Wondering about the F-102...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger warheads
you
found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and also
the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's primary
role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together so
that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart that
a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe none.
The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c at a
time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope. The
nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)

The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the W-31m,
which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different mods
produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1 KT
and 12 KT versions were available).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted with
W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources indicate
the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc carried
the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were offered.


You're correct on the W-31. I confess I was too lazy to dig out my copy of the
Nike Herc history to check my memory, butai quick check of the website listed
below gave the info ;-)

eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of last
resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part is
the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
house.

ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC it
was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site located
at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was right
next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root around
as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile launch
pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC it
closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the admin/launch
area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the ammo
bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by private
companies).

If you ever get out to the SF Bay Area, you'll enjoy touring Nike Site SF88 in
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, just across the GG bridge from San
Francisco. It's a restored Nike Site, with docents who formerly manned this or
other Nike sites giving tours (first Sunday of each month IIRR). See the URL
he

http://ed-thelen.org/

Several years ago the then caretaker of the site, the late Col. (ret.) Milt
Halsey, allowed me to borrow the Nike historical monographs and make copies (I
see Mr. Thelen has put them on line now), as well as read as many of the tech
manuals as I wanted to (there were several hundred as I recall, so I mainly
concentrated on the ones dealing with jamming and the FCS Radar ECCM modes).

Guy

From: "Kevin Brooks"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the KC-135
T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks



That li'l ole noise? Yep, nothing beats the sound of a KC-135 on water. When we
did engine trims the people at CBPO took a strong dislike to us. The trim tab
was near there and the wind seemed to always be from the proper direction to
ensure the engine exhausts were pointed right at CBPO. Kind of rattled the
windows a tad.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The drift of the fallout
in a wind is something quite disturbing, even in a 15 mph wind,

And at 35,000 feet, isn't the wind more typically 100 mph--or is that
only occasional?

I pay attention only to the winds up to say 5000 feet, and even at
those levels the speed increases dramatically with every 1000 feet.

I suppose it would have been better than the alternative, but still
....

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article ,
(WaltBJ) writes:

Additional remarks about the Deuce - that RAF type commented on
handling characteristics. With the yaw damper OFF top speed was
limited to about .85 because as you got transsonic the bird would
start an impressive dutch roll that got worse at you neared .95 and
you couldn't stop it without slowing down. Dampers on, it was smooth
and stable. It could be flown at low mach (.6) without any dampers but
like the Zipper wallowed a bit. As you got above .9 the aero center
moving aft required nose-up trim. Also I believe the RAF type flew a
Deuce with the old Case X wing, with the upturned tips. The Case XX
conical ca,bered wing (turned down leading edge) was retrofittted to
all and it was much improved on touchdown having a very noticeable
ground effect cushion and a faster cruise for the same power
setting.

Thanks, Walt. I'm the one that quoted Beamont's report.
To place it better in context, it should be pointed out that he was
here as much in mis capacity as English Electric's Chief Test Pilot as
anything else, and one of his tasks was to eveluate stuff like the
dampers in the -102, (And, for that matter, all other U.S. Supersonic
aircraft) and his high-speed test of them was well above the handbook
limit. (Somehwere around 0.95 Mach, while decelerating from a run to
Vmax.) He was, of course, very much involved with testing of the P.1B
and Lightning at that time, and so was very interested in why the
U.S. was goig to artificial stability augmentation. There was a bit
of a difference in philosphy there - The Brits really didn't like
adding such systems, and went to great lengths to avoid them.
For example, teh Yaw Damper was invented for teh B-47. The V-Bombers
spent a bunch of extra development time getting fiddled with to make
them stable enough in yaw to not need one. Whether that's because any
Sability Augmentation System that they'd be putting in would be built
by Lucas...

I've never heard an F-102 pilot say bad things about the airplane.
They all wished that it were a bit faster, though.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

I've never heard an F-102 pilot say bad things about the airplane.
They all wished that it were a bit faster, though.

Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement). An F-102
cranked up and taxiied away, and when I looked at my hard-nosed
ol' man there was tears coming out of both eyes.

From: Mike Marron


Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement).

Surely not as a pilot. There was no reason an ADC pilot would have trained on a
T-29. It had 2 primary functions over its lifespan: navigator trainer and
cargo. The ones I worked on at Langley in the 1970s still had most of the
sextant mounts in place if memory serves.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Kevin Brooks"

Of course, the area had a lot of rather
densely packed high value targets (Langley, home of TAC and also IIRC
an
EC-135 Looking Glass site; Norfolk and its naval and naval air station
facilities, Little Creek amphib base, Yorktown Naval weapons depot, Ft
Eustis (which we invariably called "Useless", FT Monroe (which had
additional protection, being the last active Army post complete with
*moat*), etc.

Brooks


The 135s were KCs with TWA and battle staff functions. We used the
KC-135
T.O.s
instead of the EC-135. They flew standard KC as well as Scopelight
missions.
Scopelight was the east coast version of Looking Class and flew the
battle
staff and CIC Atlantic. The air crew were 6 ACCS. There were similar
missions
based in England and the Pacific. The names of which I forget.

Thanks for the clarification. Would that difference explain the unholy
reverberations (for those of us below the flightpath) that accompanied
their
takeoffs, in that they used the water injection of the KC?

Brooks



That li'l ole noise? Yep, nothing beats the sound of a KC-135 on water.
When we
did engine trims the people at CBPO took a strong dislike to us. The trim
tab
was near there and the wind seemed to always be from the proper direction
to
ensure the engine exhausts were pointed right at CBPO. Kind of rattled the
windows a tad.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yeah, and they did indeed rattle the windows at the homestead when they
passed overhead. Much worse than even the F-106's on a scramble. But for
sheer noise, the guys next door to you at LRC/NASA had you beat by a
mile--ever hear the sound involved when they uncorked the high speed
windtunnel for a test? We lived over near Deer Park, and when the ambient
noise was down and the conditions were right we could hear it at the house.

Brooks

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Dad loved the Duece. Back in the early 70's I can distinctly remember
Dad and me standing on the ramp at Buckley ANG base where he flew
the T-29 (he was stationed at Denver's Lowry AFB but flew the T-29
out of Buckley from time to time just before his retirement).

Surely not as a pilot.

Surely you don't know what in the hell you're talking about (as
usual).

There was no reason an ADC pilot would have trained on a
T-29. It had 2 primary functions over its lifespan: navigator trainer and
cargo. The ones I worked on at Langley in the 1970s still had most of the
sextant mounts in place if memory serves.

Make ya' a deal, sarge. If you make me prove that he was indeed a
T-29 pilot then you have to shut your pie hole and log off RAM for one
year. Conversely, I will do the same if you prove me wrong.

Deal?

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
m...
Have wondered whether the thinking behind the design was to engage
multiple
bombers (i.e. a formation) with one weapon....

That might have been a more applicable reason behind the larger
warheads
you
found in the SAM's like Bomarc and Nike Hercules,

Definitely. I've got the MICOMA History of the Nike Hercules (and
also
the
Ajax) program, and the Nike Hercules alternative nuke warhead's
primary
role was
to prevent the use of bunching tactics, i.e. coming in packed together
so
that
the bombers appeared as one target on the radar, but far enough apart
that
a
conventional warhead would only get one of them at most, and maybe
none.
The
target handling capacity of the Nike system could only engage one a/c
at a
time,
thus allowing most of them through the missile's engagement envelope.
The
nuke
warhead (IIRR the W-30, the same as used by Talos, and supposedly 5kt)

The nuclear weapons archive indicates the Nike herc actually used the
W-31m,
which came in a total of five yields (1 thru 40 KT), with two different
mods
produced for the Herc (Mod 0 and Mod 2, which I assume means that the 1
KT
and 12 KT versions were available).

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

Another source (NPS, surprisingly enoough) claims that they were fitted
with
W-31's and three yield options (2-20-40 KT), and two other sources
indicate
the W-31 with 2 or 40 KT. So from what i can discern, the Nike Herc
carried
the W-31, and nobody can agree as to how many or what yields were
offered.


You're correct on the W-31. I confess I was too lazy to dig out my copy
of the
Nike Herc history to check my memory, butai quick check of the website
listed
below gave the info ;-)

eliminated that option. Presumably it also served as an option of
last
resort
against a single leaker ("Fail Safe", anyone?). The really funny part
is
the
Army had to assure the more clueless citizens worried by living inside
the
booster impact circle, that the missiles would never be launched from
their
operational sites (generally around cities) for training, and that if
the
missiles ever were launched they'd have a heck of a lot more to worry
about than
the minuscule chance of having an empty rocket booster fall on their
house.

ISTR reading of a single test launch from an operational Nike site; IIRC
it
was a coastal site up in New England. But that may be as suspect as the
various yields reported by different sources... We had a Nike site
located
at the old Patrick Henry Airport in Newport News (the launch site was
right
next to the remains of an old WWII POW camp, and the control site was
located about half a mile closer to the runways); great place to root
around
as a teenager after it was shut down by the ARNG (though the missile
launch
pits had been backfilled with concrete rubble). Interestingly enough, we
also had a BOMARC site operating during the same timeframe (though IIRC
it
closed down a year or so earlier than the Nike site) maybe three or four
miles down the road (it is now serving multiple uses, with the
admin/launch
area being the public school bus maintenance facility, and some of the
ammo
bunker areas (located in an industrial/office park) being used by
private
companies).

If you ever get out to the SF Bay Area, you'll enjoy touring Nike Site
SF88 in
the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, just across the GG bridge from
San
Francisco. It's a restored Nike Site, with docents who formerly manned
this or
other Nike sites giving tours (first Sunday of each month IIRR). See the
URL
he

http://ed-thelen.org/

Several years ago the then caretaker of the site, the late Col. (ret.)
Milt
Halsey, allowed me to borrow the Nike historical monographs and make
copies (I
see Mr. Thelen has put them on line now), as well as read as many of the
tech
manuals as I wanted to (there were several hundred as I recall, so I
mainly
concentrated on the ones dealing with jamming and the FCS Radar ECCM
modes).

The guy who first taught me how to blow things up was a former 7th SFG demo
sergeant who went to school under the GI Bill and got his chemistry degree;
he now is rather famous in the EOD world ("Popular Science" called him the
"Dean of Bomb Disablement" in a story about his work on the Unabomber's last
device). He did a short stint teaching high school chemistry, which is where
I met him. One of the demo jobs he did that I was able to help him on was
the removal of a load of concrete from a concrete truck (the drive chain had
broken and the operator had just parked it back at the lot and left it, full
of what would became rock-hard concrete). We were drilling and blasting our
way through it, and for one of the shots he pulled out a few chunks of red
plastic/rubber-like material. He grinned at me and asked, "Do you know what
this is?" I shook my head and he continued, "It's the solid fuel from a Nike
Hercules!" We crammed some into a couple of boreholes along with about a
quarter-stick each of dynamite. He had left active duty early when the
Vietnam drawdown got rolling, and had to finish his duty obligation in the
Guard (the only reserve SF unit near us was a USAR unit at that time, and
had no vacancies). His first Guard assignment was to the Nike Herc unit at
Pat Henry, and he had gotten some chunks of the solid fuel when they
demobilized the site. His next Guard job was with a 155mm arty unit--I
*don't* want to know what he might have brought home from that one...!

Brooks


Guy

From: "Kevin Brooks"
We lived over near Deer Park, and when the ambient
noise was down and the conditions were right we could hear it at the house.

Brooks

I lived in the Deer Park Aprtments by Casey Chevy. It was quiet there.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired