zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Nov 5, 2016 11:58:41 GMT 9
This question sounds rather silly as the two aircraft have many similarities in the exterior wing-design, but regardless I do remember being told there were some differences (however subtle).
Did the F-102A have protected tanks?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 5, 2016 12:57:51 GMT 9
This question sounds rather silly as the two aircraft have many similarities in the exterior wing-design, but regardless I do remember being told there were some differences (however subtle). Did the F-102A have protected tanks? Explain protected???....... Similar yes in that they both have wings which happen to be DELTA and the control surfaces were called Elevons. And both aircraft, the wings were called WET WINGS because there were no fuel cells or bladders, no foam, no selfsealers and the external or drop tanks were jettisonable. And, that is where the similarity ends. Such things as root,camber, anhederal, diehederal, slots and fences were considerably different.......
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Nov 6, 2016 7:33:23 GMT 9
That's what I meant, self-sealing.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 6, 2016 9:46:45 GMT 9
That's what I meant, self-sealing. To the best of MY knowledge, the only Century Series Fighter to have a "self sealing cell" was the "saddle tank" in the aft section of the F-100..... The F-101 all variants was a wet wing with a Chemically etched tapered upper wing skin. In other words the tapered thickness was not a machine manufactured surface. Virtually eliminating chances of stress corrosion generating from tooling marks.. The primary reason for elimination of fuel cell/bladders, selfsealing or not was weight, plus the cost of a wet wing was considerably less, there was an increase in fuel capacity. Wet wing drawback? As the aircraft became older and the stress generated by G forces accumulated, the wing became as wet on the bottom as it was inside........ Other than taking up some more cranial space, of what value is knowing, positively, that the F-102 fuel tanks would leak like hell if penetrated by a bullet??......Even the other aircraft that I worked on, RF-80, RB-26, T-33, T-6, C-47, P-51, (even tho the AF redesignated it the F-51, it never caught on)F-94 and the F-86, all had self sealing cells and all had fuel leaks. There was even a system for determining the serious of a fuel leak-stain, seep,weep,drips per minute and finally LEAKING and time to fix by replacing cell or bladder depending on what the manufacturer called them.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Nov 18, 2016 0:17:02 GMT 9
Jim,
The reason I asked had to do with damage resistance: I've read about some older aircraft (WWII era) such as the A6M and Ki-43, which lacked self-sealing tanks; they had almost no damage resistance compared to aircraft used by the allied forces. I don't know how damage-resistant the F-100 was; the F-105 seemed quite rugged, however.
BTW: If I recall, the F-106 used some kind of fuel pumping system that used low-pressure bleed air into the tanks. I was told that this made it very vulnerable to damage, as it was felt that a single round could incapacitate the whole system. Did the F-102 use this?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Nov 18, 2016 2:39:11 GMT 9
Jim, The reason I asked had to do with damage resistance: I've read about some older aircraft (WWII era) such as the A6M and Ki-43, which lacked self-sealing tanks; they had almost no damage resistance compared to aircraft used by the allied forces. I don't know how damage-resistant the F-100 was; the F-105 seemed quite rugged, however. BTW: If I recall, the F-106 used some kind of fuel pumping system that used low-pressure bleed air into the tanks. I was told that this made it very vulnerable to damage, as it was felt that a single round could incapacitate the whole system. Did the F-102 use this? Zipper, you are beyond a doubt, the most prolific gatherer of useless trivia I have ever encountered..... Damage resistance was pilot related.... If he kept his ass from getting hit, the fuel system didn't have to be bullet proof. As for the six, fuel was fed from the wings to the fuselage tank by pumps. For CG change when going supersonic, high pressure air drove the fuel in the fuselage tank back into the wing tanks and vise versus. And no, the Deuce didn't have that capability. AGAIN, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IN HELL I AM TRYING TO GET ACROSS TO YOU!!!!!! Neither the Deuce or the Dart were ever intended to be in COMBAT DOG FIGHTING SITUATIONS. They were intended to shoot the F"ING bombers down and to get to hell out of the area. Air Defense Command was not intended to generate ACES. When SAC got rid of their fighter escorts -F-84F and G models, escorts weren't used until Rolling Thunder, and the fighters usually went in first to take out the AA guns and SAMS....... You are becoming as irritating as as a boil on me arse. Boils either get squeezed or lanced- which do you prefer? I tolerate fools, BUT NOT VERY WELL!!!!!! To be forewarned is to be well armed........ Quit challenging us with the info you dug up in your research-in most cases, you already know the answer.
|
|
zipper730
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 214
Location:
Joined: September 2016
|
Post by zipper730 on Nov 18, 2016 8:22:59 GMT 9
Jim,
1. I didn't know the answer for the F-102, I would never have asked if I did 2. I apologize
|
|