ECM & Aerodynamics

[Steven D. Litvintchouk]

[I'm a layperson at this, so please excuse this naive question.]

What does all that external ECM that they keep adding on to older
aircraft do to their aerodynamics? I look at a B-52 with its EVS
turrets sticking out of its nose and all those ECM antennas and other
crap sticking out of its fuselage. Or an F-111 "Wild Weasel" with that
pod high on its rudder.

What does that do to drag, handling, airspeed, etc.?

I also seem to remember that the G & H models of the B-52 had its whole
nose lengthened to accomodate a bigger radar or something (as compared
with the older B-52 models). That's in addition to putting an insert in
the tail to lengthen the tail behind the rudder. What did all those
modifications do to the B-52's aerodynamics?


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

[Guy Alcala]

"Steven D. Litvintchouk" wrote:

> [I'm a layperson at this, so please excuse this naive question.]
>
> What does all that external ECM that they keep adding on to older
> aircraft do to their aerodynamics? I look at a B-52 with its EVS
> turrets sticking out of its nose and all those ECM antennas and other
> crap sticking out of its fuselage. Or an F-111 "Wild Weasel" with that
> pod high on its rudder.
>
> What does that do to drag, handling, airspeed, etc.?

In partial answer to your question, Boyne gives the following data on the
decline of the L/D ratio:

B-52A/F: 21:1

B-52G/H (clean): 19:1

B-52G/H (12 SRAM, EVS): 17:1

B-52G/H (12 ALCM, EVS): 17.4:1 (improved pylon).

Guy

[John Cook]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:08:11 GMT, "Steven D. Litvintchouk"
> wrote:

>[I'm a layperson at this, so please excuse this naive question.]
>
>What does all that external ECM that they keep adding on to older
>aircraft do to their aerodynamics? I look at a B-52 with its EVS
>turrets sticking out of its nose and all those ECM antennas and other
>crap sticking out of its fuselage. Or an F-111 "Wild Weasel" with that
> pod high on its rudder.
>
>What does that do to drag, handling, airspeed, etc.?
>
>I also seem to remember that the G & H models of the B-52 had its whole
>nose lengthened to accomodate a bigger radar or something (as compared
>with the older B-52 models). That's in addition to putting an insert in
>the tail to lengthen the tail behind the rudder. What did all those
>modifications do to the B-52's aerodynamics?




The drag induced has found to be much less than that induced by a
large missile hole ;-),.

Sorry I couldn't resist
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-

Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[WDA]

It's not really a tradeoff between ECM and aerodynamics. It's more a
tradeoff between ECM and not surviving.

WDA

end

"Steven D. Litvintchouk" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> [I'm a layperson at this, so please excuse this naive question.]
>
> What does all that external ECM that they keep adding on to older
> aircraft do to their aerodynamics? I look at a B-52 with its EVS
> turrets sticking out of its nose and all those ECM antennas and other
> crap sticking out of its fuselage. Or an F-111 "Wild Weasel" with that
> pod high on its rudder.
>
> What does that do to drag, handling, airspeed, etc.?
>
> I also seem to remember that the G & H models of the B-52 had its whole
> nose lengthened to accomodate a bigger radar or something (as compared
> with the older B-52 models). That's in addition to putting an insert in
> the tail to lengthen the tail behind the rudder. What did all those
> modifications do to the B-52's aerodynamics?
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
>