Drag is pretty low actually, the engine is just pitifully bad. In skeptical that its realistic as i dont see why they wouldve put a dual thrust motor on a missiles with an already anemic booster
1 Like
But unless I’m reading something wrong, according to this it should still be better than 9B at every altitude. And be at least a side grade to the other Vietnam era sidewinders.
Frame looks metal to me. You can see wires coming from the nose fuse.
They also had a kitchen sink bomb.
The 106 never had any capability to drop bombs. Period. The ADC never had any use for bombs, Convair did not fit it with any equipment for doing so as this plane was EXCLUSIVELY for the ADC.
Completely fictional.
2 Likes
yeah ive found that the drag for the missiles are pretty low compared to other missiles
The biggest issue is that the missile only makes it to about mach 1.5 and then has the usual drop off but bc it starts so low it barely goes anywhere
It also pulls more which causes it to bleed speed faster, something it barely has
So its a good missile if theyre very close otherwise it doesnt have the speed to go anywhere.
ive no idea why these are called “Super” falcons when theyre arguably the worst
Indeed my mistake, still non-flammable.
Ironic given its not a nose fuse and the wires are irrelevant as all AN and MK series bombs used at the time were booster activated fuses, none had any electronics onboard.
Your fuse.
Ok and?
It had the ability to release stores from it’s outboard pylons, stores that used standardized US ord mounts, as already stated, more realistic than the Yak-141 having any weapons.
Ok and? We’ve already gone over this, per gaijin, doctrine does not restrict weapons options for vehicles.
Yet the mounts adhere to MIL-A-8591G, which, allows for the carriage of any NATO ord equipped with the standard MIL-A-8591G interface, which just so happens to be the likes of MERs, MK8X bombs and so on.
And the Swiss F/A-18s were exclusively purchased without the acquisition of air to ground weapons as Switzerland was not going to use them in a air to ground role initially, but here we are with all of them mounting almost the same exact payloads as their US counterparts, or better, so once again, doctrine is irrelevant, or even the acquisition of said weapons by the nation per gaijin.
Man thats a cope and a half given the “joke” photo outright disproves this fully. Tell me, how do you think those MERs are attached to those drop tank mounts?
There are no supports below them, no means of keeping them on the plane bar welding them to the racks, or you know, locking them into the standardized mounting system you seem to think is fake.
Its just magic I guess, or you know, the fact that both fuel tank mounts in NATO and MER mounts both use the same exact lug mounting setup… oh wait they do.
Quite interesting I wonder if anything else within MIL-A-8591G happens to use the 30 inch lug rack carriage setup …
I will also add that MIL-A-8591G, F and H all sport distribution statement A as they have all been superseded by the current MIL-A-8591.
Reminder that the F-106 carried far more than just tanks on it’s outboard pylons, AIM-4s included, but of course, others have only written those off as the aircraft being a testbed … which our F-106 is.
5 Likes
I… do not like this missile (in War Thunder) thus far. It’s powered by a lawn mower engine.
Alright, so show me the control in the F-106 cockpit to drop bombs.
If I ever see F-106s carrying bombs in my lobby, I will slowly die inside every time and cringe hard.
5 Likes
I’d prefer the wing stations get their as tested AIM-4 carriage abilities, having 6 rather than 4 missiles would be very nice.
1 Like
Make it two Aim-26s which the F-106 did test as well and I’ll be onboard.
2 Likes
Doesn’t say bombs there.
1 Like
Doesn’t have to, thats the wing pylon release switch, it releases the 30 inch lug carriages on the wings and nothing more.
Such is visible in game with the existing tanks and, as already proven, the existing tanks sport the same MIL-A-8591G approved carriage that the MK84s and MERs also sport, meaning there is nothing stopping this button from releasing both from the wings.
Yes please! :D I’d love to have my american missile in the american tech tree without having to grind Germany (no shade towards Germany, i just don’t wanna grind all that for just one missile lol)
There is, that such would be a 100% fictional loadout.
And your proof of such being the case? You have done nothing but spin in circles avoiding the truth of the situation. I’ve already proven that the fuel tanks and the MK84 series and MERs sport the same MIL-A-8591G fittings which can be released from the aircraft just like the tanks already present in game and per Smin and gaijin, the only limiting factor of the aircraft getting a weapon is if it can employ it, which, through the use of the above shown button, is possible.
Thus, buy the standards set by Smin and Gaijin there is nothing stopping a F-106 from dropping live MER rack of bombs or a MK84 from it’s wing onto a target.
I have already seen two using guns on ground targets at the beginning of a match. I can only imagine how bad it would be if they gave it bombs.
A lot of crashing, I bet. As it would be able to only bomb like it’s a WW2 plane.
it will jetinson the pylons where the bombs are on as a whole and not drop the bombs
it would drop the whole bomb rack at once, making the tumble through the air and highly unlikely to hit the bomb fuzes, thus unable to detonate the bombs
6 Likes
My proof is that you won’t find a single 106 actually using or carrying any of these armaments that isn’t stationary and on the ground as a one-off “let’s prank the top brass guy that’s coming over”.
From the excellent site dedicated to it:
F-106A 59-0147 of the 48 FIS, Langley AFB, VA deployed to Osan AB, in Korea in Dec 1968 with 500lb bombs mounted under the wing as a joke to LTG Arthur Agan the ADC commander. This photo was taken using Frank Dutcher’s camera, which could have been taken by either Phil Stutz or Tom Clardy, not sure which, but we’ll give both credit for now.
1 Like