In late 57 or 58 I ran an intercept on General Crab. He was flying a F-102, but we nailed him. I was an ICT, but was allowed to act as a controller. It turned out to be an ORI and the Lt. and me controlled the alert bird (F-86D) and four flights of three. I controlled three flights and in total we got three splashes. Imagine that!
Hey, San Diego Air & Space, Can't you guys find some airplane nerds that work in film? In California? Maybe somebody (sombodys?) who can donate time & effort to digitally clean these films up? You guys have good stuff here, but it can get near to un- watchable at times. This one, I had to crank the volume all the way up. I hope I remember to turn it down! (PS: Haven't been since '04 - you guys rule!)
Perhaps SDASM needs a patron account where funding can be obtained so viewers such as yourself can generously contribute to allow for the transfer of these old film optical tracks to a digital medium and so lower the irritation level of certain vocal viewers.
They also have a what may be ground loop causing hum. Fixing that along with proper video recording audio level control doesn't require large funding levels. Best case it could be fixed for $0. Film/video quality is excellent, though, and the content is very interesting, so thumbs up.
How funny - the 102A was never supersonic - not even close. It became unstable at 0.9 Mach and topped out at 0.96 Mach in level flight at full afterburner. No need for any sonic boom for a subsonic aircraft (except maybe in a steep dive at full AB).
@@robcohen7678 Wiki was incorrect. Wiki is quite often in error in all fields not just engineering. A major problem with specification or for that matter any description not using original source material is that errors are repeated and readers of books or papers that used prior publications with the errors continue the error. Today in 2020 few authors on historical aircraft research original sources and use prior published books as sources and therefore are wrong. Get the idea? Wiki is NOT a source material site. It is to a huge degree a source of the continuation or error and therefore cannot be regarded by any researcher as a source for accurate research. Professors and teachers usually know when Wiki is used by students because so many student papers/homework report the same errors ( Amazingly many students copy and paste so the grader of a paper/homework can issue low march with justification) Cheers.
I do add that at a certain aircraft museum in Pasa Robles California a docent who identified himself as an aircraft historian when asked what university he received his degree at said that he studied on-line. My eyes rolled but the situation, given others were present, did not give to a comment on a sophomoric misunderstanding that history should be accurate and so visitors present were misinformed. To be somewhat frank this was not the only institution where one experienced docents who did not have proper knowledge of the field. The worst in my travels are natural history institutions where during a visit course genetics are docent mentioned. Oral opinion is not a source of accuracy. Cheers
@@robcohen7678 "Truly do not understand what you write although it at first appears wise. I have, for many years,been correcting errors in some fields that were my business. I was using original material. The point is that errors are entered constantly and Wiki is taken as a correct reference point by the vast majority of readers. In some case correct corrections are later changed by others as in business entries and political entries. Doing entries in Wiki is a simple thing. So, the presumption in response to your comment is the you will be doing corrections in Wiki but only where original documentation both paper and film/video are available to you and not attempting to be wise. Cheers.
Man what a life ! Hanging around with a pink shinny cap, flying the latest aircraft and getting free Coca colas in a bottle...
In late 57 or 58 I ran an intercept on General Crab. He was flying a F-102, but we nailed him. I was an ICT, but was allowed to act as a controller. It turned out to be an ORI and the Lt. and me controlled the alert bird (F-86D) and four flights of three. I controlled three flights and in total we got three splashes. Imagine that!
It would be nice if the color can be restored.
Hey, San Diego Air & Space,
Can't you guys find some airplane nerds that work in film? In California? Maybe somebody (sombodys?) who can donate time & effort to digitally clean these films up? You guys have good stuff here, but it can get near to un- watchable at times. This one, I had to crank the volume all the way up. I hope I remember to turn it down! (PS: Haven't been since '04 - you guys rule!)
Perhaps SDASM needs a patron account where funding can be obtained so viewers such as yourself can generously contribute to allow for the transfer of these old film optical tracks to a digital medium and so lower the irritation level of certain vocal viewers.
They also have a what may be ground loop causing hum. Fixing that along with proper video recording audio level control doesn't require large funding levels. Best case it could be fixed for $0. Film/video quality is excellent, though, and the content is very interesting, so thumbs up.
my wife also underwent a "big tail" conversion... no tools thou...
How funny - the 102A was never supersonic - not even close. It became unstable at 0.9 Mach and topped out at 0.96 Mach in level flight at full afterburner. No need for any sonic boom for a subsonic aircraft (except maybe in a steep dive at full AB).
wikipedia disagrees with you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F-102_Delta_Dagger#Specifications_.28F-102A.29
@@robcohen7678 Wiki was incorrect. Wiki is quite often in error in all fields not just engineering. A major problem with specification or for that matter any description not using original source material is that errors are repeated and readers of books or papers that used prior publications with the errors continue the error. Today in 2020 few authors on historical aircraft research original sources and use prior published books as sources and therefore are wrong. Get the idea? Wiki is NOT a source material site. It is to a huge degree a source of the continuation or error and therefore cannot be regarded by any researcher as a source for accurate research. Professors and teachers usually know when Wiki is used by students because so many student papers/homework report the same errors ( Amazingly many students copy and paste so the grader of a paper/homework can issue low march with justification) Cheers.
I do add that at a certain aircraft museum in Pasa Robles California a docent who identified himself as an aircraft historian when asked what university he received his degree at said that he studied on-line. My eyes rolled but the situation, given others were present, did not give to a comment on a sophomoric misunderstanding that history should be accurate and so visitors present were misinformed. To be somewhat frank this was not the only institution where one experienced docents who did not have proper knowledge of the field. The worst in my travels are natural history institutions where during a visit course genetics are docent mentioned. Oral opinion is not a source of accuracy. Cheers
@@carmenopramolla5262 all it takes for wikipedia to be wrong is for correct people to do nothing
@@robcohen7678 "Truly do not understand what you write although it at first appears wise. I have, for many years,been correcting errors in some fields that were my business. I was using original material. The point is that errors are entered constantly and Wiki is taken as a correct reference point by the vast majority of readers. In some case correct corrections are later changed by others as in business entries and political entries. Doing entries in Wiki is a simple thing. So, the presumption in response to your comment is the you will be doing corrections in Wiki but only where original documentation both paper and film/video are available to you and not attempting to be wise. Cheers.