F-102's easy to fly (Re: Lars Larson Trying to Help OR NG home for 2 weeks of leave.

[Brian]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...

> On 7 Mar 2004, Hal Lillywhite wrote:
>
> > Bill Shatzer > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > from a book I just happen to have handy:
>
> > > The Delta Dagger was the first interceptor to be delivered as a
complete
> > > weapons system - the weapons, the electronic equipment, and the plane
> > > itself functioned as a unit. The F-102 could be flown remotely
through
> > > its Remote Control Flight System (RCFS). All the pilot had to do was
> > > take off and land the plane; the technical experts on the ground took
> > > care of the rest. During emergencies and under certain operational
> > > circumstances, the pilot had overriding capabilities.
>
> > > Still confident, Hal?
>
> > Yup. Your quotation says *nothing* about actually engaging the enemy
> > under remote control. It's one thing to direct an aircraft remotely
> > in normal flight, quite another to direct it in the combat environment
> > where the target is evasive and well-armed, perhaps accompanied by
> > well-armed escorts. I already admited that it could be *flown*
> > remotely, the question is if it could effectively engage in combat
> > under remote control.
>
> Well, with the SAGE system, the ground folks even pushed the
> button for missile launch. I think the F-102 was upgraded
> to the full SAGE system by the time the dubya was flying 'em
> but I can't find a definitive reference. Still, the SAGE was
> basically an RCFS system with a semi-automatic ground control
> element introduced - rather than ground controllers telling the
> aircraft where and how to fly, a computer took over most of those
> functions.
>
> But, in any case, what part of, "All the pilot had to do was take
> off and land the plane; the technical experts on the ground took
> care of the rest." is difficult to understand?
>
> Ground control flies the a/c to the intercept point. If the
> pilot has to push the button to arm the AIM-4, confirm that
> the lock-on light is lit (or, he gets "tone", however it worked
> with the AIM-4/F-102), and push the launch button or whether
> that is down automatically from the ground makes little difference
> in the level of pilot skill required.
>
> You're not likely to find manuevering bombers over texas. They
> lacked the fuel to do that. You're not going to find "well
> armed bombers" over texas - Soviet bombers carried 'bout the
> same armament as did US bombers of that era which is to say
> a tail gun and that's about it (and as the range of an AIM-4
> was five to ten miles (depending on the model) and the range
> of aerial guns was less than half the smaller number, the
> amount of bomber armament was more or less irrelevent - which
> was why they didn't carry much. And you're definately not
> going to find enemy escort fighters over texas.
>
> But, this is an interesting diversion but it's pretty much
> exhausted my interest. You may have the last word iffen you
> want.
>
> But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.
>
> And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
> miss the mark completely.

No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
easy to fly.

[Bill Shatzer]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:

> "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message

-snips-

> > But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.

> > And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
> > miss the mark completely.

> No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
> smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
> easy to fly.

For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".

The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
college seems to have been entirely sufficient.

It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.



Peace and justice,

[Tarver Engineering]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
>
> -snips-
>
> > > But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.
>
> > > And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
> > > miss the mark completely.
>
> > No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
> > smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
> > easy to fly.
>
> For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".
>
> The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
> college seems to have been entirely sufficient.
>
> It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
> smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.

The Harvard MBA covers that.

[WaltBJ]

The F102A was not a "full automatic flying system" like the later F106
was. I graduated from the F102a Interceptor Weapons School at Tyndall
AFB and was weapons training officer in 2 F102 squadrons - 326 and 332
FISs. I was also an F102 maintenance test pilot. As for being easy to
fly as an airplane - yes, with a caveat. That was: don't get into a
slow speed descent near the ground, as in a dragged-in final. A few
pilots ended up wiping out the gear because they initially pulled back
on the stick to 'stretch the glide' a bit and all that did was raise
the nose, increase the AOA, send induced drag (and sink rate)skyhigh
and by the time they realized what was happening even full afterburner
wasn't enough thrust to break their rate of descent. Splat! And the
Deuce's notoriously weak gear wouldn't take much of a jolt. 540 FPM
was the red-line sink rate. The SAGE system was not coupled to the
Deuce's autopilot. The pilot followed a SAGE steering dot on the radar
scope and a target marker circle indicated where the SAGE computer
thought the target was. Sometimes it was in there, sometimes not. Two
small dials on the left side of the instrument pane communicated
SAGE-commanded fighter Mach and target altitude. Granted, the MG10
fire control system computer normally delivered the fire signal for
missiles and rockets but the pilot had to hold the trigger depressed
waiting for the computer to make up its mind. The autopilot had an
attack mode wherein it steered the aircraft according to the fire
control system's commands in both missile and rocket mode - I do not
know of anyone who ever used it. There are several good reasons why
not - tactical requirements for missile attack being one, safety
during a rocket pass being the other. The FCS/autpilot couldn't care
less about target crossing angle - and the closer you were to a
head-on or up the kilt attack the less the miss distance, finally
degrading to about 16 feet - in the vertical plane. Most likely that
would not be not survivable. Attitude, altitude and heading hold modes
were handy especially when having to replan the flight. Approach mode
was there but most pilots including me preferred to hand-fly the ILS.
I once and once only employed the automatic approach when not required
by the test sheets. Upon detecting the glide path the autopilot
pitched up about 30 degrees nose-high for it, not a nice thing when
the gear is already down and the airspeed is a sedate 150 knots. Now,
there were some facets of the Deuce's employment guaranteed to raise
the pulse level. An ID pass in the weather, especially at night; any
low altitude intercept at night, especially over the ocean, below 1000
feet clearance height. Calls for split attention to work the radar and
simultaneously fly precision instruments at speed and lastly avoid
ramming the bogey. Not everybody was successful.
Walt BJ

[David E. Powell]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...
>
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:
>
> > "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
>
> -snips-
>
> > > But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.
>
> > > And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
> > > miss the mark completely.
>
> > No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
> > smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
> > easy to fly.
>
> For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".
>
> The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
> college seems to have been entirely sufficient.
>
> It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
> smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.

The mathematics knowledge needed to be a pilot is considerable. As is the
individual decisiveness and confidence. This is true in any type of
aircraft, but particularly in a Mach 1+ capable fighter jet. Especially as
there have been words put out that the F-102 was dangerous to fly near the
end of its service.

Hardly the type of individual I would call a doofus.

[Kevin Brooks]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...
> "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:
> >
> > > "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> >
> > -snips-
> >
> > > > But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.
> >
> > > > And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
> > > > miss the mark completely.
> >
> > > No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort
of
> > > smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything
but
> > > easy to fly.
> >
> > For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".
> >
> > The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
> > college seems to have been entirely sufficient.
> >
> > It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
> > smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.
>
> The mathematics knowledge needed to be a pilot is considerable. As is the
> individual decisiveness and confidence. This is true in any type of
> aircraft, but particularly in a Mach 1+ capable fighter jet. Especially as
> there have been words put out that the F-102 was dangerous to fly near the
> end of its service.
>
> Hardly the type of individual I would call a doofus.

Why don't you just refer this clown to WaltBJ's earlier post from today
detailing the F-102 flight requirements (including a rather neat
obliteration of the poster's claim that SAGE did it all for the pilot of the
Deuce)? Heck, Walt actually *flew* them (among other aircraft). I'd do it
myself but I killfiled the poster after reading his previous drivel.

Brooks
>
>

[David E. Powell]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> s.com...
> > "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > -snips-
> > >
> > > > > But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.
> > >
> > > > > And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
> > > > > miss the mark completely.
> > >
> > > > No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort
> of
> > > > smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything
> but
> > > > easy to fly.
> > >
> > > For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".
> > >
> > > The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
> > > college seems to have been entirely sufficient.
> > >
> > > It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
> > > smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.
> >
> > The mathematics knowledge needed to be a pilot is considerable. As is
the
> > individual decisiveness and confidence. This is true in any type of
> > aircraft, but particularly in a Mach 1+ capable fighter jet. Especially
as
> > there have been words put out that the F-102 was dangerous to fly near
the
> > end of its service.
> >
> > Hardly the type of individual I would call a doofus.
>
> Why don't you just refer this clown to WaltBJ's earlier post from today
> detailing the F-102 flight requirements (including a rather neat
> obliteration of the poster's claim that SAGE did it all for the pilot of
the
> Deuce)? Heck, Walt actually *flew* them (among other aircraft). I'd do it
> myself but I killfiled the poster after reading his previous drivel.

Well said, and a good idea.

> Brooks

[Moose]

Hi Walt

I could tell you a few stories about the weak nose gear involving Deuces of
the 59th FIS up at Goose (64 to 67).

There was one Deuce that came back from a practice scramble on a sunny
Saturday afternoon in 1965 or 1966. The pilot was motoring at a fair clip
along the taxiway parallel to Runway 19 (the runway he landed on) which
happened to be on the R.C.A.F. side, when the nose wheel collapsed. The
aircraft skidded almost 90 degrees to the right and came to rest 50 feet
from where one of the messes was having a family day BBQ. I think a couple
of sprinting records were broken that day. (-:

Cheers...Chris

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Just a note - (Walt already knows this, I'm sure...)

WaltBJ wrote:

[ snippage ]
> Granted, the MG10
> fire control system computer normally delivered the fire signal for
> missiles and rockets but the pilot had to hold the trigger depressed
> waiting for the computer to make up its mind.

ALL fighter aircraft worked this way (for missiles, though
not for rockets in later machines). However, by the F-4, the
presence of an Interlock IN/OUT switch routinely defeated the
capability of the WCS/FCS to ensure the missile was fired
inside its high kill-probability envelope.

> The autopilot had an
> attack mode wherein it steered the aircraft according to the fire
> control system's commands in both missile and rocket mode - I do not
> know of anyone who ever used it. There are several good reasons why
> not - tactical requirements for missile attack being one, safety
> during a rocket pass being the other.

Old heads in WCS shops (former 102 & 106 guys) provided another
reason: "hot dots" (a jerky Aim Dot, usually called by sticky
resolvers or poorly aligned amplifiers in the antenna or computer)
- which could bounce a pilot's head off the cockpit hardware if
it were commanding the autopilot...

- John T

[Andy Bush]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> ALL fighter aircraft worked this way (for missiles, though
> not for rockets in later machines).

Not sure what you mean here.

Interceptor rocket attacks had the firing signal coming from the weapons
computer when in the "full up" mode...but the AIM-9 was hot once the Master
Arm was armed. Press the pickle button and that puppy was gone, tone or no
tone, lock or no lock. In the 104, we used the trigger to fire the heaters.

[WaltBJ]

"Moose" > wrote in message >...
> Hi Walt
>
> I could tell you a few stories about the weak nose gear involving Deuces of
> the 59th FIS up at Goose (64 to 67).
>
>Hey, Moose, I was up at Thule in the 332 FIS Aug 63 to Aug 64. I
spent a few weeks down at Goose escaping Thule, harassing the Goose
Club and making a general nuisance of myself. ADC made us get sim time
- Thule didn't ever have a Deuce sim, so every quarter we had an
escape alibi. Twice I sniveled my way back to RG AFB for sim becuz my
wife was living just off base there. Twice I harassed the Goose. About
the only guy I remember was the Ops officer, a guy named Caldwell.
Knew Jack Dale and still know Howie Kidwell, both at Goose about that
time, down at Homestead in the 319th. Howie's living in Austin TX.
Walt BJ

[Boomer]

Hey AK we miss ya over at WT :-)

I thought all AF fighters had the trigger dedicated to the gun, and that
Navy fighters fired selected weapons with the trigger. Am I way off here or
is it always "personal preferance" ?

--


Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Andy Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ALL fighter aircraft worked this way (for missiles, though
> > not for rockets in later machines).
>
> Not sure what you mean here.
>
> Interceptor rocket attacks had the firing signal coming from the weapons
> computer when in the "full up" mode...but the AIM-9 was hot once the
Master
> Arm was armed. Press the pickle button and that puppy was gone, tone or no
> tone, lock or no lock. In the 104, we used the trigger to fire the
heaters.
>
>

[Andy Bush]

That's why I mentioned the 104. I flew the G model which had the
missile/gun/rocket selector function on the weapons select panel. The
trigger fired all three...the "pickle button" was for non-forward firing
ordnance/stores.
"Boomer" > wrote in message
...
> Hey AK we miss ya over at WT :-)
>
> I thought all AF fighters had the trigger dedicated to the gun, and that
> Navy fighters fired selected weapons with the trigger. Am I way off here
or
> is it always "personal preferance" ?
>
> --
>
>
> Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
> "Andy Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ALL fighter aircraft worked this way (for missiles, though
> > > not for rockets in later machines).
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here.
> >
> > Interceptor rocket attacks had the firing signal coming from the weapons
> > computer when in the "full up" mode...but the AIM-9 was hot once the
> Master
> > Arm was armed. Press the pickle button and that puppy was gone, tone or
no
> > tone, lock or no lock. In the 104, we used the trigger to fire the
> heaters.
> >
> >
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Boomer wrote:

> Hey AK we miss ya over at WT :-)
>
> I thought all AF fighters had the trigger dedicated to the gun, and that
> Navy fighters fired selected weapons with the trigger. Am I way off here or
> is it always "personal preferance" ?

I suspect it may be more company preference. The F-8 had AIM-9s on the pickle
button, guns on the trigger, but the F-4 had everything A/A on the trigger. The
navy (or McAir) went with the F-4 method for the F-18, while the F-16 uses the
trigger for guns/pickle for AAMs approach. I know the latter set up led to at
least two inadvertent AIM-9 launches during DS, when the same F-16 pilot, on two
different missions, switched from A/G to A/A mode while pulling off target,
while still holding the pickle button firmly depressed. To be fair, the
situation was rather hectic on both occasions, but after the second occurrence
his squadron mates rather forcefully insisted that he be returned to the states,
as they were getting tired of having to watch for errant AIM-9s in addition to
SAMs and AAA.

Guy

[Boomer]

thanks guys :-)

--


Curiosity killed the cat, and I'm gonna find out why!
"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Boomer wrote:
>
> > Hey AK we miss ya over at WT :-)
> >
> > I thought all AF fighters had the trigger dedicated to the gun, and that
> > Navy fighters fired selected weapons with the trigger. Am I way off here
or
> > is it always "personal preferance" ?
>
> I suspect it may be more company preference. The F-8 had AIM-9s on the
pickle
> button, guns on the trigger, but the F-4 had everything A/A on the
trigger. The
> navy (or McAir) went with the F-4 method for the F-18, while the F-16 uses
the
> trigger for guns/pickle for AAMs approach. I know the latter set up led
to at
> least two inadvertent AIM-9 launches during DS, when the same F-16 pilot,
on two
> different missions, switched from A/G to A/A mode while pulling off
target,
> while still holding the pickle button firmly depressed. To be fair, the
> situation was rather hectic on both occasions, but after the second
occurrence
> his squadron mates rather forcefully insisted that he be returned to the
states,
> as they were getting tired of having to watch for errant AIM-9s in
addition to
> SAMs and AAA.
>
> Guy
>