It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by esecallum
Bu missiles dont travel at 55 mpg.
They travel at mach 1 or upwards which 331 m/s.
also missiles are in the air no more a maximum of 20 seconds.
they dont have time to tumble.
they are travelling like bullets
Also the pylons can take take the weight of a missiler trvelling sideways as the missiles weighs around 20 to 80 kg travelling at mach 1 easily.
Originally posted by esecallum
Bu missiles dont travel at 55 mpg.
They travel at mach 1 or upwards which 331 m/s.
also missiles are in the air no more a maximum of 20 seconds.
they dont have time to tumble.
they are travelling like bullets
Also the pylons can take take the weight of a missiler trvelling sideways as the missiles weighs around 20 to 80 kg travelling at mach 1 easily.
They travel at mach 1 or upwards which 331 m/s.
also missiles are in the air no more a maximum of 20 seconds.
Also the pylons can take take the weight of a missiler trvelling sideways as the missiles weighs around 20 to 80 kg travelling at mach 1 easily.
they dont have time to tumble.
Missiles can maneuver themselves to the target and you do NOT need to point the plane directly at them. You only need to point the nose in the general direction of them, which really, is essential to get inrange of the enemy plane. You do NOT need to dogfight in real life, and it will almost never happen in a real airwar.
Originally posted by esecallum
Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.
Originally posted by Cyberdude
However because the Nerf gun was traveling at 55mph north, the Nerf dart will still have some of that momentum. Thus the dart will go northeast, but not really in a nice path. Remember that the momentum will essentially cause it to suffer from a 55 mph broadside from the wind on it's left side, which is more than a Nerf dart can handle. Therefore the dart will tumble, and probably won't hit the intended target.
the missile will not tumble at mach 1, 2, or 3 for the simple fact that the pointed direction has least air resistance and the missile will self correct to present minimum surface area.
There are two things here that are indicative of esecallum's and this threads problem, but it's the first one that really cracks me up. Note# the underlined portion, who he replies to.. and then argues with.
Originally posted by esecallum
reply to post by Darkpr0
Shattered skies you are wrong again.The pylon will not break off on encountering high resistance.You are totally wrong.
YES it's established fact... which is why they remain pointing FORWARD, NOT to the side. To illustrate the point esecallum, there have been a number of cases of variable geometry aircraft like F-111's and F-14's crashing because a missile pylon jammed in the wrong position when the wing sweep angle changed. This resulted in the missile and pylon pointing off to the side which caused too much drag that caused the aircraft to spin out of control.
the pylons already experience the xyz force components of wind resistance as the plane manoueveres from side to side or up and down or does a 90 degree turn at high speed.taking into account inertia,weight,wind resistanc, the missile and pylon remain intact.
the pylons also experince full inertial forces of the payload as the plane moves about at high speed.
this is established fact.
THIS IS ESTABLISHED FACT
OK I will. The reason they dont depart the aircraft at high speed is real simple. The vertical stabillizers and the rudder are engineered for these stresses and are fixed in TWO OR MORE places. As Darkpr0 told you, your design would mean that it could only be attached in one place otherwise it cannot rotate. A missile pylon cannot be easily made to resist the airstream WITHOUT strengthening the wing and airframe so much that it would add a huge amount of additional weight to the aircraft. Remember that it would be acting like a huge lever and the further away from the centre of gravity and the lift centre of the aircraft the more force it would apply to the airframe. This would very quickly lead to forces that exceed the airframes engineering limits. It's simple why can you not get it!
the 2nd fact is planes have RUDDERS to turn left or right and these do not get torn of!!!!
I mean the rudder is deliberately turned nearly full frontel and it does not break of ...nor does the plane get ripped apart by te wind resistance.EXPLAIN THAT
Yes you could provided that you strengthened the wings to take the additinal loads that you have transfered from the traditional tail and rudder arrangement, to your steering pylon idea, and as I just said this would add weight negating any saving you could make. In addition you woulddn't really save much weight by having fixed vertical stabillizers as the only weight saving would be in removing the pivot mountings and hydraulic/electric actuators. These would end up being used in a steerable pylon anyway so no saving there. In addition the fixed portion of the stabillizer that would normally be the rudder would still weigh the same for a given surface area/volume anyway.
in fact using steerable pylons you could actually get RID of the rudder and use the steerig pylons a subsiduary rudders.
this could mean FURTHER weight saving since you will use the steerable pylons to make the aircraft go left or right.NO MORE RUDDERS.
one STEERABLE/ROTATABLE PYLON on each wing.this could make the plane turn on it axis if done right.
Probably they have and they found it doesn't work well in the real world. You need to do some research into what exotic ideas designers HAVE tried. Have you ever heard of de-coupled flight manouvering? try looking up the F-16CCV and AFTI programs or the F-15 ACTIVE.
this is an idea which i believe has never occured to the designers.explain THAT.
True enough, that was why the YF-22 won the ATF competion against the YF-23, but in both cases the aircraft did not try to defeat the laws of aerodynamics.
innovation is rare as most plane designs are done by committee and innovation is usually ditched in favour of conservative designs.
I think I'll let Darkpr0 handle that when he gets back from his fishing holiday.
darkpro and cobz .you are both wrong.
I just covered this above but to labour the point. You seem to have very little understanding of basic engineering. A fixed object will ALWAYS be stronger than an equivalent moving one... period.
pylons dont get ripped of.The rudder presents a hugh surface area and idoes notget ripped of when theplabne does 90 degree turn.or any other turn.
missiles weighing at 120 kg per your claim just proves my point that the pylons can take it.120 kg is greater then 80 kg and since f=ma then the forces are higher too. ACTING IN ALL DIRECTIONS DUE TO INERTIA.
May I suggest that if you feel that you are so right, you email someone at Raytheon and ask them to prove or disprove your theory and then post up their answer here. If you are so confident in your idea that a missile will not tumble as we have described then they should be able to prove you are right... Provided that you ask them the right question and provide the WHOLE argument of course.
you absurd idea that mach 3 missiles tumble is easily disproven.
the missile will not tumble at mach 1, 2, or 3 for the simple fact that the pointed direction has least air resistance and the missile will self correct to present minimum surface area.
As inexplicable as your ideas on science, engineering and abillity to continue arguing the inarguable.
Your obsession with tumbling is inexplicable
And in keeping with what I just said above in the last four or five points, why haven't you answered these logical points from RichardPrice?
Originally posted by RichardPrice
If this is such a workable solution, if this was really possible and added to the lethality of an aircraft, answer this question:
Why haven't the highly paid, very intelligent people working at Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, BAE, Sukhoi, Mikoyan and other Aerospace contractors not built an aircraft with this capability?
There is a constant race on for the most lethal aircraft at any cost.... so why hasn't your *amazing* design been seen before?
There have been hundreds of aircraft designed for dog fighting and air supremacy roles ... so why has no one put rotating pylons on these aircraft?
Or are you the most intelligent person in aircraft design?
Let me guess, this is another world wide conspiracy by forum members to withhold information from these big defence contractors for some insane reason?
Originally posted by thebozeian
I think I'll let Darkpr0 handle that when he gets back from his fishing holiday.
Originally posted by esecallum
the pylons already experience the xyz force components of wind resistance as the plane manoueveres from side to side or up and down or does a 90 degree turn at high speed.taking into account inertia,weight,wind resistanc, the missile and pylon remain intact.
the pylons also experince full inertial forces of the payload as the plane moves about at high speed.
this is established fact.
THIS IS ESTABLISHED FACT.
no matter how you twist and turn or squirm you cannot negate this fact.
the 2nd fact is planes have RUDDERS to turn left or right and these do not get torn of!!!!
I mean the rudder is deliberately turned nearly full frontel and it does not break of ...nor does the plane get ripped apart by te wind resistance.EXPLAIN THAT.
in fact using steerable pylons you could actually get RID of the rudder and use the steerig pylons a subsiduary rudders.
one STEERABLE/ROTATABLE PYLON on each wing.this could make the plane turn on it axis if done right.
this is an idea which i believe has never occured to the designers.explain THAT.
innovation is rare as most plane designs are done by committee and innovation is usually ditched in favour of conservative designs.
EXPLAIN THAT.
darkpro and cobz .you are both wrong.
i was using conservative figures for your benefit.
pylons dont get ripped of.The rudder presents a hugh surface area and idoes notget ripped of when theplabne does 90 degree turn.or any other turn.
missiles weighing at 120 kg per your claim just proves my point that the pylons can take it.120 kg is greater then 80 kg and since f=ma then the forces are higher too. ACTING IN ALL DIRECTIONS DUE TO INERTIA.
you absurd idea that mach 3 missiles tumble is easily disproven.
the missile will not tumble at mach 1, 2, or 3 for the simple fact that the pointed direction has least air resistance and the missile will self correct to present minimum surface area.
Your obsession with tumbling is inexplicable.
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Darkpr0, the B-2 actually uses horizontal control surfaces controlled electronically to yaw left and right. So technically it can still do things that an aircraft with a vertical stabilizer would be able to do.
the pylons already experience the xyz force components of wind resistance as the plane manoueveres from side to side or up and down or does a 90 degree turn at high speed.taking into account inertia,weight,wind resistanc, the missile and pylon remain intact.
the pylons also experince full inertial forces of the payload as the plane moves about at high speed.
the 2nd fact is planes have RUDDERS to turn left or right and these do not get torn of!!!!
I mean the rudder is deliberately turned nearly full frontel and it does not break of ...nor does the plane get ripped apart by te wind resistance.EXPLAIN THAT.
in fact using steerable pylons you could actually get RID of the rudder and use the steerig pylons a subsiduary rudders.
this could mean FURTHER weight saving since you will use the steerable pylons to make the aircraft go left or right.NO MORE RUDDERS.
i was using conservative figures for your benefit.
missiles weighing at 120 kg per your claim just proves my point that the pylons can take it.120 kg is greater then 80 kg and since f=ma then the forces are higher too. ACTING IN ALL DIRECTIONS DUE TO INERTIA.
you absurd idea that mach 3 missiles tumble is easily disproven.
the missile will not tumble at mach 1, 2, or 3 for the simple fact that the pointed direction has least air resistance and the missile will self correct to present minimum surface area.
Originally posted by cyberdude78
and you'll probably notice that your arm jerks back pretty quickly since it just got hit by a 65 mph wind.
Granted the missile and the pylon is a bit tougher, but imagine that happening beyond the speed of sound.