Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Why is it typical for the AIM-120 to be on the wing tips and not the AIM-9? If someone could point me in the right direction of a post or if it hasn't been answered I'm just curious. I would think the AIM-9 is lighter than the 120, but then again I'm no weapons troop.

F-16.net Sponsor

The question has been asked several times earlier, and in short it is the only configuration that is approved by the USAF. Although you can do vice-versa, there is some form of standardization within the USAF that dictate things like this.
From what I've read, it does however stress the wings more than with flying with AIM-9 on the wingtips, so who knows - might see this reversed still Wink

not sure tbh - have read in the past that the AMRAAM actually improves things somewhat - reduces wingflutter or something like that.

Double post

Boman wrote:

From what I've read, it does however stress the wings more than with flying with AIM-9 on the wingtips, so who knows - might see this reversed still Wink

Correct …You tend to develop annoying fuel leaks on the wingtips of jets that consistently fly 120’s on stations 1 and 9. Screws need to be “dipped” and re-torqued.

For amorphous reasons, the A- and WMUX buses on the jets seem to work better with the AIM-120s on 1 & 9 and the AIM-7s on 2 & 8. I never could figure out why that was, but it worked, so who was I to argue?

Your all close. Due to flutter issues at the wingtips its better to have the heavier AIM-120's on the wingtips then AIM-9's to dampen things out.

Cheers,

ViperDude

I assume the XL didn't have this 'flutter' problem necessitating the unorthodox loading? Besides, the 4 120s in semi-conforming stations alone, doubled the BVR punch Smile

IMO, the JSF should have been a tailless, LOAN, -XL, with CFT and the GE-132, AESA. This baby could have been delivering to units at least 4 yrs before F-35, thus winning more orders and at what, %25 the R&D? Just my take.

SixerViper wrote:

For amorphous reasons, the A- and WMUX buses on the jets seem to work better with the AIM-120s on 1 & 9 and the AIM-7s on 2 & 8. I never could figure out why that was, but it worked, so who was I to argue?

Wow...I've never seen AIM-7's carried on 2 & 8! Got any pics of that?

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Quote:

For amorphous reasons, the A- and WMUX buses on the jets seem to work better with the AIM-120s on 1 & 9 and the AIM-7s on 2 & 8. I never could figure out why that was, but it worked, so who was I to argue?

Did you mean AIM-9s on stations 2 & 8? I've never heard of AIM-7s on anything but 3 & 7.

Here it is.
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16720.html

Everyone is right about the Vibration in the wing. Pick up any Engineering Vibrations book and you'll note that frequency is greater when the mass at the end of a cantilever beam (Wing) has more mass then less.
Basically, it makes the wing more stable. This could also give another stress related problem somewhere else. Which would start a whole new topic. Wink

_Viper_ wrote:

Here it is.
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16720.html

Right, I've seen that...I'm talking about an operational/non-prototype aircraft, but thanks.

I didn't feel like starting a new thread on this one, but trying to keep WVR topic here, but has there ever been talk about a fighter launched 'Stinger' block? I know they are developing the block to arm high flying Reaper drones but those are at slow speeds. Maybe a LOAL fighter-variant Stinger could be a viable AIM, especially if you could double/quadruple the loadout on a pylon maybe? e.g. maybe a double shot on each wing-tip? Disregard if it's not plausible.. Thanks.

_Viper_ wrote:

Here it is.
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16720.html

Wow - never seen that - looks like the pilots just off for a spin too.

Must have caused problems somewhere though

Still the F-104 carried massive wingtip drop tanks on its little wings.

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

AIM-9, 120 loadout