Talk:Convair F-102 Delta Dagger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Wing-Area Corrected[edit]

The F-102's and F-106's both originally had a wing-area of 661.5 square-feet, and with the conically-cambered wing configuration, featured a wing-area of 695 square-feet. I modified the specs sheet to reflect this to the best of my ability. AVKent882 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Armament Inconsistency[edit]

If you look at this image (URL: ) you can clearly see an AIM-26 and an AIM-4 in the center weapons bay. I have been told that up to two AIM-26's could be carried in the center weapons bay, I'm going to start looking for a source. AVKent882 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So far, I have found one source which confirms that in addition to 1 x AIM-26 and 1 x AIM-4 being able to be carried in the center-weapons bay, that two AIM-26's can be carried in the center weapons bay URL:,2962.0.html (Page #2, Post #26) AVKent882 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable pilot[edit]

United States President George W. Bush flew the F-102 while he served in the Texas Air National guard. This should definatly be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LCoolo (talkcontribs) 01:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph needing source/citation[edit]

Originally designed to carry 6 x GAR-1/AIM-4 Falcons and 24 x 2.75-inch FFAR's in a twin-barreled rocket-gun in a three section weapons bay. Early on, the F-102A was fitted with a larger vertical tail area to reduce roll-yaw coupling, and during F-102A's years in service, the aircraft was fitted with a conically cambered wing, modified main landing gear legs, was fitted with a GAR-11/AIM-26 Super-Falcon nuclear-tipped air to air missile in lieu of the center-bay's previous twin GAR-1/AIM-4 Falcons and twin-barreled rocket-gun. Later on the aircraft was fitted with the capacity to carry 3 x AIM-26 Super Falcons. Overall 889 were built.

 Most can be cited from Joe Baugher's page:
 Except for "conically cambered wing" and number built was cited at 875.

Save this paragraph for reminder for needing citation. A little more work and ith will be good to go. A suggestion. LanceBarber 04:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Found NASA source for conical cambered wing-- p.34 LanceBarber 15:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent Speed[edit]

These sentences are incompatible:

  • "The second aircraft flew on 11 January 1954, confirming a dismal performance: Approximately 812 mph, while supersonic, it was far below the requirements."
  • "The new design was more than twice as fast as the non-area ruled design."
  • Specifications (F-102A): "Maximum speed: Mach 1.25 (825 mph, 1,304 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)"

Surely the maximum speed of the F-102A is well above 825mph. Otherwise, the modified fuselage is only 13mph faster than the original, which would not be worth the re-tooling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that they are inconsistent, but I can't find any clear sources at the moment. I'll keep looking. - BillCJ 04:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here are the figures according to Steve Pace (X-Fighters: USAF Experimental Fighters, XP-59 to YF-23, 1991): YF-102 maximum speed: 870 mph (Mach 0.82), YF-102A (after modifications): 989.57 mph (Mach 1.3) with F-102A production series demonstrating a consistent 913.45 mph (Mach 1.2) speed in level flight at altitude. FWIW Bzuk 15:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC).
870 mph not Mach 0.82. Mach 1 is around 760 mph at sea-level and 660 mph at altitudes above 35,000 feet. 870 mph (approx) Mach 1.3182. (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
From what I remember reading, either the YF-102A or the F-102A was more than twice as fast as the prototype YF-102 which was said to be 812 mph, which is Mach 1.23. Twice that would be in excess of Mach 2.46, which I listed. If BZuk is right, that the maximum speed of the YF-102 was 870 mph (~Mach 1.3182), the YF-102A or F-102A would be capable of flying in excess of Mach 2.636 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Mach 2.636?? Even the F-106 was not that fast! And I'm pretty certain no F-102 ever went over Mach 2, which was what the F-106 was developed to do in the first place. You need to check your sources, because your info is wayyyyy off. - BillCJ (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Just basic math and logic. If the YF-102 could only do Mach 1.23, and the YF-102A/F-102A was capable of flying more than twice as fast, then it would have to be faster than Mach 2.46; if it was capable of Mach 1.3182 as BZuk said then being more than twice as fast, it would have to be capable in excess of 2.636. If you actually read the F-106A page, it actually states that it's top speed might have been as high as Mach 2.85, which is undisputably faster than Mach 2.46 or Mach 2.636 AVKent882 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's assuming the figures for the YF-102's speed and the claim of YF-102A/F-102 being twice as fast are both correct. That's what I'm disputing. "From what I remember reading" is not a reliable source. - BillCJ (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
We've treaded this ground once before; verifiable sources are needed whenever a controversial claim is made. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
Concur. Here are some: F-102A: Mach 1.25 at altitude; F-106: Mach 2.01 at altitude. (Wilson, Stewart (2000). Combat Aircraft since 1945. Fyshwick, ACT, Australia: Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd. p. 34. ISBN 1-875671-50-1. ) It's possible that the F-106 being about twice as fast as the YF-102 is what was being remembered. - BillCJ (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that I am quite positive. The area ruled version (YF-102A/F-102A) was more than twice as fast as the YF-102AVKent882 (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the math and the sources provided do not bear that out. Either your source was wrong, or you're mis-remembering it, in whole in or part (something that happens to me quite often!) - BillCJ (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
What math? The only one who's brought math into the equation was me. According to the sources listed even on this page, the YF-102 was limited to around 812 mph (and I have heard that number said more than once). According to Steve Pace, the top speed was 870 mph. Since the speed of sound at sea level is 760 mph and around 660 mph at altitude, it's pretty easy to conclude that the YF-102 was capable of mildly supersonic-speeds. I am pretty sure, memory wise, that I've read at least one (probably more than one) source that has stated that the YF-102A/F-102A was more than twice as fast as the YF-102. My memory is certainly not the best in the world, but it is not bad and I'm usually pretty good with numbers.AVKent882 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The math based on the multiple sources listed here that give the F-102A's max speed as 825 mph @ 36000 ft (Mach 1.25). 825 mph is not twice as fast as 812 mph, thus the statement that "the YF-102A/F-102A was more than twice as fast as the YF-102" is obviously wrong, wherever it came from. Bzuk listed the Pace figure of "870 mph (Mach 0.82)", which is totally off (I'm assuming this is a typo, but it's certainly wrong). We can't base anything on faulty data. As such, I've removed the statement from tha article as incorrect (the fact tag was nearly 2 years old). - BillCJ (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It would seem that there is some kind of information mix-up. There are sources that say that the prototype YF-102 was capable of flying at 812 mph, there are other sources that say that with the area-rule the design was more than twice as fast, there are other sources that say with the area-ruling the plane had a top speed of 825 mph. Considering how serious the drag-reductions the area-ruling offered, I would not be surprised if massive increases in speed were achieved, and I am certain that the YF-102 was not less 406 mph to 412.5 mph (half of 812 mph to 825 mph). Additionally, I should state, that while saying "I have been told" has little weight here, I have been told by people who have worked on the F-102A and F-106A and said that the difference in speed was a few tenths of a Mach-number. When you consider that the F-102A and F-106A both have about the same thrust-to-weight ratios, similar wing-sweeps angles and wing thicknesses (if I recall they're the same), this is not entirely an unfounded claim (especially when you factor in that the few tenths of a mach-number difference could be explained by variable-geometry inlets, a cleaned up airframe, etc) AVKent882 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There are uncited claims "that say that with the area-rule the design was more than twice as fast". They are not actionable without reliable sources that back them up. Same for "I have been told" reports. It is highly possible that your sources are right that the F-102A's top speed was much closer. but if it is true, that info was never publically released. Without reliable sources, we cannot use that, per WP:OR and WP:V. THe claim of the TF-102 being capable of 812 mph needs to be verified by checking the original source, as the mach number listed here is incorrect, so one of the figures is wrong. Also, if 812 mph is correct, was that in a dive? I have several reliable sources that state the YF-102 could not go supersonic in level flight, another reason for doubting the "812" mph claim. We could keep going on like this, but until verifiable reliable sources are presented, we can't put such claims in the aritlce. I'm done with this until reliable sources are presented and verified. - BillCJ (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Be very, very suspicious of an airframe "re-design" that allows the doubling of the airspeed. For one thing, that would suggest that the slower aircraft was massively overbuilt. Every aircraft ever engineered has a VNE mark on the airspeed indicator--the speed never to be exceeded. This number is derived regarding the maximum safe stresses that the airframe can sustain and maintain safe integrity. It's laughable that doubling the speed of any manufactured aircraft would even be considered (or reported as factual). (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
And Gunston lists the F-106A at Mach 2.3, which is about what I'd remembered. (Gunston, Bill (1986). American Warplanes. New York: Crown Publishers Inc. p. 162. ISBN 0-517-61351-4. ) - BillCJ (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
From Wegg, John (1990). General Dynamic Aircraft and their Predecessors. London: Putnam. p. 203. ISBN 0-85177-833-X. , F-102A max speed = 825 mph @ 36000 ft (Mach 1.25), and from Wegg p.210, F-106A max speed = 1,328 mph @36,000 ft. The YF-102 was firmly subsonic in level flight.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Not unsurprisingly, the TF-102A trainer was also subsonic although it represented only a modification of the front cockpit to accommodate a side-by-side layout. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC).
The "tub" with its side-by-side seating arrangement had a tremendous increase in frontal area and hence drag. It's not surprising that it was limited to subsonice speeds. The row of vortex shedding tabs around the leading edge of the canopy probably indicates some flow separation issues as well. It's perhaps not surprising that no other two-seater version of single seat U.S. fighters opted for the side-by-side cockpit - they all went with the tandem arrangement which, of course, means much less cross-section increase. Oddly enough, the Brits built a side-by-side version of their beloved EE Lightning and, if memory serves, it actually ended up being faster than the single seater owing to improved area ruling. Now, I'd be rather embarrassed if my presumably optimized single seat fighter turned out to be slower than my hashed up attempt at a trainer derived from it...perhaps our British friends would like to comment on this (other than complain that this article is written in US English and thatit should be rewritten in UK English as it is the only real English and every Wiki article should thus be written in it). Jmdeur (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this [1] picture of the single-seat and two-seater versions side by side, I would guess that the lower performance was due to a reduced fineness ratio in the two-seater. Perhaps the introduction of an additional fuselage 'plug' of around five or six feet behind the cockpit might have improved things. The other variable is in the re-positioning of the air intakes, and this may not have helped. Both the Lightning and Hunter two-seaters had almost identical or identical intake routing to that of the single-seaters, so engine performance would not have suffered and neither would the drag have been altered, whereas drag from the TF-102's intakes may have been different (i.e., perhaps higher) from the single seat version. The TF-102 two-seat version nose looks too short for the width of the cockpit, to my eyes, but who knows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

One more survivor?[edit]

There is a small commercial (ex-Army) airfield on the Mojave desert in California, near Route 14, that had an old TF-102 along with other aircraft. I saw it in 1995. There is an F-102 and a TF-102 at the Wisconsin National Guard Museum, I saw them in July of 2011.

That is correct. The F-102 and TF-102 aircraft are on display at Volk Field, WI.,volkjun06.jpg


I had no idea that any 102s had ever seen combat....thanks!

   I guess you could call it combat but it was really just going in harms way. The Falcon missile was not very satisfactory for escort of B-52 as the Mig's got inside the range before the escort pilots knew they were being attacked. Also using a radar guided air-to-air missile to attack trucks on the Ho Chi Man trail was an act of desperation which never proved effective. Notice the combat record, only one loss but no record of an F-102 ever shooting down any enemy A/C. It was a demonstration of why the Air Force started ordering fighters with guns again in the 1970's. Also the small number of F-106 planes ordered had a lot to do with the fact that it was another 'Missile only' fighter despite the fact it was a much better A/C. Honestly the F-102s found there best use as a target drone. Corumplex (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

F-101½ Delta Sabre?[edit]

I found a redirect from F-100F, but no sign of any F-100s on the page. So what's up? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That looks like an error. It's one reason I never liked that user making all those redirects from block numbers, as it's too easy to make mistakes. I'll correct it. - BilCat (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thought so, & was tempted to delete or re-point to F-100. Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Convair F-102 Delta Dagger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)