Wondering about the F-102...

[Bill McClain]

Having read the latest flap about the President's days flying in the
ANG, I wondered what flying the F-102 was like - that's what I'd ask
him if I met him. Back then, before redundant flight-control
computers made the human pilot a voting member of a committee, how
hard was it to control a delta-wing design like that? How did they
handle in low-speed regimes like air-to-air refueling and landing?

[Harley W. Daugherty]

"Bill McClain" > wrote in message
om...
> Having read the latest flap about the President's days flying in the
> ANG, I wondered what flying the F-102 was like - that's what I'd ask
> him if I met him. Back then, before redundant flight-control
> computers made the human pilot a voting member of a committee, how
> hard was it to control a delta-wing design like that? How did they
> handle in low-speed regimes like air-to-air refueling and landing?

From what I read and heard about the F-102, it was a royal bitch to handle.
Had a high stall speed and was a bit of a pig in the air. Also the mission
profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
In short it was not a easy plane to fly.

but then again this is what I have hear/read.

Harley W. Daugherty

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Harley W. Daugherty" > writes:
>
> "Bill McClain" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Having read the latest flap about the President's days flying in the
>> ANG, I wondered what flying the F-102 was like - that's what I'd ask
>> him if I met him. Back then, before redundant flight-control
>> computers made the human pilot a voting member of a committee, how
>> hard was it to control a delta-wing design like that? How did they
>> handle in low-speed regimes like air-to-air refueling and landing?
>
> From what I read and heard about the F-102, it was a royal bitch to handle.
> Had a high stall speed and was a bit of a pig in the air. Also the mission
> profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
> In short it was not a easy plane to fly.
>
> but then again this is what I have hear/read.

Hopefully Walt Bjorneby will pitch in - he actually flew them.
They were a bit before my time.
But - I've talked to a number of F-102 pilots, and read quite a bit of
PIREPS and technical documentation on the Deuce. Since it was the
first supersonic delta to fly, and had some aerodynamic issues to deal
with to deliver acceptable performance, the N.A.C.A. wrung it out
_very_ thoroughly, and most of those reports are available at either
the Dryden Technical Reports Server or the NACA Technical Reports
Server. Nobody seemed to dislike the handling very much, in fact.


The best summary that I can give is from a report submitted to the
Royal Aircraft Establishment by Roland Beamont, at that time the Chief
Test Pilot for English Electric. He flew a number of advanced
aircraft on several trips to the U.S., and reported on the U.S. state of
the art. The reports were published in "The Aeroplane" magazine in
1988-89, and were also included in his book _Testing the Early Jets_
Airlife, 1990. He flew F-102A 57-0866 on 25 June, 1958 at Palmdale.

For stability and control at Mach 0.95/42,000':
" Control and stability with pitch and yaw dampers 'IN', but no trim
servo, were satisfactory, but directional and lateral damping,
following rolling displacement, were not immediately dead-beat, with
noticeable adverse yaw." (That's not as bad as it sounds - the F-100
was much, much worse.)

For low speed handling:
" The lengthy Palmdale recovery pattern was entered with 2180 lb of
fuel, and during this phase it was possible to simulate instrument
recovery conditions. The stability and control response
characteristics of the aircraft with pitch and yaw dampers 'IN',
resulted in an aircraft that should present no problems in instrument
conditions. Control forces both in pitch and roll were felt to be on
the high side, but not to a critical extent.
Maneuverability in the landing configuration and at circuit speeds
was good, and the aircraft was well clear of its buffet boundary
when pulling up to 1.5 g at 200 kt onto the final turn.
The approach was perfectly simple to carry out at the recommended
speeds, and the hold-off and touchdown on the aiming point could be
made repeatedly and with accuracy. The lack of landing flap felt
strange on each occasion that this aircraft was flown; but it was
missed only as part of the normal sequence of cockpit operation, the
attitude in the approach configuration being quite normal and
unexaggerated without the deployment of flaps."

And his conclusion:
"A good standard of flight control has been achieved with artificial
stability, and both aircraft [F-102A and TF-102A] are good instrument
platforms, with all-weather clearance to local base weather minima.
They are well-liked by squadron pilots, but no information was
forthcoming on the reliability of the weapons systems."

"The Convair F-102 was felt to be a straightforward and well-developed
all-weather fighter which should give valuable service under extreme
weather conditions."

According the the Air Force Safety Center, the F-102A had a cumulative
Class A accident rate of 13.69/100,000 flight hours.

For context, here are the rates for aircraft in service at about the
same time:

F-84: 52.86
F-86: 44.18
F-89: 24.54
F-100: 21.22
F-101: 14.65
F-104: 30.63
F-105: 17.83
F-105: 9.47

So, as you can see, over its career, the F-102 was safer than all of
its contemporaries, other than the F-106 that was descended from it.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

"Harley W. Daugherty" wrote:

> "Bill McClain" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Having read the latest flap about the President's days flying in the
> > ANG, I wondered what flying the F-102 was like - that's what I'd ask
> > him if I met him. Back then, before redundant flight-control
> > computers made the human pilot a voting member of a committee, how
> > hard was it to control a delta-wing design like that? How did they
> > handle in low-speed regimes like air-to-air refueling and landing?
>
> From what I read and heard about the F-102, it was a royal bitch to handle.
> Had a high stall speed and was a bit of a pig in the air. Also the mission
> profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
> In short it was not a easy plane to fly.
>
> but then again this is what I have hear/read.

Assuming he doesn't bother to write a response to the OP's question, a search
of Google on this newsgroup for "Walt BJ", "F-102" and/or "deuce" should
provide you with his comments about the a/c. He liked it, with the major
exception of the rather weak landing gear.

Guy

[WaltBJ]

I logged almost 1500 hours in the F102A and its ugly brother the TF.
It was a delightful airplane to fly, light on the controls, and was a
good formation bird. It had great performance compared with the
F94/F86D/F89 group. It could reach about .93 in military and 1.3 in AB
properly maintained the radar was every bit as good as the F4's. -
when new. Later on it lost some performance due to tired engines. It
had good range even clean - 950 miles clean, 1300 with wing tanks. Now
for the bad points. 1 - couldn't see back - 60 degree blind cone to
rear. 2 - fuel was in two sets of wing tanks - an equalizer was
supposed to make sure you ran dry simultaneously. Often it didn't and
you had to juggle the boost pumps to keep an equal amount in both
wings. Get too busy and you could flame out due to an air bubble from
the empty side. 3 - the canopy had to go before you could eject - its
metal top precluded ejecting through it. 4 - No guns, not even one. 5
- wrong engine. The J57 was a good engine but the first engine, the
Gyron, never made it into service. The second one was the Olympus but
it was way delayed. There was about a foot space between the J57 and
the inside fuselage . . . 6 - weak gear, limit touchdown at typical
landing weights was 540 feet per minute. 7 - no internal air
compressor. It used HP air to launch missiles and rockets, start the
engine if no 3000 psi Joy unit was around, brakes, and emergency gear
extension. The F84F had a compressor, why not the Deuce? 8 - No AIM9
rails - why not? 9- the Deeuce was skinned with 7075ST which was not
Alclad and therefore the bird had to be painted to rpevent
(alleviate?) corrosion. This added weight and in later days drag from
touched up paint jobs.
As for a real continental air defense mission - our conclusion was you
weren't coming back. Either the prompt radiation from a TNW was going
to get you or you were going to have to stop the bomber no matter
what. BTW a 20 MT going off 60 miles away from a fighter at 40000
gives the crew something like 3000 rad right now. Air up there is too
skinny to soak up the gammas.
The delta configuration can be treacherous if you don't watch out. The
Deuce could develop one hell of a sink rate if you got too slow. Just
pulling the nose up and adding a little bit of power results in a
higher sink rate. Getting careless on final approach was dangerous. It
could just hold level flight at 115 KIAS and full afterburner with
about a 35 degree angle of attack. Getting out of that state required
lowering the nose and losing altitude) to reduce the induced drag to
where the bird could accelerate. This was insidious because the bird
was controllable in all three axes. Pulling power to idle at 115 left
you in apparent 'level' flight but the vertical velocity indicator was
pegged - downward. Pulling G - it could develop about 6 1/2 G at 300
KIAs - but stay there too long and all your airspeed disappeared real
quick. It could fly a tighter overhead pattern than any other century
series fighter - pull too many G and the downwind would be in so close
it'd take a ninety degree bank to make the base turn. WingCos got
red-faced when they saw that. BTW its absolute altitude was 59,000
plus, subsonic in full AB. Got up there once after completing a test
hop - had read Jackie Cochrane had set a level flight altitude record
in a T38 of something like 54000 and I thought the Deuce could top
that. It did, handily. FWIW it was good XC bird and had lots of carry
room. There was the main electronic bay behind the cockpit where two
guys coudl get in there and close the hatch. I have it on good
authority that eight cases of Crown Royal would fit in there. We
genrally used the missile bay because we normally didn't take the
missiles on cross countries. Some bases (SAC) got huffy if you had
ordnance aboard.
That's about it - cheers, Walt BJ

[Mark]

Speaking of internal stores capacity (not talking missiles here!!!)

Coors runs to Colorado were very popular as well....

Mark

[John S. Shinal]

(WaltBJ) wrote:

> BTW a 20 MT going off 60 miles away from a fighter at 40000
>gives the crew something like 3000 rad right now. Air up there is too
>skinny to soak up the gammas.

Yuck. I never thought about the thinner air issue. Was this
something that was covered in a briefing, in the training syllabus, or
did some enterprising Deuce jockey pull out the slide rule and figure
it out ?

Were the 5MT or 20MT Bear loads the more common ?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Keith Willshaw]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...

> As for a real continental air defense mission - our conclusion was you
> weren't coming back. Either the prompt radiation from a TNW was going
> to get you or you were going to have to stop the bomber no matter
> what. BTW a 20 MT going off 60 miles away from a fighter at 40000
> gives the crew something like 3000 rad right now. Air up there is too
> skinny to soak up the gammas.

That's assuming the nuclear weapon on the bomber explodes
at 40,000 ft too right ?

After all the USA and USSR both dropped high yield air burst weapons
without killing the bomber crews

Keith

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:11:48 GMT, "Harley W. Daugherty"
> wrote:

> Also the mission
>profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.

Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?

(What *were* we thinking?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

Walt, may I post your pirep as a supplement to
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm ?

Thanks! - Dan Ford

On 11 Feb 2004 22:17:11 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>I logged almost 1500 hours in the F102A and its ugly brother the TF.
>It was a delightful airplane to fly, light on the controls, and was a
>good formation bird. It had great performance compared with the
>F94/F86D/F89 group. It could reach about .93 in military and 1.3 in AB
>properly maintained the radar was every bit as good as the F4's. -
>when new. Later on it lost some performance due to tired engines. It
>had good range even clean - 950 miles clean, 1300 with wing tanks. Now
>for the bad points. 1 - couldn't see back - 60 degree blind cone to
>rear. 2 - fuel was in two sets of wing tanks - an equalizer was
>supposed to make sure you ran dry simultaneously. Often it didn't and
>you had to juggle the boost pumps to keep an equal amount in both
>wings. Get too busy and you could flame out due to an air bubble from
>the empty side. 3 - the canopy had to go before you could eject - its
>metal top precluded ejecting through it. 4 - No guns, not even one. 5
>- wrong engine. The J57 was a good engine but the first engine, the
>Gyron, never made it into service. The second one was the Olympus but
>it was way delayed. There was about a foot space between the J57 and
>the inside fuselage . . . 6 - weak gear, limit touchdown at typical
>landing weights was 540 feet per minute. 7 - no internal air
>compressor. It used HP air to launch missiles and rockets, start the
>engine if no 3000 psi Joy unit was around, brakes, and emergency gear
>extension. The F84F had a compressor, why not the Deuce? 8 - No AIM9
>rails - why not? 9- the Deeuce was skinned with 7075ST which was not
>Alclad and therefore the bird had to be painted to rpevent
>(alleviate?) corrosion. This added weight and in later days drag from
>touched up paint jobs.
>As for a real continental air defense mission - our conclusion was you
>weren't coming back. Either the prompt radiation from a TNW was going
>to get you or you were going to have to stop the bomber no matter
>what. BTW a 20 MT going off 60 miles away from a fighter at 40000
>gives the crew something like 3000 rad right now. Air up there is too
>skinny to soak up the gammas.
>The delta configuration can be treacherous if you don't watch out. The
>Deuce could develop one hell of a sink rate if you got too slow. Just
>pulling the nose up and adding a little bit of power results in a
>higher sink rate. Getting careless on final approach was dangerous. It
>could just hold level flight at 115 KIAS and full afterburner with
>about a 35 degree angle of attack. Getting out of that state required
>lowering the nose and losing altitude) to reduce the induced drag to
>where the bird could accelerate. This was insidious because the bird
>was controllable in all three axes. Pulling power to idle at 115 left
>you in apparent 'level' flight but the vertical velocity indicator was
>pegged - downward. Pulling G - it could develop about 6 1/2 G at 300
>KIAs - but stay there too long and all your airspeed disappeared real
>quick. It could fly a tighter overhead pattern than any other century
>series fighter - pull too many G and the downwind would be in so close
>it'd take a ninety degree bank to make the base turn. WingCos got
>red-faced when they saw that. BTW its absolute altitude was 59,000
>plus, subsonic in full AB. Got up there once after completing a test
>hop - had read Jackie Cochrane had set a level flight altitude record
>in a T38 of something like 54000 and I thought the Deuce could top
>that. It did, handily. FWIW it was good XC bird and had lots of carry
>room. There was the main electronic bay behind the cockpit where two
>guys coudl get in there and close the hatch. I have it on good
>authority that eight cases of Crown Royal would fit in there. We
>genrally used the missile bay because we normally didn't take the
>missiles on cross countries. Some bases (SAC) got huffy if you had
>ordnance aboard.
>That's about it - cheers, Walt BJ

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:11:48 GMT, "Harley W. Daugherty"
> > wrote:
>
> > Also the mission
> >profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
>
> Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?

It could carry the low yield AIM-26A Falcon had a W-54 warhead with a
reported yield of .25 kT; the missile was pulled from service in 1971. The
AIR-2 Genie unguided rocket, with a larger W-25 at between 1 and 2 kT, was
also fielded, carried by the F-89, F-101, and F-106. Genie was not retired
until the F-106 left the interceptor force in favor of the F-4 and later
F-15A.

>
> (What *were* we thinking?)

That we were acheiving a much greater assurance of destroying an *inbound*
and much larger nuclear payload than the then-current crop of conventional
guided missiles afforded, that's what.

Brooks

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Mike Marron]

> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:
>>"Cub Driver" > wrote:

>>Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?

>It could carry the low yield AIM-26A Falcon had a W-54 warhead with a
>reported yield of .25 kT; the missile was pulled from service in 1971. The
>AIR-2 Genie unguided rocket, with a larger W-25 at between 1 and 2 kT, was
>also fielded, carried by the F-89, F-101, and F-106. Genie was not retired
>until the F-106 left the interceptor force in favor of the F-4 and later
>F-15A.

>>(What *were* we thinking?)

>That we were acheiving a much greater assurance of destroying an *inbound*
>and much larger nuclear payload than the then-current crop of conventional
>guided missiles afforded, that's what.

Gotta' ask Ford...where were you in '62? We came damn close to
armageddon while we were stationed at Elmendorf AFB (Alaska) when
Dad was flying the ol' Deuce with the famed 317th FIS. After Kennedy
was shown the reconnaissance photos of Soviet nuclear missile
installations in Cuba, we (that is, everyone but my ol' man who was of
course, away pulling alert somewhere) were ordered to move into the
basement which was fully stocked with a 3-week supply of canned
goods and bottled water supposedly serving as our "bomb shelter."

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Cub Driver
> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:11:48 GMT, "Harley W. Daugherty"
> > wrote:
>
> > Also the mission
> >profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
>
> Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?
>
> (What *were* we thinking?)

That a 1 kT airburst is a lot better than 100MT cumulative load
dropped on Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, etc.

I was just a lad then, but I understand the paranoia of the times
and try not to second-guess the guys who had all the facts
and also all the limitations, both technical and political.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Mark]

Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

Somehow I can't picture B-17 type formations of Bears coming down from the
north (more like multiple aircraft flying multiple/coordinated routes), but
you never know???

Mark

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:11:48 GMT, "Harley W. Daugherty"
> > wrote:
>
> > Also the mission
> >profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
>
> Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?
>
> (What *were* we thinking?)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mark" > wrote in message
m...
> Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
multiple
> bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads you
found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules, but not in the case of the
Genie, or especially in the case of the meager warhead yield of the nuclear
Falcon. Genie had an assured destruction radius of something like 300
meters, IIRC--not likely to get a lot of aircraft that way, though it does
kind of make it hard for the single aircraft you are shooting at to evade it
(and as it was unguided, no countermeasures could be effective against it).
Falcon only had around one-sixth the yield of Genie.

>
> Somehow I can't picture B-17 type formations of Bears coming down from the
> north (more like multiple aircraft flying multiple/coordinated routes),
but
> you never know???

The threat was assumed to more likely be single penetrators, I think.

Brooks

>
> Mark
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 23:11:48 GMT, "Harley W. Daugherty"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Also the mission
> > >profile during a nuclear war left a LOT to be desired.
> >
> > Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?
> >
> > (What *were* we thinking?)
> >
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
> > email:
> >
> > see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> > and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
>

[Tex Houston]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads
you
> found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules, but not in the case of
the
> Genie, or especially in the case of the meager warhead yield of the
nuclear
> Falcon. Genie had an assured destruction radius of something like 300
> meters, IIRC--not likely to get a lot of aircraft that way, though it does
> kind of make it hard for the single aircraft you are shooting at to evade
it
> (and as it was unguided, no countermeasures could be effective against
it).
> Falcon only had around one-sixth the yield of Genie.


People could (and did) stand under a Genie explosion. Your post reminded of
the July 19, 1957 test where just that thing happened. The publicity shot
arranged by Colonel Barney Oldfield was famous at the time. I tried to find
the best site on the web for a description but it appears to no longer be
there, just mentions of it.

On a sadder note I just found out my friend Barney died within the last few
months. See
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/18/3fe1a44fa2747
or http://www.oldfields.org/ .

Regards,

Tex Houston

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads
> you
> > found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules, but not in the case of
> the
> > Genie, or especially in the case of the meager warhead yield of the
> nuclear
> > Falcon. Genie had an assured destruction radius of something like 300
> > meters, IIRC--not likely to get a lot of aircraft that way, though it
does
> > kind of make it hard for the single aircraft you are shooting at to
evade
> it
> > (and as it was unguided, no countermeasures could be effective against
> it).
> > Falcon only had around one-sixth the yield of Genie.
>
>
> People could (and did) stand under a Genie explosion. Your post reminded
of
> the July 19, 1957 test where just that thing happened. The publicity shot
> arranged by Colonel Barney Oldfield was famous at the time. I tried to
find
> the best site on the web for a description but it appears to no longer be
> there, just mentions of it.

The photos are in the latter of the two sites you provided links to--go to
"military", then the "Korea-NORAD" pages--you have to click on the rather
fancy righthand arrowpoints to page through the section, but you will
eventually get to them.

Brooks

>
> On a sadder note I just found out my friend Barney died within the last
few
> months. See
>
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/12/18/3fe1a44fa2747
> or http://www.oldfields.org/ .
>
> Regards,
>
> Tex Houston
>
>

[WaltBJ]

For Dan Ford - permission granted. Need one addition. Somehow I elided
part of a sentence right after citing its straightaway speeds. I
first flew the Deuce in 1958 - it was sprightly then. Buy the tinme it
was being phased out the engines had lost some oomph (either
compressor 'moss' or the maintainers had turned down the wick) easy to
do; the adjustment is on the bottom of the fuel control) and I doubt
if any Deuce could reach 1.3 M by then.
As for the nuke picture - the GAR11/AIM26 aka the Fat Falcon had a
bout a freight car load of TNT yield - rather smaller than 0.25KT.
AMAF the same warhead (W54) as the ADM. Its prpose was to destroy the
enemy weapons, not teh carry vehicle - that was a 'collateral' kill. I
supose you could say it was teh first neutron bomb because the neutron
flux from detonation was intended to initiate enough of a reaction in
the enemy active material to raise its temperature enough to melt the
material and/or explode the conventional explosives and thus prevent
full design yield from being obtained. Thsi was importannt since the
obvious step of arming the weapons once over enemy territory
(USA/Canada) had to be acknowledged. This, of course, to prevent
possible salvage of the valuable active material from an undetonated
weapon if the carrier was downed. As for the 20 MT TNW, yes, we were
briefed. Since the fireball is about 39,000 feet in diameter, it
didn't matter much if it was air or ground burst.
Mike, I was in the 326 FIS at RG AFB (KC, MO) when the Cuban Crisis
started. About 30 minutes after JFK signed off we were heading for
Grand Island, Nebraska in 6 Deuces, each with 2xAIM26 aboard, leaving
our families back home.
RG AFB's northern border was KC's 150th Street so that gave us thought
also. Yes we had food and water in the basement but KC was too close,
and Forbes' Atlas missile sites were west too close too.
ADC doctrine at the time also incorporated ram tactics, so we were one
thoughtful bunch of troops. Later on we were down at Homestead AFB
with 20 birds, all set to be dayfighters (!) and top cover (!) for the
100s and 105s who were to transform Cuba into a parking lot. Never saw
a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
flew. Many a private pilot missing his ADIZ time got a surprise when
he looked around and saw a 60 foot long Deuce sitting about 20 feet
off his wing reading his reg number to the GCI folks.
Interesting times . . . .
Additional remarks about the Deuce - that RAF type commented on
handling characteristics. With the yaw damper OFF top speed was
limited to about .85 because as you got transsonic the bird would
start an impressive dutch roll that got worse at you neared .95 and
you couldn't stop it without slowing down. Dampers on, it was smooth
and stable. It could be flown at low mach (.6) without any dampers but
like the Zipper wallowed a bit. As you got above .9 the aero center
moving aft required nose-up trim. Also I believe the RAF type flew a
Deuce with the old Case X wing, with the upturned tips. The Case XX
conical ca,bered wing (turned down leading edge) was retrofittted to
all and it was much improved on touchdown having a very noticeable
ground effect cushion and a faster cruise for the same power setting.
The Deuce, like the 101 and the 6, got the IRSTS mod. This system was
well worth its cost since it was essentially ECM-proof and totally
undetectable. It also cross-moded with the radar in ways that gave
great flexibility in tactics. Main trouble with the IRSTS, outside of
leaking coolant, was that it picked up every IR source including sun
reflections, the moon, and its own pitot heat (but that only on the
ground). Cross-checking with radar told you what you had, though.
BTW, Dan, feel free to make any editing changes you desire.
Cheers - Walt BJ

[Allen Epps]

In article >, WaltBJ
> wrote:

good stuff snipped

..
> a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
> month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
> flew.

I gotta assume you meant 180 hours! Still about double the most I
ever had in a month in the fighting drumstick (EA-6B)

Pugs

[Cub Driver]

>That a 1 kT airburst is a lot better than 100MT cumulative load
>dropped on Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, etc.

True, but consider that any such missile would almost certainly have
exploded over Canada, and the debris would presumably have fallen to
the ground.

What did the Canadians think of this?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

Okay, I'll work that in. Many thanks. -- Dan Ford

On 13 Feb 2004 12:52:31 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>For Dan Ford - permission granted. Need one addition. Somehow I elided
>part of a sentence right after citing its straightaway speeds. I
>first flew the Deuce in 1958 - it was sprightly then. Buy the tinme it
>was being phased out the engines had lost some oomph (either
>compressor 'moss' or the maintainers had turned down the wick) easy to
>do; the adjustment is on the bottom of the fuel control) and I doubt
>if any Deuce could reach 1.3 M by then.
>As for the nuke picture - the GAR11/AIM26 aka the Fat Falcon had a
>bout a freight car load of TNT yield - rather smaller than 0.25KT.
>AMAF the same warhead (W54) as the ADM. Its prpose was to destroy the
>enemy weapons, not teh carry vehicle - that was a 'collateral' kill. I
>supose you could say it was teh first neutron bomb because the neutron
>flux from detonation was intended to initiate enough of a reaction in
>the enemy active material to raise its temperature enough to melt the
>material and/or explode the conventional explosives and thus prevent
>full design yield from being obtained. Thsi was importannt since the
>obvious step of arming the weapons once over enemy territory
>(USA/Canada) had to be acknowledged. This, of course, to prevent
>possible salvage of the valuable active material from an undetonated
>weapon if the carrier was downed. As for the 20 MT TNW, yes, we were
>briefed. Since the fireball is about 39,000 feet in diameter, it
>didn't matter much if it was air or ground burst.
>Mike, I was in the 326 FIS at RG AFB (KC, MO) when the Cuban Crisis
>started. About 30 minutes after JFK signed off we were heading for
>Grand Island, Nebraska in 6 Deuces, each with 2xAIM26 aboard, leaving
>our families back home.
>RG AFB's northern border was KC's 150th Street so that gave us thought
>also. Yes we had food and water in the basement but KC was too close,
>and Forbes' Atlas missile sites were west too close too.
>ADC doctrine at the time also incorporated ram tactics, so we were one
>thoughtful bunch of troops. Later on we were down at Homestead AFB
>with 20 birds, all set to be dayfighters (!) and top cover (!) for the
>100s and 105s who were to transform Cuba into a parking lot. Never saw
>a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
>month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
>flew. Many a private pilot missing his ADIZ time got a surprise when
>he looked around and saw a 60 foot long Deuce sitting about 20 feet
>off his wing reading his reg number to the GCI folks.
>Interesting times . . . .
>Additional remarks about the Deuce - that RAF type commented on
>handling characteristics. With the yaw damper OFF top speed was
>limited to about .85 because as you got transsonic the bird would
>start an impressive dutch roll that got worse at you neared .95 and
>you couldn't stop it without slowing down. Dampers on, it was smooth
>and stable. It could be flown at low mach (.6) without any dampers but
>like the Zipper wallowed a bit. As you got above .9 the aero center
>moving aft required nose-up trim. Also I believe the RAF type flew a
>Deuce with the old Case X wing, with the upturned tips. The Case XX
>conical ca,bered wing (turned down leading edge) was retrofittted to
>all and it was much improved on touchdown having a very noticeable
>ground effect cushion and a faster cruise for the same power setting.
>The Deuce, like the 101 and the 6, got the IRSTS mod. This system was
>well worth its cost since it was essentially ECM-proof and totally
>undetectable. It also cross-moded with the radar in ways that gave
>great flexibility in tactics. Main trouble with the IRSTS, outside of
>leaking coolant, was that it picked up every IR source including sun
>reflections, the moon, and its own pitot heat (but that only on the
>ground). Cross-checking with radar told you what you had, though.
>BTW, Dan, feel free to make any editing changes you desire.
>Cheers - Walt BJ

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >That a 1 kT airburst is a lot better than 100MT cumulative load
> >dropped on Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, etc.
>
> True, but consider that any such missile would almost certainly have
> exploded over Canada, and the debris would presumably have fallen to
> the ground.
>
> What did the Canadians think of this?

Apparently they liked it, because IIRC they also had AIR-2 Genies (US
control of warheads, of course) for their own F-101 force.

Brooks

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Harley W. Daugherty]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
> I logged almost 1500 hours in the F102A and its ugly brother the TF.
> It was a delightful airplane to fly, light on the controls, and was a
> good formation bird. It had great performance compared with the
> F94/F86D/F89 group. It could reach about .93 in military and 1.3 in AB
> properly maintained the radar was every bit as good as the F4's. -
> when new. Later on it lost some performance due to tired engines. It
> had good range even clean - 950 miles clean, 1300 with wing tanks. Now
> for the bad points. 1 - couldn't see back - 60 degree blind cone to
> rear. 2 - fuel was in two sets of wing tanks - an equalizer was
> supposed to make sure you ran dry simultaneously. Often it didn't and
> you had to juggle the boost pumps to keep an equal amount in both
> wings. Get too busy and you could flame out due to an air bubble from
> the empty side. 3 - the canopy had to go before you could eject - its
> metal top precluded ejecting through it. 4 - No guns, not even one. 5
> - wrong engine. The J57 was a good engine but the first engine, the
> Gyron, never made it into service. The second one was the Olympus but
> it was way delayed. There was about a foot space between the J57 and
> the inside fuselage . . . 6 - weak gear, limit touchdown at typical
> landing weights was 540 feet per minute. 7 - no internal air
> compressor. It used HP air to launch missiles and rockets, start the
> engine if no 3000 psi Joy unit was around, brakes, and emergency gear
> extension. The F84F had a compressor, why not the Deuce? 8 - No AIM9
> rails - why not? 9- the Deeuce was skinned with 7075ST which was not
> Alclad and therefore the bird had to be painted to rpevent
> (alleviate?) corrosion. This added weight and in later days drag from
> touched up paint jobs.
> As for a real continental air defense mission - our conclusion was you
> weren't coming back. Either the prompt radiation from a TNW was going
> to get you or you were going to have to stop the bomber no matter
> what. BTW a 20 MT going off 60 miles away from a fighter at 40000
> gives the crew something like 3000 rad right now. Air up there is too
> skinny to soak up the gammas.
> The delta configuration can be treacherous if you don't watch out. The
> Deuce could develop one hell of a sink rate if you got too slow. Just
> pulling the nose up and adding a little bit of power results in a
> higher sink rate. Getting careless on final approach was dangerous. It
> could just hold level flight at 115 KIAS and full afterburner with
> about a 35 degree angle of attack. Getting out of that state required
> lowering the nose and losing altitude) to reduce the induced drag to
> where the bird could accelerate. This was insidious because the bird
> was controllable in all three axes. Pulling power to idle at 115 left
> you in apparent 'level' flight but the vertical velocity indicator was
> pegged - downward. Pulling G - it could develop about 6 1/2 G at 300
> KIAs - but stay there too long and all your airspeed disappeared real
> quick. It could fly a tighter overhead pattern than any other century
> series fighter - pull too many G and the downwind would be in so close
> it'd take a ninety degree bank to make the base turn. WingCos got
> red-faced when they saw that. BTW its absolute altitude was 59,000
> plus, subsonic in full AB. Got up there once after completing a test
> hop - had read Jackie Cochrane had set a level flight altitude record
> in a T38 of something like 54000 and I thought the Deuce could top
> that. It did, handily. FWIW it was good XC bird and had lots of carry
> room. There was the main electronic bay behind the cockpit where two
> guys coudl get in there and close the hatch. I have it on good
> authority that eight cases of Crown Royal would fit in there. We
> genrally used the missile bay because we normally didn't take the
> missiles on cross countries. Some bases (SAC) got huffy if you had
> ordnance aboard.
> That's about it - cheers, Walt BJ

WOW,
I stand corrected.
Thank you!

Harley

[Ron]

> a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
>> month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
>> flew.
>
> I gotta assume you meant 180 hours! Still about double the most I
>ever had in a month in the fighting drumstick (EA-6B)
>
>Pugs
>

He did not mean himself, he said we as in his unit.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Mark" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
> multiple
> > bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....
>
> That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads you
> found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none. The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)
eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their house.

Guy

[Allen Epps]

In article >, Ron
> wrote:

> > a MiG but we got one hell of a lot of flying - 1800 hours in one (1!)
> >> month, flying CAP for the recce birds and scrambling on anything that
> >> flew.
> >
> > I gotta assume you meant 180 hours! Still about double the most I
> >ever had in a month in the fighting drumstick (EA-6B)
> >
> >Pugs
> >
>
> He did not mean himself, he said we as in his unit.
>
>
> Ron
> Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

I stand corrected, missed that, thanks for the clarification.
Pugs

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
> > multiple
> > > bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....
> >
> > That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads
you
> > found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,
>
> Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also
the
> Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary
role was
> to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so
that
> the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that
a
> conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none.
The
> target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a
time,
> thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The
nuke
> warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)

The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the W-31m,
which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different mods
produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1 KT
and 12 KT versions were available).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted with
W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources indicate
the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc carried
the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were offered.
:)

> eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last
resort
> against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is
the
> Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
> booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
their
> operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
> missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
about than
> the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
house.

ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC it
was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site located
at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was right
next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root around
as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile launch
pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC it
closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the admin/launch
area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the ammo
bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by private
companies). We also had F-106's (and later F-15A's) from the 48th FIS
sitting alert maybe ten or twelve miles away at Langley AFB, and another
Nike herc site across the river at FT Story in Virginia Beach. We were one
well protected chunk of geography. Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
>densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
>EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
>facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
>Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
>additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
>*moat*), etc.
>
>Brooks
>

The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135 T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[WaltBJ]

All y'all worrying about air defense nuke missile airbursts ought to
get a copy of "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" and in (my 1957 copy)
Chapter 9 you will learn a lot about fallout. The drift of the fallout
in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind, which
for a 1 MT fission weapon results in lethal dosages hundreds of miles
downwind. That was why NORAD went to 'bombkiller' nuclear missiles, to
try to prevent that from happening.
Walt BJ

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> Of course, the area had a lot of rather
> >densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
> >EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
> >facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
> >Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
> >additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
> >*moat*), etc.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
>
> The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135
T.O.s
> instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
> Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
> staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
> based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
> > > multiple
> > > > bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....
> > >
> > > That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads
> you
> > > found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,
> >
> > Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also
> the
> > Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary
> role was
> > to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so
> that
> > the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that
> a
> > conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none.
> The
> > target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a
> time,
> > thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The
> nuke
> > warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)
>
> The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the W-31m,
> which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different mods
> produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1 KT
> and 12 KT versions were available).
>
> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html
>
> Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted with
> W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources indicate
> the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc carried
> the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were offered.
> :)

You're correct on the W-31. I confess I was too lazy to dig out my copy of the
Nike Herc history to check my memory, butai quick check of the website listed
below gave the info ;-)

> > eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last
> resort
> > against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is
> the
> > Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
> > booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
> their
> > operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
> > missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
> about than
> > the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
> house.
>
> ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC it
> was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
> various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site located
> at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was right
> next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
> located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root around
> as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile launch
> pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
> also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC it
> closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
> miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the admin/launch
> area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the ammo
> bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by private
> companies).

If you ever get out to the SF Bay Area, you'll enjoy touring Nike Site SF88 in
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, just across the GG bridge from San
Francisco. It's a restored Nike Site, with docents who formerly manned this or
other Nike sites giving tours (first Sunday of each month IIRR). See the URL
here:

http://ed-thelen.org/

Several years ago the then caretaker of the site, the late Col. (ret.) Milt
Halsey, allowed me to borrow the Nike historical monographs and make copies (I
see Mr. Thelen has put them on line now), as well as read as many of the tech
manuals as I wanted to (there were several hundred as I recall, so I mainly
concentrated on the ones dealing with jamming and the FCS Radar ECCM modes).

Guy

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>>
>> Of course, the area had a lot of rather
>> >densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
>> >EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
>> >facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
>> >Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
>> >additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
>> >*moat*), etc.
>> >
>> >Brooks
>> >
>>
>> The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135
>T.O.s
>> instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
>missions.
>> Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
>> staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
>missions
>> based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.
>
>Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
>reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied their
>takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?
>
>Brooks
>>

>
That li'l ole noise? Yep, nothing beats the sound of a KC-135 on water. When we
did engine trims the people at CBPO took a strong dislike to us. The trim tab
was near there and the wind seemed to always be from the proper direction to
ensure the engine exhausts were pointed right at CBPO. Kind of rattled the
windows a tad.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Cub Driver]

>The drift of the fallout
>in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind,

And at 35,000 feet, isn't the wind more typically 100 mph--or is that
only occasional?

I pay attention only to the winds up to say 5000 feet, and even at
those levels the speed increases dramatically with every 1000 feet.

I suppose it would have been better than the alternative, but still
....

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(WaltBJ) writes:

> Additional remarks about the Deuce - that RAF type commented on
> handling characteristics. With the yaw damper OFF top speed was
> limited to about .85 because as you got transsonic the bird would
> start an impressive dutch roll that got worse at you neared .95 and
> you couldn't stop it without slowing down. Dampers on, it was smooth
> and stable. It could be flown at low mach (.6) without any dampers but
> like the Zipper wallowed a bit. As you got above .9 the aero center
> moving aft required nose-up trim. Also I believe the RAF type flew a
> Deuce with the old Case X wing, with the upturned tips. The Case XX
> conical ca,bered wing (turned down leading edge) was retrofittted to
> all and it was much improved on touchdown having a very noticeable
> ground effect cushion and a faster cruise for the same power
> setting.

Thanks, Walt. I'm the one that quoted Beamont's report.
To place it better in context, it should be pointed out that he was
here as much in mis capacity as English Electric's Chief Test Pilot as
anything else, and one of his tasks was to eveluate stuff like the
dampers in the -102, (And, for that matter, all other U.S. Supersonic
aircraft) and his high-speed test of them was well above the handbook
limit. (Somehwere around 0.95 Mach, while decelerating from a run to
Vmax.) He was, of course, very much involved with testing of the P.1B
and Lightning at that time, and so was very interested in why the
U.S. was goig to artificial stability augmentation. There was a bit
of a difference in philosphy there - The Brits really didn't like
adding such systems, and went to great lengths to avoid them.
For example, teh Yaw Damper was invented for teh B-47. The V-Bombers
spent a bunch of extra development time getting fiddled with to make
them stable enough in yaw to not need one. Whether that's because any
Sability Augmentation System that they'd be putting in would be built
by Lucas...

I've never heard an F-102 pilot say bad things about the airplane.
They all wished that it were a bit faster, though.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>I've never heard an F-102 pilot say bad things about the airplane.
>They all wished that it were a bit faster, though.

Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement). An F-102
cranked up and taxiied away, and when I looked at my hard-nosed
ol' man there was tears coming out of both eyes.

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>
>
>Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
>Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
>the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
>out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement).

Surely not as a pilot. There was no reason an ADC pilot would have trained on a
T-29. It had 2 primary functions over its lifespan: navigator trainer and
cargo. The ones I worked on at Langley in the 1970s still had most of the
sextant mounts in place if memory serves.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >>
> >> Of course, the area had a lot of rather
> >> >densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC
an
> >> >EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
> >> >facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
> >> >Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
> >> >additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
> >> >*moat*), etc.
> >> >
> >> >Brooks
> >> >
> >>
> >> The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the
KC-135
> >T.O.s
> >> instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
> >missions.
> >> Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the
battle
> >> staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
> >missions
> >> based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.
> >
> >Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
> >reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied
their
> >takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?
> >
> >Brooks
> >>
>
> >
> That li'l ole noise? Yep, nothing beats the sound of a KC-135 on water.
When we
> did engine trims the people at CBPO took a strong dislike to us. The trim
tab
> was near there and the wind seemed to always be from the proper direction
to
> ensure the engine exhausts were pointed right at CBPO. Kind of rattled the
> windows a tad.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yeah, and they did indeed rattle the windows at the homestead when they
passed overhead. Much worse than even the F-106's on a scramble. But for
sheer noise, the guys next door to you at LRC/NASA had you beat by a
mile--ever hear the sound involved when they uncorked the high speed
windtunnel for a test? We lived over near Deer Park, and when the ambient
noise was down and the conditions were right we could hear it at the house.

Brooks

>
>

[Mike Marron]

> (B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
>>Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
>>the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
>>out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement).

>Surely not as a pilot.

Surely you don't know what in the hell you're talking about (as
usual).

>There was no reason an ADC pilot would have trained on a
>T-29. It had 2 primary functions over its lifespan: navigator trainer and
>cargo. The ones I worked on at Langley in the 1970s still had most of the
>sextant mounts in place if memory serves.

Make ya' a deal, sarge. If you make me prove that he was indeed a
T-29 pilot then you have to shut your pie hole and log off RAM for one
year. Conversely, I will do the same if you prove me wrong.

Deal?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Mark" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > > > > Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
> > > > multiple
> > > > > bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....
> > > >
> > > > That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger
warheads
> > you
> > > > found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,
> > >
> > > Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and
also
> > the
> > > Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's
primary
> > role was
> > > to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together
so
> > that
> > > the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart
that
> > a
> > > conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe
none.
> > The
> > > target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c
at a
> > time,
> > > thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope.
The
> > nuke
> > > warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)
> >
> > The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the
W-31m,
> > which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different
mods
> > produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1
KT
> > and 12 KT versions were available).
> >
> > http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html
> >
> > Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted
with
> > W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources
indicate
> > the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc
carried
> > the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were
offered.
> > :)
>
> You're correct on the W-31. I confess I was too lazy to dig out my copy
of the
> Nike Herc history to check my memory, butai quick check of the website
listed
> below gave the info ;-)
>
> > > eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of
last
> > resort
> > > against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part
is
> > the
> > > Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside
the
> > > booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
> > their
> > > operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if
the
> > > missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
> > about than
> > > the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
> > house.
> >
> > ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC
it
> > was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
> > various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site
located
> > at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was
right
> > next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
> > located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root
around
> > as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile
launch
> > pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
> > also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC
it
> > closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
> > miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the
admin/launch
> > area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the
ammo
> > bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by
private
> > companies).
>
> If you ever get out to the SF Bay Area, you'll enjoy touring Nike Site
SF88 in
> the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, just across the GG bridge from
San
> Francisco. It's a restored Nike Site, with docents who formerly manned
this or
> other Nike sites giving tours (first Sunday of each month IIRR). See the
URL
> here:
>
> http://ed-thelen.org/
>
> Several years ago the then caretaker of the site, the late Col. (ret.)
Milt
> Halsey, allowed me to borrow the Nike historical monographs and make
copies (I
> see Mr. Thelen has put them on line now), as well as read as many of the
tech
> manuals as I wanted to (there were several hundred as I recall, so I
mainly
> concentrated on the ones dealing with jamming and the FCS Radar ECCM
modes).

The guy who first taught me how to blow things up was a former 7th SFG demo
sergeant who went to school under the GI Bill and got his chemistry degree;
he now is rather famous in the EOD world ("Popular Science" called him the
"Dean of Bomb Disablement" in a story about his work on the Unabomber's last
device). He did a short stint teaching high school chemistry, which is where
I met him. One of the demo jobs he did that I was able to help him on was
the removal of a load of concrete from a concrete truck (the drive chain had
broken and the operator had just parked it back at the lot and left it, full
of what would became rock-hard concrete). We were drilling and blasting our
way through it, and for one of the shots he pulled out a few chunks of red
plastic/rubber-like material. He grinned at me and asked, "Do you know what
this is?" I shook my head and he continued, "It's the solid fuel from a Nike
Hercules!" We crammed some into a couple of boreholes along with about a
quarter-stick each of dynamite. He had left active duty early when the
Vietnam drawdown got rolling, and had to finish his duty obligation in the
Guard (the only reserve SF unit near us was a USAR unit at that time, and
had no vacancies). His first Guard assignment was to the Nike Herc unit at
Pat Henry, and he had gotten some chunks of the solid fuel when they
demobilized the site. His next Guard job was with a 155mm arty unit--I
*don't* want to know what he might have brought home from that one...! :)

Brooks

>
> Guy
>

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
We lived over near Deer Park, and when the ambient
>noise was down and the conditions were right we could hear it at the house.
>
>Brooks
>
I lived in the Deer Park Aprtments by Casey Chevy. It was quiet there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
>
>

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 2/15/2004 5:14 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> (B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
>>>Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
>>>the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
>>>out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement).
>
>>Surely not as a pilot.
>
>Surely you don't know what in the hell you're talking about (as
>usual).
>
>>There was no reason an ADC pilot would have trained on a
>>T-29. It had 2 primary functions over its lifespan: navigator trainer and
>>cargo. The ones I worked on at Langley in the 1970s still had most of the
>>sextant mounts in place if memory serves.
>
>Make ya' a deal, sarge. If you make me prove that he was indeed a
>T-29 pilot then you have to shut your pie hole and log off RAM for one
>year. Conversely, I will do the same if you prove me wrong.
>
>Deal?
>
Tell ya what, I'll wait until someone who was there tells me otherwise. I
really don't believe a thing you say.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Marron]

(B2431) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Make ya' a deal, sarge. If you make me prove that he was indeed a
>>T-29 pilot then you have to shut your pie hole and log off RAM for one
>>year. Conversely, I will do the same if you prove me wrong.

>>Deal?

>Tell ya what, I'll wait until someone who was there tells me otherwise. I
>really don't believe a thing you say.

Coward.

>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

<snip Walt's comments>

> Thanks, Walt. I'm the one that quoted Beamont's report.
> To place it better in context, it should be pointed out that he was
> here as much in mis capacity as English Electric's Chief Test Pilot as
> anything else, and one of his tasks was to eveluate stuff like the
> dampers in the -102, (And, for that matter, all other U.S. Supersonic
> aircraft) and his high-speed test of them was well above the handbook
> limit. (Somehwere around 0.95 Mach, while decelerating from a run to
> Vmax.) He was, of course, very much involved with testing of the P.1B
> and Lightning at that time, and so was very interested in why the
> U.S. was goig to artificial stability augmentation. There was a bit
> of a difference in philosphy there - The Brits really didn't like
> adding such systems, and went to great lengths to avoid them.
> For example, teh Yaw Damper was invented for teh B-47. The V-Bombers
> spent a bunch of extra development time getting fiddled with to make
> them stable enough in yaw to not need one. Whether that's because any
> Sability Augmentation System that they'd be putting in would be built
> by Lucas...
>
> I've never heard an F-102 pilot say bad things about the airplane.
> They all wished that it were a bit faster, though.

I do believe that would be the F-102B, aka F-106 ;-) Six pilots seem to
have liked them just as much, although it suffered from the same "one big
move, and then your energy is all gone" problem of all conventional deltas.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> We lived over near Deer Park, and when the ambient
> >noise was down and the conditions were right we could hear it at the
house.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> I lived in the Deer Park Aprtments by Casey Chevy. It was quiet there.

Well, with Jefferson Avenue on one side of you and Rt. 17 on the other, your
ambient range was likely a bit different from mine (Groome Rd, about halfway
between Jefferson and Harpersville Rd). :) Believe me--we never heard the
KC's unless they were flying overhead, but we could indeed pick up the sound
of the high speed tunnel cutting loose when the conditions were right.

You would have been pretty close to the old Bomarc site, or at least to the
back side of it. I used to go squirrel hunting in that area; got turned
around once and ended up hiking a fair distance out of my way to get back
out. Now there is a big Omni Hotel on that site, Jefferson Avenue has six
lanes is developed all the way up past the airport (no more Yoder's
Dairey--it is the site of a huge shopping mall). Not a bad place to grow up,
but I sure would not want to live there now.

Brooks

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Pete]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > >
> > I lived in the Deer Park Aprtments by Casey Chevy. It was quiet there.
>
> Well, with Jefferson Avenue on one side of you and Rt. 17 on the other,
your
> ambient range was likely a bit different from mine (Groome Rd, about
halfway
> between Jefferson and Harpersville Rd). :) Believe me--we never heard the
> KC's unless they were flying overhead, but we could indeed pick up the
sound
> of the high speed tunnel cutting loose when the conditions were right.
>
> You would have been pretty close to the old Bomarc site, or at least to
the
> back side of it. I used to go squirrel hunting in that area; got turned
> around once and ended up hiking a fair distance out of my way to get back
> out. Now there is a big Omni Hotel on that site, Jefferson Avenue has six
> lanes is developed all the way up past the airport (no more Yoder's
> Dairey--it is the site of a huge shopping mall). Not a bad place to grow
up,
> but I sure would not want to live there now.
>

It's not so bad, even now. Evidently different from when you were there, but
where is that not the case?
The intersection of 17 and Jefferson is pretty much the outer edge of the
Langley traffic pattern. -15's turning into final twice a day.

When conditions are right, we can hear the cars at the Langley Raceway on
Friday and Saturday nights. Jet Blue jets leaving PatrickHenry Intl.

And of course the springtime C-130 mosquito dustings.

Pete

[B2431]

>From: Mike Marron

>
(B2431) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Make ya' a deal, sarge. If you make me prove that he was indeed a
>>>T-29 pilot then you have to shut your pie hole and log off RAM for one
>>>year. Conversely, I will do the same if you prove me wrong.
>
>>>Deal?
>
>>Tell ya what, I'll wait until someone who was there tells me otherwise. I
>>really don't believe a thing you say.
>
>Coward.
>

<yawn>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> > > >
> > > I lived in the Deer Park Aprtments by Casey Chevy. It was quiet there.
> >
> > Well, with Jefferson Avenue on one side of you and Rt. 17 on the other,
> your
> > ambient range was likely a bit different from mine (Groome Rd, about
> halfway
> > between Jefferson and Harpersville Rd). :) Believe me--we never heard
the
> > KC's unless they were flying overhead, but we could indeed pick up the
> sound
> > of the high speed tunnel cutting loose when the conditions were right.
> >
> > You would have been pretty close to the old Bomarc site, or at least to
> the
> > back side of it. I used to go squirrel hunting in that area; got turned
> > around once and ended up hiking a fair distance out of my way to get
back
> > out. Now there is a big Omni Hotel on that site, Jefferson Avenue has
six
> > lanes is developed all the way up past the airport (no more Yoder's
> > Dairey--it is the site of a huge shopping mall). Not a bad place to grow
> up,
> > but I sure would not want to live there now.
> >
>
> It's not so bad, even now. Evidently different from when you were there,
but
> where is that not the case?
> The intersection of 17 and Jefferson is pretty much the outer edge of the
> Langley traffic pattern. -15's turning into final twice a day.
>
> When conditions are right, we can hear the cars at the Langley Raceway on
> Friday and Saturday nights. Jet Blue jets leaving PatrickHenry Intl.

LOL! Yeah, I can recall hearing those race cars off in the distance. I had
no idea that track still existed. IIRC, there used to be some industrial
site/vacant lot right next to it and some guy had an old truck with a
hydraulic lift he used get up above the fence level so he and his buddies
could watch the races without having to pay admission. :)

>
> And of course the springtime C-130 mosquito dustings.

In my early years they were flown by C-123's. I mentioned this before a year
or so ago, but they were the highlight of my youth, listening to and
watching them lumber back and forth overhead (my Dad was not so enamored
with them, because it forced him to close up our beehives each time they did
their thing). At the first sound of those big radials throbbing overhead in
the morning I'd be dashing out of the house in my underpants (hey, I was
only four or five years old), shouting gleefully, "The sprayplane! The
sprayplane!" Kind of wondered if some Hollywood yahoo did not hear of it and
came up with the later infamous, "Da plane, da plane!" line from "Fantasy
island"... :)

Another regular I used to enjoy was that FAA DC-3/C-47 (don't know which)
with the international orange wingtips and tail that used to fly the
periodic approach calibration flights.

Brooks

>
> Pete
>
>

[steve gallacci]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >The drift of the fallout
> >in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind,
>
> And at 35,000 feet, isn't the wind more typically 100 mph--or is that
> only occasional?
>
> I pay attention only to the winds up to say 5000 feet, and even at
> those levels the speed increases dramatically with every 1000 feet.
>
> I suppose it would have been better than the alternative, but still
> ...

But at altitude, there is next to nothing to make fallout from, so any
kind of high airburst would be relatively clean.

[Kevin Brooks]

"steve gallacci" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
> >
> > >The drift of the fallout
> > >in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind,
> >
> > And at 35,000 feet, isn't the wind more typically 100 mph--or is that
> > only occasional?
> >
> > I pay attention only to the winds up to say 5000 feet, and even at
> > those levels the speed increases dramatically with every 1000 feet.
> >
> > I suppose it would have been better than the alternative, but still
> > ...
>
> But at altitude, there is next to nothing to make fallout from, so any
> kind of high airburst would be relatively clean.

I believe that was part of the original poster's intent; his comment
regarding a "high yield nuke" creating a great deal of fallout was in
reference to what happens if the bomber gets through, versus the effects of
a very small yield nuke used to kill same said bomber at altitude.

Brooks

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
R. David Steele > writes:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:32:37 -0500, (Peter
> Stickney) wrote:
>|For context, here are the rates for aircraft in service at about the
>|same time:
>|
>|F-84: 52.86
>|F-86: 44.18
>|F-89: 24.54
>|F-100: 21.22
>|F-101: 14.65
>|F-104: 30.63
>|F-105: 17.83
>|F-105: 9.47

^ That should be F-106, of course
>|
>|So, as you can see, over its career, the F-102 was safer than all of
>|its contemporaries, other than the F-106 that was descended from it.
>
> Why have pilots then stated, since this flap over GWB, that the
> F-102 had a bad safety record? And how did it compare to
> aircraft like the F-4, which was flying at the same time?

The numbers showed that it as half as safe as an F-4, and 1/3 as safe
as the "Sacandalous" F-16 (Lawn Dart).

A few words on making these comparisons - A single number is only a
vague indication, not a true notation on how the airplane's record
stacked up over its entire career. As with all statistics, context is
everything, and ignoring the context leads to a high likelihood of
misleading yourself about the true situation.

The earlier generation of subsonic/transonic jets, the F-80 through
F-94, all had extremely high accident rates. This was due to a number
of factors, both technological and procedural.
If you examine the raw data available from the Air Force Safety
Center, you'll also find that the overall numbers are skewed by
extremely high loss rates for some airplanes in their first few years
of service. The reasons for this are that there are inevetibly
teething troubles to be sorted out, many of them serious. - The F-100s
problems with stability & control & engine / inlet issues, and the
F-104's engine problems both pushed loss rates extremely high at the
beginning of their service careers. (More than 320 Class As per
100,000 flight hours, for the F-100, and, for one year, more than 700
class As per 100,000 flight hours, in th ecase of teh F-104A.)
These high surges in loss rates will skew the statistics throughout
the airplane's entire life.

One those initial troubles were worked out, the overall safety racords
were pretty much equivalant.

There can also be spikes at the end of an airplane's career, when
there aren't many of that type around, and they aren't flying many
hours. The loss of a single airplane can give a misleadingly high
accident rate, in that case.

But, at least here in rec.aviation.military, the statements weren't
that the F-102 was much less safe than its contemporaries - it was
that flying high performance jet fighters is much less safe than any
other flying. There's no doubt about that.
Here are a few other numbers for context, here.

Aircraft: Class A/100,000 Hrs
F-102: 13.69
C-130: 0.93
C-141: 0.32
C-135: 0.64
O-2: 2.82
B-52: 1.28

So, to put it bluntly, and slightly out of context, you're about 15
times more likely to kill yourself in an F-102 as you are in a C-130,
and nearly 50 times more likely than in a C-141.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster