Talk:Convair F-106 Delta Dart

Aim-26 missile

The F-106, (and F-101B), were never designed, developed or operated with the nuclear Falcon missile. The F-102 was the ONLY service aircraft to be modified to carry and operate with the Aim-26.

For reference see 'Nuclear Armament', by Thomas W. Ray, a now unclassified Atomic Energy Act document, circa 1954. 2601:440:8681:310:24FE:BDCD:7F88:DB17 (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your source is unverifiable without more detail, and as a 1954 source, cannot be used as a definitive reference for armament that didn't make its first flight until 1956 and didn't enter service until 1959.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish google it.. you'll find it..I did

the F-106 was developed around the 1954 time frame..

do your own research 🤔 2601:440:8681:310:24FE:BDCD:7F88:DB17 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Please read our policy on the burden of proof, especially the statement in bold type that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". This is a longstanding community policy here and we are all stuck with it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I've checked the sources that are used in the Specs section (i.e. Quest for Performance and Bill Yenne's Convair Deltas) and I can't find any reference to the AIM-26/GAR-11 being carried in either reference - this was added to the specs here in 2010 without a new reference, although it was already cited to a different reference in the body of the article (which also doesn't talk about the AIM-26 being carried by the F-106. Chuck Hansen's Swords of Armageddon Volume I (Hansen, Chuck (2007). Swords of Armageddon: Volume I: The Development of U.S. Nuclear Weapons" (2nd ed.). Sunnyvale, California: Chukelea Publications. ISBN 978-0-9791915-1-0. states on Page VI-58 that "...between 1959 and 1960, the GAR-11 was considered for use with F-101b and F-106A aircraft ...the idea was discarded, among other reasons, because of excessive conversion costs". It also mentions a potential nuclear armed version of the GAR-3 which was rejected in 1959. So it doesn't look likely that Falcons with nuclear warheads were carried by the F-106 (although they probably were planned for unbuilt versions like the F-106C or E. This does bring out the importance in making sure that additions are properly cited.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah thanks for that - some definitive information!! I think based on that we can remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ahunt yeah, thanks to me for bringing it up originally and to Nigel for checking it out..😏 2601:440:8681:310:D03D:B1D0:ADA5:DBB3 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is all collaboration here. We usually get these sorts of issues fixed between all of us here, although it often takes some back-and-forth to get there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources

U.S. Air Force Project Rand Research Memorandum The Century Series Fighters: A Study in Research and Development L. L. Johnson RM 2549 May 20th, 1960

ADC Historical Study NO. 20 Nuclear Armament It's Acquisition, Control and Application to Manned Interceptors 1951-1963 by Thomas W. Ray unclassified document Atomic Energy Act 1954 2601:440:8681:310:D03D:B1D0:ADA5:DBB3 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So what? Where are these found? ?- Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, you might find it helpful to read WP:CITE to help you understand what information you need to include, and how to do so. Once you have got that together, you don't need to post it here, just add it to the article with the source properly cited (hint: you put the correctly-formatted citation between <ref>...</ref> tags). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Area rule

The article states that the F-106 differs from the F-102, among other reasons, the "...application of the area rule to the fuselageshaping...". Fact is the F-102 (aside from the 2 prototypes) also made use of the area rule. I propose this phrase be deleted. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)