Bomb hits tailplane on release

[Paul Housley]

Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.

A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
right!

Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
wondering.

If not, anyone able to point me in the right direction of where to
ask?

Thanks for your help.

Paul.

[Richard Brooks]

Paul Housley wrote:
> Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
>
> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> right!
>
> Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
> Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
> wondering.

This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters, which has
been seen on UKs Channel 4. I think I have a copy of it. It also shows
that the Germans were experimenting with much the same thing.

I shall have a look and see what I can do for you.


Richard.

[W. D. Allen Sr.]

This is a more common problem than people realize. Releasing a store in
flight from a bomb bay or from under wing is not a no-brainer.

The F-86 had instances when drop tanks went up over the leading edge of it's
wing when released under certain flight conditions. The Navy A-3D had
nuclear shapes hang in the bomb bay after release. A retractable "rake" was
mounted in front of the bomb bay to solve that problem. By the way, in WWII
it was not unheard-of for bombers in higher squadrons to drop their bomb
loads onto lower flying bombers.

WDA

end


"Paul Housley" > wrote in message
om...
> Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
>
> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> right!
>
> Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
> Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
> wondering.
>
> If not, anyone able to point me in the right direction of where to
> ask?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Paul.

[Richard Brooks]

Richard Brooks wrote:
> Paul Housley wrote:
>> Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
>>
>> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
>> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
>> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
>> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
>> right!
>>
>> Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a
>> copy. Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case
>> you were wondering.
>
> This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters,
> which has been seen on UKs Channel 4. I think I have a copy of it.
> It also shows that the Germans were experimenting with much the same
> thing.
>
> I shall have a look and see what I can do for you.
>
Further to searching I find I've only got the BBC2 documentary which does
not go as in-depth but found this on a Web site.

" An American variant of Highball, codenamed Baseball, was also tested but
during one of the tests, the bomb rebounded and hit the dropping aircraft
causing it to crash, and the tests were stopped.
"
The URL;

<http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/irmurray/bigbounc.asp>

I've put a call out in uk.media.tv.misc to see if anyone there has a copy
and will let you know.


Richard.

[Robert Briggs]

Richard Brooks wrote:
> Paul Housley wrote:

> > A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> > fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> > documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> > the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> > right!

> This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters, which
> has been seen on UKs Channel 4.

The Lanc may have had guns, but that doesn't make it a fighter-bomber.

That said, without the "fighter-" qualification (and substituting
"damage" for "destroy"), the description does indeed suggest the old
Bouncing Bomb trials.

[George Shirley]

Richard Brooks wrote:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>
>>Paul Housley wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
>>>fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
>>>documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
>>>the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
>>>right!
>>>
>>>Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a
>>>copy. Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case
>>>you were wondering.
>>
>>This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters,
>>which has been seen on UKs Channel 4. I think I have a copy of it.
>>It also shows that the Germans were experimenting with much the same
>>thing.
>>
>>I shall have a look and see what I can do for you.
>>
>
> Further to searching I find I've only got the BBC2 documentary which does
> not go as in-depth but found this on a Web site.
>
> " An American variant of Highball, codenamed Baseball, was also tested but
> during one of the tests, the bomb rebounded and hit the dropping aircraft
> causing it to crash, and the tests were stopped.
> "
> The URL;
>
> <http://www.computing.dundee.ac.uk/staff/irmurray/bigbounc.asp>
>
> I've put a call out in uk.media.tv.misc to see if anyone there has a copy
> and will let you know.
>
>
> Richard.
>
>"Dambusters" was on US Discovery Wings channel again last night. IIRC
that story was told and they had a graphic but no picture. Again, aging
memories, even overnight are not always correct. <VBG>

George

[Regnirps]

> Paul Housley wrote:

> > A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> > fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> > documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> > the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> > right!

I have also seen something. A Fantom (?) or the like and two chase planes.
Debris or the bomb (missile?) also hits one of the chase planes and it is
destroyed. This was part of a series of accident studies including an F-16
landing with a wheel missing or locked up main gear. The guy ejects after the
F-16 safely comes to a stop, perhaps fearing a collapse and fire.

-- Charlie Springer

[Ed Rasimus]

On 22 Jun 2004 19:16:25 GMT, (Regnirps) wrote:

>
>> Paul Housley wrote:
>
>> > A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
>> > fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
>> > documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
>> > the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
>> > right!

Modern aircraft employ "ejector" carts which propel the store away
from the rack using a small pyrotechnic charge and a "foot" or pusher.
Earlier aircraft simply used suspension hooks that opened to release
the weapon allowing it to fall away.

Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
surface.) There were instances of jettisoned fuel tanks from F-105s
climbing as much as 3000 feet above the release aircraft.

Instability caused by a bent fin can also cause a pitch up moment on
release.
>
>I have also seen something. A Fantom (?) or the like and two chase planes.
>Debris or the bomb (missile?) also hits one of the chase planes and it is
>destroyed. This was part of a series of accident studies including an F-16
>landing with a wheel missing or locked up main gear. The guy ejects after the
>F-16 safely comes to a stop, perhaps fearing a collapse and fire.

The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.
They were dropping early versions of the MLU-10B land mine. The mine
broached on impact with the ground from a 100' lay-down delivery and
rose up to hit the chasing aircraft. The weapon was inert, but the
impact still destroyed the chase and the pilot ejected.


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

[David E. Powell]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> This is a more common problem than people realize. Releasing a store in
> flight from a bomb bay or from under wing is not a no-brainer.
>
> The F-86 had instances when drop tanks went up over the leading edge of
it's
> wing when released under certain flight conditions. The Navy A-3D had
> nuclear shapes hang in the bomb bay after release. A retractable "rake"
was
> mounted in front of the bomb bay to solve that problem. By the way, in
WWII
> it was not unheard-of for bombers in higher squadrons to drop their bomb
> loads onto lower flying bombers.

There is a film clip around of a B-24 Liberator having a bomb dropped from
above hit her wing root, destroying the plane. Horrible.

> WDA
>
> end
>
>
> "Paul Housley" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
> >
> > A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> > fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> > documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> > the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> > right!
> >
> > Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
> > Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
> > wondering.
> >
> > If not, anyone able to point me in the right direction of where to
> > ask?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Paul.
>
>

[WaltBJ]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> SNIP
> The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.
> They were dropping early versions of the MLU-10B land mine. The mine
> broached on impact with the ground from a 100' lay-down delivery and
> rose up to hit the chasing aircraft. The weapon was inert, but the
> impact still destroyed the chase and the pilot ejected.
>SNIP:
The F105 was piloted by Fred Kyler, who was later my WingCo in the
36TFW at Bitburg. The F100F had a pilot and cameraman aboard. The
MLU10 detonated on ground impact and fragged both aircraft. All 3
ejected and landed okay. Col. Kyler had a great color photo hanging in
his office, taken from the ground, showing both aircraft as they
pulled up, starting to flame from the numerous frag hits. I should
imagine the ground cameraman got his ears blasted since he wasn't all
that far from the impact site.
Walt BJ

[Kevin Brooks]

"W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
...
> This is a more common problem than people realize. Releasing a store in
> flight from a bomb bay or from under wing is not a no-brainer.
>
> The F-86 had instances when drop tanks went up over the leading edge of
it's
> wing when released under certain flight conditions. The Navy A-3D had
> nuclear shapes hang in the bomb bay after release. A retractable "rake"
was
> mounted in front of the bomb bay to solve that problem. By the way, in
WWII
> it was not unheard-of for bombers in higher squadrons to drop their bomb
> loads onto lower flying bombers.

The A3D was not the only member of that family that experienced such a
problem. Knew a guy who flew B-66's (and later EB-66's) who told me that it
was unnerving to do a bomb drop from the Destroyer because it sometimes had
a habit of having bombs "bounce" around in the bomb bay after release before
actually leaving the aircraft (which may explain why its career as a bomber
was rather short).

Brooks

>
> WDA
>
> end
>
>
> "Paul Housley" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
> >
> > A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> > fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> > documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> > the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> > right!
> >
> > Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
> > Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
> > wondering.
> >
> > If not, anyone able to point me in the right direction of where to
> > ask?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
> >
> > Paul.
>
>

[Krztalizer]

>
>> The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.

Flying a "rail cut" mission? Reason I ask is the copy I used to have of that
tape mentioned it. The frag was immediate - both aircraft began burning within
a second or two of the detonation. Great old film.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Jim Atkins]

If you ever wondered what those airplanes covered with the black/white
quadrant circles (like a BMW trademark) carrying stores with the same kind
of markings were doing, it's so films can be shot with exact reference
points to track the movement of the stores as they drop. I seem to recall
this is why the pylons on the E/F Super hornet had to be angled out-


--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms, CA USA

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx

[Darryl Gibbs]

Hi Paul.

Some of the others mentioned by people here sound pretty good, but as you
said it floated back up and hit the tailplane, not exploded, it sounds very
much like film of a trial drop of stores by an F-111, although from memory,
I think it may have been a drop tank rather than a bomb.

I'm pretty sure I have a copy here, and failing that, should have one at
work.

How soon did you need it? At the moment I can't convert it to a file to
e-mail, but hopefully i'll have my camera back in the next few weeks and be
able to convert it to digital.


Bye for now.


--
Darryl Gibbs
HTTP://www.cnapg.org
Information on all aspects of aviation, particularly vintage and warbirds.
Home of the CNAPG aircraft recognition quiz's.



"Paul Housley" > wrote in message
om...
> Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
>
> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> right!
>
> Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
> Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
> wondering.
>
> If not, anyone able to point me in the right direction of where to
> ask?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Paul.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 23 Jun 2004 04:48:34 GMT, (Krztalizer) wrote:

>>
>>> The film you recall was of an F-100 being chased by an F-105 at Eglin.
>
>Flying a "rail cut" mission? Reason I ask is the copy I used to have of that
>tape mentioned it. The frag was immediate - both aircraft began burning within
>a second or two of the detonation. Great old film.

It was a OT&E flight on the Eglin test range, but that's the purpose
of the MLU-10B. It was built on a Mk-82 (or possibly M117) bomb case
with a flat face reinforced nose that contained the mine fuse. It was
supposed to be delivered by lay-down and was NOT retarded.

The idea was that the heavy, reinforced nose would allow the fuse to
survive the delivery. Concept was a battery relay that after a short
delivery delay would arm the weapon. The battery held the firing
contacts open until a seismic event (like a train passing) would shake
the contacts close---BOOM! After time, the battery would weaken and
the mine become more sensitive. Maybe a truck would be sufficient to
close the contacts. Eventually, the battery would die and contacts
would close and the bomb would detonate.

The center of the face plate had a small light bulb. If the light lit,
it meant that the weapon had armed and would go off with any jarring.
We carried them out of Korat on F-105s in '66 (when we weren't short
of bombs.....according to mcnamara.) Everybody hated the load because
no one wanted to do lay-downs in a high threat area, everyone had seen
the broaching film, and there was a "no return" policy for the weapon.
If you got airborne with it, you must get it off the airplane before
you could return and land. If it hung and you couldn't jettison the
pylon or suspension gear you would have to jettison the airplane.


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

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:46:32 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>The A3D was not the only member of that family that experienced such a
>problem. Knew a guy who flew B-66's (and later EB-66's) who told me that it
>was unnerving to do a bomb drop from the Destroyer because it sometimes had
>a habit of having bombs "bounce" around in the bomb bay after release before
>actually leaving the aircraft (which may explain why its career as a bomber
>was rather short).
>
>Brooks

Early prototypes of the F-105 attempted conventional rigging of the
B-28-RE in the internal bomb-bay. No one anticipated the boundary
layer along the fuselage at 600 knots IAS. When the bombbay opened for
bomb release, shackles opened and bomb dropped a few inches but didn't
come through the high speed airflow. Bombbay doors reclosed with bomb
simply resting on the doors. (Shape--of course, not hot weapon!)

Solution was a "displacing gear"--a roughly six-inch diameter,
pneumatic piston that had about a two foot throw. Charged to a couple
of thousand pounds/sq-inch, the piston was said to either push the
bomb down or the airplane up.

All became moot because the airplane never carried an internal nuke
operationally. Displacing gear was still in place, however.


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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>
> "W. D. Allen Sr." > wrote in message
> ...
>> This is a more common problem than people realize. Releasing a store in
>> flight from a bomb bay or from under wing is not a no-brainer.
>>
>> The F-86 had instances when drop tanks went up over the leading edge of
> it's
>> wing when released under certain flight conditions. The Navy A-3D had
>> nuclear shapes hang in the bomb bay after release. A retractable "rake"
> was
>> mounted in front of the bomb bay to solve that problem. By the way, in
> WWII
>> it was not unheard-of for bombers in higher squadrons to drop their bomb
>> loads onto lower flying bombers.
>
> The A3D was not the only member of that family that experienced such a
> problem. Knew a guy who flew B-66's (and later EB-66's) who told me that it
> was unnerving to do a bomb drop from the Destroyer because it sometimes had
> a habit of having bombs "bounce" around in the bomb bay after release before
> actually leaving the aircraft (which may explain why its career as a bomber
> was rather short).

Quite a few airplanes did - the A-26/B-26 required that a spoiler be
added ahead of teh bomb bay to assure a clean drop.
The B-47 had a difficult time getting cleared to drop the Mk 5 nuclear
bomb. The Mk 5 was the first "Lightweight" (For certain values of
"light") nuclear bombs, and if didn't have the sectional density to
cleanly break through the boundary layer around the B-47's bomb bay.

The difficulty in getting things to fall out of a normal bomb bay was
one of the drivers behind Martin's development of the rotating
load-carrying bomb bay door for the XB-51, which they carried over to
the B-57.

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

[Pete]

"Darryl Gibbs" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Paul.
>
> Some of the others mentioned by people here sound pretty good, but as you
> said it floated back up and hit the tailplane, not exploded, it sounds
very
> much like film of a trial drop of stores by an F-111, although from
memory,
> I think it may have been a drop tank rather than a bomb.

ISTR an F-111 film of that, too.

The store (or tank) separated, floated in the slipstream for a second or
two, then went straight back and cleaned off the right stab.

Pete

[John S. Shinal]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

>Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
>surface.) There were instances of jettisoned fuel tanks from F-105s
>climbing as much as 3000 feet above the release aircraft.

I always wondered about the stories of separation tests on the
A3J Vigilante with its rear ejection tunnel. Supposedly some of the
weapon shapes could coast along in the wake for quite a distance.

Nothing like a live nuke that follows you home.

"Can I keep it ?"




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Robert Briggs]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
> surface.)

IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:27:32 +0100, Robert Briggs
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
>> surface.)
>
>IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
>enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

Actually, no. Lift is balanced by weight, while thrust opposes drag.
The brick (AKA F-4) would not really "fly", but simply be propelled in
the desired direction. It is the tendency for airflow to accelerate
over a curved surface creating a low pressure area that causes "lift".
The dropped store had better be curved if you want to get lift, since
it isn't supplied with thrust.


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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 22:46:32 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >The A3D was not the only member of that family that experienced such a
> >problem. Knew a guy who flew B-66's (and later EB-66's) who told me that
it
> >was unnerving to do a bomb drop from the Destroyer because it sometimes
had
> >a habit of having bombs "bounce" around in the bomb bay after release
before
> >actually leaving the aircraft (which may explain why its career as a
bomber
> >was rather short).
> >
> >Brooks
>
> Early prototypes of the F-105 attempted conventional rigging of the
> B-28-RE in the internal bomb-bay. No one anticipated the boundary
> layer along the fuselage at 600 knots IAS. When the bombbay opened for
> bomb release, shackles opened and bomb dropped a few inches but didn't
> come through the high speed airflow. Bombbay doors reclosed with bomb
> simply resting on the doors. (Shape--of course, not hot weapon!)
>
> Solution was a "displacing gear"--a roughly six-inch diameter,
> pneumatic piston that had about a two foot throw. Charged to a couple
> of thousand pounds/sq-inch, the piston was said to either push the
> bomb down or the airplane up.
>
> All became moot because the airplane never carried an internal nuke
> operationally. Displacing gear was still in place, however.

The boundary layer flow was the reason for the B-66 problem as well, from
what I remember of the gent's explanation. But in his case ISTR he
experienced it when dropping conventional ordnance during a training
evolution; I remember him distinctly mentioning "bombs" (plural) thudding
around, and IIRC he indicated a little pull up on the nose was used to
ensure their eventual departure. I do know he said it was not a pleasant
experience!

Brooks

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

[Richard Brooks]

Robert Briggs wrote:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
>> Paul Housley wrote:
>
>>> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
>>> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
>>> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and
>>> destroy the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their
>>> trajectory calcs right!
>
>> This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters,
>> which has been seen on UKs Channel 4.
>
> The Lanc may have had guns, but that doesn't make it a fighter-bomber.
>

I'm sorry, I didn't give enough information. The footage of the American
aircraft disintegrating, being sought was at the end of the hour-long
documentary which included photos with a German officer standing beside a
mine which had not exploded, interviews with one of the tower sentries,
interviews with people who lived near the dams, German and American
variants, etc . It's been the best documentary on the whole bouncing bomb
idea

Richard.

[Mark]

To be 'technically' correct... a wing with camber (curved) can generate
lift at zero angle of attack. A symmetric airfoil (such as a flat brick)
cannot, it must be at a positive angle of attack to generate lift (but the
point is... it CAN). Both generate lift (positive C sub L) but at different
AOA. At 'normal' airspeeds the coefficient of lift may not be sufficient
for a brick to generate enough lift to fly, but then again if the airspeed
was high enough....

Here's some reading on the subject....

"...Almost any relatively flat surface could be made to generate some lift.
In fact, a perfectly flat thin plate will do the job. If you don't believe
that, try out any of a number of simple little balsa-wood hand launched
model gliders. Most of them have flat wing sections, and they fly. The flat
plate, then, is probably the simplest of airfoil sections, as shown in
Figure 5..."

From the following site

http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Basics/Page4.html

Mark

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
> > Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
> > surface.)
>
> IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
> enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?

[Regnirps]

"Pete" wrote:

>ISTR an F-111 film of that, too.

>The store (or tank) separated, floated in the slipstream for a second or
>two, then went straight back and cleaned off the right stab.

That is what I remember as well. Wasn't a chase plane also caught up in the
mishap?

-- Charlie Springer

[Robert Briggs]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> > > Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any curved
> > > surface.)
> >
> > IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that, given
> > enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?
>
> Actually, no. Lift is balanced by weight, while thrust opposes drag.

This assumes more than I wrote.

Can you say "Harrier", for example?

Okay, I didn't have that aeroplane in mind, but I *was* careful not to
specify any particular angle of attack - after all, an "inverted" pass
at an air display is not *exactly* inverted, with the aerofoil acting
against you (in the case of "ordinary" aeroplanes, at any rate).

> The brick (AKA F-4) would not really "fly", but simply be propelled in
> the desired direction. It is the tendency for airflow to accelerate
> over a curved surface creating a low pressure area that causes "lift".
> The dropped store had better be curved if you want to get lift, since
> it isn't supplied with thrust.

I was also careful to omit any assertion about the aerodynamic stability
of the brick.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:27:32 +0100, Robert Briggs
> > wrote:
>
> >Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >
> >> Higher speeds mean the store can generate lift (just like any
> >> curved surface.)
> >
> >IIRC, "curved" is unnecessary here. After all, they do say that,
> >given enough thrust, a brick will fly, do they not?
>
> Actually, no. Lift is balanced by weight, while thrust opposes drag.
> The brick (AKA F-4) would not really "fly", but simply be propelled in
> the desired direction. It is the tendency for airflow to accelerate
> over a curved surface creating a low pressure area that causes "lift".
> The dropped store had better be curved if you want to get lift, since
> it isn't supplied with thrust.

....except when you're looking at something like the B-70 "waverider"
technique, where the underside of the plane provides compression lift,
without providing classical Bernoulli-type lift.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ian]

"Paul Housley" > wrote in message
om...
> Perhaps a bit of a random question for this newsgroup.
>
> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> right!
>
> Has anyone seen this video? Does anyone know where I could get a copy.
> Stills from it would be fine. It's for a uni project in case you were
> wondering.
>
> If not, anyone able to point me in the right direction of where to
> ask?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Paul.

We have a compilation video at work of "Store Release gone WRONG!" Makes
interesting viewing before we start doing release and jettison work.
Unfortunately it would be too large to email out of the office (and I don't
think the security people would like it too much!)

Its made up mainly of Edwards/Eglin/Pax River stuff, but a few things from
RAF/RN are in it as well.....

[Krztalizer]

>
>>The store (or tank) separated, floated in the slipstream for a second or
>>two, then went straight back and cleaned off the right stab.
>
>That is what I remember as well. Wasn't a chase plane also caught up in the
>mishap?

Are you thinking of the F/A Teen test where a Mk 82 plus the pylon detaches and
wipes out the TA-4 chase plane? Some of the nastiest video I have seen - you
can almost hear the Scooter pilot yelling, "What the hell did you doooooooo!!!"
just as he flinches into the path of the oncoming bomb. Bonus points for the
crew, staying in their flaming torch for the first 6-7 fiery tumbles, then
ejecting just before the debris rains down next to the range observation boat.
A++ video clip (cuz no one got kilt).

v/r
Gordon


<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

[Pete]

"Ian" > wrote
>
> We have a compilation video at work of "Store Release gone WRONG!" Makes
> interesting viewing before we start doing release and jettison work.
> Unfortunately it would be too large to email out of the office (and I
don't
> think the security people would like it too much!)
>
> Its made up mainly of Edwards/Eglin/Pax River stuff, but a few things from
> RAF/RN are in it as well.....

As an ex-weapons troop, I'd *love* to see that.

Pete

[Kevin Brooks]

"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Richard Brooks wrote:
> >> Paul Housley wrote:
> >
> >>> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> >>> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> >>> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and
> >>> destroy the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their
> >>> trajectory calcs right!
> >
> >> This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters,
> >> which has been seen on UKs Channel 4.
> >
> > The Lanc may have had guns, but that doesn't make it a fighter-bomber.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't give enough information. The footage of the American
> aircraft disintegrating, being sought was at the end of the hour-long
> documentary which included photos with a German officer standing beside a
> mine which had not exploded, interviews with one of the tower sentries,
> interviews with people who lived near the dams, German and American
> variants, etc . It's been the best documentary on the whole bouncing bomb
> idea

The only US aircraft that I am aware of that practiced and executed skip
bombing missions during WWII was the B-25, principally in the Southwest
Pacific theater; could that perhaps be the type of aircraft you were looking
for?

Brooks

>
> Richard.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ian" > wrote
> >
> > We have a compilation video at work of "Store Release gone WRONG!" Makes
> > interesting viewing before we start doing release and jettison work.
> > Unfortunately it would be too large to email out of the office (and I
> don't
> > think the security people would like it too much!)
> >
> > Its made up mainly of Edwards/Eglin/Pax River stuff, but a few things
from
> > RAF/RN are in it as well.....
>
> As an ex-weapons troop, I'd *love* to see that.

I had a tac officer back in school who had done some work with the Airborne
Test Board at Bragg while he was assigned to the 27th Engineer Battalion
there. He showed us a video of similar nature which could be best titled as
"Heavy Drop and LAPES Gone Wrong". LAPES'd vehicles flipping over, LAPES'd
loads breaking apart, LAPES drops from a wee bit too high (prang!), and the
best one, a vehicle heavy drop (an M551 Sheridan IIRC) that saw first one
large chute fail, then a second failure, and then the remaining chute shred
and the vehicle hit hard enough to crater the DZ. Of course these happened
in the days before the Enviro-Nazis took control, requiring that every spilt
drop of fuel at a FARP or FLE location be carefully policed up and hauled
back to the hazardous waste disposal area...

Brooks

>
> Pete
>
>

[Regnirps]

(Krztalizer) wrote:

>Are you thinking of the F/A Teen test where a Mk 82 plus the pylon detaches
and
>wipes out the TA-4 chase plane?

That has to be it.

-- Charlie Springer

[Jim Thomas]

My favorite separation mishap story is of a flight test vertical dive
bomb release from an AD Skyraider by (IIRC) Douglas test pilot Bob
Rahn. The bomb, being slicker than the Spad, flew forward through the
prop and wiped it out. A maximum dive angle restriction for bomb
release became a permanent restriction in the flight manual.

Jim Thomas

[Paul Hirose]

Paul Housley wrote:
>
> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> right!

A couple clips in the DVD titled "Terror in the Skies" from Madacy
Entertainment could fit that description. (The rear label also
mentions a copyright by Liberty International Entertainment.) I saw a
reference on the Web to Vol. V, so there must be a series of DVDs. The
one I have has no volume number; maybe it's the first one.

The subtitle is "Military Air Disasters" ("CONTAINS UNBELIEVABLE NEVER
BEFORE SEEN FOOTAGE!") and it shows quite a few mishaps, from WW2 to
present. However, it also has weapon tests, gun camera footage, etc.

I think the film editing is terrible. Instead of presenting each
incident in its entirety, they chop up the footage and interleave it
with other stuff. E.g., there's a Vietnam era shot of howitzers
firing, then they cut to a drone blowing up over a range after being
hit with some totally different weapon. Later in the video you see the
same explosion a couple more times.

There's no narration, just a heavy metal soundtrack. The subtitles are
extremely sketchy, basically just identifying the aircraft ("F/A-18",
etc.)

If you can get past all these shortcomings, there is some interesting
footage.

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[Alan Minyard]

On 23 Jun 2004 21:45:09 -0700, (Jim Thomas) wrote:

>My favorite separation mishap story is of a flight test vertical dive
>bomb release from an AD Skyraider by (IIRC) Douglas test pilot Bob
>Rahn. The bomb, being slicker than the Spad, flew forward through the
>prop and wiped it out. A maximum dive angle restriction for bomb
>release became a permanent restriction in the flight manual.
>
>Jim Thomas

The old SBD used a "trapeze" release to cure the same problem.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:38:33 GMT, Paul Hirose > wrote:

>Paul Housley wrote:
>>
>> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
>> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
>> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
>> the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
>> right!
>
>A couple clips in the DVD titled "Terror in the Skies" from Madacy
>Entertainment could fit that description. (The rear label also
>mentions a copyright by Liberty International Entertainment.) I saw a
>reference on the Web to Vol. V, so there must be a series of DVDs. The
>one I have has no volume number; maybe it's the first one.
>
>The subtitle is "Military Air Disasters" ("CONTAINS UNBELIEVABLE NEVER
>BEFORE SEEN FOOTAGE!") and it shows quite a few mishaps, from WW2 to
>present. However, it also has weapon tests, gun camera footage, etc.
>
>I think the film editing is terrible. Instead of presenting each
>incident in its entirety, they chop up the footage and interleave it
>with other stuff. E.g., there's a Vietnam era shot of howitzers
>firing, then they cut to a drone blowing up over a range after being
>hit with some totally different weapon. Later in the video you see the
>same explosion a couple more times.
>
>There's no narration, just a heavy metal soundtrack. The subtitles are
>extremely sketchy, basically just identifying the aircraft ("F/A-18",
>etc.)
>
>If you can get past all these shortcomings, there is some interesting
>footage.

I have Volume II, the Fighters. Same criticism, basically, if you hit the
"mute" button before it starts there are a few interesting clips.

Al Minyard

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:06:31 -0500, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On 23 Jun 2004 21:45:09 -0700, (Jim Thomas) wrote:
>
>>My favorite separation mishap story is of a flight test vertical dive
>>bomb release from an AD Skyraider by (IIRC) Douglas test pilot Bob
>>Rahn. The bomb, being slicker than the Spad, flew forward through the
>>prop and wiped it out. A maximum dive angle restriction for bomb
>>release became a permanent restriction in the flight manual.
>>
>>Jim Thomas
>
>The old SBD used a "trapeze" release to cure the same problem.
>
>Al Minyard

Also Stuka.


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

[Robert Briggs]

Robert Briggs wrote:
> Richard Brooks wrote:
> > Paul Housley wrote:
>
> > > A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> > > fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> > > documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and destroy
> > > the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their trajectory calcs
> > > right!
>
> > This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters, which
> > has been seen on UKs Channel 4.
>
> The Lanc may have had guns, but that doesn't make it a fighter-bomber.
>
> That said, without the "fighter-" qualification (and substituting
> "damage" for "destroy"), the description does indeed suggest the old
> Bouncing Bomb trials.

Correction: I had a quick look at the Channel 4 DVD overnight, which
showed the mine staying quite close to the surface - but the Lanc was
low enough that the initial splash knocked some bits off the tail
section.

[Richard Brooks]

Robert Briggs wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>> Richard Brooks wrote:
>>> Paul Housley wrote:
>>
>>>> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
>>>> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
>>>> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and
>>>> destroy the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their
>>>> trajectory calcs right!
>>
>>> This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters,
>>> which has been seen on UKs Channel 4.
>>
>> The Lanc may have had guns, but that doesn't make it a
>> fighter-bomber.
>>
>> That said, without the "fighter-" qualification (and substituting
>> "damage" for "destroy"), the description does indeed suggest the old
>> Bouncing Bomb trials.
>
> Correction: I had a quick look at the Channel 4 DVD overnight, which
> showed the mine staying quite close to the surface - but the Lanc was
> low enough that the initial splash knocked some bits off the tail
> section.

Hi Robert, I didn't notice that but it was an American aircraft that just
turned to flotsam after a second or two in the footage that wsa shown later
in the documentary.

It kind of reminds me of a short clip shown in (IIRC) an Australian
production called Broadcast which was about the last days of guys running
around with cine-cameras for the film theatre newsreels.

Right at the start is shows lots of news clips and one that stands out is of
three Beauforts doing a low fly-past over a bay and as they passed the ship
where the film was being made, one of hte Beauforts took a sharp climb,
tearing the tail of one of the others with them both crashing into the
water.

Amazing and I bet there are lots of bits of film we haven't seen. I also
wonder if anyone cine-filmed an airshow in Britain where a hurricane
accidentally fired into the crowd as it made a pass ?


Richard.

[John Walker]

"Richard Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> >> Richard Brooks wrote:
> >>> Paul Housley wrote:
> >>
> >>>> A while ago, I saw video footage of a bomb being released from a
> >>>> fighter-bomber under test conditions. It was on an aviation
> >>>> documentary. The high speed camera then shows it climb up and
> >>>> destroy the tailplane. I don't think they quite got their
> >>>> trajectory calcs right!
> >>
> >>> This shows up towards the end of a documentary called Dambusters,
> >>> which has been seen on UKs Channel 4.
> >>
> >> The Lanc may have had guns, but that doesn't make it a
> >> fighter-bomber.
> >>
> >> That said, without the "fighter-" qualification (and substituting
> >> "damage" for "destroy"), the description does indeed suggest the old
> >> Bouncing Bomb trials.
> >
> > Correction: I had a quick look at the Channel 4 DVD overnight, which
> > showed the mine staying quite close to the surface - but the Lanc was
> > low enough that the initial splash knocked some bits off the tail
> > section.
>
> Hi Robert, I didn't notice that but it was an American aircraft that just
> turned to flotsam after a second or two in the footage that wsa shown
later
> in the documentary.
>
> It kind of reminds me of a short clip shown in (IIRC) an Australian
> production called Broadcast which was about the last days of guys running
> around with cine-cameras for the film theatre newsreels.
>
> Right at the start is shows lots of news clips and one that stands out is
of
> three Beauforts doing a low fly-past over a bay and as they passed the
ship
> where the film was being made, one of hte Beauforts took a sharp climb,
> tearing the tail of one of the others with them both crashing into the
> water.
>
> Amazing and I bet there are lots of bits of film we haven't seen. I also
> wonder if anyone cine-filmed an airshow in Britain where a hurricane
> accidentally fired into the crowd as it made a pass ?
>
>
> Richard.
>
The aircraft was an American A26 and the weapon was a "Highball"
anti-shipping mine that was also indended for use on Mosquitos.

John