Bomb hits tailplane on release

On 22 Jun 2004 19:16:25 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:


Paul Housley wrote:

A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
right!

Modern aircraft employ "ejector" carts which propel the store away
from the rack using a small pyrotechnic charge and a "foot" or pusher.
Earlier aircraft simply used suspension hooks that opened to release
the weapon allowing it to fall away.

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.) There were instances of jettisoned fuel tanks from F-105s
climbing as much as 3000 feet above the release aircraft.

Instability caused by a bent fin can also cause a pitch up moment on
release.

I have also seen something. A Fantom (?) or the like and two chase planes.
Debris or the bomb (missile?) also hits one of the chase planes and it is
destroyed. This was part of a series of accident studies including an F-16
landing with a wheel missing or locked up main gear. The guy ejects after the
F-16 safely comes to a stop, perhaps fearing a collapse and fire.

The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.
They were dropping early versions of the MLU-10B land mine. The mine
broached on impact with the ground from a 100' lay-down delivery and
rose up to hit the chasing aircraft. The weapon was inert, but the
impact still destroyed the chase and the pilot ejected.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
SNIP
The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.
They were dropping early versions of the MLU-10B land mine. The mine
broached on impact with the ground from a 100' lay-down delivery and
rose up to hit the chasing aircraft. The weapon was inert, but the
impact still destroyed the chase and the pilot ejected.
SNIP:
The F105 was piloted by Fred Kyler, who was later my WingCo in the
36TFW at Bitburg. The F100F had a pilot and cameraman aboard. The
MLU10 detonated on ground impact and fragged both aircraft. All 3
ejected and landed okay. Col. Kyler had a great color photo hanging in
his office, taken from the ground, showing both aircraft as they
pulled up, starting to flame from the numerous frag hits. I should
imagine the ground cameraman got his ears blasted since he wasn't all
that far from the impact site.
Walt BJ

The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.

Flying a "rail cut" mission? Reason I ask is the copy I used to have of that
tape mentioned it. The frag was immediate - both aircraft began burning within
a second or two of the detonation. Great old film.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

On 23 Jun 2004 04:48:34 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.

Flying a "rail cut" mission? Reason I ask is the copy I used to have of that
tape mentioned it. The frag was immediate - both aircraft began burning within
a second or two of the detonation. Great old film.

It was a OT&E flight on the Eglin test range, but that's the purpose
of the MLU-10B. It was built on a Mk-82 (or possibly M117) bomb case
with a flat face reinforced nose that contained the mine fuse. It was
supposed to be delivered by lay-down and was NOT retarded.

The idea was that the heavy, reinforced nose would allow the fuse to
survive the delivery. Concept was a battery relay that after a short
delivery delay would arm the weapon. The battery held the firing
contacts open until a seismic event (like a train passing) would shake
the contacts close---BOOM! After time, the battery would weaken and
the mine become more sensitive. Maybe a truck would be sufficient to
close the contacts. Eventually, the battery would die and contacts
would close and the bomb would detonate.

The center of the face plate had a small light bulb. If the light lit,
it meant that the weapon had armed and would go off with any jarring.
We carried them out of Korat on F-105s in '66 (when we weren't short
of bombs.....according to mcnamara.) Everybody hated the load because
no one wanted to do lay-downs in a high threat area, everyone had seen
the broaching film, and there was a "no return" policy for the weapon.
If you got airborne with it, you must get it off the airplane before
you could return and land. If it hung and you couldn't jettison the
pylon or suspension gear you would have to jettison the airplane.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.) There were instances of jettisoned fuel tanks from F-105s
climbing as much as 3000 feet above the release aircraft.

I always wondered about the stories of separation tests on the
A3J Vigilante with its rear ejection tunnel. Supposedly some of the
weapon shapes could coast along in the wake for quite a distance.

Nothing like a live nuke that follows you home.

"Can I keep it ?"




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.)

IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:27:32 +0100, Robert Briggs
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.)

IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

Actually, no. Lift is balanced by weight, while thrust opposes drag.
The brick (AKA F-4) would not really "fly", but simply be propelled in
the desired direction. It is the tendency for airflow to accelerate
over a curved surface creating a low pressure area that causes "lift".
The dropped store had better be curved if you want to get lift, since
it isn't supplied with thrust.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Robert Briggs wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.)

IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

Actually, no. Lift is balanced by weight, while thrust opposes drag.

This assumes more than I wrote.

Can you say "Harrier", for example?

Okay, I didn't have that aeroplane in mind, but I *was* careful not to
specify any particular angle of attack - after all, an "inverted" pass
at an air display is not *exactly* inverted, with the aerofoil acting
against you (in the case of "ordinary" aeroplanes, at any rate).

The brick (AKA F-4) would not really "fly", but simply be propelled in
the desired direction. It is the tendency for airflow to accelerate
over a curved surface creating a low pressure area that causes "lift".
The dropped store had better be curved if you want to get lift, since
it isn't supplied with thrust.

I was also careful to omit any assertion about the aerodynamic stability
of the brick.

In article ,
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:27:32 +0100, Robert Briggs
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any
curved surface.)

IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that,
given enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

Actually, no. Lift is balanced by weight, while thrust opposes drag.
The brick (AKA F-4) would not really "fly", but simply be propelled in
the desired direction. It is the tendency for airflow to accelerate
over a curved surface creating a low pressure area that causes "lift".
The dropped store had better be curved if you want to get lift, since
it isn't supplied with thrust.

....except when you're looking at something like the B-70 "waverider"
technique, where the underside of the plane provides compression lift,
without providing classical Bernoulli-type lift.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

To be 'technically' correct... a wing with camber (curved) can generate
lift at zero angle of attack. A symmetric airfoil (such as a flat brick)
cannot, it must be at a positive angle of attack to generate lift (but the
point is... it CAN). Both generate lift (positive C sub L) but at different
AOA. At 'normal' airspeeds the coefficient of lift may not be sufficient
for a brick to generate enough lift to fly, but then again if the airspeed
was high enough....

Here's some reading on the subject....

"...Almost any relatively flat surface could be made to generate some lift.
In fact, a perfectly flat thin plate will do the job. If you don't believe
that, try out any of a number of simple little balsa-wood hand launched
model gliders. Most of them have flat wing sections, and they fly. The flat
plate, then, is probably the simplest of airfoil sections, as shown in
Figure 5..."

From the following site

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Basics/Page4.html

Mark

"Robert Briggs" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.)

IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?