• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The Great, Constantly Changing Picture Gallery, Troisième partie: la vengeance!

MIDNJAC

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
jmcquate said:
Weapon release clearance when carrying 6 pylons.
Click to expand...

It took me many hours of searching, but I did actually find the original MacAir source document (circa 1993 or 1995) that recommended the cant. IIRC (its been a couple years since I read it), it was specific to mid board Mk-83 release with a HARM on the adjacent (outboard) station. What I have heard is that this configuration ended up not causing the wind tunnel predicted release issues. Classic
 
sevenhelmet

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
MIDNJAC said:
It took me many hours of searching, but I did actually find the original MacAir source document (circa 1993 or 1995) that recommended the cant. IIRC (its been a couple years since I read it), it was specific to mid board Mk-83 release with a HARM on the adjacent (outboard) station. What I have heard is that this configuration ended up not causing the wind tunnel predicted release issues. Classic
Click to expand...
Can confirm. It was a corner case that ended up not being the problem they thought it would be.

Engineers are always quick to point out that the flow field IVO the pylons is already a couple of degrees off-axis, so the canted pylons aren’t as canted to the wind as they appear.

Uh huh. We can still tell the difference.
 
ea6bflyr

ea6bflyr

Working Class Bum
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
sevenhelmet said:
Can confirm. It was a corner case that ended up not being the problem they thought it would be.

Engineers are always quick to point out that the flow field IVO the pylons is already a couple of degrees off-axis, so the canted pylons aren’t as canted to the wind as they appear.

Uh huh. We can still tell the difference.
Click to expand...
I believe the canted pylons were driven by the larger squared intakes on the Super Hornets.
 
N

number9

Well-Known Member
Contributor
ea6bflyr said:
I believe the canted pylons were driven by the larger squared intakes on the Super Hornets.
Click to expand...
Can you please explain to me (like you would a child, or a golden retriever) me why a square intake has better performance than a round intake? I would have thought air prefers a curve to a right angle...
 
sevenhelmet

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
number9 said:
Can you please explain to me (like you would a child, or a golden retriever) me why a square intake has better performance than a round intake? I would have thought air prefers a curve to a right angle...
Click to expand...

It's not about performance. Without going into too much detail, the sharp angles are there to help reduce radar detectability as compared to a rounded surface.
 
sevenhelmet

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
ea6bflyr said:
I believe the canted pylons were driven by the larger squared intakes on the Super Hornets.
Click to expand...

I have not heard that before.

As previously stated, the canted pylons were driven by how engineering modeled weapons separation characteristics. Canting the pylons outward was one of several solutions that were proposed during development of the Rhino in order to ensure safe weapons separation for all loadouts. Actual testing later (I have been told) showed that the weapons separation concerns probably did not warrant the design change.

It's possible that the engine intake shape could have been a contributing factor that led to the above design change, but if so, it wasn't mentioned in the briefs and discussions we had on the subject when I was in active in the F/A-18 community.
 
MIDNJAC

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
sevenhelmet said:
I have not heard that before.

As previously stated, the canted pylons were driven by how engineering modeled weapons separation characteristics. Canting the pylons outward was one of several solutions that were proposed during development of the Rhino in order to ensure safe weapons separation for all loadouts. Actual testing later (I have been told) showed that the weapons separation concerns probably did not warrant the design change.

It's possible that the engine intake shape could have been a contributing factor that led to the above design change, but if so, it wasn't mentioned in the briefs and discussions we had on the subject when I was in active in the F/A-18 community.
Click to expand...

Yeah haven't heard this one either. Now that you mention it, I had forgotten about the other 2-3 engineering solutions they came up with to solve the problem. I can't remember what they were now, but I remember them sounding really dumb. Now I have to dig that doc up, it's saved somewhere on my work computer.
 
L

Llarry

Well-Known Member
California Air National Guard 144th Fighter Wing F-15C. As can be seen from the serial number, procured with FY1984 funds. Presumably yanked and banked for almost 40 years. The 144th is scheduled to get the new F-15EXs in the future. It's time for this old Eagle to retire.

F-15C 144FW ANG.jpg
 
sevenhelmet

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
MIDNJAC said:
Yeah haven't heard this one either. Now that you mention it, I had forgotten about the other 2-3 engineering solutions they came up with to solve the problem. I can't remember what they were now, but I remember them sounding really dumb. Now I have to dig that doc up, it's saved somewhere on my work computer.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that too. The one crazy proposal I remember was the “trapeze” setup for the BRU, so it would swing the store down and away from the pylon for weapon release, to ensure safe separation from adjacent stores. I’m sure nothing would have gone wrong with that setup!
;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top