitions.

[@jameshay7247]

Sir- you are expert at the Century Series but you underestimate the Wildcat. It always had four .50s (later some had six, but four was plenty against zeros and bettys). Stronger airframe than a zero, armor protection for the pilot, self-sealing gas tanks. Zero had much better range and climb, but could not dive. Development of both fighters during the war about equal. In short, much like F-86 vs. Mig-15. Mig-15 deadly in the hands of an ace, F-86 far more forgiving. About equal...pilot quality more important.

[@aceshigh6499]

How effective were the AIM-4 missiles in air combat maneuvering as compared to the AIM-9s? I had read that F-4s fitted with AIM-4s in Vietnam did not have the same success when compared to the AIM-9. I often wondered why the F106s were never retro-fitted with AIM9s? Thanks.

[@spiritofattack]

Flyn Bryan The problem was with the F-4s in Vietnam, not the AIM-4 missile. When fired by the F-106, the AIM-4 had a PK (probability of Kill) of about .95. It was capable of maneuvering at closer range than the AIM-9. The F-106 had the MA-1 computer system which prepared and fired the missile at the optimum time to achieve a kill -- the F-4 did not have such a system. The F-106 carried its missiles inside the aircraft, protected from the weather, while the F-4 carried its missiles externally right through thunderstorms or whatever. The AIM-4G (infrared) had a cooled missile seeker head, which was better at detecting the heat from jet exhaust and discriminating against natural IR sources, such as clouds. I conclude that the AIM-4 was the best missile, but the F-4 didn't have the system to fire it correctly.

[@aceshigh6499]

Bruce Gordon Thank you Mr Gordon!

[@spiritofattack]

Flyn Bryan The AIM-9 Sidewinder had a 15% PK in Vietnam. The F-106 never fired an AIM-4 in anger, so there is no data. The MA-1 missile system was very good, and had a lot of back-up features which I personally used in live fire on the range -- without planning on using backup systems. The AIM-4 had a 95% PK when fired by the F-106. Twice, when I fired, the conditions were not optimum, but the missiles killed the target. The stories are complex, so I'll cover each one separately:

[@spiritofattack]

Bruce Gordon First was my BOMARC kill, described in one of my videos. The BOMARC target missile was coming at me at Mach 3.8, nearly 2,000 knots, 55,000 feet. I had one AIM-4G infrared missile. Shooting an IR missile on the front is questionable because there was no hot tailpipe, but at that speed aerodynamic heating of the BOMARC should make the missile hot enough to track in infrared. I was #2 attacking, with my leader about ten miles ahead of me. He could not lock on to the BOMARC with his radar, so did not fire, but he did not break away sharply as planned. I locked on, but the range safety officer could not clear me to fire until my leader was safely out of the way, so I could not arm my missile early, as I wanted. With the BOMARC coming at me at 2,000 miles per hour, every split second mattered. At the last second, Range Safety cleared me to fire. I threw on the arming switch and pulled the trigger. The MA-1 computer went into "Time Compression" mode, preparing and firing the missile in less than optimum time. The missile bay doors opened, the missiles extended and fired, all in very quick succession. My steering dot was not centered, so my aim was not perfect. The AIM-4G missile can maneuver at much shorter range than the AIM-9 Sidewinder, guiding about a half second after launch. The missile made a quick correction and hit the BOMARC's left ramjet engine, blowing off the BOMARC's left wing. The exploding BOMARC rolled left, diving, and nearly hit me, moving so fast that I could not react. In this example, the MA-1 system coped with an extremely high closure rate and "Time Compression" made it fire very quickly, the missile guided for a very brief time before hitting the BOMARC. Successful mission - I doubt if a Sidewinder would have hit the target under those conditions.

[@spiritofattack]

Bruce Gordon Second was the MACE kill, where my wingman shot down a MACE cruise missile (see video). After the MACE was destroyed, I was directed to a backup target, a Firebee drone. My search radar picked up the drone, but I had a computer malfunction and could not lock on to the target by radar. I switched to the F-106's infrared tracking system and went into an IR attack mode. Without radar range, I was guessing at my distance from the target. I guessed wrong. The Firebee drone was so small that I was very close when I fired, but the close-in maneuvering of the AIM-4G IR missiles enabled them to guide and blow up the target right in front of me. I was so close that I almost flew through the fireball, and had paint scraped off my aircraft by pieces of the Firebee. The Sidewinder would not have made that kill, because its boost motor does not allow it to guide until it's farther from the launch aircraft.

[@wkat950]

In a dogfight would the Falcon or the Sidewinder work better, given the 106's MA-1 system? I've heard that the Falcon was designed for bomber interception which is less demanding.

[@spiritofattack]

The Falcon got a bad rap when it was used on the F-4, which did not have the MA-1 system. I have had Sidewinder training in the F-100, so I know how it works, too. I would much rather have the Falcon, with the MA-1 system, than the Sidewinder. The Falcon had a cooled seeker head, which helped eliminate lots of false targets from the natural environment -- the Sidewinder did not have a cooled head at that time. The Falcon had bigger fins and went slower then the Sidewinder, so it was able to turn sharply and could be used much closer than the Sidewinder. The public view of the Sidewinder is far too rosy -- the Sidewinder had only about a 12% probability of kill in Vietnam. We never fired the Falcon in war, but had a number of very good tests. I never saw a Falcon miss, when fired from an F-106. I personally shot down a BOMARC missile, coming at me at Mach 3.8 on the front, with a Falcon; I don't think the Sidewinder would have had a chance. The best test is described in my video "MACE Kill". Look at that to see an excellent test of the Falcon.

[@Gromitdog1]

Cool story. How did it count as a win? Just fire with a solid tone or was there some sort of other probability factored in also?

[@spiritofattack]

+Gromitdog1 We had cameras which recorded our scope with the attack and firing signals. Not as good as the cameras they have now, but reasonably good. For more data, we carried "WSEMS", "Weapons System Evaluator Missiles" that were an inert missile body with recorders instead of a warhead. They would record the missile preparation and launch signals, and record whether the missile, when extended on rails from our missile bay, actually "saw" the target and would have tracked on it.

[@MrLuvOldies]

Bruce,is your book "Spirit of Attack" still available directly from you?

[@spiritofattack]

+jay capp Yes, Jay. I bought a couple of hundred myself, which I sell at presentations. I enjoy going to various places to give talks on topics like the "Air War - Vietnam" and "Stealth and the F-35". My "Spirit of Attack book sells for $31 on Amazon, but its only $23 (including mailing) if you send a check to me: Bruce Gordon, 105 Broadbill Ct., Georgetown KY 40324. Be sure to include a good address to mail the book to! You can also use my PayPal account: [e-mail], which is also my e-mail address.

[@mitchellkaye9619]

Its great to hear an analysis like this from someone who actually has the experience and expertise. I have 2 questions. How did the F106 perform at subsonic airspeeds and how did it compare w the Mirage 3j, a contemporary delta as a dogfighter.

[@spiritofattack]

Mitchell kaye -- The F-106 performed best at just below the speed of sound, at the higher altitudes. Most of our engagements were subsonic, and this video of the F-104 battle was one of the very few supersonic engagements we had. My turning battles against all other aircraft than the F-104 were subsonic. The F-106 never fought the Mirage, but both had delta wings. The F-106 had a wing loading of 52 pounds/sq ft, and the Mirage III had 56.4 pounds/sq ft., so the critical wing loading was very similar. I would expect that their subsonic turns would be very similar. The F-106 had much more power with afterburner than the Mirage. Mirage had 13,700 lbs thrust, the F-106 had 24,500 lbs. The F-106 also had much better radar and missiles. Especially at high altitudes, I would bet on the F-106.

[@spiritofattack]

Michael kaye - The F-106 was king of the high altitude sky, where its power, light wing loading, and excellent radar out it ahead of anything else at the time. At low altitudes (below 15,000 feet) ground clutter degraded the radar. The F-106 that I flew did not have a gun, so when it was not good at low-altitude fighting. Below 15,000 feet, the Mirage would have been better.

[@shepd1]

Amazing planes. As a youngster, I built those models. As a young man, I served in the USAF and the 106's were still in use in some units (25th NORAD), with the 104's used (there) by the RCAF. Thanks for the wonderful story.

[@spiritofattack]

Sheprd1 - I'm working on a new video of the P-38 attack on the Ploesti oil refineries in WW II. It will be up in a couple of days...

[@spiritofattack]

+John S John -- I am writing about my own experiences, and telling the stories of the veterans that I have talked to at reunions. As an American fighter pilot, I never flew foreign airplanes, and foreign fighter pilots don't come to our reunions. I care about foreign airplanes, but I don't have any personal experiences that I can write about. If I wrote about foreign airplanes, I would be telling stories where I had no experience -- like so many authors today.

[@5sapaches25]

It is true that the F-106 has played in a role of Mig-21 in combat exercises along with F-5 and A-4, but lets not forget about the F-8 Crusaders which is similar like Mig-21 since it can out turn & out dog fight the Mig-21. In fact, Vietnamese air force avoided conflict with F-8 as well as F-104. Quick notes here, Vietnemes’ Mig-21 has 2:1 ratio in combat and yes, they used AA-2 Atoll missiles and successfully shot down US warplanes over the sky in Vietnam. Who ever told you that they didn’t used missiles in air combat is full of crap. Rather AA-2 atolls are good or not, it has succeeded in killing ratio. Before anyone start talking about how poor the russian missiles are, US air to air missiles weren’t that great too. The F-4 may have trouble with Mig-21, but it has a greater averaged over the Mig-21 and that is to out climb the Mig-21.

[@michaelsnyder3871]

The F-104C/G Starfighter was not a "dogfighter". It was a short range point defense fighter and low level medium range high speed nuclear delivery strike aircraft. One look at the thrust to weight ratio and wing loading will tell you this. It was armed with the 20mm M61 internally mounted and four AIM-9 Sidewinders. The F-4C/D was a multi-role fighter with BVR missiles and no gun, though it could carry an external pod with an M61 and ammo inside. The pod was not fully aligned and stabilized under the fuselage, so was less accurate than an internal cannon. The problem it faced over Vietnam was the "rules of engagement" that prevented the F-4 from using its primary air weapon, the AIM-7 Sparrow. USAF F-4Cs were initially wired for AIM-4D Falcons in place of AIM-9D Sidewinders. It also lacked an integral cannon. F-4Ds could out-maneuver MiG-21PFs at high altitude and trans-sonic or supersonic speeds. The lower the altitude and speed the better the MiG-21PF became. The F-106 was designed as a medium range all-weather interceptor, its primary mission, the destruction of Soviet high-altitude supersonic long range bombers attacking the continental US. Just as it went into production, the US found out there was no large fleet of Soviet long-range supersonic bombers. There was a couple hundred sub-sonic Tu-95s. This resulted in the F-106 buy being reduced by two-thirds and the cancellation of the F-108 and the Canadian CF-105 Arrow as neither aircraft had the flexibility to cover other missions. The F-106 would attack Soviet bombers with the AIR-2A nuclear armed rocket and AIM-4 and AIM-26 air to air missiles. It didn't have a gun. At normal combat weights, the F-106 had a slight edge on the F-4D in wing loading and thrust to weight ratio. It also had a better thrust-weight ratio and wing-loading to the MiG-21PF and Mirage IIIC. The problem was missiles. The AIR-2A was useless in air to air combat, as were both the IR and SARH versions of the AIM-4 and AIM-26. The problems with these missiles was that they were designed to destroy Soviet bombers. They had unitary warheads and impact delay fusing and were not very maneuverable. The SARH AIM-7 was not more maneuverable than the AIM-4 or AIM-26, but it had longer range and a proximity fuse allied to a fragmentation warhead which could severely damage Soviet bombers and destroy Soviet fighters. The IR guided AIM-9 was slower than an AIM-4 or AIM-26 but more maneuverable and had a proximity fuse with multi-rod warhead. If a pilot could get the AIM-9D into its flight and guidance envelope, a hit was highly probable. The AIM-7 could take out opposing fighters BVR by surprise, but failed as a "dog-fighting" missile though some kills using the missile essential as a high velocity rocket at close range were achieved. The AIM-4D proved worthless as a "dogfight" missile. Despite the performance of the F-106, it simply didn't have the weapons to engage in close combat until a mod package put the M61 cannon in a pod in place of the AIR-2, but this didn't happen until the Vietnam War was almost over. As far as other aircraft, the F-100D had four 20mm M39 cannon and four Sidewinders and could engage a MiG-21 with a reasonable chance of success but its primary mission was close support because the USAF neglected to build an aircraft that could perform that mission between 1953 and 1965. The F-101A was supposed to be a long range escort fighter, but morphed into the nuclear strike F-101C, which still could carry AIM-4s and had four 20mm cannon, but only slightly better wing-loading than the F-104. The F-102A was less capable early version of the F-106. The F-105D was really a single seat light bomber that could carry AIM-9s and had a 20mm M61 integral. It got a number of kills when NVAF pilots forgot this little piece of data and just flew in front of a F-105. Otherwise the F-105 had the worst thrust-weight ratio and wing-loading of the "Century" fighters. Going over to the Navy, the F-8A-D were progressively better short-medium range interceptors (better radars) with good performance, four Mk.12 cannon (not as good as M39, equal to the M24A1) and four Sidewinders. The F-8E even had a CW impulse radar and could have used SARH missiles and was the only F-8 with multi-role capability. The MiG-21PF was armed with reasonably effective (for 1968-72) AA-2 copies of the AIM-9B and a 23mm or 30mm cannon. Several concurrent programs addressed these issues. The F-4D was re-wired for AIM-9s and then received an integral cannon in the F-4E, which also received combat slats in its wings (which were backfitted to selected F-4Ds), which gave it superior maneuverability over the MiG-21 at low altitude and low speeds. The AIM-9 saw continuous improvement widening the engagement envelope to eventually include all-aspect guidance, something the Soviet versions didn't match for a decade. A "dogfight" version of the AIM-7F was produced but really fell between two stools and the AIM-9 was preferred. The AIM-4F "dogfight" falcon was produced, which seriously increased the engagement envelope, but retained the impact fuse which made it less effective than the AIM-9 with the same performance. Given the F-106A's radar and performance, it would have made a really serious "dogfighter" if properly armed, say redesigning the weapons bay for AIM-7s and providing weapons pylons for AIM-9s or extensions on the fuel pylons next to the supersonic tanks. But initially the F-106A was integral to Homeland Defense, the primary mission of the armed forces and there weren't enough numbers, or funds to run a mod program in the late 1960s. With upgrades, it would have been a serious air superiority fighter until the F-15 came along. But between the Vietnam Conflict sucking procurement, R&D and operations funding and then the post-Vietnam malaise in defense funding, it never happened. As it was, the Italians eventually gave the F-104 a better radar and Sparrow or Aspide missiles making it a competent, short range all-weather interceptor. Had Lockheedbeen able to find funding to get a larger wing on the F-104, it might have been adapted for other roles, but the original wing limited the F-104 to fast climbing interceptor and rock-like stability at near supersonic speeds close to the ground. As far as F-104 losses in the Luftwaffe, despite the blathering of anglophile writers claiming the HP fueled S.R. 153 (boom, not supersonic but decomposing HP) was a better choice, it was a failure in their training program after the introduction of a complex aircraft during a time of force structure transition. Other operators like the Italians and Canadians and Japanese did not suffer the Luftwaffe's loss rates.

[@spiritofattack]

Michael Snyder -- Your long comment is very good in most respects, but I completely disagree with you on the AIM-4 missiles for the F-106. I flew the F-106 for years and fired the AIM-4s on a number of occasions, and heard reports and statistics from others, and the AIM-4F and AIM-4G were very reliable, accurate, and seldom missed their targets. The impact fuze was not a problem because the missiles always impacted their targets. They were more maneuverable at close range than the AIM-7 or AIM-9, as I can personally attest when I shot down a Firebee drone target from very much inside the minimum launch envelope. I fired that close due to my own error, using IR tracking without radar input, and didn't know I was so close to the target. The AIM-4G impacted the drone and blew it up in a ball of fire and I was forced to fly through the ball of fire -- luckily only getting a few scrapes on my wings from debris. I considered the AIM-4G very reliable and a very good close-in weapon, although we needed a way to get an automatic IR lock-on during a maneuvering dogfight. You also refer to the AIM-7F, which was not produced until about the time the F-106 was retired. You can't fairly compare the AIM-4F to missiles which were not operational at the same time. Also, the reason the Falcon missiles were so good for the F-106 while a failure in the F-4 was that the F-4 did not have the MA-1 commuter system of the F-106, which prepared and aimed our missiles. The problem was the F-4 itself, not the missile. I also think you under-rate the F-104, which I considered more maneuverable than you say, especially at low altitude. The F-106 had a wing loading of 52 pounds per sq ft, the F-4 had 78, the F-105 had 93 and the F-104 had 105. The high wing loadings gave good stability in high speed low altitude flight, but the low wing loading gave the F-106 the advantage at high altitudes. The F-106 was king of the high altitude skies, and I was personally able to out-turn F-4Cs at low altitude. Your good analysis in most of your comment impress me. What is your background?

[@f_nc]

thank you very much sharing this experience.

[@CrimeMinister1]

Wow i think it is incredible that little fuel flow technique. See, I play an aerospace simulator called Kerbal Space Program in my free time sometimes. I had known about keeping the center of lift behind but close to the center of mass was a thing, but when my aircraft would become unstable when they were low on fuel (which happened most of the time) I would transfer the remaining fuel to different parts of my craft to make up for the change in the center of gravity. I thought this was more or less "cheating"... I didn't know there were aircraft that actually did this! The f-106 is slowly becoming my favorite historic fighter...

[@eurybaric]

The SR-71 Blackbird does something exactly how you do it in KSP. And It's actually the pilot that can command the fuel transfer from the back to the front and vice versa using two switches, with a needle showing him his CG.

[@spiritofattack]

joebro8bit - In large aircraft, crewmen frequently transfer fuel to adjust for different conditions, but most fighters do it automatically. We sometimes get in trouble if fuel transfer does not happen as expected. We lost an F-106 off the east coast of Korea because of fuel transfer problems. Our pilot was scrambled on an active mission against a Russian aircraft off the coast of South Korea. In the excitement of chasing the Russian, our pilot did not check the fuel gauges to see that the fuel was transferring as designed. It wasn't. No fuel was coming from his right wing at all. By the time he noticed this, he had used almost all the fuel in his left wing. He turned back immediately, but ran out of fuel while still over the Sea of Japan. He had to eject, and was picked up OK. The primary cause of the accident was a bad fuel pump; the secondary cause was pilot error, in that he failed to check his fuel tanks frequently, as he is supposed to do. Mechanical things can fail -- and so can pilots.

[@joshuathomas8529]

On-line sources say that the F106 preformed poorly in the air to air role in Vietnam can you collaborate this? I have also read that the reason was because the F106 was never equipped with any missiles other than the falcons is this also true?

[@spiritofattack]

No, it is not true. The F-106 was never tried in Vietnam. There was nothing wrong with the Falcon missiles - the problem was that the F-4 Phantoms did not have the computer system to prepare the missiles properly. True, the F-106 was wrong for Vietnam because the F-106 was a high altitude fighter and Vietnam was a low altitude air war. The F-106 did not have missile warning radar which was needed over North Vietnam.

[@spiritofattack]

A big problem in Vietnam was that MiGs would not fight unless they were trying to stop a bombing strike. The famous time when Robin Olds's F-4s destroyed 7 MiGs was part of an elaborate trick to make the MiGs think they were attacking bomb-laden F-105s. The MiGs would not come up to flight just to defend airspace. So, the F-106 could have flown patrols over North Vietnam at high altitude and the MiGs would not have challenged us. To fight MiGs, we would have had to go low, and our advantage of powerful radar would have been useless at low altitude. The Vietnam tactical situation was not a good place to use a high-altitude fighter.

[@spiritofattack]

@@dukeford8893 Robin Olds was an old dogfight pilot who didn’t like radar and computers. He didn’t adapt to new technology well. I blame him for the Falcon’s bad reputation. I read his book and he refused to listen to technical advice. He refused to adapt his tactics to work with new technology. He always blames others for being stupid while HE was wrong.

[@spiritofattack]

@@dukeford8893 I don't have anything good to say about Robin Olds and his refusal to adapt to new technology. He had an amazing personality, but I think I could have done better than Robin Olds with the Falcon. He was a great leader and tactician, but he wasn't good with technology. He frequency said that the tech reps and people from the testing services are all wrong, but HE was the one who was wrong.

[@lawrence4449]

My father RCAF F/L Clifford J. Henry, ( Hank to his friends), is probably the best fighter pilot alive I know of he is 93. He flew with Jim Kasler, Chuck Yeager and many other well known fighter pilots, mostly in Europe, America, Canada, GB and Lybiya. He began in WW2 when he flew prop fighters in Europe, of which his favourite was the Corsair. Then he transitioned into the Canadair Sabre MK 6 in which he set gunnery air-to-air records in Europe. (see Guynemer/NATO fighter competition) He loved the Sabre and was invincible in the fighter. He possessed incredible long range eyesight, a mathematical calculating mind and a hunters upbringing as a boy. His wingmates preferred to fly with him as lead since he generally saw the enemy long before they saw him, this was before radar, and this allowed him to maneuver to the best vector for the dogfight. The Sabre with it's Fowler flaps was a very tight turning dogfighter and Dad used this to his advantage. In 1961 he returned from Europe to train at Nellis as a CF-104 instructor, and then based at Cold Lake Air Base in Alberta Canada. The wide open skies of the north Canadian Prairies allowed unlimited use of the 104s power and speed and the aircraft soon became a favourite of my fathers. He referred to it as a Lamborghini of the air, never as a Widowmaker, in spite of landing one without wheels and one without hydraulic flight controls. As a tactical dogfighter Dad was very aware of the pros and cons of the CF-104, and as he said you always play to your strengths. In this case he would use the terrific speed of the 104 in a slashing attack and evade strike when dogfighting. He would never "hang around" to mix it up with other aircraft as he did with the Sabre, due to it's great tight turning capabilities, but he would disappear only to come slashing in again on his foe. I don't think he was ever beaten, now do I think his foes knew what hit them. He always said it was the fight in the man that counted most.

[@spiritofattack]

Liliana - Your father sounds like a great fighter pilot! Lots of experience. Yes, the F-104 was a great fighter, and the losses suffered by the Germans seem to be related to the way they trained and flew the plane, not due to the plane itself. No other country suffered losses like the Germans. I read that the German pilot were mostly former East Germans, who had little respect for the detailed training programs that we used in the West. That may have explained their high loss rate.

[@joemd7775]

Hello Bruce, I read in a book that the MA-1 fire control radar of the F-106 had a search range of approximately 25 miles vs fighter sized targets. Does this figure sound correct to you? And was it pulse only? Also, do you remember when it was upgraded from Tubes to Solid-State? Thanks again for all the wonderful information on the greatest Century Series Jet, the F-106 Delta Dart!

[@spiritofattack]

You are correct in the performance of the MA-1 fire control radar , although contact range varies with RCS of the target. Yes, it was a pulse radar, except during home-on-jam. Nobody had Doppler radar at that time. We upgraded from tubes to solid state about late 1966. I usually used my 20-mile scope because I didn’t need to go to longer range.

[@MrLuvOldies]

Bruce,thanks for your Great Stories and Information.Mmmmmmmm

[@F22raptor46]

I have a question, is it true that down on the deck the hydraulically boosted controls of the F-4 made it so maneuverable. it could out maneuver not only the Mig-21 but also the 17 in certain such aspects.

[@spiritofattack]

+Stormsquad Yes, you're basically correct, adding one element: high speed. The Russians did not give the full hydraulic controls to their planes that we had. At low altitudes at high speeds, the air loads on the flight controls were so high that the MiG flight controls were almost frozen, immovable. Our planes had full hydraulic controls which could work much better under those high air loads. That was shown in the HAVE DONUT reports, but we fighter pilots weren't told about it -- the CIA was involved, and I guess it was too secret for mere fighter pilots to be told about the enemy vulnerabilities!

[@F22raptor46]

+Bruce Gordon Hmm wow, that is a very good analogy. One more question, did the F-104 have a flight envelope above 50,000 ft or something where it can easily outmaneuver other planes? BTW are you a pilot??

[@spiritofattack]

+Stormsquad Yes, I flew the F-86, F-100, F-102, F-106, and back seat of an F-4. I was an instructor in Aerial Combat Tactics for the F-106 and flew 132 combat missions in Vietnam. No, the F-104 had such small wings that it could not turn well above 50,000 feet, where the air is very thin. We never did air combat maneuvering above 50,000 feet, although the F-106 shot down several BOMARC targets at 65,000 feet.

[@F22raptor46]

+Bruce Gordon Hmm, also how good was the F-104 at turning, I know it was pathetic, but what was the best it could perform and at what altitude? And also, is this article true? www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/f-100-versus-mig-17-the-air-battle-nobody-told-you-about/

[@spiritofattack]

+Stormsquad The F-104 was not "pathetic" at turning. Below 40,000 and at moderate to high speeds it could hold its own with anyone, and it had a good gun. The HAVE DONUT tests showed that the MiG-17 and MiG-21 had control problems at high speeds, above 535 knots and were uncontrollable above 590 knots. Your link to the F-100 story says that the F-100 was in a dive after the MiG-17 and was about 580 knots. The F-100 barely pulled out, and I'll bet the MiG-17 was unable to pull out and dove into the ocean!

[@saburusakai]

Wow, great story, love these combat tales you have. Remind me of some my old friend Col. Cordle told me about his 3 tours over Nam, one in 104As. Pretty much the same thing. The 104 was a total mis-interpretation of what Korea vets told Kelly Johnson I think. I gotta get to your facebook page.

[@Leptospirosi]

+saburu sakai Actually not: the problem was that the Korea veterans asked for speed and more speed, and they didn't realize at the time that they could not comfortably keep up with that speed in combat, the need to keep that speed would create problems with turn radius, necessity of staying on a given loitering zone and ability to actually hit the enemy. Reading the flight manual of both the F-4 and the F-104 you can see that, above mach 1.1 and F-104 can draw circles around the F-4 AND the Mig-21, indicating that Kelly Johnson actually hit the spot perfectly. The problem was that, once they got the plane they had been asking for, the pilots realized that, after all, the would prefer to go slower, allowing their reflexes to better cope with the air combat mechanics. Another problem for the F-104 was that very few nation (if any) could afford to regularly train their pilot into supersonic dogfight: very few military pilot ever fly above mach 1 except for some dash to get to the intended interception point, which totally screwed the reason itself for the F-104 to exist as a dogfighter. The only plane superior to the F-104 in supersonic flight, was to some extent the F-106A, which in fact was never really saw as a true "dogfighter" and ended up as the Point defence interceptor (even if it regularly outclassed the F-4 in mock up combat.) Last but not least, the development of highly manoeuvrable AA missiles, able to out turn anything man piloted ruined the whole idea of supersonic combat, because the more the speed, the more the advantage was for the missile, but that came only with Vietnam, Indo_Pakistani and Yom Kippur experience and the development of more advanced AA weapons.

[@spiritofattack]

+Leptospirosi Well said! I know that, as an F-106 pilot with Mach 2 capability, I preferred to stay subsonic except for dash. Our high-threat speed was .95 Mach at 43,000 feet because we conserved fuel, could turn very sharply, yet could accelerate supersonic quickly. That is what we were doing when engaging these F-104s. The one attacking me was high supersonic and he could not match my subsonic turn. After I was on his tail, I could accelerate with radar lock-on and there was no way that he could get away. I now see ALTITUDE as a key that is seldom mentioned. The light wing loading of the F-106 was most beneficial at high altitudes, but at very low altitudes (below 5,000 feet, as in Vietnam) everyone was subsonic and the dense air made wing loading less important. At high altitudes, I preferred to concentrate on my excellent radar scope and win with a "hit and run" attack without having to match turns with the MiGs.

[@pedroelmont7593]

+Leptospirosi Wow, thanx sir, I never heard it in that context. It's easy to forget the effects of different altitudes on performance.

[@spiritofattack]

+Pedro Elmont At low altitudes, the F-105 was the fastest plane in Vietnam. F-105s would leave their F-4 escorts behind. The very high wing loading of an F-105 was an advantage at low altitude. The F-105 was designed for low-altitude, high speed nuclear strike, which made it excellent for Vietnam. Staying low reduced exposure to SAM missiles and anti-aircraft. However, we loaded the F-105 with so much external ordnance that, on the run in to the target, it was slowed enough so the MiGs could catch it. When leaving the target, with wings clean, nothing could catch the F-105.

[@edwardpate6128]

An F-101 would do a poor job of imitating an F-105 at low altitude. That thing was a freaking rocket at low altitude!

[@spiritofattack]

You are correct - but this was the best we could do at the time. The RF-101 was used in Vietnam and was very fast at low altitude, although nothing could beat the F-105 when it was clean. However, a strike force of F-105s is loaded with bombs and is a lot slower than after they drop their bombs. The North Vietnamese would attack when the F-105s were inbound to the target. If they could get the F-105s to jettison their bombs to get speed to protect themselves, the North Vietnamese MiGs would have succeeded in stopping the attack.

[@Batmack]

Please bear with me, as I'm just an armchair expert, but after the 104 overtook the 106, should't it have pulled up and zoomed in that moment rather than running away and THEN pulling up?

[@spiritofattack]

Interesting thought. If he zoomed up, he would lose airspeed faster and be a radar & IR target against the open sky, which would be easier for me to track. He would out-zoom me, but I would be waiting for him when he came back down. If he tried just running away and THEN pulling up, I would have been able to lock on and track him through the zoom maneuver. If he zoomed IMMEDIATELY, the zoom points up a problem with the F-106 radar and IR, which scan horizontally and it would be hard to search for someone in the nearly vertical maneuver. Later, the F-106 added a "boresight" mode so t would search directly in front of me, even in the vertical. We didn't have the boresight mode at that time, so I would have had a hard time detecting him in a nearly vertical maneuver. If I did lock-on, my radar would track OK in the vertical environment, but the initial lock-on would have been very difficult. Maybe the zoom would have worked.... I would have had to keep my eyes on him until he came back down. He wouldn't be so vertical going down, so radar or IR detection wouldn't be so hard, but an initial vertical zoom - maybe into a loop - would have been very hard for me to follow! I could turn inside him at any point, but would be unable to lock-on until he came back down - so I might lose sight of him and he would get away... In reality, he just entered a shallow dive to increase speed, but in the shallow dive I was able to get radar lock-on and from then he was dead meat.

[@Batmack]

@@spiritofattack Thanks a lot for the reply, I was thinking about him going for a loop or some kind of high yo-yo then diving on you and trying their luck with the gun, after watching your video on Basic Fighter Tactics. I'm not sure if Sidewinders would have been an option for him in that situation.

[@spiritofattack]

@@Batmack I don't think the Sidewinder was an option for the F-104 at that time. The wing was solid, so running the wires was a problem. I think later models carried the Sidewinder, but these first F-104s relied on the gun alone. I believe the Sidewinder was an add-on later.

[@d.cypher2920]

hello sir, appreciate your thorough and concise explanation. thanks for sharing your unique knowledge.

[@RCAvhstape]

Bruce, when you were flying F-106s were you tied into the SAGE air defense system? I saw a display about SAGE in the Smithsonian American History Museum once a few years ago and did some reading up on it, it was very fascinating to see all that radar and early computer networking technology, and there are some cool documentary vids here on youtube. I understand that the interceptors of the day such as the F-102 and F-106 were actually data-linked into SAGE somehow so they could be vectored to targets and so forth. Did you use that system? Do you think you could do one of these videos talking about it and how it worked with the F-106?

[@spiritofattack]

Helium - yes, I flew under SAGE from 1965 to 1969. Now that you mention it, I did have a mission which showed both the vulnerabilities and the capabilities of the SAGE system. It could be made into a video, using the technology that I'm developing with my current video (F-102 vs U-2, out in maybe a week). I was flying an F-106 in Michigan under SAGE on a big exercise. SAGE sent my plane a data update, telling me to attack a certain target. It gave full data on the target. I turned to attack, and suddenly the SAGE computer failed. The controller said his system was down, and he said to break off the attack. I replied that I had all the data I needed, and took a "JUDY", which meant that I was taking over responsibility for the attack. My F-106 computer was able to estimate the path of the target from the data it had received. My F-106 computer gave me the steering information, and my good F-106 search radar picked up the target close to its calculated position. I locked on my attack radar and made a successful "Kill". The SAGE controller was thrilled to hear it -- my "kill" meant that they had passed the test and had killed all the targets entering our area!

[@RCAvhstape]

Thanks, that's a great story! I remember reading about the Soviet-style integrated air defense systems and how they were tested in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and that they had strengths and weaknesses, one being that Soviet doctrine didn't allow for as much freedom of action by the pilots as Western doctrine, though I don't know how much of that is propaganda. I always wondered how SAGE would stack up against those types of systems. I also have little knowledge of what replaced it and is in use today. Reports after the 9/11 attacks that F-16s had been scrambled from Andrews with no weapons and would've had to ram any targets they encountered sound pretty scary to me. I'm looking forward to your next video, I spent a couple hours listening to all your stories the other day.

[@spiritofattack]

Helium -- Glad you saw all my videos! The new one, "F-102 vs U-2" takes a recommendation from one of our readers. All my videos have been limited because I was told they had to be no more than five minutes long. Even when I went to seven minutes, I couldn't describe events in enough detail. This one will be maybe 12 minutes long but will show what the F-102 radar scope would have looked like on the attack against a U-2. I'm switching between radar scopes and my own image telling the story, as is needed to get the ideas across. I hope you enjoy it. It takes a lot of work, maybe I'll have it out next week.

[@RCAvhstape]

Bruce Gordon Absolutely!

[@GaryMCurran]

Helium, while this is two years late, not only could the SAGE ground station send you the encrypted data to the onboard computer, you could even turn control of the airplane via the autopilot over to SAGE and they would, for all intents and purposes, take the airplane and fly it to the target. That gave the pilot time to run the MA-1 Radar system, get the target, lock on and start tracking, at which time then airplane took back over. The control stick of the 6 was also interesting in that it came up and then looked like a 'U' because the radar controls were on the left side and you could control where the radar beam went, and then the right side was the control stick. So, SAGE and the autopilot flew the airplane while you worked the fire control solution, and once you got that, the airplane flew, and you shot.

[@spiritofattack]

The many comments on this post have surprised me with how LOW the strikes by F-4s into North Vietnam were. They talk about very high indicated airspeeds but at only low to moderate altitudes, such as 12,000 to 18,000 feet. The F-106 liked to cruise at more than twice that altitude -- between 35,000 and 43,000 feet, where cruise Mach rather than indicated airspeed was the limiting factor. The F-106s would cruise faster and with far better fuel economy than the strike force blasting through thick air at lower altitudes, and would have been out of effective AAA range (but not SAMs). However, at high altitudes the F-106 might not have been able to defend the strike force being attacked from even lower altitude MiGs "down in the weeds".

[@majgenglenn]

How do you feel about the F-16 Viper Gordon? Nice post as well!

[@spiritofattack]

Otis Vinson The F-16 was designed as a small, lightweight air-to-air fighter, but was never used in that role. It was loaded down with bombs instead. Many nations bought it because it was relatively cheap. As a small airplane, it had a small radar, one engine and a small wing. Loaded with bombs, it had short range. With a small wing, it couldn't carry many bombs, and couldn't fly high. It was never used as designed, and only marginal as a fighter-bomber.

[@jameshay7247]

The F-15 was not supposed to be a fighter-bomber either. The Air Force feared competition for the F-111, which they really needed in the 1970's as a medium range nuclear bomber in Europe. The F-15C was the first that could bomb...and that is it's main purpose nowadays. We hooked up our third-world allies pretty well post-war: P-51, then F-86, then F-5, then F-16. Good, well handling aircraft on a smooth learning curve. The evolution of the F-16 over the last forty years fits that pattern- simplicity to increased complexity, without outstripping the resources or ability of third-world countries to adapt. Just enough to always keep them ahead of their Soviet-equipped neighbors!

[@jameshay7247]

I think a small air force is better served by F-16 fighter/bombers instead of the mix of F-5s and A-4s they might of had in the 1970's. The US Navy went straight-up F/A-18s for similar reasons: vastly simplified maintence and parts reduction compared to maintaining multiple aircraft, the ability to field ALL of them as fighters, less type training for pilots, and simplified training for ground crews.

[@spiritofattack]

I recommend that all of you go to my Facebook / Spirit of Attack page, where I'm carrying on similar conversations. The Facebook format is better for longer or more complex conversations.

[@Altair9678]

Sorry Bruce, love to argue on design over actuality...sorry other way around, the f-104 would have as much help helping my dad in ground support as a ww-1 bi-plane dropping bombs. Now, REAL problem NOW, VA, sorry burecratic VA is NOT helping my dad & i'm frustrated.

[@spiritofattack]

Frederico - Nobody said the F-104 was supposed to give close air support, and your father's VA problems have nothing to do with aircraft maneuverability.

[@Altair9678]

No, but just saying as my dad as ground pounder he'd be more inclined to want to see a skyraider as opposed to a quick interceptor. As for the VA, thats just a current problem as oppose to the discussions of the past.

[@spiritofattack]

Frederico - ground defenses have become so sophisticated that a Skyraider (or an A-10) will not be able to survive over almost any battlefield. Shoulder launched missiles are common. The future lies in technology - staying a couple of miles away, using IR detection, and launching guided missiles. The F-35 is what we need for the future.

[@styvo51]

Very interesting comment given the press on the F-35 has been scathing at times (particularly here in Australia). Will it be worth the wait/cost? I guess you could say we can't afford not to have it... The F-35 is being touted as a generational improvement over the likes of the Super Hornets the RAAF are using now. Do you agree? Or is it more of an upgrade? Thanks very much for the vid post and all your comments, great to hear from an expert whose experience was not gained in an armchair!

[@pdqcarrera]

Interesting video. Son of a F-104 jock, I wish my dad was still alive to comment. Those F104 serial #'s seem familiar to me, I'll have to check if they're in my database.

[@spiritofattack]

+pdqcarrera We all admired the F-104 for its very high speed. It was a very dangerous aircraft to fly, and we called it a "widow maker". I expect that you know a lot about it, so I won't go into details but will praise your father as a man who flew the "fighter pilot's fighter".

[@spiritofattack]

Jorge -- one more thought. I think that the F-104's that I fought against carried fuel tanks on their wings, so they could not carry missiles. The F-104 had such short range that if it carried missiles instead of fuel tanks, and went supersonic, it was bingo fuel very quickly. See my Facebook.com/Soirit of Attack video "Bomarc Kill" where two F-104s were put against the same Bomarc that I was against. I was able to take off a half hour before intercept and loiter, waiting for the Bomarc launch. The F-104s had to take off only a minute or two before the Bomarc launch and accelerate in full afterburner while the Bomarc was launched from behind them, over their heads, and they tried to shoot Sidewinders at it before recovering with minimum fuel. The Sidewinders failed. I was loitering at 35,000 feet and turned to attack the Bomarc head-on, with a closure of about Mach 3.8, and shot it down with an AIM-4G IR missile. See my Facebook / Spirit of Attack "Bomarc Kill" video for details.

[@pedroelmont7593]

+Bruce Gordon What an amazing tale sir. Col Cordle complained of the short range of the 104s he flew, and some of the ways they had to cmpensate for that.

[@joemd7775]

+Bruce Gordon Hello Bruce, my name is Joe and I had the fortune of growing up next to an ANGB that flew the F-106 up until 1978 (granted I was very young at the time, but I do remember them), the F-4C/D until 1990, and the F-16 up until 2008. Even in the early 1980's I remember F-106's that would occasionally come down from K.I. Sawyer (the 87th FIS I believe). I always thought the Six had absolutely beautiful lines. And I probably drove all those Interceptor pilots crazy with all the questions I would ask them at air shows throughout the years. However, what you said about the F-106 not liking the fight at 20,000 ft and under, wasn't that because of the excessive elevon load at those altitudes? But above 20,000 ft she was truly a great performer. In any event I think most ACM took place generally from 25,000 ft and under. From what I remember of the early model Phantoms, the F-4C/D generally did not turn very well. Given equal pilots in a 1 v 1 engagement against the C/D Phantom, I would choose the F-106. However, the slatted F-4E greatly improved on turn performance. Back in 2000, a couple of F-4E/F's (20th FS at Holloman) flew into the base and trained with our F-16C Block 30's. And from what I remember, the slatted Phantom turned far better than the earlier F-4C/D models. So my question is: did you consider the slatted Phantom equal or better than the Six in a turning engagement or BFM dogfight in general? I also years ago talked to an ex Naval Aviator who actually flew (non slatted/ early model) F-4B's against College Dart F-106's back before the Navy's TOPGUN program was instituted. And he told me that the F-106 had a very good first turn, but that the high drag build up of the delta wing cause energy bleed off there after; and that Navy Phantom pilots would prefer to fight the F-106 in the vertical rather than horizontal. Does that inference seem correct to you? Finally, I think the Six was far and away the best Century Series Jet in terms of performance. She was finally retired in 1988, while the earlier Century Series aircraft were phased out many years before. We are fortunate enough to have one at our air museum (we also have a F-102). Those delta's were absolutely beautiful!!!! You know the saying "if it looks right, it flies right". I also intend on purchasing your book. Thank you for your service to our country and keep up the good work with your memoirs as an ADC F-106 pilot. I feel very fortunate to have come across your youtube page. Once again, thank you for all the superb information-

[@spiritofattack]

+joe d777 Yes, I think the F-4E finally was able to turn with or better than the F-106, but that E model was not around in the 1960's and early 1970s. I was flying against F-4C's and F-4D's. There was no money to upgrade the F-106. A conceptual design added a canard wing in front, an upgraded engine, and new avionics, but there was no money available. You've got to count the F-106 against the F-4's that were flying at the same time period.

[@RockerWasRight]

Did you ever tangle tails with a F-4J or F-8G?

[@RockerWasRight]

Yes, I know the G model was a recon bird BUT it was cleaner so most likely more elusive.

[@dalesharpy9197]

I was born on Tyndell AFB in 1960. Dad was stationed there before he transitioned to the Six from the Sabre Dog.

[@spiritofattack]

Ah - an Air Force Brat! I went to Tyndall to transition from the F-102 to the F-106 in 1965. At that time, there was a paper mill nearby that smelled badly -- as a kid, you might remember it!

[@SpypilotSR-71]

Why was the F-102 and F-106 was left on the sidelines throughout most of the Vietnam, if it was better a better dogfighter than the F-4? Was the F-106 ever fitted with the AIM-7 or AIM-9?

[@spiritofattack]

Rob Mackay - There weren't enough F-106s to go around - they were needed for their primary mission of defending the USA against bombers. There were thousands of F-4s, but only 350 F-106s. A few actually got to Vietnam, but didn't do much activity. We used them in Korea. As for the AIM-7 or AIM-9, the F-106 didn't need them. The AIM-4F and AIM-4G, fired from the F-106 using our computer system, were much better missiles than the AIM-7 or AIM-9. The problems that the F-4 had with the AIM-4 were because it was an earlier version of the AIM-4 and the F-4 did not have the computer system to handle the missile properly.

[@SpypilotSR-71]

Wow! Thank you

[@Archie2c]

Reminds Me Of a Story I Came Across a While Back An Air National Guard Unit Was Activated to Do Target Tow Duties in their F-86's For F-4E Crews Going To Vietnam after Several Runs During the Day a F-86 Pilot Jumped the F-4 Pilot for a Dogfight the Sabre Being Smaller More Maneuverable easily got to Firing Position all the Phantom Could Do Was Poor on the Coal and Head For Home even Before Red Flag Veteran Pilots Were mixing it up with Young Pilots who didn't know Better

[@spiritofattack]

Archie2c That sounds correct, Archie2c. The natural tendency for a fighter pilot is to try to turn with the enemy. All the MiGs could out-turn the F-4, and the 1 to 1 kill ratio of MiGs and F-4's is nothing to be proud of.

[@Quadrant14]

Thanks Bruce

[@spiritofattack]

Peter -- The MiG-21 was a high altitude fighter, and we mostly engaged them at high altitude. The MiG-21 could reach Mach 2, equal to our top fighters. So, at high altitude the problem WAS "after the merge". The MiG-17 and MiG-19 could not match us at high Mach numbers, but at lower altitudes nobody could reach the high Mach numbers. At lower altitudes, the MiG-17 and MiG-19 could match us in speed and out-turn us. I like your description of the MiG-19 staying low and then using its very fast rate of climb to come up from behind. We had a song, "There's snakes in the weeds in Banana Valley". They would stay on the far side of a mountain ridge, hidden from radar, and then zoom up from below and behind when we passed over the mountain ridge.

[@actisac]

Bruce Gordon MiG-21's in Vietnam were flown by selected Ace pilots of VPAF as the Vietnamese Bulk were MiG-17's and some MiG-19 Squadrons. Also some of them were flown by Members of the Soviet PVO (Anti-Air Defense forces) and the PLAAF (who also flew Chengdu F-7/J-7's aka Chinese MiG-21's). MiG-21's most lesser known success came with the Indian Air-Force during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war which claimed Pakistani Air force's following "Splash" tally:- 1) 4 F-104 Star-fighter's 2) 2 Shenyang F-6 (Chinese version of the MiG-19 "Farmer") 3) 1 North American F-86 Sabre 4) 1 Lockheed C-130 Hercules. Also the Airborne Radar Aircraft Tu-126 "Moss" AWACS planes crewed by the Soviets ensured the Indian Air Force's total Air Dominance in and around the west Pakistan theater of operations despite the fact that US provided Sidewinder equipped F-86 Sabres (Mostly AIM-9B's) and F-104's. The last known kill by the Indian MiG-21 was in August 1999 when a Pakistan Navy Brequet Atlantique Maritime Aircraft after it intentionally strayed inside Indian Airspace. India still operates MiG-21's however majority of them are the last advanced Bison upgrades. However it's obsolete and plagued by crashes (Because of it's old Airframe). It is now replaced by Russo-Indian Su-30 MKI's and Locally produced LCA Tejas.

[@actisac]

Bruce Gordon MiG-21's in Vietnam were flown by selected Ace pilots of VPAF as the Vietnamese Bulk were MiG-17's and some MiG-19 Squadrons. Also some of them were flown by Members of the Soviet PVO (Anti-Air Defense forces) and the PLAAF (who also flew Chengdu F-7/J-7's aka Chinese MiG-21's). MiG-21's most lesser known success came with the Indian Air-Force during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war which claimed Pakistani Air force's following "Splash" tally:- 1) 4 F-104 Star-fighter's 2) 2 Shenyang F-6 (Chinese version of the MiG-19 "Farmer") 3) 1 North American F-86 Sabre 4) 1 Lockheed C-130 Hercules. Also the Airborne Radar Aircraft Tu-126 "Moss" AWACS planes crewed by the Soviets ensured the Indian Air Force's total Air Dominance in and around the west Pakistan theater of operations despite the fact that US provided Sidewinder equipped F-86 Sabres (Mostly AIM-9B's) and F-104's. The last known kill by the Indian MiG-21 was in August 1999 when a Pakistan Navy Brequet Atlantique Maritime Aircraft after it intentionally strayed inside Indian Airspace. India still operates MiG-21's however majority of them are the last advanced Bison upgrades. However it's obsolete and plagued by crashes (Because of it's old Airframe). It is now replaced by Russo-Indian Su-30 MKI's and Locally produced LCA Tejas.

[@spiritofattack]

actisac Always remember that claims of "kills" from ALL air forces should be taken with skepticism. In real war, the results are confusing and each country puts out claims that are questionable. Some posts to this page make wild claims for North Vietnamese MiGs, but they are no more (probably less) credible than USAF claims. Take them all with "a grain of salt".

[@actisac]

Fortunately The claims made by the Indians during the 1971 war are True they did shoot down. I confirmed that. 4 F-104 Star-fighter's (8 by other Indian Aircrafts including Hawker Hunters, Folland Gnats and Sukhoi Su-7's), 1 Shenyang F-6, 1 North American F-86 Sabre (Around 10 F-86's were shot down by Folland Gnat Fighters which the Indians Called "Sabre Slayers") and 1 C-130 Hercules Transport Aircraft. Also The Brequet Atlantic Incident was also true in which a pair of MiG-21s intercepted and destroyed the Pakistan navy plane.

[@spiritofattack]

actisac How do you know the Indian claims are true? Were they confirmed by the Pakistanis? I doubt it. What did the Pakistanis claim? I don't know the details, but I highly doubt the claims of either side. When I bombed in Vietnam, I seldom could tell if I hit the target. When I lost my friends in combat, I seldom knew just what caused them to crash. One of my friends came back to tell that he was shot down by anti-aircraft fire, but I don't believe him -- I think he got too close to the target and was hit by the shrapnel of his own bombs. I went through bombing school with him and I know he frequently violated the safety rules and got too close to the target. I wouldn't believe the Indian claims any more than Pakistani claims -- unless they happen to agree, which is very unlikely.

[@danthedewman1]

Great story...How was the 104 pulling away when the top speeds of both aircraft are about 1500 mph?

[@spiritofattack]

danthedewman1 - air battle is almost never done at the top speed of the aircraft, so top speed is almost irrelevant. In this case, I started the battle with my F-106 at Mach .93, lit burner and made a maximum turn, rolling out at about Mach .85. The F-104 was probably attacking at about Mach 1.2, and accelerated after my turn threw him off target. Now we start the race with him accelerating from Mach 1.2 to about Mach 1.5, and I start my acceleration from Mach .85 to about Mach 1.5. Neither one of us would ever reach Mach 2 at that altitude -- starting about 20,000 feet and dropping to about 10,000 feet. So he started out going much faster than me, and he probably accelerated faster, too. Top speed Mach 2.0 is usually reached at about 40,000 feet, and neither of us could go much faster than Mach 1.5 at 10,000 feet. Forget top speed for combat -- nobody ever uses it. The fastest I ever took my F-106 to, on a simulated attack, was Mach 1.8 at about 35,000 feet. A MiG-21 could barely go supersonic at 10,000 feet, and could not maneuver at that speed. I expect that simulator games completely overlook the problems of thicker air at lower altitudes, leading people to think of top speed as something really important. It isn't.

[@danthedewman1]

Awesome ....thanks for sharing

[@spiritofattack]

danthedewman1 - The irrelevance of top speed is important when you consider the F-35 stealth fighter. It has a top speed of Mach 1.6. This is probably a limit caused by its lack of variable engine intake ramps, which control engine intake shock waves in supersonic flight to provide subsonic air flow to the engine compressor (engines can't swallow supersonic air). The F-106 had variable ramps to allow it to get to Mach 2. However, variable ramps are large, heavy metal objects with high radar cross section. Also, above Mach 1.6 airframe heating causes the airplane to glow in infrared spectrum. By limiting top speed to Mach 1.6, the F-35 does not need variable ramps and avoids the airframe heating, making it stealthier in both the radar and IR spectrums. We don't need top speed above Mach 1.6 anyway - stealth is more important. Note - the top speed of Mach 1.6 is a design criteria. The engine of the F-35 is powerful enough to take it beyond Mach 2, but we do not know the speed at which the shock wave would hit the engine turbines. The F-35 intake design was taken from the F-16C, and future flight tests are likely to find that the F-35 can go above Mach 1.6. If it does, it will still heat up and be visible in the IR spectrum, so it may well stay below Mach 1.6 even if tests show it could go faster.

[@DanielCPhillips]

I can hear audio, but not see video...?

[@spiritofattack]

+Daniel Phillips Check your system. This has been online for over a year and you're the first person who can't see the video. It sounds like it didn't load properly -- try going out and coming back in fresh.

[@shadowgunner69]

+Paul Grignot Good to see your name here. We exchanged emails a number of years ago regarding the Six Gun project. I am still at the Air Museum taking care of 590086. Back in 2013 Bob Archibald passed away; I believe he is known as "father of the Six Gun". Unfortunately, I never had a chance to chat with him often enough. He gave a great presentation on the Six at our Night At the Museum event. RIP Bob

[@spiritofattack]

+shadowgunner69 Bob -- A year ago I tried to get my book put into the AF Museum bookstore, but couldn't even find someone to talk to. Could you give me a contact name & e-mail I could write to? Bruce

[@shadowgunner69]

@@spiritofattack My humble apologies Bruce. I never got a notification that you replied. I am not at he AF Museum. I am at Pacific Coast Air Museum in Santa Rosa, California. I have no contact for you at AF Museum. You and I share being on the F-106 FB group. I crew F-106 590086 (former 87FIS bird) and also docent. Always happy to hear your talks and insights about the Six, Jim.

[@spiritofattack]

@@shadowgunner69 Glad to hear from you again. I haven't been to the Pacific Coast Air Museum - the Six Gun came just too late for my career....

[@MajDogMeat]

The Six still the fastest and the best!

[@carlosszr]

Great video! thx

[@nickmitsialis]

The 1 to 1 kill ratio was later in Rolling Thunder and in Linebacker; the experienced pilots under Robin Olds didn't have as much as a problem with the "21", probably because these pilots were experienced 'fighter jocks'. By late 67/early 68 (IF the Marshal Michell book is correct) the brass at the airforce said 'all pilots' must do a tour in fighters (SAC; Tankers; Transport whatever)==it was what Ed Rasimus called 'Pilots flying fighters' rather than 'fighter pilots': they simply didn't have the mindset and experiece to cope. To top that off, the same brass decided that 'air to air combat training was too dangerous' so they cut back on the hours dedicated to the craft. So pilots who are not ready OR trained being stuck in an F4 and sent over Route Pack 6 and expected to survive. On top of that, the MiG jockeys hit on "THE" tactic: ground control guided to the rear of a strike package, afterburn up to attack position, then one fast pass, fire the missiles and bug out. MiG21s were hard to see and didn't have a smokey engine, so by the time you DID see 'em, they were probably already in range to fire their atoll missiles. and break away.

[@spiritofattack]

Good comment. Some people have concluded that the MiG-21 was better than our fighters, and that guns were best. The Vietnam War was the early years of missiles, and our problems with them have been corrected. The MiG-21 had no radar (to speak of) and had such short range that it was unable to attack even our closest bases. It was point defense weapon only. That's why it was similar to the F-104, although the Europeans (especially the Germans) loades up the F-104 with external tanks and bombs and tried to use it for a purpose for which it was never intended. In this video, I fought the F-104 in its design role -- as a point defense fight4er.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

Did the USAF at the time of this exercise not understand that a Northrup F-5 or T-38 was a excellent MiG-21 simulator?

[@spiritofattack]

Andrew - neither the F-5 or the T-38 could reach the high speeds of the F-104. They were used as MiG-21 simulators because they are readily available and cheap. The F-104 was better than either of them. Our exercise was designed so the air battle would be supersonic, where the F-5 and T-38 were weak. The F-104 has got a lot of bad press that is not deserved. The F-104 was a dammed good fighter, and the fastest thing I'd ever seen.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

But the problem with the MiG-21s was dog fighting them, not missile duels. The vast majority of the engagements were subsonic, and the F-104 could not turn in the kinds of circles the MiG-21 could.

[@spiritofattack]

Andrew - You are right. The vast majority of engagements were subsonic. The battle in my video was designed to be a supersonic battle, so it was not an example of Vietnam battles. The HAVE DONUT tests with a real MiG-21 showed that the MiG-21 had a major weakness, it could not maneuver well at high supersonic speeds. In fact, the MiG-21 was hard to maneuver at 535 KIAS (Knots Indicated Air Speed), and was uncontrollable over about 585 KIAS. Our F-106 had been tested to 720 KIAS and could maneuver, although I never got it above about 650 KIAS personally. The indications are that at high airspeeds, the F-106 could outmaneuver the MiG-21 and outrun them, easily. "In speed, there is life", we said. We were better at high speeds than the MiG-21. This video shows how such a high-speed battle might evolve. My problem was that the F-104 was dammed good at high speeds!

[@fivizzano]

Thanks Gordon. Nevertheless the F104 was probably not the best choice for NATO at lest for the very poor manouvrability compared to the MiG21. Maybe the best mix would have been a Corsair / F8 or similar for ground attack and then a smaller set of F104 , what do you think ?

[@spiritofattack]

The F-104 was faster than the MiG-21, especially at low levels, and could probably turn sharper at high speeds. The MiG-21 maneuvers were quite limited at high speed, so the F-104 could engage or disengage at will. My main complaint about the F-104 was its short range. Neither the F-104 or the F-8 carried a heavy bomb load. The fact is that air-to-air maneuverability was NOT the key requirement in Vietnam. The MiGs would usually not engage fighter on fighter. They preferred to attack the bomber strike force. That's one reason why the F-106 was not good for Vietnam -- it didn't carry bombs, and it liked to fly high and fast -- while the Vietnam war was about strike forces going in low, where the F-106 did not have an advantage. Even our F-105 had to go in low and subsonic because of the weight of its bomb load. I hated the F-4, but it still was probably the best plane because it carried bombs, had good range, and could take care of itself in a dogfight.

[@spiritofattack]

For NATO, the F-104 was probably the best choice. The primary mission in NATO was nuclear attack at low level, not dogfighting. An F-104 carrying a nuke at low level would be almost impossible for a MiG-21 to intercept. Air to air maneuverability is NOT the most important factor. Most enemy planes would be destroyed on the ground, not in the air.

[@johns.7609]

Great story, thank you for sharing