How come AIM-120 on the tips?

It was doing that before they carried the -120 on station 1 and 9. I did that once a week on Luke in the late 90 with a impact driver and a hammer. Until we dip the screws, I think we use B1/2.

Luke was the worse, oh the days of being the leak crew on Friday nights after last goes. Jumping from jet to jet with sheet metal in tow. Most repair would hold over for a few weeks, then it would be back. If I recall correctly, Luke 01-06 we didn't carry 120s, just the CAP9 and ACMI pod.

Why would they do that when -120s on stations 1 and 9 are operationally approved and used?

Have you listened to the podcast above? A real F-16 pilot said it caused too many issues to be operational.

Have you listened to the podcast above? A real F-16 pilot said it caused too many issues to be operational.

What he said isn't 100% fact though, we still fly with the 120s on the wingtips daily.

Have you listened to the podcast above? A real F-16 pilot said it caused too many issues to be operational.

But it is used operationally, try to take a look at videos or images of F-16s and you will more ofthen than not see -120s on 1 and 9

Same we fly with most of the time on deployment with the danish F-16, at home often CAP-9s

The answer to your question is here. ( by a real fighterpilot )

 

Thanks neutchain, very informative. I hope ED takes that into account and won't allow the AIM-120 to be loaded on stations 1 and 9.

Have you listened to the podcast above? A real F-16 pilot said it caused too many issues to be operational.

The pod cast is from a F/A -18 pilot.

Look online in Shaw.af.mil, Misawa.af.mil, spangdahlem.af.mil, centaf.af.mil, dvidshub.net, or 148fw.ang.af.mil Where are the -120 carried?

https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002124530/

https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002124531/

https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002115174/

https://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002111218/

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/5267239/148th-fighter-wing-flies-state-partnership-program-engagement

https://www.afcent.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002097137/

https://www.afcent.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002075728/

https://www.afcent.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002052333/

https://www.afcent.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001953296/

https://www.misawa.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002129087/

What he said isn't 100% fact though, we still fly with the 120s on the wingtips daily.

Exactly. Moreover, the "viewer" should start identifying and distinguishing real (active) missiles (yellow/brown marks on the body) versus captive/training weapons (blue marks) and everyday operations-missions.

The real -120 missile should go back to weapons depot/maintenance every 6; (IIRC) flights, to check overall status and structure quality for any cracks due to the g-load and fluttering forces. The captive missiles don't have such tight limits so can be used much more times with no issues or detailed inspections.

So if ED decides to model the effects of missile placement, what differences in handling can we expect between the 120 vs aim9 on the wingtips? Excluding long term wear-and-tear.

Exactly. Moreover, the "viewer" should start identifying and distinguishing real (active) missiles (yellow/brown marks on the body) versus captive/training weapons (blue marks) and everyday operations-missions.

 

The real -120 missile should go back to weapons depot/maintenance every 6; (IIRC) flights, to check overall status and structure quality for any cracks due to the g-load and fluttering forces. The captive missiles don't have such tight limits so can be used much more times with no issues or detailed inspections.

The pictures he just posted has half of them with, "active" 120's on wingtips and one is claimed to be taken over Afghanistan... I think that should answer the question of, "do we fly our operations with them in that configuration".

As far as I can recall our Danish F-16's on QRA are standing around with -120's on their wing tips.

Have you listened to the podcast above? A real F-16 pilot said it caused too many issues to be operational.

120's on the tips do cause stress.

They are also flown that way all the time.

if You want an idea of the twisting forces that a 120 can put on the F-16 wingtips then check out this pic, taken during a roll transition from a left turn to a right turn.

if You want an idea of the twisting forces that a 120 can put on the F-16 wingtips then check out this pic, taken during a roll transition from a left turn to a right turn.

Wow, I hope the aircraft wasn't hurt ;)

But seriously, I've never seen that before, that's awesome :)

Kind of reminds me of what I read on the British Lightning. If it was carrying one missile forces could cause the vertical tail to snap off.

Having 120's on the tips serves two purposes in that it increases the F-16's already impressive roll rate

You'll have to explain this one to me.

I'm with you on that one Razor. I'm not seeing how adding mass on your wingtip helps roll rate. The increased rolling moment of inertia should have a negative impact on roll rate.

Unless there's some other factor created by the reduced flutter that out weighs ;) the increased inertia? not sure how that would work though.

Can anyone confirm that having 120s on the tips helps roll rate?

It might increase the effort to stop the roll but it's not going to increase roll rate.

I've been following this thread, and:

- didn't understood the explanation in the video (where the Hornet pilot is talking); what complications arose from carrying the AIM-9 in the wingtips;

- from my impression, carrying more weight at the wingtips would add more structural fatigue at the given structures; as the "Work" formula shows:

Work = Force * Distance

Which is: more Force (weight) from the AIM-120 at the wingtips, will translate at more Work (tension) at the whole structure...

So, to me it keeps not making much sense.

Work = Force * Distance

 

Which is: more Force (weight) from the AIM-120 at the wingtips, will translate at more Work (tension) at the whole structure...

 

So, to me it keeps not making much sense.

The AIM-120x is longer/heavier so the CG of the wing is moved forward of its twist axis, thus suppressing flutter. An AIM-9x is still better than clean tips, but the AIM-120x is optimal.

The AIM-120x is longer/heavier so the CG of the wing is moved forward of its twist axis, thus suppressing flutter. An AIM-9x is still better than clean tips, but the AIM-120x is optimal.

Hello,

Yes about the flutter I kind of understand your explanation - the other vídeo shows it also.

But regarding higher torsional / bending forces due to higher weight / inertia as shown at the pic in post #37, my doubts still persist.

I've been following this thread, and:

 

- didn't understood the explanation in the video (where the Hornet pilot is talking); what complications arose from carrying the AIM-9 in the wingtips;

- from my impression, carrying more weight at the wingtips would add more structural fatigue at the given structures; as the "Work" formula shows:

 

Work = Force * Distance

 

Which is: more Force (weight) from the AIM-120 at the wingtips, will translate at more Work (tension) at the whole structure...

 

So, to me it keeps not making much sense.

You are talking about a moment. Work is strictly the energy require to to apply a given force across a given distance. Although the formulas are similar and have the same units moment is similar to torque not energy.

Most of the induced drag produced by a wing comes off at the wingtips as wingtip vortices.

its a direct result of 3d lift generation.

the aim9 flutter is it fluttering within these vortices.

by placing the missile here its own parasitic drag is lost within the induced drag of the wing.

if you mount the missile below the wing then its parasitic drag is added to the induced drag of the wing.

you will go faster for the same weight. if you have the larger missile in the drag free zone.

and you should have fired those BVR missiles before you need to manoeuvre in a dogfight.

You are talking about a moment. Work is strictly the energy require to to apply a given force across a given distance. Although the formulas are similar and have the same units moment is similar to torque not energy.

Preciselly !

you will go faster for the same weight. if you have the larger missile in the drag free zone.

and you should have fired those BVR missiles before you need to manoeuvre in a dogfight.

THIS.

I wondered why no one had mentioned that AMRAAMs are generally fired first in combat, thus when you get to the merge you have higher roll rate by removing the farthest weight from the CG first.

Top Jockey , What you haven't accounted for is that the wing is producing lift, this means that if you want to minimise the stresses on the wing you will want to have the CoM of each wing(stores, fuselage, fuel) be as close as possible to the CoL. Because the fuselage makes up a large amount of the wings load you will want to have weight outboard on the wings to "balance" the wing. The counter to this is that the roll rate will reduce and the actual hardpoints themselves will be under more stress when the plane manoeuvres.

That is a really excellent explanation. I believed that it had to do with air-air combat. As 120 would be expended before merge, leaving Viper lighter and cleaner for ACM, improving the roll rate, by not having weight of unexpended AIM-9 on wingtips. Second is that 'pitbul' radar on board 120 would have greated FOV for times when 120 would be released at shorter range, within range of its on-board radar. AKA, pitbull of the rail. Curious why F/A-18 , Typhoons, Rafale, and Groppen don't follow similar loadout.