Aiming Steered Missiles-No Fancy Plane Required.

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

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.



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 (see the cost of the Eurofighter and the F-22), so why hasn't your *amazing* design been seen before?

There have been hundreds of aircraft designed for dog fighting and air supremacy roles over the past 50 years, most of them with missile capability, 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?




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
esecallum you've failed to include wind resistance as a factor. It doesn't matter how light the missiles are, if you put one sideways on a pylon on a wing, at a certain point it's going to break off and cause massive structural damage if not structural failure to the aircraft carrying the missile.

And no, missiles by no means travel like bullets. They travel like rockets because that's what they are, maneuvering rockets with a guidance system.

The whole "bullet to missile" analogy is very bad because bullets are un-powered-un-maneuverable solid pieces of metal that are launched out of a gun by means of a gunpowder explosion.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

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.


Yes, they do. If they are maneuvering (which they will) to intercept a target (which they will), then there is a certain amount of force on them. If they maneuver too far or to violently for their airspeed then they will tumble. BVR missiles not so much since maneuvering at those ranges and at such a speed isn't quite as necessary, but WVR missiles like the AIM-9 definitely can. WVR missiles need to perform much more extreme maneuvers at much lower airspeeds with a much higher off-boresight. Well, not all the time, but it's expected anyway.



they are travelling like bullets


Bullets get one burst of power and that's it. Missiles and rockets have a continuous (or near-continuous) power pushing them. Bullets cannot maneuver. Missiles, because they've got continuous forward thrust, can. This is why you will never see a bullet with fins doing maneuvers that an AIM-9 can.



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.


Weight has nothing to do with the air resistance, first off.

Secondly, current fixed-wing platforms have pylons that are immovable and are part of the structure. They are fixed at many points with very, very strong measures.

In your idea, the pylons could only be mounted on a single axle for the pylon to rotate upon, which will not support such forces.

Third, the if the missile itself does not create enough force, the pylon will. Pylons have a huge air surface from a sideways perspective and definitely will experience enough resistance to deal some serious structural damage.

[edit on 8/23/2007 by Darkpr0]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Egos... You have a big one, and apparently you cannot understand the words, 'I'm wrong'.



They travel at mach 1 or upwards which 331 m/s.

Missiles do not travel at Mach 1. They travel at Mach 3 to Mach 4 while some older soviet missiles (R-60) travel at Mach 2.5.

If a missile travelled at Mach one it would take minutes to reach the target.




also missiles are in the air no more a maximum of 20 seconds.

Really? Do the math. A Missile travelling at an average speed of Mach 3 for say, 120 kilometres?




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.

Unless you think all missiles are old soviet R-60's, the AMRAAM weights 150kgs, while bigger rockets, like the R-37 weighs 600kg.


they dont have time to tumble.

It does not matter if they do not tumble. Missiles loose energy quickly when maneuvering so they may loose all there energy travelling to the target.

You have failed to reply to this fact:


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.

Come on, what would be the point of these 'pointable missiles'?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by esecallum
Cyberdude you seem to forget that the gun and bullet is traveling WITH the car at the SAME SPEED.


This made me laugh - Cyberdude clearly said this in the post that you quoted.


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.


Really esecallum common - your not engaging any one, all you are doing is arguing for no reason. You have been banging on with the exact same idea all thread. All you do when some one has a ligit reason it wont work is flim flam and / or attack.

[edit on 24/8/2007 by Now_Then]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   
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.


and I CAN PROVE IT.

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.

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.

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.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by esecallum]

[edit on 24-8-2007 by esecallum]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 


The rudder does not turn very much in order to turn the aircraft. Also it is designed to do so without being ripped off. When a rudder does turn a long way it generally does get ripped off and generally the plane goes down with it.

The tailplane also adds stability to the aircraft and you suggest to do away with it and replace it with steerable pylons. What if you don't want to turn your aircraft when you turn the missile? Do you turn the other one to counteract, though this would of course have two opposing forces trying to break the plane in two which would not be particularly helpful, as opposed to the rudder.

Have you ever wondered why nowhere in aviation is there an element that is perpendicular to the airflow? Even airbrakes aren't used like that, and they are used at low speeds unlike a missile being dropped at mach 1.


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.


So how exactly does it right itself without knowing which end is the front when it is dropped? Why will it correct itself and how when it has an angle of attack of about 90 degrees?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

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.
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.



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
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 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
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!


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.
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.


this is an idea which i believe has never occured to the designers.explain THAT.
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.


innovation is rare as most plane designs are done by committee and innovation is usually ditched in favour of conservative designs.
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.


darkpro and cobz .you are both wrong.
I think I'll let Darkpr0 handle that when he gets back from his fishing holiday.



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.
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.



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.
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.


Your obsession with tumbling is inexplicable
As inexplicable as your ideas on science, engineering and abillity to continue arguing the inarguable.


LEE.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by thebozeian]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

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?
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?

LEE.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
wow - this thread really has jumped the shark


now that the concept of using the weapons pylons as control sufraves has been put forward

i am speechless

please explain how these multi role weapon pylonns / rudder combos will work


1 - while not acting as airbrakes - robbing the aircraft of vital airspeed in combat [ just look at how the airbrakes work ]

2 - how you will balance the mutually exclusive tasks iof steering and weapons aiming

if you slew your pylons to engage a target - you will both turn and loose airspeed

[ the turn can be corrected to a degree by using thrust and or using the pylons on the other wing to correct it - but that will loose you even more spped ]

if you use them to execute a turn - it will throw your weapons out of battery

your " idea " has never been used because it is insane - sorry to be blunt , but you have no grasp of aerodynamics



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by thebozeian
I think I'll let Darkpr0 handle that when he gets back from his fishing holiday.


Holiday Over. Slaughter Begins.



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.


Yes, but none of these forces ever reach NEARLY what you're talking about. As the aircraft maneuvers it also changes direction of motion. So even as the plane changes Attitide, it's corresponding ch anges in Direction keep the wind resistance from ever hitting the external payload broadside. In fact, almost all of the wind resistance will hit it from the front since BVR engagement maneuvers aren't too strenuous, and WVR works without all those BVR missiles on the aircraft anyway. They would have been used up.



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.


Inertia's not the problem. It's wind resistance. Inertia does not really have the capability to take out the pylon no matter which direction it's pointed. In fact, on an aircraft that is moving in a constant direction at constant speed, there are no inertial forces.

But if a missile is pointed sideways, you get the air resistance factor. At high speeds it WILL be taken out or severely damaged. That, and if the pilot uncages it it WILL tumble.



no matter how you twist and turn or squirm you cannot negate this fact.


I've seen pretty impressive displays of that here.



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.


Well, farthest I've ever seen a rudder go is 45 degrees, and that was on a low-speed stunt plane. You're trying to sell us on a full 90 degree tilt with a much larger area. Different things.

Oh, and the rudder, because of the way it is expected to move, can have many linkages with the structure. Rotatable pylons may only have 1 join(multiples are theoretically possible, but not on wings actually used on current aircraft. Too bulky.) to the rest of the wing. Therefore, a rudder can take a lot more force than can a rotating pylon.




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.

The fact remains that you still need a vertical stabilizer for the craft to remain properly stable. The B-2 does not perform maneuvers that require that measure of staiblity, which is why it is the only in-use aircraft that doesn't have.



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.


You are aware, then, that this would limit the payload of any aircraft to two missiles (assuming that none are carried centreline, the usual abode of bombs)?



innovation is rare as most plane designs are done by committee and innovation is usually ditched in favour of conservative designs.

EXPLAIN THAT.


You haven't seen the Su-47, have you? Radical designs like that are usually stamped out because they don't work. It's only in modern times that the technology and chemistry has progressed to the point where the Berkut became feasible. Even then, there are other reasons why conservative designs are used; because they work for the intended purpose and at proper parameters. Example? Sure.

The Su-47's new, innovative, and downright sexy design gives it supreme low-speed maneuverability and makes it amazingly stall-resistant qualities. The F-22's old, conservative design gives it predictable qualities and exceptional supersonic capabilties.

They both rule. So why, then, is the F-22 being produced while Su-47 is just a testbed? Because only one of these sets of qualities is actually considered useful. The F-22's abilities are made for BVR air superiority. This is good. The Su-47's abilities are supreme in (very) close-quarters WVR. But there is loads more BVR engagement than WVR. So even though the Su-47 is cool, innovative, and is in several cases supposed to be better than the F-22, these cases just aren't enough to convince us that it's overall better than the Raptor.

In case you don't believe me, try this. Ask any Raptor lover. They will tell you that the Raptor is better than Su-47. But they will also say that in a close-quarters dogfight, the Su-47 has some serious aces in its hand. The fact remains that there will be a lot more times when the Raptor, with its conservational design, is considered better.

Innovation isn't bad, just sometimes not applicable.



darkpro and cobz .you are both wrong.

i was using conservative figures for your benefit.


How did we benefit from those?



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.


The aircraft is never, ever 90 degrees into a Mach 1 wind. It is pointed forwards into that wind. Which is why the rudder doesn't get ripped off. In fact, at Mach 1 only a tiny amount of turn is used in the rudder (and other control surfaces) to achieve the intended result. In fact, as far as I can remember, the computer actually limits the amount that the control surfaces are able to move when at high speeds so that they don't get ripped off. Hence, they don't get ripped off.



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.


Inertia isn't the problem, it's air resistance. See above.



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.


But theoretically speaking, if you are pointing the missile sideways whilst the aircraft goes forward, the missile is not pointed in the direction that has the least air resistance. The missile is very likely pointed in the direction with MOST air resistance. Since missiles are designed to be pointed forward, it's irrelevant how long they are or how much resistance comes from the side. That's why they're thin, pointy, and really really long.

But here's something cool. You are absolutely RIGHT that the missile will self-correct to present least surface area. But here's the catch. In doing so, the missile will point front so fast that it will tumble. There is just that much wind resistance forcing it, that it will tumble. It will keep spinning in a never-ending tumble, and the missile will go nowhere. So you are absolutely right, it will attempt to self-correct. But it will do so with such force that it becomes impossible to actually stabilize the missile in time for it to intercept target.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I'm not touching this anymore. There is no point in arguing with him. He obviously has never flown an airplane, has no physics background, has no aviation study what so ever.

Everything esecallum has stated would have instantly been dis-proven with a single year of physics in high school.

The kid doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of what he's talking about. Now I've sat here for days and watched this thread progress to the point where every member on this thread (not a single one agreed with esecallum) spoon fed the same information 2-3 times each. Now maybe his background didn't allow for him to receive the proper education and hence his initial stubbornness, but come on it's been so long and so many people have tried to him.

How much more can we continue? I'm not trying to put him down, but how much longer can this go on for?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
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.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

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.


True but it doesn't benefit (and doesn't HAVE to benefit) from a large vertical stablizer that must be present on other aircraft that are intended to be more nimble. Not saying that the B-2 couldn't perform maneuvers involving yaw, just that it doesn't incorporate the extra stability of a vertical stabilizer.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Ok, I'm going to use my car example once again to describe what would happen if you stuck a weapons pylon (and the attached missile) at a wrong angle.

Say you're going down the road at sixty five miles an hour (assuming you're in an area where this is a legal speed limit, such as certain highways) and the window is rolled down. Stick your hand out the window so that your forearm lying flat parallel to the ground and your hand is open so your fingers point straight out, parallel to the ground. Notice how your hand and arm just kind of cruise along, not too big of a deal. That's similar to the cross-section of a missile going forward attached to the pylon. Your forearm is the missile and the rest of your arm is the pylon.

Now let's say you extend your arm so that you are pointing away from the car (please don't do this when traffic is close to your car, we don't want you loosing an arm). All of a sudden your arm just became a lot less aerodynamic, 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. So the equivilent of what'll happen to the airplane is something like having your arm ripped out of your socket. The moral of the story is this. Much like trying to fight a Wookie (hence arms out of the socket), you just don't try to fight against the laws of aerodynamics.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by cyberdude78]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 02:54 AM
link   

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.

When a plane turns 90 degrees at high speed it does not fly sideways so, there is little sideload on the pylon.


the pylons also experince full inertial forces of the payload as the plane moves about at high speed.

Planes do not fly sideways, or anything close to sideways. The slideslip in normal flight is minimal.




the 2nd fact is planes have RUDDERS to turn left or right and these do not get torn of!!!!

Rudders can and will get torn off if the sideload is too great. At speed a sideload of over 15 degrees WILL COMPLETELY tear the whole vertical stabaliser right OFF.


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.


Actually, even below maneuvering speed, it IS possible to tear the rudder off. You see, planes are certified to take max deflections from the rudder. HOWEVER, these do not take into account sideslips (caused by the plane yawing FROM the rudder) on the rudder. It is quiet easy to tear the rudder off nearly any plane even right after takeoff if you stamp on the rudder pedals, and it HAS happened before.


in fact using steerable pylons you could actually get RID of the rudder and use the steerig pylons a subsiduary rudders.

LMFAO!

You do not even know what rudders even do, do you?

The purpose of a rudder is to yaw the plane. This means turn the plane without banking which helps with turns and landings.


this could mean FURTHER weight saving since you will use the steerable pylons to make the aircraft go left or right.NO MORE RUDDERS.

Well;

1: You did not know what rudders even do, a plane needs rudders to fly properly.
2: The pylons would need to be stronger to take sideloads.

That would be a huge increase in weight.




i was using conservative figures for your benefit.

No. What you were using was bullsh1t figures pulled right out of your arse in an attempt to prove your arguement.




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.

Well prove the pylons cannot take it. It's moronic to think that a pylon is overdesigned so much, that it can take a 90 degree side load of a 4 metre long, 20 centremetre wide tube travelling at upto 1500 kmh.




you absurd idea that mach 3 missiles tumble is easily disproven.

WELL DO IT THEN.

If a missile turns very hard, the direction between where the missile is heading and were the stabalisers are pointing is called angle of attack. If the angle of attack goes so high then the airflow around the wings will break up. That means if the aft stabalisers stall the missile will pitch up and will start tumbling travelling at Mach 1-2. It will explode.

The the forward stabalisers stall, then the back stabalisers will be pushing it down, so it will again, tumble and probably explode.

If both stabalisers stall then the stabalisers will be acting as very big airbrakes. It will loose all its energy and fall to the ground.


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 right, if will self correct itself... after it has stalled and or tumbled by which it will have bled all its energy and missed the target.



[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0bzz]

[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Oh yeah, and you still have failed to explain why the heck we need stearable pylons in the first place. I will state it for the THIRD time.

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.

[edit on 25-8-2007 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

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.


The speed of sound, being 11.5 times faster, presents about 131 times as much force on the same area, assuming that F= Kd(coefficient of drag) x A (area) x density of air x v^2.

This formula is probably wrong due to the joys of compressible and incompressible flow when you hit the sound barrier, but I think that would make this an underestimate.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Thanks apex, I really should know this stuff, but sadly I don't. But I guess that that kind of shows that the missile and the pylon probably aren't going to handle the drag too well if you point them at a ninety degree angle.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


cyberdude/DARKPRO/APEX and you all others are wrong.

i am both unbloodied and unbowed.

when you go into a meeting you are terrified.....

scared....frightened ...

scared of what other people will think of you...

scared of your career and the boss holding your future hostage...


so you go with the flow and herd....

you kiss the bosses backside and lap up his jokes...and so you dont speak up.




you are wrong and so are ignoring facts and the laws of physics.

look at racing cars around a race track at high speed.

if a car does does a sudden 90 degree LEFT what happens.?

if the tyre friction fails and it skids then EVEN THOUGH THE CAR 'S NOSE HAS TURNED LEFTwards THE CARS CONTINUES TO GO IN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION DUE TO NEWTON'S LAWS.

WHY CANT U ADMIT THIS AND ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG?



same with planes ..it does a left turn but despite the noSe POINTING LEFT IT CONTINUES TO GO IN THE ORIGINAL DIRECTION AND IT IS EXPERINCING FULL SIDEWAYS FORCE FROM THE AIR INCLUDING THE PYLONS AND MISSILES....WHICH DONT GET RIPPED OF.....

the plane is going at high speed sideways...have you go that thru your skull?

so there...

you have been defeated again....


point 2
------------------------------------------------------------

missiles dont tumble when hit with a crosswind...

they cannot TUMBLE AS THE POINTED SIDE PRESENTS LEAST AIR RESISTANCE/FRICTION.

look at a javlin..... when thrown it hits the ARBITRARY target ...

but suppose you have a crosswind now...

does the javelin tumble? no


no no nooooo....AND NO...!!!


WHY?

because the javlin SIMPLY DRIFTS OF THE TARGET.SIDEWAYS.


--------------------------------------
TARGET


I
I
I
I NO CROSS WIND
I
I
I

-------------------------------------
TARGET

I I
I I
I I
I I





top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join