wrote:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind
things to say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from
the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come
it was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off

Well, first of all, dangerous to fly doesn't mean it can't be rigged with
controls, even automatic ones.

and fly it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target
practice in combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g.,
that means it was *easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should
have known that before now, since duba did it).

That's hardly a valid conclusion. That something can be piloted by remote
doesn't mean it's easy to fly or particularly stable. So I've got an Air
Force Colonel telling me that they were a nightmare, and I've got you saying
they were "easy to fly." So, what are your qualifications to say that?

-- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

Why do you leftwingers post half(at best)-truths and sheer bull****?