F-102

[Jeffry Fontaine]

While we're on the subject of the F-102, how about a J79-powered version for export, that might appeal to countries already operating other aircraft power by the J79.

I was thinking the very same thing yesterday when I was reading the Detail and Scale book on the F-102 and saw the reference drawing for the engine and realized that it had similar dimensions to the J79.  All you would really need is to add the J79 exhaust parts to the back end of the F-102 to provide the look of an upgraded F-102.

[elmayerle]

While we're on the subject of the F-102, how about a J79-powered version for export, that might appeal to countries already operating other aircraft power by the J79.

Why would it appeal to them?...it was a really outdated airframe and the countries using J79 powered aircraft would  already have F-104s or F-4s, both of which would be newer better than the F-102

Well, there was a period before the F-4 was available for export when the F-102 was the export night/all-weather fighter (you can't say that the F-104 was that) and for that situation a J79-powered F-102, to share engines with the day fighter F-104s, would be of interest.

but why would Convair want to develop this when they had already stopped F-102 production in favour of the better  F-106?

Well, the F-106 might not be exportable whereas the F-102 would be.  I could imagine Greece and Turkey preferring J79-powered F-102s to go with their J79-powered F-104s instead of having to support by the J57 adn J79 engines, they'd only need to support the J79.  A reduced logistics footprint can help sell an aircraft.

[PR19_Kit]

but why would Convair want to develop this when they had already stopped F-102 production in favour of the better  F-106?

Because this is Whiffworld and it doesn't have to make sense............ 

[Weaver]

(May be a stupid idea but) Wouldn't it be simpler to put the recce gear in the weapons bay and do away with the armarment?

Well if it's intended for low-level photo-recce then it need forward and lateral oblique cameras. You can put those in the nose for no cost in drag, but putting them in the weapon bay would mean having a bulged fairing to give them a view forwards and sideways, so that would cost some drag.

For an RF-102, I'd be inclined to fill the weapon bay with fuel, remove the radar and fire-control (which took up an awful lot of space) and put the cameras in an RF-101-style nose. Having said that though, the F-102 would never make an ideal low-level recce platform because it's relatively lightly-loaded wing (about 45lb/sq.ft) would give a very rough ride. Wing loading is why the F-101 was such a good tac-recce platform despite being a lousy dogfighter: at about 130lb/sq.ft it went like it was on rails at low level.

[GTX]

What about a JASDF F-102?

Regards,

Greg

[Weaver]

Holy thread revival Batman!

Was just reading through this and something struck me about the J-79 discussion: how about the J-79 as an upgrade for existing F-102?

Let's posit a scenario where the F-4 Phantom never happened for whatever reason. The F-102As sent to Vietnam perform poorly, but in this world there's no obvious replacement for them, so an upgrade program is launched. The aircraft get J-79 engines, fuel and a gun in the weapons bay, simpler (F-104 level) radar and avionics, a canopy that can accommodate a gunsight, and pylons for Sidewinders. With the aircraft's low wing loading and the lighter but more powerful J-79, it should now be a half-decent dogfighter.

[AS.12]

And/or even an inflight refuelling probe that is less draggy than the one actually used by Delta Daggers for transit to SEA.

Re: RF-102, I have never seen a diagram but AAR was indeed a requirement.  Perhaps a nice neat retractable probe on top of the nose like the F-101A, in the space liberated by ripping-out the fire-control computer?


http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/DETAILSITE/US/USAF/f101/101a.refuel.probe.jpg


In the mid-1970s Sperry proposed modifying PQM-102 target-drones as unmanned interdiction / recce / SEAD UCAVs!  You could really confuse people by following that development with some of the airframes bought by the US Army...

.

[AS.12]

Some interesting details in this restored film:

1. Big Tail installation, including cutting-down the old spars
2. Extended intake ramp installation, I hadn't realised it was two-piece with the forward section mounted on the radar-bay door
3. Experimental side-stick control
4. Bay and missile trapezes for the F-106

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVlgY2DOW0w
Convair F-102 Progress Report No. 4 1956 US Air Force; F-102 Delta Dagger

[rickshaw]

Does anybody know why the F-102B was designed as a side-by-side trainer?  This appears contrary to normal USAF practice, all other USAF trainer aircraft are tandem designs, with the instructor behind the student.

[AS.12]

This appears contrary to normal USAF practice, all other USAF trainer aircraft are tandem designs, with the instructor behind the student.

It was actually the first operational training version of a USAF jet fighter, it preceded the TF-100 by two years.  So one could say that the subsequent tandem designs were contrary!

I think its layout is because it was designed as a 'combat proficiency trainer', not just a conversion trainer.  So having the instructor and pupil share radar displays and other systems was significant.


Edit: this Convair film lists the following advantages:
1. Better instructor visibility
2. Closer student supervision
3. Higher safety factor

https://youtu.be/ViYrxxTVjxM?t=384

Oddly the TF noses were built in Fort Worth and shipped to San Diego to mate with fuselages.

[sandiego89]

I have a soft spot for the TF. Ungainly looking indeed, but a very interesting shape, especially the flat glass panels. And still retained the weapons and systems capability of the single seater.

[PR19_Kit]

Having got two of the Xtraconversions kits of the TF-102 that they found recently, I've tried fitting the nose onto other types. That nose is HUGE! 

It's so wide that it won't fit anything that's sensible, but it makes you realise quite how big the -102 was in the first place. It makes a Lightning look like a 1/144 scale model!

I've yet to try it on a Javelin though............... 

[AS.12]

It seems that the nose also maintained the centre-of-gravity range common with the single-seater, and didn't affect fuel volume ( unlike the F-106B ).

Personally I like the appearance of the TF-102, Lightning T and Hunter T.  The latter two actually had lower drag than the single-seater I think.

It's so wide that it won't fit anything that's sensible, but it makes you realise quite how big the -102 was in the first place. It makes a Lightning look like a 1/144 scale model!

Yes, in one of those Convair film segments about the side-stick I was amazed by the size of the cockpit.  It's like an airliner!