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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|