Why Zuni?

In article t,
"Thomas Schoene" writes:
John Carrier wrote:
"Jeb Hoge" wrote in message
om...

Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni
bodies and motors.

Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was
at least
5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni
approximated a freight train speeding past your head with about 6
inches clearance.


FWIW, _Sidewinder_ (by Ron Westrum) says Sidewinder used the motor of the
"High-Performance Air-to-Ground" rocket that China Lake was developing. It
was picked specifically because it was a slow-burn, low-acceleration rocket
that woudn't damage Sidewinder's fairly fragile seeker.

That's possibly an munging of HVAR (Aigh Velocity Airborne
Rocket), which was the 5" fixed-fin rocket seen under the wings of
late-model WW2 fighter-bombers, and into the Korean War. The
dimensions are about right, the performance would do, and there were a
zillion of them around to use.
There are other advantages to a lower acceleration for an AAM, as
well, depending on how they're set up. A slower acceleration with a
longer burn will generally give you a longer range (And, often, a
higher burnout speed). With the speed building up less quickly on
launch, the initial hard turns to pull lead on the target will be
quicker, and have a much smaller radius. More of the missiles'
maneuvering will offur under power, as well, so that it doesn't bleed
off as much energy when gliding.

The China Lake alumni organization's website has one picture of a Skyraider
with HPAGs under the wings. They are non-podded rockets with fixed tail
fins, quite different from Zuni.

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1954.htm

Those look an awful lot like HVARs to me - I'm sure the Navy has their
own name for 'em - they've got to giver everything a differnet name.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster