F-102

[dy031101]

Some sources (very) briefly mentioned the proposal to convert F-102 into RF-102 as a standard reconnaissance aircraft for ANG.  The proposal was said to be regarded as impractical and not proceeded with.

What was the projected extent of the conversion (i.e. what was replaced and all)?  Why was it impractical?

And a silly question, why is F-102A limited to subsonic performance when carrying the underwing fuel tanks?  Could the the tanks have been made more aerodynamic, or was the aircraft simply not powerful enough?

[elmayerle]

And a silly question, why is F-102A limited to subsonic performance when carrying the underwing fuel tanks?  Could the the tanks have been made more aerodynamic, or was the aircraft simply not powerful enough?

Well, I'd reckon it's a combination of factors.  Firstly, there's the matter of power and the F-106's J75 has significantly more of it than the F-102's J57.  Too, The F-102's drop tanks lack the fineness ratio of the F-106's and that probably contributes to the drag.

Of course, with that large nose for side-by-side seating, the TF-102 is clearly subsonic.

[dy031101]

Was wondering if somehow a pair of supersonic underwing tanks could have been built for F-102A (single-seater of course)- either purely fuel tanks or a reduced capacity version with, say, reconaissance cameras in the forward half.

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

[theapacolypse]

See Here!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitcomb_area_rule
In other words the limitations are the result of a poorly concieved airframe.
Good Luck!
P.S. Sorry if I seemed a little long winded, but I'm trying to add the 'Gawa F-102 & F-106 to my 1/72 B-58. I may be wrong but it seemed like the F-102 short comings were corrected with the F-106 (yes, including the gas tanx).

[elmayerle]

O.K. here goes my attempt @ describing the F-102 speed deficiencies. The main issue was drag. The early F-102 varients lacked the "Coke Bottle" shape in the fuselage to compensate for drag from the wings. This was corrected in the F-106, F-105, and is quite noticable in the F-5.

Yeah, the prototype F-102s didn't incorporate area ruling and were determinedly sub-sonic.  WIth area ruling, the design did become supresonic but featured a number of scabbed-on bits to meet the area rule requirements.  As for shaping the drop tanks, you'd have to size them for the weight of fuel carriage the airframe could support and maintain the desired performance but I'd reckon that a basic shape like that of the F-106 drop tank would work well.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

O.K. here goes my attempt @ describing the F-102 speed deficiencies. The main issue was drag. The early F-102 varients lacked the "Coke Bottle" shape in the fuselage to compensate for drag from the wings. This was corrected in the F-106, F-105, and is quite noticable in the F-5.

Yeah, the prototype F-102s didn't incorporate area ruling and were determinedly sub-sonic.  WIth area ruling, the design did become supresonic but featured a number of scabbed-on bits to meet the area rule requirements.  As for shaping the drop tanks, you'd have to size them for the weight of fuel carriage the airframe could support and maintain the desired performance but I'd reckon that a basic shape like that of the F-106 drop tank would work well.

Might be a simple enough solution to the problem if you are working in 1/48th scale if you choose the scale-o-rama option by using a set of fuel tanks from a 1/72nd scale F-106 on your 1/48th scale F-102.  You would end up with the approximate volume in the right size and shape for the F-102.  Now it might be a challenge if your project is in 1/72nd scale as there are few options available to your for such a modification.  So you could just add a set of the same scale F-106 fuel tanks to your F-102 and call it a day, since it is a WHIF, you can always say that the airframe was beefed up to accomodate the additional weight. 

How about placing a gun in the center weapons bay?  This would still give the F-102 four missiles and twelve FFAR in the door mounted tubes along with a gun in the center bay would be a nice and easy conversion.  Where is that F-106 gun pack when you really need it?   

[dy031101]

American Secret Projects mentioned that Convair, while negociating with the USAF for building the F-102, gave some thoughts on rebuildng the XF-92 prototypes into demonstrators for the Delta Daggers but later gave up as it would have required too many changes.

Was there some line drawing that illustrates the configuration of the XF-92 rebuilt as a Delta Dagger demonstrator?

[Ian the Kiwi Herder]

Of course the day will eventually arrive when I break-down and build my Monogram 'Deuce' in RAF 43 Sqn colours....... really I will !

Ian
(been promising that one since I landed on this fantastic site some four years back  )

[Geoff]

(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?

[Jeffry Fontaine]

(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?

You could add the cameras and IR sensors to the missile bay and still have room for fuel tanks in addition to the reconnaissance and surveillance equipment.  But adding the reconnaissance systems to a new and reconfigured nose section would certainly be easier to get the point across to the uninitiated.  Maybe take the nose from a Mirage III R or the RF-4 and make that fit somehow for an RF-102. 

Of course the day will eventually arrive when I break-down and build my Monogram 'Deuce' in RAF 43 Sqn colours....... really I will !

Ian, will you be adding Firestreak and Red top to your WHIF?

[elmayerle]

For the gunpack-fitted F-102, you could probably use much of the gunfighter nose from the Airfix multi-version F-4 kit. A friend did one as a Vietnam strike F-102B with bombs on outboard pylons and drop tanks on the inboard ones.

[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.

[van883]

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

Van

[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.

[van883]

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?

Van