RMS-1

[Lightning]

is it true that the F-4B could hold two of the SUU-23 gunpods in place of the usual 350-gal fuel tanks and just mount a 500-gal in the middle where the gunpod used to sit?

[1st Border Red Devil]

It would seem that the Robotech VF-1 suffers from the same false notion. They have the outboard hardpoint capable of carrying 2 long range missiles and the inboard carrying 1. I dont see how that is possible...even in space (which is where I would imagine they are only used). That configuration certainly wouldnt be possible in atmospheric operations....the stress would sheer the wings off I would imagine.

[Nied]

I would guess that people who thought VF-1's had 3 hardpoints because of having 3 RMS-1's didn't know much about how missiles are carried, and just assumed 1 missile per pylon.

Most planes only have 2 hardpoints (thus pylons) per wing. If it's got 3, the outboard one is almost certainly AIM-9-only. (Or nowadays, AMRAAM). It's the pylons themselves which carry multiple bombs or missiles. I mean, you always see F-15's carrying 4 Sidewinders, but it's 2 per pylon on just 2 pylons.

Boy, could I (and would I love to) get into a discussion about pylons, stub-pylons, multi-ejector racks, launch rails, pallet adapters, and the like. :)

What a about the Super Bug? Or the Harrier, A-10, or A-7 (on that one the sidewinder rails are inboard).

Personally I find the three RMS pylons pretty plausible, at least for early block VF-1s (like the ones seen in the TV episodes). However I could see the outboard pylon being strengthened enough to carry an MER in later block models. After all if the wing was strong enough to carry three heavy missiles across it's length why couldn't it be strong enough to carry two missiles on the outboard pylon?

[Aurel Tristen]

It would seem that the Robotech VF-1 suffers from the same false notion. They have the outboard hardpoint capable of carrying 2 long range missiles and the inboard carrying 1. I dont see how that is possible...even in space (which is where I would imagine they are only used). That configuration certainly wouldnt be possible in atmospheric operations....the stress would sheer the wings off I would imagine.

Its not a false notion. That is how Studio Nue draws them.

[David Hingtgen]

Nied--I said most! Not all. I figured a long line of exceptions would get boring. I do think the F-18E's outboard ones are AMRAAM/HARM only AFAIK. The main reason for the new pylon on the wing was to carry an AMRAAM, to free up the outboard pylon.

And the A-10's billion low-loading hardpoints have always seemed pointless--you never see them loaded up, they're usually half-empty, and asymmetrically loaded.

A-7: the main exception. Carries more than a Hornet.

Harrier: which/when? Be specific, there's a lot of variants, with various wings. Outrigger-gear-mounted-sidewinders don't count! (And it's still small, show me a Harrier with a 1,000lb bomb on a 3rd pylon)

Planes with a 3rd, outboard pylon, carrying anything more than medium-sized missiles, aren't very common.

[David Hingtgen]

Re: why not 2 outboard. Nied---for mass/G/symmetry reasons. 3 weapons spread out works, but you can't just "clump" the same amount outboard. Wings get massively weaker at the tips, especially something with a high aspect ratio like the VF-1. It'd take a lot of strengthening to make it work.

Aerodynamics:

You couldn't just strengthen an F-16's outboard pylon, and put 2 large bombs under the outboard pylon--the plane would be so horrendously off-balance if you dropped them (but not the ones opposite), plus the asymmetric yaw, plus a hard time trying to roll with that much weight at the tips---moment arm of the ailerons---adding a couple of thousand pounds at the tips reduces the effectiveness of the controls. Big weapons go inboard for the same reason wing-mounted engines go well inboard on an airliner---weight/balance/wing-strength/prevention of asymmetry.

Or finally---if you're going to try, why not just strengthen the inboard ones instead? A lot more practical.

Ah, it's been a while since we've had a good airplane discussion. Now if only more VF's carried weapons externally we'd have a lot more to compare. Internally-leg-mounted's all the rage...

Edited January 3, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Isamu Atreides 86]

Now if only more VF's carried weapons externally we'd have a lot more to compare.  Internally-leg-mounted's all the rage...

isn't this the trend for Real Life aircraft as well? i know the F-22 has internal Bays, so does the Comanche helocopter....does the new F-35 have them as well? Maybe Kawamori is simply following the trend??

BTW, good observations, David

Edited January 3, 2004 by Isamu Atreides 86

[JB0]

After all if the wing was strong enough to carry three heavy missiles across it's length why couldn't it be strong enough to carry two missiles on the outboard pylon?

Simple lever mechanics. The further out you get along the lever(wing), the more force is exerted.

A given mass on the innermost hardpoint is going to exert far less force on the wing than that same mass on the outermost hardpoint.

Just because the wing can support 3 of the missiles doesn't mean it can support them in any location.

[Nied]

Simple lever mechanics. The further out you get along the lever(wing), the more force is exerted.

A given mass on the innermost hardpoint is going to exert far less force on the wing than that same mass on the outermost hardpoint.

Just because the wing can support 3 of the missiles doesn't mean it can support them in any location.

Ah but the MER is mounted further inboard than the pylons for the single RMSs. We'll have to look at the distribution of the pylon mounts on the Hasegawa model, but I'd bet that the MER would mount pretty close to where the middle RMS station would. Heck it might even be that the wing can better carry the wieght at the double MER than with the single pylon mounted further out.

[Zentrandude]

been talking with some of my airforce buds about this and it can be possible to put heavy stuff on the outboard depending which aircraft you use but its not praticle like david said it would be hard to use them unless you us both outside ones at the sametime and it would be too hard to turn.

[Angel's Fury]

This is a good thread. I'm learning stuff that I'm not aware of.

[David Hingtgen]

Zentrandude--yup, *possible* (for some) but not practica at all. Nobody'd ever do it other than to see if it was physically possible. You'd have a really messed-up plane that'd fly horribly. Thus you never see it. For the REALLY heavy stuff, it's REALLY inboard only. I.E, fuel tanks. They weigh more than all but the largest of the large bombs. (Jetfuel weighs 6.7lbs per gallon---tanks range from 200 to 600 gallons each for most planes)

Balance is very important--the F-15E has to have the best ground crew for loading (IMHO), due to all the combinations possible. They'll end up with VERY weird combinations, like 4 500lb bombs with 2 AMRAAMS and a JDAM and 2 spaces diagonally oppositely empty, with an old Sparrow hulk filled with cement, just so it'll balance left/right and front/rear. (When you've got 12 stub-pylons on the belly, it gets complicated). I looks weird to see bombs and empty space on one side, and missiles and weights on the other!

Edited January 3, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Cdr Fokker]

Now if only more VF's carried weapons externally we'd have a lot more to compare.  Internally-leg-mounted's all the rage...

isn't this the trend for Real Life aircraft as well? i know the F-22 has internal Bays, so does the Comanche helocopter....does the new F-35 have them as well? Maybe Kawamori is simply following the trend??

BTW, good observations, David

IIRC, the F-35 has both internal bays and external pylon points (at least the AF version, I think). Basically, you have your internal bays when you want to remain stealthy, and then the added external pylons after you've knocked out most of the enemy's defenses and need to blow up lots of stuff...

[David Hingtgen]

F/A(gack)-22 has external pylons as well. Though I can't believe they made stealth hardpoints. IMHO, the F/A-22's stealthiness from below (especially the wings) has been compromised compared to the YF-22. Once you remove the pylons, there's still connectors on the underside of the wings. Those aren't stealthy. And then there's the big new aileron hinges on the underside. YF-22 had a smooth, flat, featureless wing underside--nice and stealthy. Now it's got hinges, fairings, and hardpoints. All things which are bad for stealth.

Edited January 3, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Lightning]

is it true that the F-4B could hold two of the SUU-23 gunpods in place of the usual 350-gal fuel tanks and just mount a 500-gal in the middle where the gunpod used to sit?

ummm....

[David Hingtgen]

Make me go and get my big expensive F-4 book... ::back in a little while::

[Nied]

F/A(gack)-22 has external pylons as well. Though I can't believe they made stealth hardpoints. IMHO, the F/A-22's stealthiness from below (especially the wings) has been compromised compared to the YF-22. Once you remove the pylons, there's still connectors on the underside of the wings. Those aren't stealthy. And then there's the big new aileron hinges on the underside. YF-22 had a smooth, flat, featureless wing underside--nice and stealthy. Now it's got hinges, fairings, and hardpoints. All things which are bad for stealth.

When the F-22's pylons aren't being used the attach points are covered over so that they don't compromise stealth. I hear that the entire pylon can be ejected as well (though that would leave the attach points uncovered) to improve stealth and drag once the external stores have been used.

[David Hingtgen]

I figured that'd be the only way it works (covering the attachment points), but I still wonder how well it'd work. And I still have to go look up in my F-4 book

[Nied]

This is pretty intersting. Don't the Australians know how to load aircraft?

Note that in terms of how it carries weapons, the VF-1 is a lot close to the F-111 than it is to the F-14.

[David Hingtgen]

D*mn it, the F-111 was also on my list of "freaks and exceptions" that I was going to type. Because it is. It's pylons are unique---some pivot with the wing, some do not. Its pylons have been modified again and again. Its pylons are ejectable, in case something goes wrong with either them or the wing-sweep mechanism. And their outboard pylons have pretty much been eliminated. So they've been replaced with the inboards, effectively. Also, the F-111 has to use custom-designed AIM-9's. AIM-9P-2 I think, maybe P-3. Because no other variant will fit on its funky modified pylons. Also, you'll note that "the outboard-most plyon it actually uses" is still well inboard, not even at the mid-point of the wing. The "outboard" pylon is located where most planes have their inboard-most one. (Thus, their inboard pylon is SO inboard, they have to use custom Sidewinders to fit, as it's too close to the fuselage to safely release normal Sidewinders) They put their Sidewinders inboard because they have to, they only fit on certain pylons in certain ways. F-111 pylons are generally the same, and all rated for high loadings. F-111's were among the first (and still the best) to carry super-heavy bunker-busting bombs. Their pylons can carry weapons that pretty much nothing else can, so there's few problems with weight. (Clearance, yes---F-111's carried bunker-busters "outboard" I think due to their extreme size). It doesn't have "outboard" pylons, more like "inboard, and REALLY inboard".

Finally---F-111's a bomber, not a little fighter. Show me a fighter with heavy weapons outboard, on a third pylon.

[Graham]

The Genie was anti-aircraft. (Bombers, specifically) No need to be any more powerful than it is. Same as a nuclear torpedo (SUBROC/ASROC)---don't need a 10-mile destruction radius for single small targets. Same with the RMS-1. It's not supposed to nuke cities, it's anti-ship.

I know the Genie was anti-aircraft, for taking down formations of Warsaw pact bombers.

It just seemed strange to me back in the 1950's, a yield of 1.5kt was considered necessary for the intended purpose, but moving forward half a century then the UN Spacy specifies a yield of only 0.5kt for taking out alien starships or formations of attacking alien mecha (which are probably more difficult to kill than 50s era soviet bombers).

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

Pure speculation on my part, but it makes sense to me and is IMHO a good theory:

I think part of it is the general miniaturization of technology. The Genie had as small of a yield as they could make, to fit inside a missile. They just couldn't make it any smaller, and still work. So they're not 1.5kt because that's what they needed, it's as small as they could make it. They simply couldn't make it any less powerful than it was. The whole "critical mass" thing---you generally need a baseball-sized amount of material to make a self-sustaining reaction. Now we have better tech, more refined material, but there's still a minimum size/yield for a weapon to work.

(FYI, the first sub-launched ICBM's wouldn't have worked--but now we can make much smaller ones, and pack multiple warheads into one missile)

[David Hingtgen]

::looks up stuff in F-4 book::

Lightning06:

SUU-23's were the replacement for the very similar SUU-16. F-4's initially carried the SUU-16, later the SUU-23. Maximum legal load is 2, one on each wing. They often show up at airshows carrying 5, but that's just for display. When equipped with SUU-16's, airspeed is restricted to 350kts. No such restriction on the SUU-23.

F-4's use 370gal tanks on wings, 600gal centerline. So you generally see 2 wing tanks and a central gunpod, or 2 gunpods and a central tank. (only 140 gal difference between the two configurations)

Interesting note: a few F-4's got the 30mm GPU-5 anti-tank pod. It's basically the A-10's gun (but the 4-barelled version) in a pod. THAT is a gun pod.

[Graham]

David,

Just curious, any idea how much ammo the 30mm GPU-5 pod holds?

Graham

[David Hingtgen]

I've still got the book right here. 353 rounds. Fires 2,400rpm. 3,200fps at the muzzle.

[Aurel Tristen]

Reference picture:

[Mr March]

Macross Gold Book, page 306. I love having these books

[Nied]

Lets clarify what we're talking about here. Are we talking about weather the wings of a Valkyrie are structurally sound enough to carry a heavy weight outboard? Surely they could, remember we've seen them plow through buildings cars and bridges with little to no effect. If the structure of a Valkyrie can withstand that kind of stress I find it hard to beilieve that it couldn't bear 2000 kg on the outboard pylons. So that leaves us with the problem of adverse yaw and unbalanced loads, and what caused me to bring up the F-111. As david pointed out the reason the Aardvark carries larger weapons outboard is because of clearance issues. Carrying big bunkerbuster bombs on the inboard pylons would interfere with the wing folding. Is it too hard to beilieve that carrying an MER with two giant nuclear weapons inboard would also interfere with the wing folding on a Valkyrie?

[Nied]

Interesting note: a few F-4's got the 30mm GPU-5 anti-tank pod. It's basically the A-10's gun (but the 4-barelled version) in a pod. THAT is a gun pod.

The GPU-5 is a great idea, it's just too bad it never worked. Fewer barrels, lower cyclic rate, and a less stable mount than the GAU-8; bad combination. I heard that back when the Air Force was trying to replace the A-10 with GPU-5 equiped F-16s, they had some trouble. Aparently the guns rattled around so much that they were more like an anti-tank shotgun. Test squadrons ended up using it like a stand-off cluster bomb during missions in Deser Storm, before finally giving up and going back to regular cluster bombs.

[David Hingtgen]

Hmmn, what ARE we talking about? Well, I'm mainly going by it's just "not a good idea at all" to have the heaviest stuff outboard. It's like it's being retconned to explain why it'd work. Yes, VF-1's are utterly invincible and seem to be strong enough to carry B-52's under their wings. But it still just isn't "right" to have the MER on the outboard pylon. Drag/yaw/balance is still surely a consideration. Especially balance. Unless it's going to be firing verniers constantly while in flight to counteract the weight once it lets a few go. And you still have to deal with a lot of mass at the tips--even the aileron-less VF-1 still uses verniers at the very tips to roll, it wouldn't like excess mass far from its roll axis. F-111's don't have a problem, since their "outboard" pylons are still very close to the centerline. (And they're a very large plane--2,000lbs would affect them far less than most fighters) But VF-1 pylons are pretty far out there. For the standard VF-1 Strike config---less mass inboard, much mass outboard? That's just stupid, IMHO, unless there's a darn good reason to do it. As it is, we only have why it might be possible for a VF-1 to do so. Still no good reason to fly in the face of convention and aerodynamics by mounting them that way.

As for swinging---irrelevant. VF-1's never swing their wings when they have weapons, of any type. If it's carrying something, they're fully out. (At least, that's what I recall) Especially DYRL.

Edited January 6, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Nied]

We see the VF-1 fold it's wings while carrying stores plenty of times, especially during the series. We don't see it much in DYRL because the vast majority of combat scenes take place out of the atmosphere. IIRC we do see the wings sweep during Max and Millia's dogfight.

Looking at the underside of the Hasegawa model, it does look like only the two standard hardpoints are variable, but the three RMS hardpoints (the ones that seem to be used in the series) apear to be fixed.

[David Hingtgen]

I wouldn't cite the Hasegawa model as reference. Detail and quality doesn't esure accuracy. (I have a lot of models, for which the most detailed ones are the most inaccurate ones)

I'll go watch the M&M dogfight and have a look.

[Lightning]

David- Which book is the one you're referring from? (i'd like to find one...)

[David Hingtgen]

McDonnell F-4 Phantom: Spirit in the Skies. Editor: Jon Lake. (It's by World Air Power Journal/Aerospace(Airtime) Publishing--all basically the same company, many names)

[hellohikaru]

yup, *possible* (for some) but not practica at all. Nobody'd ever do it other than to see if it was physically possible. You'd have a really messed-up plane that'd fly horribly. Thus you never see it. For the REALLY heavy stuff, it's REALLY inboard only. I.E, fuel tanks. They weigh more than all but the largest of the large bombs. (Jetfuel weighs 6.7lbs per gallon---tanks range from 200 to 600 gallons each for most planes)

I think the A-7 Corsairs(when they were still in service) have carried their drop tanks on the outermost pylons.