Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a small detail if i may

how wide is this aircraft to be with the rotary disc launcher for missiles?

given that missiles are at minimum 9 feet long the disc would have to be at the very leat 12feet , and propably more - there realistsically is no aircraft that wide on teh body just for a disc to be plopped on top.



the shuttle

the shuttle performs an unpowered *dead stick* re-entry - thus cannot change its course during the critical entry phase , and has been said many many times above , performs its allignment prior to interfacing the atmosphere, at that point and when it burns the last of its fuel for entry - its now doing where its pointed - until under 150,000 feet or so , where it becomes a heavier than air brick (sorry glider).


747 to orbit

the wings would stop giving lift way before the border of space ( lift requires a density of air - the higher you go the less dense the air is) is reached - at which point all you have is the engines , and the mass of the aircraft outways the thrust of the engines at this point.




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Esecallum, you might find the following report useful to your design considerations:


www.jpaerospace.com...


And considering that the report relates to the effects of a high-vector yaw at mach speed, consider carefully the effect launching a missle sideways (high-vector) from a plane traveling at, or near mach speed might realize.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
This has been a very amusing thread - I think in an odd way we should thank esecallum for making a thread go round and round in circles while at the same time being consistently -errm- interesting


Thought I'd have a bash at another way for launching a missile that end up going any direction regardless of the heading of the aircraft launching it.

This is more of a cruise missile sort of affair - and it would require a high level bomber to deliver it.

Imagine if you will this missile being 'dropped' from a very high altitudes - during its descent it would transition into a vertical free fall (hence the need for the great alt) from this near vertical fall it should then not be to much a prob to align its self in such a way that it can fire up the moter, extend its stubby little wings and (hopefully) pull out of this now powered dive and be on its jolly murderous way.

Whats the verdict? (or do they all ready do this
)

P.s. esecallum - no your idea will not work for any number of reasons, most of them put forward in a very patient and informative way by the good people of ATS - but you do deserve a few penny's for effort.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

Imagine if you will this missile being 'dropped' from a very high altitudes - during its descent it would transition into a vertical free fall (hence the need for the great alt) from this near vertical fall it should then not be to much a prob to align its self in such a way that it can fire up the moter, extend its stubby little wings and (hopefully) pull out of this now powered dive and be on its jolly murderous way.

Whats the verdict? (or do they all ready do this
)


A weapon will only translate into a vertical freefall stance if thats what the designers require, most weapons infact are designed to travel a distance before impacting.

The most striking of these (excuse the pun) is the AGM-154 Joint Stand Off Weapon - a freefall, unpowered bomb that can travel up to 70 miles from the point where it was dropped.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Not forgetting also the BAE ALARM missile which has the ability to go straight upwards and dangle on a parachute if it loses its target, waiting until the t5arget comes back on or it finds another where it fires up in exactly the way our poster has described. You sir, are a bona fide genius



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Waynos - had to go and check how serious you were there



The parachute loiter modes were adopted in order to force threat emitters to remain shut down for as long as possible after the launch of the ARM. The classical defensive tactic used by a radar operator is to shut down if an ARM is seen to be launched, thereby denying it a signal to home in on accurately. Once the ARM falls out of the sky, the radar can be lit up again. As a result, a clever operator may force an incoming SEAD aircraft to expend several conventional ARMs
link

Nice



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
er of space ( lift requires a density of air - the higher you go the less dense the air is) is reached - at which point all you have is the engines , and the mass of the aircraft outways the thrust of the engines at this point.



look i dont insult people.


if they are lying then i say so.

that is not insultiing.

if i called you a stupid moronic idiot then it would be insulting.

i never said that.

I SAID I NEVER SAID THAT.

you are simply trying to divert attention away from the facts.

you mentioned the boulton.TO DIVERT ATTENTION

then you talked about ancient planes.

then you said planes and missiles break up when they clearly don't.

look atr any airsHow.

you see planes travelling sideways.....SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.


a planes goes in X DIRECTION but turns in Y direction BUT still has a Y component WHICH MEANS IT'S TRAVELLING SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.

INCLUDING THE ATTACHED MISSILES WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF THE PYLONS.

this PROVES MY ASSERTION IN TOTAL AND DISPROVES YOURS.


you are wrong again.

the shuttle has no substantial fuel to slow down ...

no SUBSTANTIAL fuel.

it uses air braking to slow down.


nasa showed the zig zag path it followed to decrease speed using air as braking medium.


the PICTURES showed the shuttle sideways .AND IT DID NOT GET RIPPED APART AS YOU CLAIM.

at one pont in direction of travel.many times.

your wrong claim it slows down in space without substantial fuel. is designed to mislead.

IT glides in using air braking.


modern fighter jets are also in their flight manoeveres are also traveling sideways to direction of travel.


watch any movie or documentary on planes.or any airshow.


you seem to forget velocity has 2 or 3 components.

x y z.

a plane can have 3 components at the same time...

i.e it can travel along x-axis while moving in y direction...

etc..

your assertion that a curved missile will break up is absurd...

they dont.

missiles travel in 3 direction at the same time.

x y z

which means they must be traveling non-nose first in THE OTHER 2 directions.



which means they must be traveling non-nose first in 2 directions.



you have been defeated again.



[edit on 6-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

if they are lying then i say so.

that is not insultiing.


It most certainly is classed as an insult when their post is not untruthful.

You seriously need to sort out your language, just because you disagree with what they say doesn't mean they are lying, and replying to their posts with 'you are lying' in such cases is an insult.



then you said planes and missiles break up when they clearly don't.

look atr any airsHow.

you see planes travelling sideways.....SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.


You will see aircraft at high angles of attack during airshows, but nowhere near the speeds they would be during an intercept or a dogfight.



a planes goes in X DIRECTION but turns in Y direction BUT still has a Y component WHICH MEANS IT'S TRAVELLING SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.


No, it means its direction of momentum is changing.



INCLUDING THE ATTACHED MISSILES WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF THE PYLONS.


But the pylons are still 100% facing the direction of travel, and thus directly into the wind meaning there is little more stress or strain on them.

This is totally different to them facing off the direction of travel, and thus side on to the air resistence.




the shuttle has no substantial fuel to slow down ...

no SUBSTANTIAL fuel.

it uses air braking to slow down.


nasa showed the zig zag path it followed to decrease speed using air as braking medium.


the PICTURES showed the shuttle sideways .AND IT DID NOT GET RIPPED APART AS YOU CLAIM.


Firstly the Shuttle does have fuel to begin the descent, it is required to provide the initial burn to slow the craft down enough so that it does enter the atmosphere to begin air braking.

Without said fuel, the Shuttle would eventually come to earth but only after several years.

Once in the atmosphere it is just like any other aircraft, and it does not travel 'sideways'.

Two fine examples of what happens when the Shuttle goes sideways is the Columbia and Challenger accidents - both resulted in the Shuttles disintegration due to massive structural failure after the airframe underwent significant aerodynamic stresses when it veered off course.

In the Challenger incident this was because the main fuel tank ruptured (it did not explode, read the Challenger accident report if you don't believe me) causing the craft to slew on its axis and present one side of the craft to the oncoming air.

In the Columbia accident this was because one of the wings failed, again slewing the craft until it presented one side of the craft, causing it to pitch and roll and again resulting in structural failure.

But again I don't expect you to believe me, understand me, or even check up on what I have said.



modern fighter jets are also in their flight manoeveres are also traveling sideways to direction of travel.


But again not at the speeds required during an intercept or a dogfight.

You seriously are right out on the fringe, is your village missing you?

You haven't presented a coherent argument, any evidence for your argument nor any concept of understanding for any counterarguments people have offered in this thread.

Continually relying on the phrases 'you are lying' and 'you have been defeated once again' does not an argument make.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
This thread is almost as good as that '747 to orbit' one - very very funny with very little actual understanding of any physics!

Please mods, dont lock it, this is hilarious!


Agree Richard.
I am totally speechless still.
I will get back later



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Thankyou everyone for making this one of the most fun threads I have read in ages. Returning to topic, I have found a link to the pigeon-peck aiming system

Project Pigeon

In addition I would like to put forward the Bat Bomb

Bat Bomb

However, I think that the bats will need to be put into small cannisters for the initial drop (thinking from a B-2 maybe). I do not think a bouncing bomb on a Lancaster would do them much good



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   
RichardPrice,

You seriously are right out on the fringe, is your village missing you?

It's not just the village, but from the bottom up it goes street, village, town, capital city, state(or Territory, Provence, Canton) country and continental land mass. Gee, there must be one helluva an idiots convention wherever he is?
..... Presumably in orbit with his exoatmospheric 747.


Continually relying on the phrases 'you are lying' and 'you have been defeated once again' does not an argument make.

No, but he does add weight to your village theory. And they do say laughter is the best medicine.

I can't wait for Darkpr0's assessment of the situation.


LEE.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I know I shouldn't but..... well



look i dont insult people.

Well thats another word I want you to add to the others I have asked you to look up in a dictionary.


if they are lying then i say so.

that is not insultiing.
Oh cool! Your back using this defence.


if i called you a stupid moronic idiot then it would be insulting.
Well that's the sharpest observation you have made in this whole thread. But then.....


i never said that.

I SAID I NEVER SAID THAT
... you go and immediately contradict yourself by saying the above.


you are simply trying to divert attention away from the facts.
By this I assume you mean your struggle with reality?


you mentioned the boulton.TO DIVERT ATTENTION

then you talked about ancient planes.
I don't even know who or what you are talking too anymore(possibly the cat?), and I strongly suspect neither do you.
. No one has mentioned the Defiant in ages.


then you said planes and missiles break up when they clearly don't.
Or when they clearly do. I guess they are being fired from your 747's in orbit so they are not affected by aerodynamics.


look atr any airsHow.

you see planes travelling sideways.....SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED
No they are not travelling at high speed, thats why they can do it. It only APPEARS sideways and fast to you. The fact that they are doing it in front of an airshow audience at low alltitude precludes that kind of high speed manouvre. That and the allready mentioned laws of aerodynamics.


a planes goes in X DIRECTION but turns in Y direction BUT still has a Y component WHICH MEANS IT'S TRAVELLING SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.

INCLUDING THE ATTACHED MISSILES WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF THE PYLONS.

this PROVES MY ASSERTION IN TOTAL AND DISPROVES YOURS.
NO!, What it proves is that you haven't studied the 3 axes of flight. You don't understand the fundamental relationship between the lateral axis, longitudinal axis and vertical axis. Any aircraft manouvering in general uses or has a direct affect, on all three axes. It does not mean that they are flying sideways. You are trying to seperate the 3 axes in situations that you cannot, or are not relevant to your point about turrets and slewable pylons.

I will leave your Space Shuttle claims alone, RichardPrice has covered them quite well and you have already been told by myself and many others that the shuttle both carries fuel AND performs it's orbit deburn manouvres OUTSIDE the earths atmosphere whre aerodynamic forces do not exist.


modern fighter jets are also in their flight manoeveres are also traveling sideways to direction of travel
No they are moving in a combination of the three axes of flight, NOT sideways.

a plane can have 3 components at the same time...
See, even you note that.

i.e it can travel along x-axis while moving in y direction...
Please read the above and THINK.


your assertion that a curved missile will break up is absurd...
No one mentioned a curved missile, what do you mean a disk? Hey did anyone order a pizza?



missiles travel in 3 direction at the same time.

x y z
Yes, but generally only when the proximity fuze has been triggered and at a rather rapid rate in all directions at once.


which means they must be traveling non-nose first in THE OTHER 2 directions.



which means they must be traveling non-nose first in 2 directions.
So you think they travel backwards then, is that it? You still haven't grasped the concept of movement in three dimensional space it would seem.


you have been defeated again.

Yes, but only by your struggle with reality and your spectacular missunderstanding and ignorance of the laws of aerodynamics, fluid dynamics and well.... most of physics in general. Congratualtions you are a winner.


LEE.


[edit on 6-8-2007 by thebozeian]

[edit on 6-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
In all honesty, I think a lesson in Longitudinal, Lateral, yaw axis and Alpha-of-attack is in short order here.

A brief understanding of those concepts will most certainly banish any of these idiosyncratic concepts that simply don't make physical sense.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The only thing i could think of was this
on you tube at 6 secs.

www.youtube.com...

and 2 mins with these red fighters.

The show was called battle of the planets

www.youtube.com...

Thats it I'm done



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
you seem to forget velocity has 2 or 3 components.

x y z.


Velocity is usually measured in meters per second (m/s) - Acceleration is velocity squared (m/s/s)

xyz are your vectors.
~ I imagine using the information i've supplied it is now theoretically possible to to plot a course back to your home planet, just enter the co-ordinates into the computer on board your interstellar 747.


you have been defeated again.





posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   





i am happy to debate with you on this subjest IF when you reply directly to me using the `quote` function , your reply actually has any bearing what so ever on what i said.


but in your case it does not.

the red pill is better than the blue pill in this case.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum

You haven't been insulting anyone at all?

Your logic is flawless.



if they are lying then i say so.


So find someone who's lying and say something about it. This would seem a logical course of action.



that is not insultiing

if i called you a stupid moronic idiot then it would be insulting.


Again with the observational abilities.



i never said that.

I SAID I NEVER SAID THAT.


See the above note.



you are simply trying to divert attention away from the facts.


With more facts that clearly show the truth.



you mentioned the boulton.TO DIVERT ATTENTION


With facts.



then you talked about ancient planes.


And presented facts.



then you said... ...missiles break up when they clearly don't.


How many do you know of that have been successfully fired sideways?



look atr any airsHow.

you see planes travelling sideways.....SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.


The worst I've seen them flying is at 150 knots at a 35-45 degree angle. A missile launch like you're speaking of is at a 90 degree angle past mach.

This is like saying "since a man can jump 10 feet, he can also therefore jump 30 feet." There's a reason the aircraft won't fly directly sideways at mach 1.5. It doesn't work. Logically, this seems a fairly solid reason.



a planes goes in X DIRECTION but turns in Y direction BUT still has a Y component WHICH MEANS IT'S TRAVELLING SIDEWAYS AT HIGH SPEED.


What are you talking about? You're using a coordinate plane that isn't based on the aircraft's attitude.

If we assume up is north on a coordinate grid, an aircraft can move east (or to the right if you graph it). Yes, it's apparently moving sideways. But based on the direction and attitude of the aircraft it's moving forward. You can't just say that an aircraft is moving sideways because it's moving across your field of view. Its motion relative to the way it is pointed is forward. It will not fly sideways at a high speed by nature. If it is forced to do so by man's intervention, it will not fly sideways at high speed for very long. It will promptly begin falling as large sections of wing, fuselage, control surface, and pilot are separated by the forces of air resistance and friction.



INCLUDING THE ATTACHED MISSILES WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF THE PYLONS.


Which are also conveniently flying in a forward manner. Such that they aren't moving sideways relative to the aircraft's attitude. Which means that things being ripped off doesn't happen.



this PROVES MY ASSERTION IN TOTAL AND DISPROVES YOURS.


...guess again.



you are wrong again.


See above.



the shuttle has no substantial fuel to slow down ...

no SUBSTANTIAL fuel.

it uses air braking to slow down.


How is this relevant to it flying sideways?



nasa showed the zig zag path it followed to decrease speed using air as braking medium.


Yes. while in atmosphere it can use control surfaces much like any other aircraft. It turns. In a nice turning way. Such that it is moving in a very forwardly way even while the aircraft changes heading to perform these zig-zaggedly formed maneuvers.



the PICTURES showed the shuttle sideways .AND IT DID NOT GET RIPPED APART AS YOU CLAIM.


Shuttle is sideways when there is no air resistance. Shuttle flies forward when there is air resistance.



at one pont in direction of travel.many times.


...Did anyone catch what this means? How can it be many times if it only happened at one particular point?



your wrong claim it slows down in space without substantial fuel. is designed to mislead.

IT glides in using air braking.


Space has no air. Just out of curiosity, then, how can one glide and use air brakes (which through a great deal of trouble, research, and time, I have discovered require air! If you like, I can provide sources.)




modern fighter jets are also in their flight manoeveres are also traveling sideways to direction of travel.


Maneuvers like Pugachev's Cobra, the Kulbit, etc. Are performed at speeds of the 0-200 knot area, where relatively little air resistance is encountered. The speeds at which missiles are launched border on 400 knots to well over supersonic. The difference is just noticeable. Just.



watch any movie or documentary on planes.or any airshow.


Wish granted. Now what?



you seem to forget velocity has 2 or 3 components.

x y z.

a plane can have 3 components at the same time...

i.e it can travel along x-axis while moving in y direction...

etc..


You're absolutely right. You have successfully proved what has previously been proven, and what has officially entered the realm of the obvious. I congratulate you on your achievement.



your assertion that a curved missile will break up is absurd...

they dont.


For some odd, unknown reason they don't exist either.



missiles travel in 3 direction at the same time.

x y z


For the record these are not directions. They are planes. Not airplanes, dimensional planes. If you like, you can also treat them as axes in a coordinate plane. But they aren't directions.




which means they must be traveling non-nose first in THE OTHER 2 directions.



which means they must be traveling non-nose first in 2 directions.


The coordinate planes on which you are basing this theory must be based upon the attitude of the missile itself. Not a fixed direction. The missile can encounter winds that are of a different direction, but this is unrelated to a missile that is travelling. You can't just fix a direction and say that the missile is always pointing "up" (as an example) because it doesn't.




you have been defeated again.


Attack, parry, riposte.

If we have any fencers here who enjoy sabre, you'll get this one. If we have anyone who can understand what these words mean, you'll get this one. If you don't get it... Well then you don't get it.




I can't wait for Darkpr0's assessment of the situation.


The situation is hopeless.

But the conversation is funny.

So it all works out in the end.




Mod Edit: Removed excessive number of quotes

[edit on 8/7/07 by FredT]

[edit on 8/7/07 by FredT]

[edit on 8/7/07 by FredT]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
[edit on 7-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0






1)


look !

here.




tom bedlam attacked me when i reported that after being stung by a bee or snake or dangerous animals you could save upto 50000 lives a year.

i had numerous research articles to back it up plus worldwide reports users from actual users who had sucess.

he then accused me OF SELLING SNAKE OIL.

even though no paypal button existed on the site.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
3)

FIGHTER PLANES ALSO HAVE MULTIPLE COMPONENTS OF VELOCITY.

SAY IT GOING AT MACH 1 WESTWORD BUT SUDDENLY CHANGES DIRECTION.

say if the pilot suddenly pulled upwards.

does the plane suddenly STOP GOING WESTWARD.

NO! NO! NO!

NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

BUT OF COURSE IT CONTINUES TO TRAVEL WESTWORD EVEN THOUGH THE NOSE IS POINTING UPWARDS OR ANY DIRECTION IN THE NEW DIRECTION OF TRAVEL.


1. fix your caps lock key.
2. Have you heard of G-forces? as the plane turns from directed thrust or the ailerons/elevatrs/rudder etc, it changes the airflow to change the direction of travel using Newton's 3rd law. And it can't do it that fast due to the G-forces on the plane, and also because if the alpha increases too much on the control surface, it will stall (correct me if i'm wrong, shatteredskies or someone). If the control surface stalls then it won't force the plane to turn, and won't increase the alpha of the plane anymore either. If it does the whole aircraft stalls, or at high speed the aerodynamic forces would likely cause structural damage as it exceeds the flight envelope.



4)


this proves that you can fire missiles sideways or any other direction.

and that missiles dont break up just because of your sideways force.

AS THEY EXPERIENCE THESE FORCES ALREADY WITHOUT BREAKING UP.

you have been shown to be unable to tell the correct facts.

i find this moraly reprehensible.


Strange, you seem unable to tell the correct facts too since that doesn't prove anything on your point. Since you are proposing launching a missile perpendicular to airflow, and being a cylinder, circular cross section, which is a bluff body, causing turbulence behind it, relative to the airflow. Which creates a lot of drag. And since the launcher is like that too, a lot of drag will be on that side of the plane too. This would probably cause something like this to happen, only with a fighter.






[edit on 7-8-2007 by apex]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join