Deny's wrote:
> Tracy wrote:
> 
> ...If he flew the F-102B then it "could" be the same as an F-106.
> Although doubtful, since the Air Guard usually got Air Force
> hand-me-downs.
> 
> It could also be possible he trained with the inert training version
> of the AIR-2B Genie nuclear air-to-air missile (ATR-2).  This was a
> missile designed to take out entire bomber formations (assuming an
> enemy would fly in formations.)  A direct hit would not be required.
> Survival of the shooter may not have been a requirement either."
> 
> To which I reply:
> 
> The Air Force never referred to the Delta Dart (the F-106) as the
> F-102B.  It immediately changed the name and designation of the F-102B
> to the 106.  Therefore whenever one talks about the F-102, it is the
> Dagger to which they are referring.

True to the spec, but you can't be 100% certain with the National Guard.  They may have gotten the memo a month or two later.  It was renamed in 1956, and since Pres. Bush became a pilot in the late 1960s, you're absolutely correct.

> The AIR-2B Genie was a rocket, not a missile (AIR= Aerial Intercept
> Rocket,) with a 1.5 kiloton nuclear warhead.  It was unguided 
> and simply
> launched at an incoming formation of enemy planes.  No 
> consideration was
> given to the shooter or the civilian population on the ground.  IIRC,
> the F-89J Scorpion, the F-101B Voodoo, F-102A Delta Dagger and F-106A
> Delta Dart carried the Genie.  I remember the RCAF (Royal Canadian Air
> Force) Voodoos (CF-101) carried two Genies in a rotating 
> launcher in the
> forward fuselage.  (Yes, Canada had nuclear weapons until 1984. The
> Voodoo was one of several Canadian nuclear weapons systems.)

Sorry about the "missile" reference, an easy mistake.  Anyway I could find no reference to the F-102 carrying the Genie, so I had to limit my statement to the ATR-2 training round.  (I can more easily imagine however, dry running the Genie checklist while an F-102 was sitting on the ground.)
 
> Wirt pooh-poohed my comment about having respect for people 
> who flew the
> F-102. Actually, I have a lot of respect for anyone who now flies or
> flew combat planes, especially fighters.  Fighters were built 
> for speed,
> not comfort or even safety especially in the 1950-1970s.  Safety is a
> more recent innovation.  :-)

Wirt pooh-pooh's everyone who disagrees with him.

That Pres. Bush learned to fly a 14-year old outdated design adds new respect.

What was the accident rate of the F-102?

> The F-102 was designed and built during the 50s and it was an 
> early jet
> fighter.  The first one was built in 1953 and the last one in 
> 1957.  In
> those days, supersonic flight was still new; remember that Gen. Chuck
> Yeager made the first supersonic flight in October 1947.

The F-102/6's (and some others) were flying bricks to be sure.  Designed to get there shoot once, and die.  It was not built for maneuverability or dogfights.  It was probably not even intended to get back home in the NORAD sense if they operated near the Arctic.  A range of only 800NM on on internal tanks.  (Although my opinion here is a doctrinal issue and I don't really have any documentation to prove it.)

No further comments follow, Denys reply retained.
 
> At any rate, the planes of the Century series (F-100 Super 
> Sabre, F-101
> Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-103 Thunderwarrior, F-104 Starfigher,
> F-105 Thunderchief, F-106 Delta Dart, F-107 Ultra Sabre, F-108 Rapier,
> F-109, F-110 Specter(which became the F-4 Phantom II), and F-111
> Aardvark,) were designed and built in rapid succession and 
> for different
> purposes.  Some worked out fine, others never made it (103, 107, 108,
> 109) and some, like the 102, where just plain bad.
> 
> Many of these planes and the ones preceding them were very dangerous.
> The main cause of problems with these planes was the engine.  In the
> early days of jet flight, the engines were underpowered, cranky,
> unreliable and consumed a great deal of fuel. Also, the escape
> mechanisms, AKA ejection seats, were not very sophisticated in those
> days.  The attrition rate of the planes and pilots was far greater in
> those days then it is today.
> 
> The Convair (nee Consolidated Vultee) aircraft company was in those
> days, devoted to pure delta wing designs, the F-102 Delta Dagger, the
> F-106 Delta Dart and some might remember the B-58 Hustler.  These
> delta-wing planes never really established themselves as the 
> way to go.
> Indeed, apart from the Convair planes listed, the French 
> Mirage III, and
> the ill-fated Canadian Avro Arrow, and some others, the pure 
> delta wing
> never really established itself.  One of its problems was the 
> high angle
> of attack required at touchdown, the other was that when the 
> engine gave
> out (a common occurrence in those days), the plane exhibited all the
> flight characteristics of a brick, just not as graceful.
> 
> There were other planes with something approaching delta 
> wings, but they
> added other flight control features, such as canards and 
> double cranked
> wings.  In the purest sense of the word, these are not deltas.  If you
> take a look at the latest designs, you will see that the pure 
> delta wing
> is a thing of the past.
> 
> All this to say that in the late 60's if someone wanted to 
> avoid combat
> and any dangerous assignment, there were many ways that were 
> much safer
> than joining the Air National Guard and flying underpowered F-102s.
> 
> But of all the planes and the pilots who flew them, the ones 
> that I hold
> most in awe are the reconnaissance planes and their pilots.  
> Their motto
> says it all:  "Alone, unarmed and unafraid."
> 
> Denys



BT


Tracy Johnson
MSI Schaevitz Sensors 

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *