Why Zuni?

[Elmshoot]

I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground rocket came to be
named Zuni. Any experts that can help?
Sparky
Yes, I shot them from the A-6 what fun!!! Bottle rockets for adults

[John R Weiss]

"Elmshoot" > wrote...
> I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground rocket came to be
> named Zuni. Any experts that can help?

Actually, the 5" rockets were Zunis. I don't remember the "official" name for
the 2.75" variety, but occasionally heard them referred to as "Mighty Mouse."

[Pechs1]

elmshoot-<< I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground rocket
came to be
named Zuni. >><BR><BR>

2.75s weren't 'Zuni'-Zuni was a 4 inch rocket. I never heard a name for the
2.75FFAR-
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Jim Carriere]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> elmshoot-<< I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground
rocket
> came to be
> named Zuni. >><BR><BR>
>
> 2.75s weren't 'Zuni'-Zuni was a 4 inch rocket. I never heard a name for
the
> 2.75FFAR-

I've heard them called "Mickey Mouse" rockets. Not sure if that ever caught
on in naval aviation though...

What did a salvo launch look like? Was it a tight pattern, or were there a
few strays?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:05:27 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> wrote:

>> 2.75FFAR-
>
>I've heard them called "Mickey Mouse" rockets. Not sure if that ever caught
>on in naval aviation though...

I carried them fairly often in the USAF, but never heard a nickname
other than "2.75's" or simply rockets.
>
>What did a salvo launch look like? Was it a tight pattern, or were there a
>few strays?
>
Typically we carried them in the LAU-3 pod which held 19 rockets.
There was an intervelometer that spaced the firing, but all 19 were
released in one pass. The interval was very short, but insured
nose/tail clearance and minimized fratricide between the rockets.

One load for the F-105 used a C/L tank and four LAU-3 pods--one on
each wing pylon. Impressive to fire all four in one pass.

We also used 2.75s with willy-pete warheads fired from the LAU-32, a
7-rocket pod. They fired singles and were quite accurate. The secret
of accuracy is to know the delivery parameters and keep any post-burn
trajectory to a minimum.

Occasionally a rocket fin would fail to deploy and then you'd see a
corkscrew exhaust trail. In qualification on a controlled range,
typically a practice bomb dispenser carried two or four 2.75s, fired
singly for score. A "wild rocket" call would negate the unscorable
from your records if you got a bad fin.

Qualification criteria were less than for dive bomb. Don't recall
exactly what it was--I'm thinking around 40 feet CEA.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Harriet and John]

Wasn't it Mighty Mouse? It's been awhile...
"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> ...
> > elmshoot-<< I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground
> rocket
> > came to be
> > named Zuni. >><BR><BR>
> >
> > 2.75s weren't 'Zuni'-Zuni was a 4 inch rocket. I never heard a name for
> the
> > 2.75FFAR-
>
> I've heard them called "Mickey Mouse" rockets. Not sure if that ever
caught
> on in naval aviation though...
>
> What did a salvo launch look like? Was it a tight pattern, or were there
a
> few strays?
>
>

[Jim Carriere]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:05:27 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > wrote:
>
> >> 2.75FFAR-
> >
> >I've heard them called "Mickey Mouse" rockets. Not sure if that ever
caught
> >on in naval aviation though...
>
> I carried them fairly often in the USAF, but never heard a nickname
> other than "2.75's" or simply rockets.

Hmm, I'm racking my brain for where I heard it... A lot of work on google
keyword searches (FFAR, 2.75, 70mm) turned up a few results (including a
four year old post of mine on rec.aviation.military!). Anyway, that
nickname seems to have originated as early as the 1940s with the first
versions of the weapon.

I bet "Mickey Mouse" was an obvious corruption of "Mighty Mouse." Maybe the
nickname just caught on in some squadrons, and not at all in others... I
don't know for sure, I wasn't there :)

"Mighty Mouse" seems to be the official nickname of the 2.75" FFAR:

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/Site-Search.htm

(type in "mighty mouse" with quotes)

I found a few other "Mickey Mouse" references on old newsgroup posts, and on
Polish and German language websites. So I'm probably not losing my mind,
but now I'm confused where I first read it.

[Elmshoot]

Wow!
Fun topic that I started... I forgot that the 2.75 wasn't refered to as a Zuni.
I guess we just called it 2.75 rockets. Ed mentions another name, I have never
heard them refered to as Micky Mouse. Back to the original question. Why were
the 5" rockets called Zuni?
I don't recall a ripple or salvo shot on the 2.75" but I do remember stuck fins
they really went all over :)
Sparky

[Pechs1]

Jim-<< What did a salvo launch look like? Was it a tight pattern, or were
there a
few strays? >><BR><BR>

I've blasted all 11(?) or so in one pod, of 2.75, on one wing, all at once.
Really impressive, makes the A/C yaw...and they go all over the place,
particularly if ya have one where all the fins don't come out.

Shot Zunis as well, one at a time, really much more accurate...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Jim Carriere]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
> I've blasted all 11(?) or so in one pod, of 2.75, on one wing, all at
once.
> Really impressive, makes the A/C yaw...and they go all over the place,
> particularly if ya have one where all the fins don't come out.

:) ! ! !

[Tex Houston]

"Elmshoot" > wrote in message
...
> Wow!
> Fun topic that I started... I forgot that the 2.75 wasn't refered to as a
Zuni.
> I guess we just called it 2.75 rockets. Ed mentions another name, I have
never
> heard them refered to as Micky Mouse. Back to the original question. Why
were
> the 5" rockets called Zuni?
> I don't recall a ripple or salvo shot on the 2.75" but I do remember stuck
fins
> they really went all over :)
> Sparky

When I first went into the USAF in 1955 I spent several years in Air Defense
Command and NORAD where some of the aircraft were armed with the 2.75"
Folding Fin Aerial Rocket (FFAR) and I remember the nickname as being
'Mighty Mouse' but even more common was 'f far' or '2.75s'. I was surprised
when I got to SEA in 1968 and found it was a common load on the F-105 (Q-pod
on one outboard, LAU-3A on the other).

If you want to see what has become of the 2.75 see
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm for
the current model and
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm for the
possible future.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[mkarsten]

The Canadian CRV-7 was termed the "Mighty Mouse", and was typically packed
into either LAU-5002's or LAU- 5003's (In the case of RNZAF A4's).

Regards

Mike
"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> > I've blasted all 11(?) or so in one pod, of 2.75, on one wing, all at
> once.
> > Really impressive, makes the A/C yaw...and they go all over the place,
> > particularly if ya have one where all the fins don't come out.
>
> :) ! ! !
>
>

[WaltBJ]

Ed, '40 feet' was qualifying. But the pod rockets were sorry compared
to tube-launched ones out of the F86D and the F102. Rockets fired from
the Dog and Deuce could hit about as good as strafing. Our target on
Zulu-shima off Okinawa was 3 oil drums filled with sand stacked
together. The Dog could hit the fool things. Also, firing on the rag,
you could see the rockets cut a cross in it. We only fired 6 at a
time, though. Fired the Deuce on Patricia Target about 40 miles west
of Key West. It was an old WW2 destroyer beached by the Marquesas
Keys. WE went down to Homestead for the Cuban Crisis. Once down there
someone realized we needed the rocket tubes wired up - they'd clipped
the leads when we got the GAR11/AIM26A (Fat Falcon). Once that was
done, some kind soul decided they needed to be tested. So we fired
each of our 20 Deuces twice on Pat Target - what? No practice rockets
available? Okay, use ones with live warheads. Now, a 2.75 FFAR is
equivalent to a 75mm HE round - when we got through, what had looked
like the bridge of a ship was now a pile of scrap from. 20x12x2=480
rockets. (12 a sortie because the innermost 6 tubes -2 RX per tube-
were lost because of the girth of the Gar11.) Last time I saw Pattie
Target was in 1980 - it was a rusted layer of iron we had to chase
fishermen off of to bomb it with the deadly BDU33s and Mk106s. Mel
Fisher's boat marked the entry to the nuke run-in while salving the
Atocha galleon.
Walt BJ

[ian maclure]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:20:29 -0500, Pechs1 wrote:

> Jim-<< What did a salvo launch look like? Was it a tight pattern, or
> were there a
> few strays? >><BR><BR>
>
> I've blasted all 11(?) or so in one pod, of 2.75, on one wing, all at
> once. Really impressive, makes the A/C yaw...and they go all over the
> place, particularly if ya have one where all the fins don't come out.

An acquaintance of mine was an A4 driver in SEA.
Said one time the mission he got the most satisfaction out
of was flying cover for rescue packages. His favorite load out
was a pile of Zunis. Said they tended to keep the enemies'
head down like nothing else.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

I know CEP but what is CEA?

WDA



end

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:05:27 -0500, "Jim Carriere"
> > wrote:
>
> >> 2.75FFAR-
> >
> >I've heard them called "Mickey Mouse" rockets. Not sure if that ever
caught
> >on in naval aviation though...
>
> I carried them fairly often in the USAF, but never heard a nickname
> other than "2.75's" or simply rockets.
> >
> >What did a salvo launch look like? Was it a tight pattern, or were there
a
> >few strays?
> >
> Typically we carried them in the LAU-3 pod which held 19 rockets.
> There was an intervelometer that spaced the firing, but all 19 were
> released in one pass. The interval was very short, but insured
> nose/tail clearance and minimized fratricide between the rockets.
>
> One load for the F-105 used a C/L tank and four LAU-3 pods--one on
> each wing pylon. Impressive to fire all four in one pass.
>
> We also used 2.75s with willy-pete warheads fired from the LAU-32, a
> 7-rocket pod. They fired singles and were quite accurate. The secret
> of accuracy is to know the delivery parameters and keep any post-burn
> trajectory to a minimum.
>
> Occasionally a rocket fin would fail to deploy and then you'd see a
> corkscrew exhaust trail. In qualification on a controlled range,
> typically a practice bomb dispenser carried two or four 2.75s, fired
> singly for score. A "wild rocket" call would negate the unscorable
> from your records if you got a bad fin.
>
> Qualification criteria were less than for dive bomb. Don't recall
> exactly what it was--I'm thinking around 40 feet CEA.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 18:15:31 GMT, "W. D. Allen Sr."
> wrote:

>I know CEP but what is CEA?
>
>WDA
Circular Error Probable--a prediction of accuracy.
Circular Error Average--a record of delivery accuracy averaged.

The CEP tells you what a weapon might do, the CEA tells you how well,
I've been shooting.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Joe Delphi]

From the China Lake website:

"China Lake's 5-inch Zuni rocket was heavily used over the years. China Lake
was the lead laboratory for the 2.75 and Zuni developments. The Zuni, as
well as some other early unguided rockets, was originally conceived as an
air-to-air weapon, but the rocket's role evolved into that of an
air-to-ground weapon. Interestingly, the Zuni shot down a MiG-15 early in
the Vietnam War when the MiG let itself get ahead of an A1 Skyraider that
was trying to evade it. The Skyraider fired a Zuni and scored a hit. (circa
1956) "

So in response to the original poster's question...I don't know why they
called it Zuni, but someone who worked at China Lake in the 1950s would
probably know the answer. Or perhaps a current day China Laker who is
familiar with the history.

JD

[Ed Rasimus]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:48:57 GMT, "Joe Delphi"
> wrote:

>From the China Lake website:
>
>"China Lake's 5-inch Zuni rocket was heavily used over the years. China Lake
>was the lead laboratory for the 2.75 and Zuni developments. The Zuni, as
>well as some other early unguided rockets, was originally conceived as an
>air-to-air weapon, but the rocket's role evolved into that of an
>air-to-ground weapon. Interestingly, the Zuni shot down a MiG-15 early in
>the Vietnam War when the MiG let itself get ahead of an A1 Skyraider that
>was trying to evade it. The Skyraider fired a Zuni and scored a hit. (circa
>1956) "

Hope the China Lake folks aren't contending that MiG-15s were flying
in the Vietnam War, or that the US was involved in combat in the air
in 1956. That's the way urban legends get started.

Should be a MiG-17, and much more likely "circa 1965".



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Bill Kambic]

"Joe Delphi" wrote in message

> From the China Lake website:
>
> "China Lake's 5-inch Zuni rocket was heavily used over the years. China
Lake
> was the lead laboratory for the 2.75 and Zuni developments. The Zuni, as
> well as some other early unguided rockets, was originally conceived as an
> air-to-air weapon, but the rocket's role evolved into that of an
> air-to-ground weapon."

It was also used as an ASW weapon on the S2, as a replacement for the HVAR.
I don't know if it was also carried by P2 and P3.

For semi-annual quals we usually carried 2.75s in pods (7 or 9, IIRC).
ROCKEXs were always interesting, as LANTFLT Stoofs were not generally seen
as air-ground weapons platforms and support for that part of the aircraft's
weapons system (material and personnel training) was often not a high
priority. There seemed to be an about equal probablity of firing one, more
then one, the whole pod, or just seeing the pod separate from the aircraft
when the "R" button was pushed (becoming "White Death From Above" for
whatever marine life was below).

Interestingly, the Zuni shot down a MiG-15 early in
> the Vietnam War when the MiG let itself get ahead of an A1 Skyraider that
> was trying to evade it. The Skyraider fired a Zuni and scored a hit.
(circa
> 1956) "

As noted below they are about a decade off, here!<g>

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.

[Susan VanCamp]

Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
coded due to limited #s years ago), but...

....it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle rockets
(from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.

A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging memory --
isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?

"Jim Carriere" > wrote in message
...
> "Pechs1" > wrote in message
> > I've blasted all 11(?) or so in one pod, of 2.75, on one wing, all at
> once.
> > Really impressive, makes the A/C yaw...and they go all over the place,
> > particularly if ya have one where all the fins don't come out.
>
> :) ! ! !
>
>

[Jeb Hoge]

"Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message et>...
> Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
> coded due to limited #s years ago), but...
>
> ...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
> fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle rockets
> (from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.
>
> A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging memory --
> isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?

Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni bodies and motors.

[John Carrier]

"Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
om...
> "Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message
et>...
> > Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
> > coded due to limited #s years ago), but...
> >
> > ...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
> > fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle
rockets
> > (from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.
> >
> > A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging
memory --
> > isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?
>
> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni bodies and
motors.

Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was at least
5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni approximated
a freight train speeding past your head with about 6 inches clearance.

R / John

[John R Weiss]

"John Carrier" > wrote...
>
>> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni bodies and
> motors.
>
> Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was at least
> 5.

However, IIRC, the Zuni motor was used on the Skipper, a rocket-boosted Paveway
2 LGB...

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Carrier" > writes:
>
> "Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
> om...
>> "Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message
> et>...
>> > Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
>> > coded due to limited #s years ago), but...
>> >
>> > ...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
>> > fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle
> rockets
>> > (from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.
>> >
>> > A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging
> memory --
>> > isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?
>>
>> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni bodies and
> motors.
>
> Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was at least
> 5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni approximated
> a freight train speeding past your head with about 6 inches clearance.

IIRC, the Mk 17 motor on an early Sidewinder burned for about 2-2 1/4
seconds. The Mk 36 in the AIM-9C and its derivatives burned for
something between 4 & 5 seconds. The Mk 36 has more impule (Total
energy), but lower thrust.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "John Carrier" > writes:
> >
> > "Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> "Susan VanCamp" > wrote in message
> > et>...
> >> > Its been many moons since I fired a rocket (most inventories got combat
> >> > coded due to limited #s years ago), but...
> >> >
> >> > ...it was a Zuni pod at night, on the goggles -- ya-bleeping-hoo! When
> >> > fired in singles or small numbers, 2.75s always sounded like bottle
> > rockets
> >> > (from the cockpit). Zunis were an entirely different animal.
> >> >
> >> > A technical question for those that might know -- refresh my aging
> > memory --
> >> > isn't the Zuni motor the same as that used on the Sidewinder...?
> >>
> >> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni bodies and
> > motors.
> >
> > Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was at least
> > 5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni approximated
> > a freight train speeding past your head with about 6 inches clearance.
>
> IIRC, the Mk 17 motor on an early Sidewinder burned for about 2-2 1/4
> seconds.

2.2 sec. burn time, 4,200 lb. max. thrust, 8,800 lb. sec. total impulse, per
Combat Snap.

> The Mk 36 in the AIM-9C and its derivatives burned for
> something between 4 & 5 seconds. The Mk 36 has more impule (Total
> energy), but lower thrust.

I know I've got it, but can't find the data -- Aargh!

Guy

[Thomas Schoene]

John Carrier wrote:
> "Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
> om...

>> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni
>> bodies and motors.
>
> Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was
> at least
> 5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni
> approximated a freight train speeding past your head with about 6
> inches clearance.
>

FWIW, _Sidewinder_ (by Ron Westrum) says Sidewinder used the motor of the
"High-Performance Air-to-Ground" rocket that China Lake was developing. It
was picked specifically because it was a slow-burn, low-acceleration rocket
that woudn't damage Sidewinder's fairly fragile seeker.

The China Lake alumni organization's website has one picture of a Skyraider
with HPAGs under the wings. They are non-podded rockets with fixed tail
fins, quite different from Zuni.

http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1954.htm

(You'll have to scroll the photo list a bit; I can't find a way to link
directly to the right picture and still show the caption.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Thomas Schoene" > writes:
> John Carrier wrote:
>> "Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
>> om...
>
>>> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni
>>> bodies and motors.
>>
>> Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was
>> at least
>> 5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni
>> approximated a freight train speeding past your head with about 6
>> inches clearance.
>>
>
> FWIW, _Sidewinder_ (by Ron Westrum) says Sidewinder used the motor of the
> "High-Performance Air-to-Ground" rocket that China Lake was developing. It
> was picked specifically because it was a slow-burn, low-acceleration rocket
> that woudn't damage Sidewinder's fairly fragile seeker.

That's possibly an munging of HVAR (Aigh Velocity Airborne
Rocket), which was the 5" fixed-fin rocket seen under the wings of
late-model WW2 fighter-bombers, and into the Korean War. The
dimensions are about right, the performance would do, and there were a
zillion of them around to use.
There are other advantages to a lower acceleration for an AAM, as
well, depending on how they're set up. A slower acceleration with a
longer burn will generally give you a longer range (And, often, a
higher burnout speed). With the speed building up less quickly on
launch, the initial hard turns to pull lead on the target will be
quicker, and have a much smaller radius. More of the missiles'
maneuvering will offur under power, as well, so that it doesn't bleed
off as much energy when gliding.

> The China Lake alumni organization's website has one picture of a Skyraider
> with HPAGs under the wings. They are non-podded rockets with fixed tail
> fins, quite different from Zuni.
>
> http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1954.htm

Those look an awful lot like HVARs to me - I'm sure the Navy has their
own name for 'em - they've got to giver everything a differnet name.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Jeb Hoge]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Thomas Schoene" > writes:
> > John Carrier wrote:
> > FWIW, _Sidewinder_ (by Ron Westrum) says Sidewinder used the motor of the
> > "High-Performance Air-to-Ground" rocket that China Lake was developing. It
> > was picked specifically because it was a slow-burn, low-acceleration rocket
> > that woudn't damage Sidewinder's fairly fragile seeker.
>
> That's possibly an munging of HVAR (Aigh Velocity Airborne
> Rocket), which was the 5" fixed-fin rocket seen under the wings of
> late-model WW2 fighter-bombers, and into the Korean War. The
> dimensions are about right, the performance would do, and there were a
> zillion of them around to use.

I remember reading that the Sidewinder's 5" body diameter was because
the initial batch was based on an existing rocket, which I had thought
was Zuni but HVAR might be it.

[Ogden Johnson III]

(Elmshoot) wrote:

>I was wondering the other day how the 2.75" Air to ground rocket came to be
>named Zuni. Any experts that can help?
>Sparky
>Yes, I shot them from the A-6 what fun!!! Bottle rockets for adults

As has already been pointed out, the Zuni is the 5" FFAR.

I still have yet to hear back from my official query to China
Lake, but have heard back from an ex-bubblehead now working
there.

China Lake, under whatever their official name was at the time,
developed the 5" FFAR [and the 2.75" one, too, for that matter.]

It appears that the Zuni was named after the Zuni indian tribe,
which lived in the AZ/NM region, hard by [in continental terms]
China Lake.

[I thought, after all these "There I was at 20,000 feet ..." TINS
sea stories, someone ought to return to the original question.]
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Guy Alcala]

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "Thomas Schoene" > writes:
> > John Carrier wrote:
> >> "Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >
> >>> Originally, I'm pretty sure Sidewinder was designed using Zuni
> >>> bodies and motors.
> >>
> >> Nope. The Zuni burn time was very short, perhaps 1 second. SW was
> >> at least
> >> 5. I've fired both from fuselage pylons on the F-8. The Zuni
> >> approximated a freight train speeding past your head with about 6
> >> inches clearance.
> >>
> >
> > FWIW, _Sidewinder_ (by Ron Westrum) says Sidewinder used the motor of the
> > "High-Performance Air-to-Ground" rocket that China Lake was developing. It
> > was picked specifically because it was a slow-burn, low-acceleration rocket
> > that woudn't damage Sidewinder's fairly fragile seeker.
>
> That's possibly an munging of HVAR (Aigh Velocity Airborne
> Rocket), which was the 5" fixed-fin rocket seen under the wings of
> late-model WW2 fighter-bombers, and into the Korean War. The
> dimensions are about right, the performance would do, and there were a
> zillion of them around to use.

It's been awhile since I read Westrum, but the HVAR certainly wouldn't have been
in development when Sidewinder was, as the former made it into service in WW2.
Per Friedman, the 5" HVAR weighed 140 lb., was 72: long, and attained 1,375
ft./sec. The later Zuni (which replaced the HVAR) was 107 lb., 110" long, and
attained 2,370 ft./sec.

> There are other advantages to a lower acceleration for an AAM, as
> well, depending on how they're set up. A slower acceleration with a
> longer burn will generally give you a longer range (And, often, a
> higher burnout speed). With the speed building up less quickly on
> launch, the initial hard turns to pull lead on the target will be
> quicker, and have a much smaller radius. More of the missiles'
> maneuvering will offur under power, as well, so that it doesn't bleed
> off as much energy when gliding.

OTOH, ISTR claims that the airforce stuck with the Mk.17 for the AIM-9E/J because
the initial high acceleration was better to run down a target when fired from the
tail. Or it could have just been a cost thing.

> > The China Lake alumni organization's website has one picture of a Skyraider
> > with HPAGs under the wings. They are non-podded rockets with fixed tail
> > fins, quite different from Zuni.
> >
> > http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1954.htm
>
> Those look an awful lot like HVARs to me - I'm sure the Navy has their
> own name for 'em - they've got to giver everything a differnet name.

Well, not in this case, since the HVAR, along with the FFAR, Zuni, and the
original 5" rocket, were _developed_ by the navy ;-) Googling HPAG rocket will
get you several hits, that describe it's use as a sounding rocket in 1953, and
claim it's a member of the Sidewinder family, so it may be a chicken and egg
situation.

Guy

[Pechs1]

Is the Zuni still in the 'inventory'?

Replaced with somethin else?

When I was in fleet Phantoms, in 1983, they were not onboard Midway.


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 1/29/04 8:27 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Is the Zuni still in the 'inventory'?
>
> Replaced with somethin else?
>
> When I was in fleet Phantoms, in 1983, they were not onboard Midway.
>
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Not haze gray and underway. I haven't seen a rocket since my A-6 days.

[Joe Delphi]

>
> It appears that the Zuni was named after the Zuni indian tribe,
> which lived in the AZ/NM region, hard by [in continental terms]
> China Lake.
>
> [I thought, after all these "There I was at 20,000 feet ..." TINS
> sea stories, someone ought to return to the original question.]
> --
> OJ III

Because everyone knows that the Zuni Indian tribe killed their enemies with
5" rockets.....

[John R Weiss]

"Pechs1" > wrote...
> Is the Zuni still in the 'inventory'?
>
> Replaced with somethin else?
>
> When I was in fleet Phantoms, in 1983, they were not onboard Midway.

After the Forest Fire they were restricted from shipboard use for a while.
IIRC, none on Midway back then, but came back by '88 to Nimitz.

I remember firing some at Yakima when in VA-165...

[Ogden Johnson III]

"Joe Delphi" > wrote:

>> It appears that the Zuni was named after the Zuni indian tribe,
>> which lived in the AZ/NM region, hard by [in continental terms]
>> China Lake.
>>
>> [I thought, after all these "There I was at 20,000 feet ..." TINS
>> sea stories, someone ought to return to the original question.]

>Because everyone knows that the Zuni Indian tribe killed their enemies with
>5" rockets.....

;->

I also said:

>>I still have yet to hear back from my official query to China
>>Lake, but have heard back from an ex-bubblehead now working
>>there.

I have now heard back [it was to the webmaster of their
history/museum site], confirming that it was the Indians.

He had a little stuff in it on their other FFAR efforts, and I've
asked him if I can post it here.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo addy is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast]

[Erik Peter Meijer]

I'm looking for dettailed drawings of the 5" zuni rocket, could someone help
me?

Erik

[Pechs1]

JRweiss-<< I remember firing some at Yakima when in VA-165... >><BR><BR>

I actually fired them in the RAG, VF-101 in 1974/5 as a 'student'...really fun.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Elmshoot]

>I remember firing some at Yakima when in VA-165...
>

While the answer to my original post was as I suspected: The 5" rocket was
named after the Zuni indian tribe, I have never seen them except at a museum. I
only shot the 2.75" which I believe we mistakenly called Zuni but now I
understand them to be more correctly called the "Mighty Mouse". It is very
likely that the 2.75 was the only rocket in the inventory back then.

>After the Forest Fire they were restricted from shipboard use for a while.
>IIRC, none on Midway back then, but came back by '88 to Nimitz.

Was this the 2.75" or the 5"?

Sparky