Wondering about the F-102...

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

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

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

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

Harley W. Daugherty

In article ,
"Harley W. Daugherty" writes:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Harley W. Daugherty" wrote:

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

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

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

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

Guy

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

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

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

Mark

(WaltBJ) wrote:

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

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

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



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

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...

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

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

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

Keith

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

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

Did it in fact carry nuclear-tipped missiles?

(What *were* we thinking?)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

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

Thanks! - Dan Ford

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

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

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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