User talk:AVKent882

Welcome!

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, AVKent882, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

Haha - I was browsing some article talk pages and noticed your handle!!! -- Good to see you around -- you're a smart one so hook yourself up a user page and, dude, please help us out with these aviation articles! Nicholas SL Smith 04:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi, regarding this edit, please see our biography of living persons policy. If you have a reliable source for the claim about the Canadian arrest then we can stick it in. JoshuaZ 18:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure where the exact statement came from, now that I think about it-- I remember the source as being reliable. I'll try and see if I can find it. (AVKent882)

False info

Regarding the top speed of the F-102:

Thanks for experimenting with the page F-102 Delta Dagger on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added obviously incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your other additions:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to F-102 Delta Dagger, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - BillCJ 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to F-102 Delta Dagger. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - BillCJ 19:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the top speed of the F-106:

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to F-106 Delta Dart. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - BillCJ 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AVKent882 17:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is AV Kent,

It was stated in more than one book, that the F-102 (prototype: no area rule) was capable of 812 mph, and the area-ruled F-102A was more than twice as fast, which is 1,624+ mph, which equates to over Mach 2.46 at altitudes above 35,000 feet where the sound barrier is around 660 miles per hour.

The armament configuration listings to the best of my knowledge were accurate. The airplane was to carry 6 x AIM-4's (Then designated GAR-1/-3, the -1 was semi-active radar tracking, and the -3 was an infra-red seeker) in a three-section internal weapons bay, 2 missiles apiece. Generally the rule was to fire in Radar/IR pairs to ensure the odds of a hit (at least the F-101B used that concept). The USAF later added a requirement for some back-up to missiles, in which they chose to fit the airplane with 24 x 2.75-inch rockets, carried in two tubes. It was known as a rocket gun. Maybe twin-barreled was not the accurate term, but it did carry two tubes with 12 rockets apiece, thus a total of 24. The rocket-exhaust from these rockets supposedly had some kind of potentially damaging effect on the lower-fuselage and it was fitted with a thermal-coat-- that was mentioned in a book about the F-102A Delta Dagger by Wayne Mutza. Later on, the center bay was fitted with a GAR-11/AIM-26 in lieu of the twin GAR-1/GAR-3 / AIM-4 Falcons, with the rocket-tubes eliminated. During Vietnam, from what I read on the site, the F-102A's performed a lot of air-to-ground missions with 24 x 2.75-inch rockets carried in the fuselage bay doors. The way it sounded at the time was as if every single bay carried 24 x 2.75-inch FFAR's. Since the center bay carries them in two tubes (12 apiece) I assumed each bay carried two tubes. And considering the F-102A sometimes used heat-seaking AIM-4's when attacking ground targets, and the center bay can carry two AIM-4's and two-rocket tubes, I figured it was a logical assumption that each side bay can carry two tubes and the center can carry two tubes and two AIM-4's. One statement I made stating to the effect that each side-bay was re-fitted to carry a single AIM-26 instead of 2 x AIM-4's was based on an online discussion on a forum regarding the F-102A/F-106A Delta-Dart-- there were many members who actually worked on the F-106A's and of one or two of them said as an interesting note that some of the F-102A's were re-fitted to carry a single AIM-26 in each bay (by that point most AIM-26's were no longer fitted with nuclear-tipped warheads, and generaly just carried HE warheads), but despite that, even though the F-106A could have been fitted with a similar modification, it was never done.

Regarding the F-106A/B Top Speed, I've talked to people who worked on the F-106, and was a member of an online forum which was about the Convair F-102A / Convair F-106A/B, and of the many things these people said ammounted to the fact that the F-106B was faster than the F-106A due to the shape of the lengthened cockpit (meant to carry two pilots instead of one) which actually ammounted to a better area ruling-- being a trainer, it may have been lighter as well as it might have carried less fuel. The exact amount wasn't exactly clear from the members of that forum, however an ex-USAF serviceman who also worked on the F-102A and F-106A's told me that the difference in speed between the F-106A/B was about a tenth of a mach number. On the F-102A Delta Dagger / F-106A Delta Dart forums, someone commented about the vertical-tape strip used to indicate indicated airspeed, and mach number, and stated that more or less the airplane could max out in level flight at about Mach 2.80. With that said, the F-102B could achieve Mach 2.90 being a tenth of a mach number faster. The same individual who stated the F-106A/B were a tenth of a mach number apart in maximum speed stated that in a shallow dive the plane achieved what would amount to somewhere betwee 1795 to 1805 knots. Which would put it to around Mach 3.12 - 3.15. As crazy as that sounds, I have done some research into the capabilities of the aircraft's engine-- the Pratt and Whitney J-75 turbojet. So it would seem the J-75 has a higher-turbine inlet temperature than the J-57 (it's smaller brother), and in a documentary (probably on Discovery Wings) about the F8U-III Super-Crusader. In the documentary it stated that it used a J-75 engine to propel the aircraft to Mach 3+. While it would turn out the aircraft would feature numerous limitations, mostly relating to deficiencies in the canopy's structural integrity, at least one pilot said it could have achieved Mach 3.0 barring those problems. In either case, that, and other discussions I've had (mostly online) with mostly retired USAF servicemen basically seemed to indicate that the J-75 was capable of withstanding the compressor inlet temperatures, and turbine-inlet temperatures associated with Mach 3.0 flight. However, I will say that just because the engine can do it, doesn't always mean the airframe can (in the event of the F8U-III Super Crusader--which featured deficiencies in the windshield, and the F-105 Thunderchief which was a very large aircraft).

The F-106X according to what I was told likely featured some kind of technology known as Mass-Injection Pre-Compressor Cooling, or MIPCC. From what I was told, it basically injected some kind of coolant into the compressor inlet-stream to allow the engine to operate at much higher temperatures than it was ever meant to normally operate at without it-- the aircraft would still need to be constructed of mostly high-temperature metal-design such as titanium. Allegedly, it had been used on the Century-Series fighters, likely to a much less extreme extent for the purpose of allowing the engine to achieve improved afterburner performance at high-altitudes. MIPCC allegedly was to be used in a conceptual low-hypersonic jet-powered booster (which never flew) which used 4 x F-100 low-bypass afterburning turbofan engines allowing these engines to remain fairly cooled while the airplane flew at blistering speed. Still, I don't know how long MIPCC lasted, since it depended on a type of coolant being injected into the engine, and may have only been workable for a couple of minutes! And keep in mind, this was a speculation how the F-106X could achieve Mach-5. For all I know the JT4B-22 (which I was told in virtually certaint terms was a turbofan, not a turbojet, despite it not having a D suffix, like other Pratt and Whitney turbofans such as the JT3D, JT9D, etc) may have featured a bleed-bypass system located along the HP compressor which allowed air to be bled around the rest of the engine keeping turbine limits in check, and being re-injected into the afterburner to achieve a ramjet like effect. MIPCC however seemed to be the best explanation I've heard as it would have required the least amount of modifications to the engine, though I could be wrong.

From what I remember on the F-102A/F-106A forum, I was told that the C/D variants were basically F-106A/B's with a longer, larger diameter nose-cone carrying a hydraulically actuated antenna, a two-way data-link, an AIM-47 in the center bay, and two AIM x 26's in the left and right bay (with likely provision for other missiles as well). The F-106X to my knowledge, though I could be wrong (I've heard LOTS of conflicting data on these!) when actually given an actual designation (X usually is not going to be the production designation) was likely the F-106E/F.

I specifically do wish to state that I meant no vandalism when editing the wikipedia F-102A and F-106A pages.

All of this speculation is interesting but falls into the category of "gossip" in that there are no specific citations or corroborations provided from reputable sources, regardless of whether it was a former USAF pilot who provided the information. Think of the urban legends where someone tells you that slightly unbelievable story but swears it's true. The speeds that are being claimed for the F-106 have to be validated by more than your own personal research (BTW that type of original research is much frowned upon and ineligible for Wikiepdia articles); Mach 5 would create not only incredible stresses on the engine and airframe but thermal thicket problems would result. BTW, I am still slightly perplexed by your habit of hyphenating everything, that was my first clue that no matter how authoritative your submissions sounded that when there was a lack of checking of something as mundane as spelling, then your research findings must also be suspect. Although another editor is mainly involved in reverting your work, I concur in that his concerns over substantiating edits require that you scrupulously check and re-check (correct use of hyphen there) your submissions. Just a few minor points but in the following examples, note the differences between how you spell the same words: "The F-106C's nose cone was enlarged while "standard" F-106s retained their original nose cones." "A two-way, hydraulically actuated antenna was extended below the fuselage, near the center bay." After saying all of this, I appreciate your work on a number of articles and keep up the good work, just remember to make sure your edits are able to be authenticated by reputable reference sources. Bzuk 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Australian Communications and Media Authority are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]