F-102 Ideas & Questions

[tahsin]

You know the internet is just a collection of titbits you glimpse and leave and soon enough come to regret that you didn't save them all. It seems when the F-14 was being first deployed an entire range of aircraft was arranged to fight in DACT. The F-106 came on tops, in contrast to more officially handled USAF trials of F-15.

Or maybe you remember some words to google for and and search for the link even if it's not exactly as you remember it. Check post#20 for the details.

[tahsin]

Out of hundreds of engagements the F-15 was beaten only twice, by Phantoms. I had the exact numbers in some magazine.

[rickshaw]

Such comparisons aren't of much use IMO.  It all depends on many variables which are external to the aircraft itself, as to whether one aircraft will win an engagement over another.   Perhaps the most important is pilot ability.  A mediocre pilot in a superlative aircraft will still lose to a superb pilot in a mediocre aircraft.

[PR19_Kit]

PR-19 Kit

Talking about that he said they tended to '.....wait on the QRA pad until a threat was inside the airfield boundary or we'd never have caught them!' He was obviously NOT impressed with the range of the '102 in pursuit mode

I thought the F-102 had a intercept radius at least a couple hundred nm (400-500) which while not spectacular isn't exactly hideous for a fighter interceptor at the time (The F-8 could do around 400 supersonic I think).  It also had some supersonic capability without afterburner (admittedly for intercept you'd want to just get up and fast ASAP).

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reporting what the guy said. I guess the only opposition they were expecting would be North Vitenamese Mig-21s coming in VERY fast and under those conditions he could well have been right.

[Weaver]

I thought the F-102 had a intercept radius at least a couple hundred nm (400-500) which while not spectacular isn't exactly hideous for a fighter interceptor at the time (The F-8 could do around 400 supersonic I think).  It also had some supersonic capability without afterburner (admittedly for intercept you'd want to just get up and fast ASAP).

I think you're confusing the F-102 and the F-106 Kendra. The F-106 could go supersonic without afterburner, but the F-102 could barely get out of it's own way: about M=1.2 max IIRC.

[tahsin]

Such comparisons aren't of much use IMO.  

Considering they were part of USAF's own testing which would be reported to Congress and all, the surprising thing should be the two losses. Maybe part of a greater scheme to suggest the tests were so honest perhaps?

And venturing a few ideas: has one of those internet types had been around he would say the answer to the unasked question was that Hughes Aviation failed to hack transistors, so the electronics payload got larger until to the point the "Dagger" sized airframe didn't have the volume and had to be enlarged. But as the contracts had already been arranged, Convair had to tell a bit of little lies here and there until windtunnel tests would show that the lies weren't that little . After which Convair had to cover it up all with the promise of '102B, for which they didn't have the propulsion anyway. Actually the designations should have been corrected as F-106- as in Minus, for the Dart was what USAF thought it was getting. But then it would take some courage in a British Aviation/Modelling forum to claim the Mirage III doesn't descend from some Fairey Project.

[Weaver]

But then it would take some courage in a British Aviation/Modelling forum to claim the Mirage III doesn't descend from some Fairey Project.

Eh? I thought the Dassault-copied-Fairey idea had been thoroughly discredited ages ago? As far as I'm concerned it's nonsense.

[rickshaw]

Such comparisons aren't of much use IMO.  

Considering they were part of USAF's own testing which would be reported to Congress and all, the surprising thing should be the two losses. Maybe part of a greater scheme to suggest the tests were so honest perhaps?

Considering their track record on all sorts of tests, I take the results of such comparisons with a considerable grain of salt.  They've been caught cheating on other tests in the past and they'll be caught no doubt cheating on future ones.  It seems only the people who park their bums on the seats in Congress are credulous enough to believe what they tell them.

And venturing a few ideas: has one of those internet types had been around he would say the answer to the unasked question was that Hughes Aviation failed to hack transistors, so the electronics payload got larger until to the point the "Dagger" sized airframe didn't have the volume and had to be enlarged. But as the contracts had already been arranged, Convair had to tell a bit of little lies here and there until windtunnel tests would show that the lies weren't that little . After which Convair had to cover it up all with the promise of '102B, for which they didn't have the propulsion anyway. Actually the designations should have been corrected as F-106- as in Minus, for the Dart was what USAF thought it was getting. But then it would take some courage in a British Aviation/Modelling forum to claim the Mirage III doesn't descend from some Fairey Project.

I think all designers feed off one another's ideas and influence each other.   Then of course, there is the problem that aerodynamics tends to produce the same shapes 'cause they're the most efficient.

[KJ_Lesnick]

tahsin

Out of hundreds of engagements the F-15 was beaten only twice, by Phantoms. I had the exact numbers in some magazine.

Then where did the statement you wrote that the F-106 came out on tops?


rickshaw

Such comparisons aren't of much use IMO [snip] Perhaps the most important is pilot ability.

Well, I was operating under the premise that assuming both pilots are equally skilled, who wins?


PR19_Kit

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reporting what the guy said.

Hey, I wasn't shooting you or criticizing you.  I was just puzzled by the statement.

I guess the only opposition they were expecting would be North Vitenamese Mig-21s coming in VERY fast and under those conditions he could well have been right.

Firstly: The MiG-21 could do around Mach 2.0 to 2.5?

Secondly: Having done a little bit of research here

1962: The first F-102's were sent to SEA to defend against the Il-28 Beagle

1964-1968/69
- F-102's began being used in the air-to-ground role in Vietnam using the aircraft's IRST, radar, and AIM-4's against ground-targets along the Ho Chi Minh trail at night; later, the optical sight and the 24 x FFARs were used in daylight attacks along the trail
- At least some CAS missions (which include some missions above) were used by this aircraft including TF-102A's serving in the FAC role because of it's twin-seat arrangement (they also carried rockets too)
- Operation Arc-Light kicked off effectively using B-52's to perform tactical bombing and CAS missions (weird as that sounds) in Vietnam.  The F-102A was used as an escort until 1968 or 1969


Weaver

I think you're confusing the F-102 and the F-106 Kendra. The F-106 could go supersonic without afterburner, but the F-102 could barely get out of it's own way: about M=1.2 max IIRC.

The F-102 has largely been a source of confusion for me.

I'll explain why

• Top speed prior to the area rule was at least 0.98 in level flight
  
• Some sources listed higher speeds such as 812 (Mach 1.23) to 870 mph (1.3181818...) which might very well have included a dive (as the top-speed was listed as 0.98 level; admittedly the wings were slightly modified on the prototypes a couple of flights in to improve low-speed handling and certain cambers also benefit supersonic flight so long as the camber is in the conical flow)
  
• It was stated that the area-ruled F-102A was more than twice as fast which makes for a speed of at least Mach 1.96 provided the original top-speed of 0.98 mach is correct (which seems plausible) and potentially speeds in excess of 1624 to 1740 mph assuming the other two speed figures were correct
  
• During a discussion on an aviation forum about the mach limits of the J57 (I didn't start the thread) lead to the assertion by a person who served in the USAF, that it was not much good over Mach 2; I pointed out that the J75 was a scaled up version of the J57 (though I stated it could have had improved turbine temps) and the F-102A had a speed of at least 2.4.  At this point he said he forgot how fast the F-102 was.
  

Regardless of the exact specifics, I think 1.96 would be a pretty good starting point.

[tahsin]

tahsin

Out of hundreds of engagements the F-15 was beaten only twice, by Phantoms. I had the exact numbers in some magazine.

Then where did the statement you wrote that the F-106 came out on tops?

Actually, I didn't. In the sense that I remembered something to that extent, and the Key Magazines Forum thread doesn't explicitly say the Tomcat drivers were like completely kidded with in 1x1 or 4x4.

Regarding top speed, you are either mistaken or reading some very old specifications. Don't really think there is that much thrust in Christendom to push the Deuce -as we know- that fast.

[tahsin]

But then it would take some courage in a British Aviation/Modelling forum to claim the Mirage III doesn't descend from some Fairey Project.

Eh? I thought the Dassault-copied-Fairey idea had been thoroughly discredited ages ago? As far as I'm concerned it's nonsense.

And wouldn't that be something in itself? It's a shame Bill Gunston died before writing why he hated the Mirages so hard -at times of course?

[KJ_Lesnick]

tahsin

Actually, I didn't. In the sense that I remembered something to that extent

Understood

the Key Magazines Forum thread doesn't explicitly say the Tomcat drivers were like completely kidded with in 1x1 or 4x4.

When you say kidded, I'm not sure I understand that -- I assume you mean beaten?

Regarding top speed, you are either mistaken or reading some very old specifications.

Hey, it was in an aviation book I had about a decade back: It showed a picture of the non-area ruled YF-102, and the YF-102A and it stated more or less what I did, that the area-ruled version was more than twice as fast.

[Weaver]

Every source I can find says Mach = 1.25 for the F-102.

Apparently, there was a proposal for a ground attack version called the F-102C which would have featured an internal gun, and got as far as engineering prototypes. I can't find any details about the gun installation though.

[rickshaw]

rickshaw

Such comparisons aren't of much use IMO [snip] Perhaps the most important is pilot ability.

Well, I was operating under the premise that assuming both pilots are equally skilled, who wins?

Then they cannot be undertaken or be based on real world tests.  You need a pilot, as in Eric Brown who has actually flown both (and preferably more) and has a thorough understanding of the flight characteristics of them.  Most military pilots can't do that.  They are too highly specialised.

[tahsin]

Regarding top speed, you are either mistaken or reading some very old specifications.

Hey, it was in an aviation book I had about a decade back: It showed a picture of the non-area ruled YF-102, and the YF-102A and it stated more or less what I did, that the area-ruled version was more than twice as fast.

You are aware you are setting the venue for an "internet truth" that says the US Goverment intends to cover up the F-35 foibles with some tall tales of  how failure to fulfill contracts is endemic to aviation industry in the US, right? Well, allow me play...

In the first place, what's the thing behind this "1954 Interceptor" definition? If one takes a cursory glance at first flight dates of supersonic fighters only F-100 seems to have flown before 1954 and good old Uncle Sam demands bisonic speed in squadron service before that date? Leads one to wonder what held them (Americans) back? Can't be some super secret league of Communists, with McCarthy hard on heels of anybody suspected of being tainted by the slightest speck of the colour Red...

The Swedes had a similarly tough environment to defend and their solution, as the SAAB Draken, took 11 years to squadron service between 1949 and '60. Despite the terrific blondes they raise, as that terrible joke goes.

And of course, it is still perfectly possible to blame Lockheed for everything... Can't say whether Kelly Johnson could see air,  but he sure could see the P-80 and its descendants would not last forever and mind you in 1949 he hadn't yet even drafted the '104. The requirements for a new interceptor to match the projected Russian threat of 1955 could surely break his company for good. The pressure wouldn't be immediate; North American was sort of an ally, especially against the Navy companies like Grumman and the F-86 showed all signs of being a throughbred, a tough act to match, let alone to beat. Regarding escort fighters, F-84F was such a plodding underperformer that the F-90 would have eaten it alive, but for the F-88 which was to prove even better. Regarding interceptors, the very word coined to get P-38 into the system and then into USAAF service, the picture was definitely bleak. F-86D , the Sabre Dog, was indeed the top dog in performance and F-89 began with six cannons to 4 machine guns of the temporary stop-gap, Lockheed's F-94. Indeed the latter needed afterburning to keep up with WW2 type threats. Which of course wasn't as bad as the Gloster Javelin which was famously slower with A/B on than off...

So when the 1949 competition came up and Republic's monster which was to become the F-103 made an appearance, Lockheed saw that the business plan for surviving the 1950s had few options: Apart from getting full co-operation from as many branches of the US Goverment as possible they either had to win the race completely or strive to get it divided into -say- two parts with one heavy type and a light. It would definetely help if everybody else concentrated on the heavies. Heavier a proposal got, better it was in competition with the Thunderwarrior or whatever the F-103 was to be called. Asking how this could ever happen tends to be quite unproductive.

Suffice it to say, Convair was a bomber builder by trade. Dagger got a Delta added to its name and got fat.

Doesn't end there of course. Air International Jan. 86 tells it that USAF was expecting Mach 1.93 from its 1954 Interceptor as of September 1951. The same article then mentions Convair refusing to accept results of wind tunnel tests until Summer 1953 and still doing nothing to correct the deficiencies until early 1954. One can say anything one wishes about the discovery of Area Ruling and its magical effect on the aircraft performance; the F-104 was then on its way to become the "first" Mach 2.0 jetplane. Had to wait the invention of J-79 a bit...  The true 1954 Interceptor was about 2 years later the Starfighter into squadron service, but had a lot more, especially range compared to Lockheed's machine. Convair, though, had to be satisfied with a truncated programme, cut to less than 400 compared to 1000 as initially planned; this wasn't the 50s when Cook-Craige concept made it certain that double sets of production tooling would be bought.

As such there was nothing wrong with the Deuce, it was good business and was "effective" in the 1950s when the West looked at askance at the Bear and its turbine driven props. So there is no need to make up history and some fiction about contracts; unless of course one has radar tracks from the Greeks that show our cowards ran from Greek F-5s in 1974, with Mach 2,92... We are Turkish Nationalists at heart, we will find a way to brag on cowardice, too! Since for anything higher than some Mach 1.2 , any pilot would have to get out and push his F-102...

This being the very What If site, let's wrap this up with commentary on how retentive some people in the US Military services can be. No F-5G could exist if it meant putting a J-101/F-404 in place of the twin '85s. Nor it could be F-19, because the next one solely desired for DACT then would have to be called the F-20... Yep, Dagger came home. Somehow.