AIM-9, 120 loadout
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 39
- Joined: 13 Apr 2007, 03:58
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.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1872
- Joined: 08 Jul 2004, 19:22
- Location: Norway
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
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
Best regards
Niels
Niels
- Senior member
- Posts: 372
- Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
- Location: UK
not sure tbh - have read in the past that the AMRAAM actually improves things somewhat - reduces wingflutter or something like that.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1447
- Joined: 30 Oct 2006, 04:31
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
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.
My eyes have seen the glory of the Lord and the esthetics of the Flightline
- Senior member
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 05 Jun 2007, 20:32
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?
F-106A/B '69-'73
F-105D/F '73-'81
A-7D/K '81-'91
F-16C/D '91-'05
SCUBA bum '05-Present
F-105D/F '73-'81
A-7D/K '81-'91
F-16C/D '91-'05
SCUBA bum '05-Present
- Banned
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
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
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.
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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
- Location: Langley AFB, VA
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
- Posts: 1495
- Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39
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.
Last edited by Guysmiley on 20 Mar 2008, 15:53, edited 1 time in total.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 10:53
Here it is.
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16720.html
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16720.html
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 66
- Joined: 06 Feb 2006, 02:46
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.
Basically, it makes the wing more stable. This could also give another stress related problem somewhere else. Which would start a whole new topic.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1525
- Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
- Location: Langley AFB, VA
_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.
- Banned
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
- Senior member
- Posts: 372
- Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 20:06
- Location: UK
_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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests