Why Zuni?

"Susan VanCamp" wrote in message link.net...
Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
coded due to limited #s years ago), but...

...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle rockets
(from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.

A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging memory --
isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?

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

"Jeb Hoge" wrote in message
om...
"Susan VanCamp" wrote in message
link.net...
Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
coded due to limited #s years ago), but...

...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle
rockets
(from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.

A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging
memory --
isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?

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.

R / John

"John Carrier" wrote...

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.

However, IIRC, the Zuni motor was used on the Skipper, a rocket-boosted Paveway
2 LGB...

In article ,
"John Carrier" writes:

"Jeb Hoge" wrote in message
om...
"Susan VanCamp" wrote in message
link.net...
Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
coded due to limited #s years ago), but...

...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle
rockets
(from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.

A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging
memory --
isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?

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.

IIRC, the Mk 17 motor on an early Sidewinder burned for about 2-2 1/4
seconds. The Mk 36 in the AIM-9C and its derivatives burned for
something between 4 & 5 seconds. The Mk 36 has more impule (Total
energy), but lower thrust.


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

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"John Carrier" writes:

"Jeb Hoge" wrote in message
om...
"Susan VanCamp" wrote in message
link.net...
Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
coded due to limited #s years ago), but...

...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle
rockets
(from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.

A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging
memory --
isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?

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.

IIRC, the Mk 17 motor on an early Sidewinder burned for about 2-2 1/4
seconds.

2.2 sec. burn time, 4,200 lb. max. thrust, 8,800 lb. sec. total impulse, per
Combat Snap.

The Mk 36 in the AIM-9C and its derivatives burned for
something between 4 & 5 seconds. The Mk 36 has more impule (Total
energy), but lower thrust.

I know I've got it, but can't find the data -- Aargh!

Guy

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.

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

(You'll have to scroll the photo list a bit; I can't find a way to link
directly to the right picture and still show the caption.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

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

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article t,
"Thomas Schoene" writes:
John Carrier wrote:
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.

I remember reading that the Sidewinder's 5" body diameter was because
the initial batch was based on an existing rocket, which I had thought
was Zuni but HVAR might be it.

(Elmshoot) wrote:

I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground rocket came to be
named Zuni. Any experts that can help?
Sparky
Yes, I shot them from the A-6 what fun!!! Bottle rockets for adults

As has already been pointed out, the Zuni is the 5" FFAR.

I still have yet to hear back from my official query to China
Lake, but have heard back from an ex-bubblehead now working
there.

China Lake, under whatever their official name was at the time,
developed the 5" FFAR [and the 2.75" one, too, for that matter.]

It appears that the Zuni was named after the Zuni indian tribe,
which lived in the AZ/NM region, hard by [in continental terms]
China Lake.

[I thought, after all these "There I was at 20,000 feet ..." TINS
sea stories, someone ought to return to the original question.]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

Peter Stickney wrote:

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.

It's been awhile since I read Westrum, but the HVAR certainly wouldn't have been
in development when Sidewinder was, as the former made it into service in WW2.
Per Friedman, the 5" HVAR weighed 140 lb., was 72: long, and attained 1,375
ft./sec. The later Zuni (which replaced the HVAR) was 107 lb., 110" long, and
attained 2,370 ft./sec.

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.

OTOH, ISTR claims that the airforce stuck with the Mk.17 for the AIM-9E/J because
the initial high acceleration was better to run down a target when fired from the
tail. Or it could have just been a cost thing.

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.

Well, not in this case, since the HVAR, along with the FFAR, Zuni, and the
original 5" rocket, were _developed_ by the navy ;-) Googling HPAG rocket will
get you several hits, that describe it's use as a sounding rocket in 1953, and
claim it's a member of the Sidewinder family, so it may be a chicken and egg
situation.

Guy