A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

F-102's easy to fly ( Lars Larson Trying to Help OR NG home for 2 weeks of leave.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 8th 04, 12:58 AM
Brian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default F-102's easy to fly ( Lars Larson Trying to Help OR NG home for 2 weeks of leave.


"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

On 7 Mar 2004, Hal Lillywhite wrote:

Bill Shatzer wrote in message

...

from a book I just happen to have handy:


The Delta Dagger was the first interceptor to be delivered as a

complete
weapons system - the weapons, the electronic equipment, and the plane
itself functioned as a unit. The F-102 could be flown remotely

through
its Remote Control Flight System (RCFS). All the pilot had to do was
take off and land the plane; the technical experts on the ground took
care of the rest. During emergencies and under certain operational
circumstances, the pilot had overriding capabilities.


Still confident, Hal?


Yup. Your quotation says *nothing* about actually engaging the enemy
under remote control. It's one thing to direct an aircraft remotely
in normal flight, quite another to direct it in the combat environment
where the target is evasive and well-armed, perhaps accompanied by
well-armed escorts. I already admited that it could be *flown*
remotely, the question is if it could effectively engage in combat
under remote control.


Well, with the SAGE system, the ground folks even pushed the
button for missile launch. I think the F-102 was upgraded
to the full SAGE system by the time the dubya was flying 'em
but I can't find a definitive reference. Still, the SAGE was
basically an RCFS system with a semi-automatic ground control
element introduced - rather than ground controllers telling the
aircraft where and how to fly, a computer took over most of those
functions.

But, in any case, what part of, "All the pilot had to do was take
off and land the plane; the technical experts on the ground took
care of the rest." is difficult to understand?

Ground control flies the a/c to the intercept point. If the
pilot has to push the button to arm the AIM-4, confirm that
the lock-on light is lit (or, he gets "tone", however it worked
with the AIM-4/F-102), and push the launch button or whether
that is down automatically from the ground makes little difference
in the level of pilot skill required.

You're not likely to find manuevering bombers over texas. They
lacked the fuel to do that. You're not going to find "well
armed bombers" over texas - Soviet bombers carried 'bout the
same armament as did US bombers of that era which is to say
a tail gun and that's about it (and as the range of an AIM-4
was five to ten miles (depending on the model) and the range
of aerial guns was less than half the smaller number, the
amount of bomber armament was more or less irrelevent - which
was why they didn't carry much. And you're definately not
going to find enemy escort fighters over texas.

But, this is an interesting diversion but it's pretty much
exhausted my interest. You may have the last word iffen you
want.

But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.

And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
miss the mark completely.


No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
easy to fly.


Ads
  #2  
Old March 8th 04, 06:58 AM
Bill Shatzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default





On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message


-snips-

But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.


And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
miss the mark completely.


No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
easy to fly.


For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".

The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
college seems to have been entirely sufficient.

It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.



Peace and justice,

  #3  
Old March 8th 04, 04:26 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...




On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message


-snips-

But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.


And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
miss the mark completely.


No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
easy to fly.


For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".

The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
college seems to have been entirely sufficient.

It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.


The Harvard MBA covers that.


  #4  
Old March 9th 04, 03:15 AM
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The F102A was not a "full automatic flying system" like the later F106
was. I graduated from the F102a Interceptor Weapons School at Tyndall
AFB and was weapons training officer in 2 F102 squadrons - 326 and 332
FISs. I was also an F102 maintenance test pilot. As for being easy to
fly as an airplane - yes, with a caveat. That was: don't get into a
slow speed descent near the ground, as in a dragged-in final. A few
pilots ended up wiping out the gear because they initially pulled back
on the stick to 'stretch the glide' a bit and all that did was raise
the nose, increase the AOA, send induced drag (and sink rate)skyhigh
and by the time they realized what was happening even full afterburner
wasn't enough thrust to break their rate of descent. Splat! And the
Deuce's notoriously weak gear wouldn't take much of a jolt. 540 FPM
was the red-line sink rate. The SAGE system was not coupled to the
Deuce's autopilot. The pilot followed a SAGE steering dot on the radar
scope and a target marker circle indicated where the SAGE computer
thought the target was. Sometimes it was in there, sometimes not. Two
small dials on the left side of the instrument pane communicated
SAGE-commanded fighter Mach and target altitude. Granted, the MG10
fire control system computer normally delivered the fire signal for
missiles and rockets but the pilot had to hold the trigger depressed
waiting for the computer to make up its mind. The autopilot had an
attack mode wherein it steered the aircraft according to the fire
control system's commands in both missile and rocket mode - I do not
know of anyone who ever used it. There are several good reasons why
not - tactical requirements for missile attack being one, safety
during a rocket pass being the other. The FCS/autpilot couldn't care
less about target crossing angle - and the closer you were to a
head-on or up the kilt attack the less the miss distance, finally
degrading to about 16 feet - in the vertical plane. Most likely that
would not be not survivable. Attitude, altitude and heading hold modes
were handy especially when having to replan the flight. Approach mode
was there but most pilots including me preferred to hand-fly the ILS.
I once and once only employed the automatic approach when not required
by the test sheets. Upon detecting the glide path the autopilot
pitched up about 30 degrees nose-high for it, not a nice thing when
the gear is already down and the airspeed is a sedate 150 knots. Now,
there were some facets of the Deuce's employment guaranteed to raise
the pulse level. An ID pass in the weather, especially at night; any
low altitude intercept at night, especially over the ocean, below 1000
feet clearance height. Calls for split attention to work the radar and
simultaneously fly precision instruments at speed and lastly avoid
ramming the bogey. Not everybody was successful.
Walt BJ
  #5  
Old March 9th 04, 04:18 AM
David E. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message


-snips-

But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.


And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
miss the mark completely.


No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything but
easy to fly.


For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".

The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
college seems to have been entirely sufficient.

It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.


The mathematics knowledge needed to be a pilot is considerable. As is the
individual decisiveness and confidence. This is true in any type of
aircraft, but particularly in a Mach 1+ capable fighter jet. Especially as
there have been words put out that the F-102 was dangerous to fly near the
end of its service.

Hardly the type of individual I would call a doofus.


  #6  
Old March 9th 04, 04:58 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message


-snips-

But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.


And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
miss the mark completely.


No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort

of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything

but
easy to fly.


For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".

The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
college seems to have been entirely sufficient.

It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.


The mathematics knowledge needed to be a pilot is considerable. As is the
individual decisiveness and confidence. This is true in any type of
aircraft, but particularly in a Mach 1+ capable fighter jet. Especially as
there have been words put out that the F-102 was dangerous to fly near the
end of its service.

Hardly the type of individual I would call a doofus.


Why don't you just refer this clown to WaltBJ's earlier post from today
detailing the F-102 flight requirements (including a rather neat
obliteration of the poster's claim that SAGE did it all for the pilot of the
Deuce)? Heck, Walt actually *flew* them (among other aircraft). I'd do it
myself but I killfiled the poster after reading his previous drivel.

Brooks




  #7  
Old March 9th 04, 05:29 AM
David E. Powell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Brian wrote:

"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message

-snips-

But still, the dubya flying F-102s was No Big Deal.

And attempts to turn him into some superman for so doing just
miss the mark completely.

No one is saying he's a superman, just that he had to have some sort

of
smarts to make it through and train on an aircraft that was anything

but
easy to fly.

For extremely small values of "some sort of smarts".

The amount of smarts required to pull down a "C+" average in
college seems to have been entirely sufficient.

It's really too bad that being president requires a few more
smarts than flying an F-102. Or getting a "C+" college GPA.


The mathematics knowledge needed to be a pilot is considerable. As is

the
individual decisiveness and confidence. This is true in any type of
aircraft, but particularly in a Mach 1+ capable fighter jet. Especially

as
there have been words put out that the F-102 was dangerous to fly near

the
end of its service.

Hardly the type of individual I would call a doofus.


Why don't you just refer this clown to WaltBJ's earlier post from today
detailing the F-102 flight requirements (including a rather neat
obliteration of the poster's claim that SAGE did it all for the pilot of

the
Deuce)? Heck, Walt actually *flew* them (among other aircraft). I'd do it
myself but I killfiled the poster after reading his previous drivel.


Well said, and a good idea.

Brooks



  #8  
Old March 9th 04, 07:49 AM
Moose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Walt

I could tell you a few stories about the weak nose gear involving Deuces of
the 59th FIS up at Goose (64 to 67).

There was one Deuce that came back from a practice scramble on a sunny
Saturday afternoon in 1965 or 1966. The pilot was motoring at a fair clip
along the taxiway parallel to Runway 19 (the runway he landed on) which
happened to be on the R.C.A.F. side, when the nose wheel collapsed. The
aircraft skidded almost 90 degrees to the right and came to rest 50 feet
from where one of the messes was having a family day BBQ. I think a couple
of sprinting records were broken that day. (-:

Cheers...Chris


  #9  
Old March 12th 04, 08:37 PM
Dweezil Dwarftosser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Just a note - (Walt already knows this, I'm sure...)

WaltBJ wrote:

[ snippage ]
Granted, the MG10
fire control system computer normally delivered the fire signal for
missiles and rockets but the pilot had to hold the trigger depressed
waiting for the computer to make up its mind.


ALL fighter aircraft worked this way (for missiles, though
not for rockets in later machines). However, by the F-4, the
presence of an Interlock IN/OUT switch routinely defeated the
capability of the WCS/FCS to ensure the missile was fired
inside its high kill-probability envelope.

The autopilot had an
attack mode wherein it steered the aircraft according to the fire
control system's commands in both missile and rocket mode - I do not
know of anyone who ever used it. There are several good reasons why
not - tactical requirements for missile attack being one, safety
during a rocket pass being the other.


Old heads in WCS shops (former 102 & 106 guys) provided another
reason: "hot dots" (a jerky Aim Dot, usually called by sticky
resolvers or poorly aligned amplifiers in the antenna or computer)
- which could bounce a pilot's head off the cockpit hardware if
it were commanding the autopilot...

- John T
  #10  
Old March 13th 04, 03:30 AM
Andy Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
ALL fighter aircraft worked this way (for missiles, though
not for rockets in later machines).


Not sure what you mean here.

Interceptor rocket attacks had the firing signal coming from the weapons
computer when in the "full up" mode...but the AIM-9 was hot once the Master
Arm was armed. Press the pickle button and that puppy was gone, tone or no
tone, lock or no lock. In the 104, we used the trigger to fire the heaters.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lars Larson Trying to Help OR NG home for 2 weeks of leave. Brian Military Aviation 0 March 8th 04 12:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.