Donatello
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,531
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
That's called elegance.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They are called airbrakes, all jet aircraft have them on different locations.
That is true, you simply need the HTS pod and the AGM-88 (or any other compatible missile). I mentioned this once before but I would really love to see HARMs in the PAF arsenal.. it is a game changer and definitely a very successful, tested weapon.
It is unfortunate that they can prove to be quite costly and the US doesn't give them up easily. I wonder if the MAR-1's are compatible with our F-16s, or whether the US would allow it....
Turkey has HARM capable F-16Cs. All block 50 and onward F-16s can carry them provided they have HTS pod. I think not all CCIP F-16s can carry them.
CCIP F-16s preceded the block 50 version when older F-16s were brought to Common Configuration with F-16 block 50 and 52 standards.
Correct me if I m wrong, I think the F-16 MLU can carry HARMs.
Yes they can, plus you use the HTS pod anyway for initial guidance.
Turkey cannot be seen as an example, because they are member of NATO, and as such can buy what ever they want.
If thats the case, Turkey being a NATO member, I dont see Pakistan getting HARMs. I dont think US has exported them to any non-NATO country.
The speedbrake, or airbrake, is a member of the flight control devices, or structures, family. The thing about the speedbrake is that it can be removed, but it cannot be installed.
What I mean is that if an existing design have a speedbrake and we decide not to use it anymore, we can disable or even literally remove speedbrake from each aircraft. But we cannot arbitrarily install the speedbrake on any existing design just because we think that design is needed. The speedbrake is, or rather should be, designed from paper, as in when the aircraft is in concept.
The speedbrake's job is to produce drag, but not at the expense of aerodynamic disruption to other flight control members that may be downstream from its position or overall affect aircraft's controllability and stability, meaning once deployed, the pilot must still be able to execute maneuvers, albeit within the flight conditions that necessitate the deployment of the speedbrake in the first place, such as landing.
The worst thing a speedbrake can do is to produce pitch attitude change upon deployment. Does not matter if it is pitch up or down. If, even under simulation, a deployed speedbrake is found to induce any pitch attitude changes, especially if it eventually evolves into aircraft oscillation, then the speedbrake's intended location is a poor choice. Not just location but its design parameters, such as area size, speed and angle of deployment, are now suspect. So when landing require the speedbrake and it induces pitch attitude changes on deployment, there is going to be a disaster. Most likely a non-recoverable one.
This is why we can remove the speedbrake but not install it.
Yes, they do...Here is an example...Never ever thought speed brake could involve so much technology and parameters.
Note the date of the report.Reports and Memoranda No. 2614* June, 1942
For dive bombers, the drag should reduce the terminal velocity sufficiently to enable the aeroplane to be pulled out of the dive at a reasonably low height. It is clearly impossible to specify this requirement exactly, but it is probable that a terminal velocity of about between 300 and 350 m.p.h. in a 50-deg. dive should be aimed at. The terminal velocity of the Ju.88, for example, is about 350 m.p.h. (50-deg. dive, weight 26,200 lb). Fig. 2a shows very roughly the size of the flaps needed to fulfil these conditions on a typical modern aeroplane.
For torpedo aircraft, the air brakes must enable the aeroplane to lose speed as rapidly as possible in level flight after a dive from, say, 6,000 ft. It has been suggested that the speed possible in level flight after a dive from, say, 6,000 ft. It has been suggested that the speed should drop to 150 knots within about 9 secs after flattening out.
Finally, it is essential that any form of wing or tail buffeting, or any vibration of ailerons or other control surfaces, must be avoided.
Yes, they do...Here is an example...
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2614.pdf
Note the date of the report.
These WW II aircrafts used speedbrakes for purposes other than for landing. A dive bomber had a different attack profile than a torpedo bomber but both needed speedbrakes to foremost stabilize those flight profiles. This is because the torpedo is, in a manner of speaking, more 'delicate' than a bomb. The torpedo must be delivered in a certain manner to increase its odds of survival of impact into the water, the initial drop cannot have the torpedo below a certain depth, the pilot needed a stable aircraft to aim the torpedo, etc. The last sentence indicate what was true then is true today, that speedbrake deployment should not affect other flight control surfaces under flight profiles that uses the speedbrakes.
Any fighter with twin vertical stabs can do the same. Basically, the stabs deflects in equal degree but opposite directions.A nice mention of how LO aircraft have different methods of airbraking would not go amiss. Both the Raptor and the lightening I believe use their rudders in full deflection to achieve airflow disruption.
Yes, they do...Here is an example...
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2614.pdf
Note the date of the report.
These WW II aircrafts used speedbrakes for purposes other than for landing. A dive bomber had a different attack profile than a torpedo bomber but both needed speedbrakes to foremost stabilize those flight profiles. This is because the torpedo is, in a manner of speaking, more 'delicate' than a bomb. The torpedo must be delivered in a certain manner to increase its odds of survival of impact into the water, the initial drop cannot have the torpedo below a certain depth, the pilot needed a stable aircraft to aim the torpedo, etc. The last sentence indicate what was true then is true today, that speedbrake deployment should not affect other flight control surfaces under flight profiles that uses the speedbrakes.
Turkey has HARM capable F-16Cs. All block 50 and onward F-16s can carry them provided they have HTS pod. I think not all CCIP F-16s can carry them.
CCIP F-16s preceded the block 50 version when older F-16s were brought to Common Configuration with F-16 block 50 and 52 standards.
Correct me if I m wrong, I think the F-16 MLU can carry HARMs.