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