The F-102 Delta Dagger (Was GWB as a Nat'l Guard Fighter Pilot threads.)

[David E. Powell]

OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
about a couple of things.

First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to ask
because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to around
1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.

Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
fighter? The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was mentioned,
and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102. I
guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting) earlier
than counterparts in the US or Europe.

Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?
The F-106, as I recall, carried Falcon missiles (Or GENIEs*) and later had a
20mm Vulcan cannon installed as well.

Fourth, the F-102 and F-106 just look cool. Had to say that. Good designs,
and you can see the evolution in fuselage flow in the later design. (Though
the previous one had those cool mini-cones at the tail.)


DEP

*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
it was, guided missile or not.

[Mark T. Evert]

> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
> about a couple of things.
>
> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s?

Yes....the Duece as it was called in Air Force circles was phased out of
most National Guard units in the early 70's. I recall the Pennsylvania
National Guard replacing them with A7 Corsairs while in Texas they were
replaced with F101 VooDoos.

> Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
> would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
> fighter?

The Texas Guard transitioned to the F101 Voodoo which they flew till the
early 80's when they moved to the F4 and now they fly F16's

[Kevin Brooks]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
> about a couple of things.
>
> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s?

The last one left ANG service in 1976, though they had finsished their
operational role in 1975.

I have to ask
> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to
around
> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
>
> Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
> would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
> fighter?

You don't normally "ask" about other planes, you fly the aircraft assigned
to your unit. As another poster has mentioned, his unit transitioned to the
F-101.

The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was mentioned,
> and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102.

No, the reason he was not accepted was that they had plenty of more
experienced F-102 pilots available at that time, and they were taking the
most experienced volunteers. A couple of years after this, the situation had
apparently changed, and an ANG F-102 pilot (2LT type) from Palace Alert flew
the last F-102 intercept of a Bear out of Iceland. Palace Alert was not
limited to sending F-102 pilots to Vietnam or Thailand--it provided pilots
to various F-102 operating locations.

I
> guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
> prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
> forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
> suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting) earlier
> than counterparts in the US or Europe.
>
> Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?

No gun, just internal mounted Falcon AAM's and a few 2.75 inch unguided
FFAR's in tubes withing the weapons bay doors.

> The F-106, as I recall, carried Falcon missiles (Or GENIEs*) and later had
a
> 20mm Vulcan cannon installed as well.

Yep.

Brooks

>
> Fourth, the F-102 and F-106 just look cool. Had to say that. Good designs,
> and you can see the evolution in fuselage flow in the later design.
(Though
> the previous one had those cool mini-cones at the tail.)
>
>
> DEP
>
> *There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
> group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket,
which
> it was, guided missile or not.
>
>

[Mark]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
> about a couple of things.
>
> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to
ask
> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to
around
> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.

HANG (Hawaii) flew 102 until 1977 (last unit as best I can find out). Now
the be TOTALLY correct Deuce was flown much longer than that as drone.

The Six was faster due to the fact that F-106 had engine with more thrust
(J75 vice J57). Not sure, but don't think Deuce had variable inlet either
(open to correction)

>
> Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
> would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
> fighter? The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was
mentioned,
> and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102. I
> guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
> prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
> forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
> suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting) earlier
> than counterparts in the US or Europe.

Good source on F-102 ops both CONUS and PACAF...

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_2.html

Shows 111th FIS (TANG) operated F-102 from 1960 - 1975 (as mentioned
transitioned to 101)

Interesting to note that PACAF had Deuce in service up to 70/71 at Okinawa
and Clark

.....

>
> DEP
>
> *There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
> group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket,
which
> it was, guided missile or not.
>

Not to restart this but.... GENIE was NOT guided (basically a bullet). Good
in that it could not be jammed with ECM or decoyed with flares. (ECM could
impact AI radar in interceptor of course). Genie was one of the more
difficult to employ due to fact pilot had to be VERY precise in "steering
the dot" and get in proper firing solution.

Mark

[Jinxx1]

>Shows 111th FIS (TANG) operated F-102 from 1960 - 1975 (as mentioned
transitioned to 101)<


Actually the 111th flew both F-102s and F-101s from 1969 until 1976. During
that time period the unit was responible for both Deuce and VooDoo training.
When the deuce was phased out, the 111th continued with the F-101B until 1982.
I cover that on my website.


http://angelfire.lycos.com/dc/jinxx1/images/TEXANG.html

CB

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jinxx1" > wrote in message
...
> >Shows 111th FIS (TANG) operated F-102 from 1960 - 1975 (as mentioned
> transitioned to 101)<
>
>
> Actually the 111th flew both F-102s and F-101s from 1969 until 1976.
During
> that time period the unit was responible for both Deuce and VooDoo
training.
> When the deuce was phased out, the 111th continued with the F-101B until
1982.
> I cover that on my website.

Sounds a bit early for first arrival of the Voodoo;

"1971 saw the arrival of the McDonnell Douglas F-101B Voodoo to the 147th
FIG. The F-101 did not replace the F-102 it was just an addition to the role
of combat crew training. Now the 147th was tasked with training of aircrews
in the F-102 and F-101. 1974 saw the end of the Delta Dagger's days at
Ellington; the "Texans" would now solely operate the F-101."
www.fencecheck.com/articles/base_visits/ article_01_07_2004_lance_pawlik.php

"On 6 May 1971 the unit received F-101F fighter interceptors and became the
training center for all Air Guard interceptors. In August 1974, after 14
years of service, the unit's F-102s were retired, but the unit maintained a
full fleet of F-101s." www.houstonaviationalliance.com/
meeting02/05/ang_info.html

That latter source seems to have the best info on the unit's history; it
agrees with that found on the TXANG official website,
http://www.agd.state.tx.us/main/air/airindexframe.htm .

There was an overlap in flying the F-102 and F-101, but that did not occur
until mid-1971 (I'd suspect they did not actually strat doing any F-101
training operations until maybe 72, since it would take some time to spin up
the unit on the "newer" aircraft.

Brooks
>
>
> http://angelfire.lycos.com/dc/jinxx1/images/TEXANG.html
>
> CB
>
>

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 13:43:56 GMT, "Mark T. Evert"
> wrote:

>The Texas Guard transitioned to the F101 Voodoo

What year was 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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> What year was this?
>

The 111th FIS flew the F-102A from 1960 to 1975 and the F-101B from 1971 to
1981. Both fighters were used in the Combat Crew Training School run by the
unit from 1970 to 1976.

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:03:28 GMT, "Mark" > wrote:

>
>"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
>> about a couple of things.
>>
>> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to
>ask
>> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to
>around
>> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
>> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
>
>HANG (Hawaii) flew 102 until 1977 (last unit as best I can find out). Now
>the be TOTALLY correct Deuce was flown much longer than that as drone.
>
>The Six was faster due to the fact that F-106 had engine with more thrust
>(J75 vice J57). Not sure, but don't think Deuce had variable inlet either
>(open to correction)

The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.

Al MInyard

[Kevin Brooks]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:03:28 GMT, "Mark" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> >> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was
wondering
> >> about a couple of things.
> >>
> >> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to
> >ask
> >> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to
> >around
> >> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though
I
> >> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
> >
> >HANG (Hawaii) flew 102 until 1977 (last unit as best I can find out).
Now
> >the be TOTALLY correct Deuce was flown much longer than that as drone.
> >
> >The Six was faster due to the fact that F-106 had engine with more thrust
> >(J75 vice J57). Not sure, but don't think Deuce had variable inlet
either
> >(open to correction)
>
> The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.

Actually, Al, the 102 used area rule--the lack of area rule resulted in the
first protype YF-102 being firmly subsonic. Redesign to incorporate area
rule yielded the F-102A, which was our first supersonic interceptor.

Brooks

>
> Al MInyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.
>

So did the deuce.

[Tex Houston]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.
>
> Al MInyard

As did the F-102. See Joe Baugher article at
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_1.html part of which I quote below. The
XF-92A is the aircraft which did not have "area rule".

Tex


The F-102 project was in serious trouble, and if a fix for the performance
problems could not be found, the entire project was in danger of
cancellation.

While eight more YF-102s (Model 8-82, serials 53-1779/1786) were being built
to the same standards as the first two aircraft, Convair embarked on a major
investigation and redesign program in an attempt to save the F-102. The
salvation of the project turned out to be in the "area rule" devised by NACA
scientist Richard Whitcomb. According to the area rule, the total cross
sectional area along the direction of flight should be a constant in order
to achieve minimum transonic drag. In order to achieve this, it was required
that the fuselage be narrowed down in the region where the wing roots were
attached, then broadened back out again when the wing trailing edge was
reached. This gave the aircraft fuselage a characteristic "wasp-waist" or
"Coke-bottle" shape. In order to achieve this, the length of the fuselage
was increased by 11 feet, and a pair of aerodynamic tail fairings were added
aft of the trailing edge, these fairings extending beyond the end of the
afterburner tailpipe in a pair of characteristic protrusions. These tail
fairings were for purely aerodynamic purposes and had no other function. A
new cockpit canopy with a sharper leading edge was fitted, although it had
an adverse effect on overall visibility. Cambered leading edges were fitted
to the thin delta wings to improve the behavior of the thin airfoil at high
angles of attack, and the wingtips were given wash-in.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, David
E. Powell > writes
>Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?

Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using
:)

>*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
>group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
>it was, guided missile or not.

Unguided (and hence unjammable, but demanding to use correctly)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Guy Alcala]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, David
> E. Powell > writes
> >Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?
>
> Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
> tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
> two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
> F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
> sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
> recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using
> :)
>
> >*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
> >group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
> >it was, guided missile or not.
>
> Unguided (and hence unjammable, but demanding to use correctly)

Jack Broughton was less than confident about the Genie's accuracy. He compared
firing one to tying a piece of string around your finger and the other end
around the trigger of a shotgun. When you wanted to fire the shotgun, you threw
it away from you and it fired when the string pulled taught, with the accuracy
you'd expect under such conditions. He goes on (I've left his spelling
unchanged):

"Two specific cases made me a non-Geenie [sic] fan. The first Geenie that was
test-fired from an F-106 came right back up, blew the nose off the aircraft, and
killed the pilot. Years later I got a chance to go to Tyndal [sic] with my
F-106 squadron. ADC had saved their resources too well and wound up with a
large number of Geenies that only had a few days to go before they would run out
of shelf life and have to be destroyed. The plan was to fire as many of them as
fast as we could, so for a week straight we saturated the Gulf of Mexico with
every Geenie that we could get to accept the firing signal and leave our
aircraft. They took off in all directions, but very seldom towards the target
drones. One particular Geenie turned hard left as I fired and I watched it do
lazy concentric barrel rolls as it headed straight down to my left. I knew that
if it was for real the boom only had to be close, but suppose straight down and
to the left was the area I was supposed to be defending? Well, the other theory
of the times was that we would be intercepting all the invading bombers way up
north someplace, where I wouldn't know anybody living off to my lower left."

[quoted from "Going Downtown", by Jack Broughton]

Guy

[David E. Powell]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> > In message >, David
> > E. Powell > writes
> > >Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon
bay?
> >
> > Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
> > tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
> > two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
> > F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
> > sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
> > recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using
> > :)

Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

> > >*There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on
another
> > >group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket,
which
> > >it was, guided missile or not.
> >
> > Unguided (and hence unjammable, but demanding to use correctly)

OK....

> Jack Broughton was less than confident about the Genie's accuracy. He
compared
> firing one to tying a piece of string around your finger and the other end
> around the trigger of a shotgun. When you wanted to fire the shotgun, you
threw
> it away from you and it fired when the string pulled taught, with the
accuracy
> you'd expect under such conditions. He goes on (I've left his spelling
> unchanged):
>
> "Two specific cases made me a non-Geenie [sic] fan. The first Geenie that
was
> test-fired from an F-106 came right back up, blew the nose off the
aircraft, and
> killed the pilot. Years later I got a chance to go to Tyndal [sic] with
my
> F-106 squadron. ADC had saved their resources too well and wound up with
a
> large number of Geenies that only had a few days to go before they would
run out
> of shelf life and have to be destroyed. The plan was to fire as many of
them as
> fast as we could, so for a week straight we saturated the Gulf of Mexico
with
> every Geenie that we could get to accept the firing signal and leave our
> aircraft. They took off in all directions, but very seldom towards the
target
> drones. One particular Geenie turned hard left as I fired and I watched
it do
> lazy concentric barrel rolls as it headed straight down to my left. I
knew that
> if it was for real the boom only had to be close, but suppose straight
down and
> to the left was the area I was supposed to be defending? Well, the other
theory
> of the times was that we would be intercepting all the invading bombers
way up
> north someplace, where I wouldn't know anybody living off to my lower
left."

Over tundra or ocean would have been the ideal use considered, I guess....

> [quoted from "Going Downtown", by Jack Broughton]
>
> Guy
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:05:42 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:03:28 GMT, "Mark" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
>> s.com...
>> >> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was
>wondering
>> >> about a couple of things.
>> >>
>> >> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to
>> >ask
>> >> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to
>> >around
>> >> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though
>I
>> >> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
>> >
>> >HANG (Hawaii) flew 102 until 1977 (last unit as best I can find out).
>Now
>> >the be TOTALLY correct Deuce was flown much longer than that as drone.
>> >
>> >The Six was faster due to the fact that F-106 had engine with more thrust
>> >(J75 vice J57). Not sure, but don't think Deuce had variable inlet
>either
>> >(open to correction)
>>
>> The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.
>
>Actually, Al, the 102 used area rule--the lack of area rule resulted in the
>first protype YF-102 being firmly subsonic. Redesign to incorporate area
>rule yielded the F-102A, which was our first supersonic interceptor.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Al MInyard
>
OOOOPS, thanks for the correction, I was probably thinking of pictures
of the prototypes.

A;l Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:41:07 -0700, "Tex Houston" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.
>>
>> Al MInyard
>
>As did the F-102. See Joe Baugher article at
>http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_1.html part of which I quote below. The
>XF-92A is the aircraft which did not have "area rule".
>
>Tex
>
>
>The F-102 project was in serious trouble, and if a fix for the performance
>problems could not be found, the entire project was in danger of
>cancellation.
>
>While eight more YF-102s (Model 8-82, serials 53-1779/1786) were being built
>to the same standards as the first two aircraft, Convair embarked on a major
>investigation and redesign program in an attempt to save the F-102. The
>salvation of the project turned out to be in the "area rule" devised by NACA
>scientist Richard Whitcomb. According to the area rule, the total cross
>sectional area along the direction of flight should be a constant in order
>to achieve minimum transonic drag. In order to achieve this, it was required
>that the fuselage be narrowed down in the region where the wing roots were
>attached, then broadened back out again when the wing trailing edge was
>reached. This gave the aircraft fuselage a characteristic "wasp-waist" or
>"Coke-bottle" shape. In order to achieve this, the length of the fuselage
>was increased by 11 feet, and a pair of aerodynamic tail fairings were added
>aft of the trailing edge, these fairings extending beyond the end of the
>afterburner tailpipe in a pair of characteristic protrusions. These tail
>fairings were for purely aerodynamic purposes and had no other function. A
>new cockpit canopy with a sharper leading edge was fitted, although it had
>an adverse effect on overall visibility. Cambered leading edges were fitted
>to the thin delta wings to improve the behavior of the thin airfoil at high
>angles of attack, and the wingtips were given wash-in.
>
>
Thank you very much, Tex.

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, David
E. Powell > writes
>Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
>Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
>fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
priority for replacement or enhancement.


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[David E. Powell]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, David
> E. Powell > writes
> >Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> >Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
> >fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
>
> No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
> fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> priority for replacement or enhancement.

Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.
Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers. Or there was some
sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that escorted
bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

DEP

Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....

> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Tarver Engineering]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, David
> E. Powell > writes
> >Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> >Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
> >fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
>
> No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
> fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> priority for replacement or enhancement.

The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s.

[Kevin Brooks]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, David
> > E. Powell > writes
> > >Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> > >Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
> > >fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
> >
> > No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
> > fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> > priority for replacement or enhancement.
>
> Whoa - Considering how long they served I would have thought the opposite.

No, Paul is correct. The Falcon did not have a very good record (F-4D's
accounted for five Migs with it over Vietnam). But remember that it was
really the first generation AAM in the USAF. A good summary of the Falcon
and its capabilities can be found at Andreas' site:

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

> Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.

It probably would have.

Or there was some
> sort of upgrade by the '80s. Considering alot of ANG fighters that
escorted
> bombers up and down the seacost in the Cold War carried them.

The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
AIM-4D. It still was not a 8great* missile, but developing further
improvments or going to the expense of trying to integrate a newer missile
into the F-106 as it approached the twilight of its career was not going to
happen.

The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
mid-eighties.

>
> I wonder if GWB ever flew with the nuclear version....?

Who knows? But it would have been unlikely, as the AIM-26 was phased out of
US service by 1971.

Brooks

>
> DEP
>
> Maybe that's why the F-106 got a cannon....
>

[Mark]

Did you mean F-102s??? as drones???

First QF-106s appeared in late 80s...


Mark

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In message >, David
> > E. Powell > writes
> > >Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> > >Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
> > >fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
> >
> > No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
> > fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> > priority for replacement or enhancement.
>
> The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s.
>
>

[Mark]

I seem to recall that one method of employing the 2.75 rocket against a
bomber entailed a 'beam' attack where the heading crossing angle (between
the interceptor and target) was somewhere in the vicinity of 135 degrees.
IIRC the combination of short range and high closure caused for a VERY
interesting time in 'getting out of the way' of the debris (assuming you hit
anything; and if you didn't not running into the side of the target)

Mark

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >
> > > In message >, David
> > > E. Powell > writes
> > > >Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon
> bay?
> > >
> > > Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
> > > tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
> > > two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
> > > F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
> > > sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
> > > recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using
> > > :)
>
> Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
> fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > writes:
> In message >, David
> E. Powell > writes
>>Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
>>Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
>>fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
>
> No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
> fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> priority for replacement or enhancement.


As an anti-fighter weapon, it suffered from 2 serious flaws:
It had an extremely long initialtion time - the delay between when you
decide to fire the missile, and the missile has to be woken
up, (The batteries started, gyros brought up to speed, the seeker
receiver warmed up & tuned, for a radar missile, or, in the case of an
IR Falcon, cooled for more sensitivity, and then the missile is
"briefed", if you will, by the Fire COntrol System on the airplane, so
that the seeker is looking at the right target, and the range &
velocity gates are set correctly. With a Falcon, as I understand it,
this could take 5-10 seconds, which is a danged long time, in a
dogfight. But, then, a MiG-17 pulling 8Gs on the deck is a different
matter than an Mya-4 pulling 2 Gs at 36,000'.

The second problem was that the Falcons never got a Proximity Fuze.
Prox Fuzes are just about the most difficult systems that a missile
will have - they have to take into account the shape of the fragment
pattern of the warhead, and the velocity that the fragmants will
have. A simple "Closest Approach" fuze will inievietably fire late.
It's much more difficult for a missile than for an artillery shell,
becasue the missile has to deal with a larger variety of closing
velocities adn aspect angles. Almost all Falcons had to actually hit
the target to detonate the warhead. That's perhaps, not unrealistic
when you're firing a salvo of them at a big bomber-sized target, but
it's very unlikely that it will be successful against a maneuvering
fighter.

(Secret Analysts Trick - When somebody boasts that they've invented a
"Hittile", a missile so accurate that it doesn't need a Proximity
Fuze, that menasn that they couldn't get one to work, and thas are
trying to make a feature out of a bug.)

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

[Michael P. Reed]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...

> > Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.
>
> It probably would have.

The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not
fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile.

> The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones in
> service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better and
> more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
> warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
> AIM-4D.

This is a bit wrong. The Falcon came originally in two versions and
entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each
to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar
guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar
guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's.
The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About
the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the
-E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the
last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe
with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most
were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon
would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were
manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The
AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a
different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon.
The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence
in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the
F-108, and later the YF-12.

The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation;
F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as
follows:

USAF Tri-Service

GAR-1 AIM-4
GAR-1D AIM-4A
GAR-2 AIM-4B
GAR-2A AIM-4C
GAR-2B AIM-4D
GAR-3 AIM-4E
GAR-3A AIM-4F
GAR-4A AIM-4G
GAR-11 AIM-26A
GAR-11A AIM-26B
GAR-9 AIM-47A

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Kevin Brooks]

"Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > Maybe it was felt they had better odds against bombers.
> >
> > It probably would have.
>
> The Falcon was originally designed for shooting down bombers and not
> fighters. Only the AIM-4D was considered as a "dogfight" missile.
>
> > The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones
in
> > service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better
and
> > more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
> > warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
> > AIM-4D.
>
> This is a bit wrong.

And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a
development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than
the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the
"final version fielded".

Brooks

The Falcon came originally in two versions and
> entered service with the F-89J with the -A and -C versions (three each
> to every F-89) either late in 1956 or early 1957. The -A being radar
> guided, and the -C infrared. The -E was a larger variant with radar
> guidance and this entered production shortly after the -A's and -C's.
> The -F was an improved -E and was the standard radar version. About
> the same time the -G was introduced as an infrared variant of the
> -E/-F. IIRC, the -D was not introduced until about '60, and was the
> last variant procured. It was basically the smaller -A/-C airframe
> with the -G guidance and motor. Some were purpose built, but most
> were reconstructed -A/-C's. It is confusing that the last Falcon
> would be given an "earlier" designation, but remember that all were
> manufactured prior to the tri-service (re)designations in 1962. The
> AIM-26s were even larger than the -E/-F/-G's and so were given a
> different designations. AIM-26A was the nuke version of the Falcon.
> The AIM-26B had a conventional warhead, and was produced under licence
> in Sweden as the Rb-27 (as you say). The AIM-47 was to have armed the
> F-108, and later the YF-12.
>
> The Falcon, FWIW, was, like BOMARC, given a "fighter" designation;
> F-98 Falcon (BOMARC was F-99). The designation changes was as
> follows:
>
> USAF Tri-Service
>
> GAR-1 AIM-4
> GAR-1D AIM-4A
> GAR-2 AIM-4B
> GAR-2A AIM-4C
> GAR-2B AIM-4D
> GAR-3 AIM-4E
> GAR-3A AIM-4F
> GAR-4A AIM-4G
> GAR-11 AIM-26A
> GAR-11A AIM-26B
> GAR-9 AIM-47A
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Michael P. Reed

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mark" > wrote in message
. com...
> Did you mean F-102s??? as drones???
>
> First QF-106s appeared in late 80s...

No, this is about the time that the Tarvernaut comes out with his more
outlandish tales of F-106's serving as deep strike fighters, carrying the
mythical "optical nuke" (whatever the hell that is--nobody here was able to
figure it out the last time he dropped off the deep end with this crap), and
their mysterious AIM-7 Sparrow armament that nobody else has been able to
verify. (Scary music begins) Welcome to the Tarver Zone... (Music fades)

Brooks
>
>
> Mark
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In message >, David
> > > E. Powell > writes
> > > >Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> > > >Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
> other
> > > >fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
> > >
> > > No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although
against
> > > fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> > > priority for replacement or enhancement.
> >
> > The real deal is that most F-106s were decoys, by the mid 1970s.
> >
> >
>
>

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:

>The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
>the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through the
>mid-eighties.

Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because
that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter
and the principle then was to have two types in service in
that role), Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided
Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the
ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it
for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons
on the outer wing stations never used for anything else.
Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe
on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self
defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).)
However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Urban Fredriksson" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> >The Swedes produced their own conventionally armed variant of the AIM-26,
> >the Rb-27, which served with their Drakens (and IIRC Viggens) up through
the
> >mid-eighties.
>
> Draken was actually in service until late 1998 (because
> that's when Gripen was qualified as an air defence fighter
> and the principle then was to have two types in service in
> that role),

No argument there. But were the *Rb-27's* still in service after the
eighties? If so, Andreas needs to change his info... :)

Brooks


Viggen never used RB 27, but the IR-guided
> Falcon RB 28 was planned as a self defence missile for the
> ground attack and recce Viggens. (Very weird to wire it
> for Sidewinders on the under fuselage stations and Falcons
> on the outer wing stations never used for anything else.
> Not used, but I'm not sure for exactly what reason - maybe
> on wing life, maybe flutter, maybe unsuitability as a self
> defence missile (assuming that was the real reason).)
> However, Swiss Mirages used the RB 27 as well.
> --
> Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
> A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

[Mark]

Vague (very) recollection that the 'response' time of the missile could be
improved by getting the missile bay doors open and missile rails down. This
would get the missile in a 'warm' state (so to speak) and would come off the
rail in rapid order (after the pilot actually desired to fire). This,
however, came with the penalty that you'd better be pretty close to a firing
solution, because the missiles were running on the own 'juice' and you'd end
up with a potential dud/hung missile.... (Could be wrong here, my wetware
is getting tired)

wrt the hit-to-kill bit.... there was a 'crush' strip on the leading edges
of the missile wings. When it got 'plonked' the warhead (very small --
another drawback) would go off

Mark


"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > writes:
> > In message >, David
> > E. Powell > writes
> >>Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> >>Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
> >>fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
> >
> > No, it sucked really badly (less than 5% Pk in Vietnam, although against
> > fighters at low level with some hostile factors) but it was a low
> > priority for replacement or enhancement.
>
>
> As an anti-fighter weapon, it suffered from 2 serious flaws:
> It had an extremely long initialtion time - the delay between when you
> decide to fire the missile, and the missile has to be woken
> up, (The batteries started, gyros brought up to speed, the seeker
> receiver warmed up & tuned, for a radar missile, or, in the case of an
> IR Falcon, cooled for more sensitivity, and then the missile is
> "briefed", if you will, by the Fire COntrol System on the airplane, so
> that the seeker is looking at the right target, and the range &
> velocity gates are set correctly. With a Falcon, as I understand it,
> this could take 5-10 seconds, which is a danged long time, in a
> dogfight. But, then, a MiG-17 pulling 8Gs on the deck is a different
> matter than an Mya-4 pulling 2 Gs at 36,000'.
>
> The second problem was that the Falcons never got a Proximity Fuze.
> Prox Fuzes are just about the most difficult systems that a missile
> will have - they have to take into account the shape of the fragment
> pattern of the warhead, and the velocity that the fragmants will
> have. A simple "Closest Approach" fuze will inievietably fire late.
> It's much more difficult for a missile than for an artillery shell,
> becasue the missile has to deal with a larger variety of closing
> velocities adn aspect angles. Almost all Falcons had to actually hit
> the target to detonate the warhead. That's perhaps, not unrealistic
> when you're firing a salvo of them at a big bomber-sized target, but
> it's very unlikely that it will be successful against a maneuvering
> fighter.
>
> (Secret Analysts Trick - When somebody boasts that they've invented a
> "Hittile", a missile so accurate that it doesn't need a Proximity
> Fuze, that menasn that they couldn't get one to work, and thas are
> trying to make a feature out of a bug.)
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Cub Driver]

Question on the F-102:

When the pilot went to fire missiles, he presumably had to open the
missile-bay doors.

Could this be done at supersonic speeds, or what speed did he have to
slow to?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Andrew Chaplin]

Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> (Secret Analysts Trick - When somebody boasts that they've invented a
> "Hittile", a missile so accurate that it doesn't need a Proximity
> Fuze, that menasn that they couldn't get one to work, and thas are
> trying to make a feature out of a bug.)

Ah, so you've heard of BAC Rapier too, I see.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
> Question on the F-102:
>
> When the pilot went to fire missiles, he presumably had to open the
> missile-bay doors.
>
> Could this be done at supersonic speeds, or what speed did he have to
> slow to?

According to my copy of the F-102A Dash One, there are no limits on
opening the bay doors that don't apply to the rest of teh airplane.

Dan, I've got an electronic Copy of the F-102S Standard Aircraft
Characteristics Chart. Would that be useful to you?
Among other things, it includes graphical representations of the
flight enveloped adn stuff like speed/range tradeoffs.

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

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Kevin Brooks > wrote:

>No argument there. But were the *Rb-27's* still in service after the
>eighties?

Sure. The J 35J rebuild programme ran from 1987-91 and
it's not logical to upgrade them to better use(*) a certain
missile if it's going out of service. Also, it's not hard to
find photos of Finnish Drakens from the 90's with RB 27s
(so I think the real RB 27 retirement date is 2000).

*The armament upgrades were: Improved gun installtion
(which could be noted in a certain other thread here), air
to air rocket capability (again, after being deleted on
the J 35F), two more wet pylons and two more Sidewinder
only pylons and ability to employ _all missile types_ head up
or head down.
To me, it's obvious Draken needed a radar guided
missile, otherwise it couldn't be a full capability stand
in for Viggen. Why the IR RB 28 was retained I've never
gotten a very clear answer to, only a slightly evasive
"it's better for some situation".
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Mike Marron]

(Peter Stickney) wrote:
>>Cub Driver > writes:

>>Question on the F-102:

>>When the pilot went to fire missiles, he presumably had to open the
>>missile-bay doors.

>>Could this be done at supersonic speeds, or what speed did he have to
>>slow to?

>According to my copy of the F-102A Dash One, there are no limits on
>opening the bay doors that don't apply to the rest of teh airplane.

Also, the missile bay doors themselves housed the F-102's 24 2.75-inch
folding fin rockets.

[Andreas Parsch]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> No argument there. But were the *Rb-27's* still in service after the
> eighties? If so, Andreas needs to change his info... :)

Ok, ok, so I did :-) ... I don't know why I _ever_ thought that certain
printed sources provided reliable information ;-)

Andreas

[Cub Driver]

>Dan, I've got an electronic Copy of the F-102S Standard Aircraft
>Characteristics Chart. Would that be useful to you?
>Among other things, it includes graphical representations of the
>flight enveloped adn stuff like speed/range tradeoffs.

Pete, that would be great. Send email to and
I'll reply with my home address. Thanks!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[David Hartung]

"Mark T. Evert" > wrote in message
...
>
> > OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was
wondering
> > about a couple of things.
> >
> > First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s?
>
> Yes....the Duece as it was called in Air Force circles was phased out of
> most National Guard units in the early 70's. I recall the Pennsylvania
> National Guard replacing them with A7 Corsairs while in Texas they were
> replaced with F101 VooDoos.
>
> > Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other
planes,
> > would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a
different
> > fighter?
>
> The Texas Guard transitioned to the F101 Voodoo which they flew till the
> early 80's when they moved to the F4 and now they fly F16's

Somewhere around 1979-1980, we at Luke, were training the Texas ANG to fly
F4Cs.

[David Hartung]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...

> The six also had an area-ruled fuse, that is significant for a +mach bird.

As did the Deuce.

[Tex Houston]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mark T. Evert" > wrote in message
> ...

> > The Texas Guard transitioned to the F101 Voodoo which they flew till the
> > early 80's when they moved to the F4 and now they fly F16's
>
> Somewhere around 1979-1980, we at Luke, were training the Texas ANG to
fly
> F4Cs.

Wednesday evening I'm having dinner in a resturant part of which is a former
Texas Air National Guard (K)C-97.

Tex

[David Hartung]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Hartung" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mark T. Evert" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > The Texas Guard transitioned to the F101 Voodoo which they flew till
the
> > > early 80's when they moved to the F4 and now they fly F16's
> >
> > Somewhere around 1979-1980, we at Luke, were training the Texas ANG to
> fly
> > F4Cs.
>
> Wednesday evening I'm having dinner in a resturant part of which is a
former
> Texas Air National Guard (K)C-97.

Now that sounds cool.

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> Cub Driver > writes:
> >
> > Question on the F-102:
> >
> > When the pilot went to fire missiles, he presumably had to open the
> > missile-bay doors.
> >
> > Could this be done at supersonic speeds, or what speed did he have to
> > slow to?
>
> According to my copy of the F-102A Dash One, there are no limits on
> opening the bay doors that don't apply to the rest of teh airplane.
>
> Dan, I've got an electronic Copy of the F-102S Standard Aircraft
> Characteristics Chart. Would that be useful to you?
> Among other things, it includes graphical representations of the
> flight enveloped adn stuff like speed/range tradeoffs.

Hey Pete, can I get in on that too? I can add it to my stash of navy SACs.

Guy (just lose the "junk" in my address)

[Michael P. Reed]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
> om...

> > > The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones
> in
> > > service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better
> and
> > > more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
> > > warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
> > > AIM-4D.
> >
> > This is a bit wrong.
>
> And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a
> development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than
> the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the
> "final version fielded".

Er, ok, I missed the "later" prior to "AIM-4D," but IIRC the AIM-4D
was the most maneuverable of the lot and it had the same seeker as the
G. The "Super Falcon" Fs and Gs did have a somewhat bigger warhead
though.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

"Michael P. Reed" wrote:
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> > "Michael P. Reed" > wrote in message
> > om...
>
> > > > The Falcon did go through upgrades throughout its career. The final ones
> > in
> > > > service (AIM-4F/G limited to use on the F-106) were undoubtedly better
> > and
> > > > more capable than the early sixties variants, with greater range, larger
> > > > warheads, and better maneuverability than the original AIM-4A and later
> > > > AIM-4D.
> > >
> > > This is a bit wrong.
> >
> > And then you go on to acknowledge that the Falcon did indeed go through a
> > development program that left the later variants decidedly more capable than
> > the first version...? Note I said "the final ones in service", not the
> > "final version fielded".
>
> Er, ok, I missed the "later" prior to "AIM-4D," but IIRC the AIM-4D
> was the most maneuverable of the lot and it had the same seeker as the
> G. The "Super Falcon" Fs and Gs did have a somewhat bigger warhead
> though.

The AIM-4D was a joke; even the test equipment displayed
a huge question mark in green lights - on the rare occasion
when the system worked properly. (Seriously; it did!)

[M]

Urban Fredriksson >
> Also, it's not hard to find photos of Finnish Drakens from
> the 90's with RB 27s (so I think the real RB 27 retirement
> date is 2000).

Indeed. The pics below are dated the 10th of June 2000.

http://mikkila.wabbits.org/show.php?image=Oulu30-10062000-DK-2.jpg&album=air%2Faircraft
http://mikkila.wabbits.org/show.php?image=Oulu30-10062000-DK-7.jpg&album=air%2Faircraft
http://mikkila.wabbits.org/show.php?image=Oulu30-10062000-DK-1.jpg&album=air%2Faircraft
http://mikkila.wabbits.org/show.php?image=Oulu30-10062000-DK-8.jpg&album=air%2Faircraft

[Jack Linthicum]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
> about a couple of things.
>
> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to ask
> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to around
> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
>
> Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
> would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
> fighter? The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was mentioned,
> and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102. I
> guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
> prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
> forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
> suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting) earlier
> than counterparts in the US or Europe.
>
> Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?
> The F-106, as I recall, carried Falcon missiles (Or GENIEs*) and later had a
> 20mm Vulcan cannon installed as well.
>
> Fourth, the F-102 and F-106 just look cool. Had to say that. Good designs,
> and you can see the evolution in fuselage flow in the later design. (Though
> the previous one had those cool mini-cones at the tail.)
>
>
> DEP
>
> *There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
> group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
> it was, guided missile or not.

I have a question: what was/is the policy on use of ANG airplanes? I
have seen several bios that stated George Bush used an F-102 to fly to
Florida for a plant business he was involved in. I presume he did the
usual flight plan and landed at a military installation. What would
be the policy, local or ANG, to a Guard pilot using one of the unit's
planes for something not demonstrably Guard duty? And does/did it
happen as a regular thing?

[Mark]

Pilots did (and still do) fly cross-country sorties/missions. Usually on
the weekend. Typically the crews are asked to 'put on' a certain number of
hours/sorties prior to returning to home base. Benefits unit in that they
get the additional flying time for their crews but the maintenance folks
don't have to support the sorties (usually transient maintenance at enroute
and final destination handle the chores of refueling, paperwork, etc)

What the pilots/crews did at the 'end of the day' was pretty much up to
them.... Take in the local sights, visit relatives/friends assuming they
lived nearby, or take care of personal 'chores'. Guard typically had more
flexibility than active duty wrt how long aircraft were out and where they
were allowed to go.... Sounds like this MAY be the case here...

Mark


>
> I have a question: what was/is the policy on use of ANG airplanes? I
> have seen several bios that stated George Bush used an F-102 to fly to
> Florida for a plant business he was involved in. I presume he did the
> usual flight plan and landed at a military installation. What would
> be the policy, local or ANG, to a Guard pilot using one of the unit's
> planes for something not demonstrably Guard duty? And does/did it
> happen as a regular thing?

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Jack Linthicum) writes:
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message >...
>> OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
>> about a couple of things.
>>
>> First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to ask
>> because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to around
>> 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
>> recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
>>
>> Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
>> would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
>> fighter? The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was mentioned,
>> and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102. I
>> guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
>> prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
>> forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
>> suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting) earlier
>> than counterparts in the US or Europe.
>>
>> Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?
>> The F-106, as I recall, carried Falcon missiles (Or GENIEs*) and later had a
>> 20mm Vulcan cannon installed as well.
>>
>> Fourth, the F-102 and F-106 just look cool. Had to say that. Good designs,
>> and you can see the evolution in fuselage flow in the later design. (Though
>> the previous one had those cool mini-cones at the tail.)
>>
>>
>> DEP
>>
>> *There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
>> group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
>> it was, guided missile or not.
>
> I have a question: what was/is the policy on use of ANG airplanes? I
> have seen several bios that stated George Bush used an F-102 to fly to
> Florida for a plant business he was involved in. I presume he did the
> usual flight plan and landed at a military installation. What would
> be the policy, local or ANG, to a Guard pilot using one of the unit's
> planes for something not demonstrably Guard duty? And does/did it
> happen as a regular thing?

Proficientcy flying. Cross-country stuff, that sort fo thing.
Killing two birds with one stone, basically. It's not a matter of
just walking out to the Flight Line as borrowing an aircraft - you
have to have a good, officially sanctioned reason. (Counts as
training/drill points, too).

It's not unheard of - Jack Conroy, the guy who developed and built the
Boeing 377 "Pregnant Guppy" outsize freighter conversions, and a bunch
of other projects as well, used to commute to work in a California Air
Guard F-86.
For that matter, I once had a meeting in Portland, ME, with a fellow
from Bango who'd used his "Company Car" to get to the meeting - An ANG
F-101B.

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

[Michael P. Reed]

Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote in message >...

> The AIM-4D was a joke; even the test equipment displayed
> a huge question mark in green lights - on the rare occasion
> when the system worked properly. (Seriously; it did!)

Ah, but we were discussing the issue of relativity. How was it as
compared to the G?

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
om...
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
>...
> > OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was
wondering
> > about a couple of things.
> >
> > First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to
ask
> > because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to
around
> > 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
> > recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
> >
> > Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other
planes,
> > would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a
different
> > fighter? The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was
mentioned,
> > and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102.
I
> > guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
> > prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
> > forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
> > suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting)
earlier
> > than counterparts in the US or Europe.
> >
> > Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon
bay?
> > The F-106, as I recall, carried Falcon missiles (Or GENIEs*) and later
had a
> > 20mm Vulcan cannon installed as well.
> >
> > Fourth, the F-102 and F-106 just look cool. Had to say that. Good
designs,
> > and you can see the evolution in fuselage flow in the later design.
(Though
> > the previous one had those cool mini-cones at the tail.)
> >
> >
> > DEP
> >
> > *There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
> > group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket,
which
> > it was, guided missile or not.
>
> I have a question: what was/is the policy on use of ANG airplanes? I
> have seen several bios that stated George Bush used an F-102 to fly to
> Florida for a plant business he was involved in. I presume he did the
> usual flight plan and landed at a military installation. What would
> be the policy, local or ANG, to a Guard pilot using one of the unit's
> planes for something not demonstrably Guard duty? And does/did it
> happen as a regular thing?

It was demonstrably Guard duty, in all likelihood. Pilots had to fly certain
hours, and often the destinations were left up to them. My brother returned
from Vietnam and flew Hueys for the ARNG; he flew down to the airport near
our house on one flight so we could come out and meet his crew and look over
the helo. On another occasion he flew a few orbits over a Little League
baseball game I was playing in. Hours were hours, unless they were scheduled
to participate in some kind of collective training event. I believe AC
pilots sometimes do the same thing, even today--there was a case a few years
back where an F-14 pilot flew back to his hometown, landed and met his
family, then departed and tragically piled it in.

Brooks

[ZZBunker]

(Jack Linthicum) wrote in message >...
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> > OK. I have seen the debate over GWB as an F-102 pilot, so I was wondering
> > about a couple of things.
> >
> > First, was the F-102 taken out of service in the early 1970s? I have to ask
> > because as a kid I remember the Guard around here flying F-106s up to around
> > 1990 or 1991 or so, and they were closely related to the F-102. Though I
> > recall them being (much) faster. Mach 1.8 vs. Mach 2.32 IIRC.
> >
> > Second, if GWB was trained on the F-102, and had asked about other planes,
> > would he have been assigned to the -106 or was Texas going to a different
> > fighter? The program wher Guard piolts were flying in Vietnam was mentioned,
> > and the USAF turning him down because the USAF was phasing out the -102. I
> > guess the time needed to retrain the guy on another type would have
> > prohibited him making the cutoff date? Makes sense, though, and the USAF
> > forces in the area could have been phasing out the -102 (which was more
> > suited as a bomber interceptor for CONUS defense than dogfighting) earlier
> > than counterparts in the US or Europe.
> >
> > Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon bay?
> > The F-106, as I recall, carried Falcon missiles (Or GENIEs*) and later had a
> > 20mm Vulcan cannon installed as well.
> >
> > Fourth, the F-102 and F-106 just look cool. Had to say that. Good designs,
> > and you can see the evolution in fuselage flow in the later design. (Though
> > the previous one had those cool mini-cones at the tail.)
> >
> >
> > DEP
> >
> > *There was a massive "Was GENIE a rocket or a missile" debate on another
> > group, which I won't get into here. I think the verdict was a rocket, which
> > it was, guided missile or not.
>
> I have a question: what was/is the policy on use of ANG airplanes? I
> have seen several bios that stated George Bush used an F-102 to fly to
> Florida for a plant business he was involved in. I presume he did the
> usual flight plan and landed at a military installation. What would
> be the policy, local or ANG, to a Guard pilot using one of the unit's
> planes for something not demonstrably Guard duty? And does/did it
> happen as a regular thing?

If the plant buiness is primarily involved in US Government buiness,
it's perfectly legal.
The Navy and Air Force do it all the time.
Since it's perfectly legal today for Bush to land on
disengaged US Aircraft Carrier he wants to,
with any available US Miltary personal helicopter he wants to.
And it's also perfectly legal for him to have the
National Guard invade Yale, and the Naval Academy, if they get
to be moronic with their protest marching.

[John Keeney]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jack Linthicum" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I have a question: what was/is the policy on use of ANG airplanes? I
> > have seen several bios that stated George Bush used an F-102 to fly to
> > Florida for a plant business he was involved in. I presume he did the
> > usual flight plan and landed at a military installation. What would
> > be the policy, local or ANG, to a Guard pilot using one of the unit's
> > planes for something not demonstrably Guard duty? And does/did it
> > happen as a regular thing?
>
> It was demonstrably Guard duty, in all likelihood. Pilots had to fly
certain
> hours, and often the destinations were left up to them. My brother
returned
> from Vietnam and flew Hueys for the ARNG; he flew down to the airport near
> our house on one flight so we could come out and meet his crew and look
over
> the helo. On another occasion he flew a few orbits over a Little League
> baseball game I was playing in. Hours were hours, unless they were
scheduled
> to participate in some kind of collective training event. I believe AC
> pilots sometimes do the same thing, even today--there was a case a few
years
> back where an F-14 pilot flew back to his hometown, landed and met his
> family, then departed and tragically piled it in.

Sure, last summer there was an Apache pilot who apparently had
friends/family/business in the local area and flew down once a
week for a month or more.
There are frequently various military aircraft in the transient area
of the airport: fighters, trainers and more often Prowlers than you
might guess.
When you training requires you rack up those miles going *some
where*, you might as well make it a worth while trip.

[Cub Driver]

>For that matter, I once had a meeting in Portland, ME, with a fellow
>from Bango who'd used his "Company Car" to get to the meeting - An ANG
>F-101B.

When I was in the army, I regularly went out to the nearest military
airport with a three-day pass or two-week furlough and hitched a ride
home or to a tourist destination, wherever the lads were going. More
often than not, it was three guys in a C-119 who themselves were on a
joy-ride for the weekend or two weeks. Training missions.

At this moment, there's a company in Texas cutting up the world's only
XC-99 transport and "palletizing" it. It will be taken in bits &
pieces to Wright-Patt by C-5A as planes & crews are available. Those
are training missions, too.

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 wezeman]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> >
> > > In message >, David
> > > E. Powell > writes
> > > >Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a weapon
> bay?
> > >
> > > Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets (launch
> > > tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each with
> > > two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve, and
> > > F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
> > > sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
> > > recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before using
> > > :)
>
> Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
> fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
>
The Northrop Scorpion was the F-89; the F-94 was the Lockheed Starfire.
Both carried 2.75 inch unguided rockets: the Scorpion in wingtip pods
that also carried jet fuel, and the Starfire in the aircraft's nose
and in small pods halfway out on the wings.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Suddenly, Jacques found himself looking down the barrel
of George's Hyper-Power.

[[email protected]]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>
>>Dan, I've got an electronic Copy of the F-102S Standard Aircraft
>>Characteristics Chart. Would that be useful to you?
>>Among other things, it includes graphical representations of the
>>flight enveloped adn stuff like speed/range tradeoffs.
>
>Pete, that would be great. Send email to and
>I'll reply with my home address. Thanks!
>

For those interested in Flight Manuals, -1 (Dash Ones) Technical
Instructions and AOI's (Aircraft Operating Instructions) and
others try www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com they look quite complete,
are on CD's for around 20 bucks US. I have the Dash One for the
Argus coming. Only place I've ever seen it offered.
--

-Gord.

[WaltBJ]

FWIW the 102 could be fired automatically (by the computer) or
manually - pilot squeezed the trigger. In either case he had to use
the trigger. In auto mode he kept the steering dot centred and at 20
seconds to go the timing circle tarted collapsing, he touched up the
steering, and the computer sent the firing signal through the trigger
switch to the selected armament. Best Pk for missiels was about a 70
degree crossing angle - unless the target was dropping chaff. Then it
was down the nose or up the tail. The best automatic rocket pass was a
crossing angle of 90 to about 110 degrees. The higher the speed ratio
between interceptor and target the lesser the miss distance on a
rocket pass. On a 0 or 180 crossing angle the miss distance was about
the distance the rockets dropped due to gravity during their flight
time of about 1.5 seconds. IE not much.
Also FWIW there was no speed limit on firing ordnance. The Deuces
converted to carry the Fat Falcon (AIM26) lost the rockets normally
carried in the two inner doors because of the increased girth of the
nuke missile(s), which were only carried on the inner launchers.
Cross- countrys - we were supposed to take at least 4 XCs every six
months. Of course you could take more if nobody wanted to go (rare!).
IN ADC we stopped at our war-time recovery bases to exercise the
trooops in turning around a Deuce. We also went almost anywhere we
could get 3000 psi air for a start. One wingco nitcied 'his' aircraft
scattered all over the US on a weekend and promptly put out an edict
that we could go no more than two hops from home (KC, MO). Much
grousing until one troop idly scanning our wall-sized map commented
"Two hops? With tanks we can get to Puerto Rico or Alaska in two
hops!" Grousing stopped.
Nellis (Las Vegas) was a favorite stop - just one hop even with a
clean bird from RG AFB. Deuce was a good XC bird - autopilot, altitude
hold, heading hold; could cruise clean at .93 and 46000 if you weren't
interested in getting max range out of it. Back then only the 106 and
the Navy F8 (2000 pounds more fuel) could outcruise it. Nice aircraft,
nice radar, wimpy missiles, no gun. (Although my bird did hit a
Firebee with a single obsolete Gar1 radar Falcon. Killed the mother
even though the warhead fuzing had been disabled. Hit it squarely in
the middle.)
Walt BJ

[Cub Driver]

Nice post, thanks.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

[Jack Linthicum]

(WaltBJ) wrote in message >...
<snip>

> Nellis (Las Vegas) was a favorite stop - just one hop even with a
> clean bird from RG AFB. Deuce was a good XC bird - autopilot, altitude
> hold, heading hold; could cruise clean at .93 and 46000 if you weren't
> interested in getting max range out of it. Back then only the 106 and
> the Navy F8 (2000 pounds more fuel) could outcruise it. Nice aircraft,
> nice radar, wimpy missiles, no gun. (Although my bird did hit a
> Firebee with a single obsolete Gar1 radar Falcon. Killed the mother
> even though the warhead fuzing had been disabled. Hit it squarely in
> the middle.)


I was told c1962 that the A-6 had a slightly longer range (2300 vs
2200 ferry range) and used to **** off the tower at the Las Vegas
civilian airport by asking to land on an extended taxi strip and after
being told to use one of the regular runways would land in something
short of its 'listed' landing distance of 2700 feet and taxi the
distance to the terminal.

[Andy Dingley]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:11:59 GMT, "David E. Powell"
> wrote:

>The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and other
>fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.

The book "Sidewinder" is rather scathing about "competition" from the
Falcon development team. An interesting contrast.
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1557509514/codesmiths>

It's an excellent read BTW - especially if you're a project manager in
any sort of technology company.

[David Hartung]

"peter wezeman" > wrote in message
m...
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
> > >
> > > > In message >,
David
> > > > E. Powell > writes
> > > > >Third. did the F-102 have a gun or just internal missiles in a
weapon
> > bay?
> > > >
> > > > Falcon missiles (six IIRC) in the bay, plus 24 x 2.75" rockets
(launch
> > > > tubes in the bay doors). From memory there were twelve tubes each
with
> > > > two rockets nose-to-tail: this was sometimes downloaded to twelve,
and
> > > > F-102s in Vietnam did some very light ground attack (using their IR
> > > > sensor to find targets like campfires and the rockets to engage). My
> > > > recollections may be at variance with the facts, so check before
using
> > > > :)
> >
> > Thanks! I hadn't known about the 2.75 rockets, sounds like the F-94
> > Scorpion. The Falcon must have been a decent missile, the -106s and
other
> > fighters used them into the 80s and early 90s.
> >
> The Northrop Scorpion was the F-89; the F-94 was the Lockheed Starfire.
> Both carried 2.75 inch unguided rockets: the Scorpion in wingtip pods
> that also carried jet fuel, and the Starfire in the aircraft's nose
> and in small pods halfway out on the wings.

if you will check, the 89 carried various armament, depending on the model,
including .50 cal, AIM 4s and 2.75s and the Genie Rocket(AIR2A).