Wondering about the F-102...

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