Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: johnm@vme.heurikon.com (John Mahoney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: area rule
Message-ID: <1991Mar23.061709.4950@amd.com>
Date: 23 Mar 91 06:17:09 GMT
References: <1991Mar7.012839.29519@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar8.022040.7569@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar13.001146.4618@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar14.035349.26827@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar18.001230.19455@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar22.042711.21405@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: cdr@amd.com (Carl Rigney)
Organization: Heurikon Corporation, Madison, WI
Lines: 16
Approved: military@amd.com



From: johnm@vme.heurikon.com (John Mahoney)

>to a horrendous peak near the rear.  The fix was to slim the fuselage down
>as much as possible there, and *add* fuselage bulk further aft to smooth
>out the abrupt drop in cross section behind the wing; the result, the
>F-102B, did meet the speed specs.

I don't seem to recall there ever having been an F-102B. I was under the
impression that the speed problem was discovered on the prototype XF-92
and the design changes were incorporated into the F-102A. Even the two-seater
102 was labelled the TF-102A, if memory serves. I'm pretty sure that the
follow on, instead of being the F-102B, was the venerable F-106. (IMHO one
of the sexiest looking airplanes ever built!) Or am I just having
another one of those pesky memory faults?