If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Revisiting the Super Hornet's canted pilons issue
Boeing is in no visible hurry to develop a more elegant solution to the
weapons separation issues that lead to the 4º cant / toe-out of the Super Hornet's wing pilons. I'm not hearing too much complain from the Navy either. The reasons that have me worried about this current solution a 1: It increases drag, impacting range and performance; 2: It increases the aircraft's head-on radar signature; 3: It generates great lateral stress loads on the weapons and the wing itself. It may be that I am ignorant on the above points and those are non-issues; it may be that I am out of the loop, and Boeing is really working hard on a solution. Any pointers you'd like to contribute, for or against my impressions? _____________ José Herculano |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
José Herculano wrote:
Boeing is in no visible hurry to develop a more elegant solution to the weapons separation issues that lead to the 4º cant / toe-out of the Super Hornet's wing pilons. I'm not hearing too much complain from the Navy either. The reasons that have me worried about this current solution a 1: It increases drag, impacting range and performance; 2: It increases the aircraft's head-on radar signature; 3: It generates great lateral stress loads on the weapons and the wing itself. I thought the point of the toe-out was that it actually aligns the weapons with the local airflow, meaning that it does not increase drag or stress loading. Am I wrong? -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 5/4/05 6:09 AM, in article
et, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: José Herculano wrote: Boeing is in no visible hurry to develop a more elegant solution to the weapons separation issues that lead to the 4º cant / toe-out of the Super Hornet's wing pilons. I'm not hearing too much complain from the Navy either. The reasons that have me worried about this current solution a 1: It increases drag, impacting range and performance; 2: It increases the aircraft's head-on radar signature; 3: It generates great lateral stress loads on the weapons and the wing itself. I thought the point of the toe-out was that it actually aligns the weapons with the local airflow, meaning that it does not increase drag or stress loading. Am I wrong? Not a Super Hornet guy, but I do remember seeing this one first hand at Tullahoma, TN when the solution was being developed. In the original design during stores separation wind tunnel testing before any full scale production, the engineers discovered that the bombs had big dispersion errors when dropped off of the non-canted pylons (IIRC on the order of about 1,000 foot error for a medium altitude drop). Essentially, dumb bombs were not predictable because of aerodynamic interaction with the airframe immediately after release. Several solutions were proposed (not all inclusive): 1. Stronger CADS/ejector feet to push the stores off the aircraft harder. 2. Longer pylons. 3. Strake/wing redesign. 4. Pylon canting. The first three were rejected for cost (short term, of course, and I don't know the numbers). Number 4 was the only viable solution for an aircraft that was already well on its way from a design standpoint. At this point, the Navy has no real "elegant" solution left. They're stuck with the cheap solution for now. --Woody |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
From a brief I saw the canting of the pylons does surprisingly little to the
range of the aircraft. If the numbers presented were true, it was less than 30 NM on a round-trip strike. The Navy at the time didn't see the need to fix the pylons for such a small number. -Former SH pilot "Doug "Woody" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... On 5/4/05 6:09 AM, in article et, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: José Herculano wrote: Boeing is in no visible hurry to develop a more elegant solution to the weapons separation issues that lead to the 4º cant / toe-out of the Super Hornet's wing pilons. I'm not hearing too much complain from the Navy either. The reasons that have me worried about this current solution a 1: It increases drag, impacting range and performance; 2: It increases the aircraft's head-on radar signature; 3: It generates great lateral stress loads on the weapons and the wing itself. I thought the point of the toe-out was that it actually aligns the weapons with the local airflow, meaning that it does not increase drag or stress loading. Am I wrong? Not a Super Hornet guy, but I do remember seeing this one first hand at Tullahoma, TN when the solution was being developed. In the original design during stores separation wind tunnel testing before any full scale production, the engineers discovered that the bombs had big dispersion errors when dropped off of the non-canted pylons (IIRC on the order of about 1,000 foot error for a medium altitude drop). Essentially, dumb bombs were not predictable because of aerodynamic interaction with the airframe immediately after release. Several solutions were proposed (not all inclusive): 1. Stronger CADS/ejector feet to push the stores off the aircraft harder. 2. Longer pylons. 3. Strake/wing redesign. 4. Pylon canting. The first three were rejected for cost (short term, of course, and I don't know the numbers). Number 4 was the only viable solution for an aircraft that was already well on its way from a design standpoint. At this point, the Navy has no real "elegant" solution left. They're stuck with the cheap solution for now. --Woody |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Navy decides to split Super Hornets between Beach and N.C. | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 18th 03 09:30 PM |