Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- From: Eunometic <eunometic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:27:44 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 6, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty <dougherty.jeff...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:13 am, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How hard would it have been for the German's to modify the V1 design to
build in a certain amount of evasion capability? I suppose getting a
left/right dodge to work (and still hit London afterwards!) would've been
quite hard, but a certain amount of semi-random up/down movement might
have made the job of the fighters and guns a bit harder?
I'm thinking of using the distance counter to work out when you're over
the channel and then starting to adjust your height by +/- 50-100ft until
you reach London, then dive as normal ...
The V-1 used a pendulum and gyro system to damp out pitch oscillation,
so I suppose in theory you could cut a cam to throw in ascents and
descents at certain intervals by effectively changing the pitch
damping forces. Whether or not it would work in practice I don't
know, since I don't know how stable the V-1 actually was on that
axis.
When the Germans became aware of the RAF tactic of sending a V1
tumbling by flying wing tip to wing tip with them to in order to
disturb them they increased the authority or control limits of the
autopilot. I came across that in a little known book by Fritz
Trenkle on German WW2 guidence systems. It was certainly capable of
improvement. I see no reason that the nut moving on a threaded rod
that was used to initiate switches that caused heading changes
couldn't be used to instigate an evasive pattern of maneuvers: turns
and height changes as the flying bomb passed over vulnerable areas (eg
channel coast), using a rotating cam, as you suggest. David Mindel
book "Between human and machine" notes that they often took several
hits and that the autopilot was stable enough to right itself after
inversion. (somewhat inconsistent with the stories of pilots knocking
them tumbling with the wing tip method).
The reason I suggest a radar altimeter would have made them a tougher
targets is:
1 Very low approach over the sea means early warning is reduced to
below 20 miles (say 3 minutes)
with a height as low as 10m probably being feasible.
2 Height change is then required in preparation for crossing the
coast;
3 Much lower cruise height is then possible over land.
The low height will allow masking behind terrain, possible loss of the
missile in ground clutter, reduction of range due to ground clutter
returns reducing signal to noise ratio. The low height allows less
guns to be brought on to the target.
The SCR 584 radar and M9 director combination has some defects;
firstly the operators had absolutely no view of the outside world and
couldn't use visual cues in a complex situation. They were isolated
inside the van. This had been done for psychological reasons.
Secondly the unit was based on a single radar and could not both track
a target while scanning for others.
Like most predictors the M9 director assumed a straightline path for
the target; the differences being is that it used an electronic
implementation of the M7 prediction algorithm instead of mechanical.
This made it cheaper, potentially faster but not more accurate. The
implementation actually had a 'defect' in that the designers had
preceded without a lot of rigor and the flight path of the target was
determined by electronic differentiation. This turned out to be noise
prone if there was any jitter in tracking eg as the beam moved from
one part of the aircraft to another forcing delay filters which then
degraded response. The properly "Hendrik Bode" designed T-15
directors used mechanical subtraction to calculate the flight path and
was over twice as accurate. It could have been produced but the M9
was already further on the path.
My point being that a low flying, evasively moving target would start
to bring out defects in the SCR-594/M9 combo.
The V1 also had a dispenser behind the wing root that ejected
propaganda leaflets. I see no reason a chaff dispensor with a roll of
rapid blooming chaff couldn't be dumped at critical periods to break
the lock of tracking radars or pull it of target.
http://www.psywarrior.com/V1RocketLeaf.html
Allied radars were just as vulnerable to window chaff as the German
ones. The problem for the Germans was that their smaller aircraft and
smaller raids didn't drop enough tonage of it to disrupt the system.
Apart from being able to create spoof raids when there is enough chaff
in the air multiple foil to foil reflections from the side lobes make
the problem even worse.
You'd probably need to experiment with a number of different
cam designs before you got one that didn't send the missile into a
tumble.
Of course, the big disadvantage of that system is that it doesn't
"know" where the ground is, so if there's something in your flight
path that's taller than you think you also might do the Doodlebug
equivalent of CFIT.
True; unless a radar altimter is added to make the path changes
relative or unless the ability
to change barometric height is made more flexible (through multiple
switch points on the threaded rod) in order to allow use of
topographic knowledge.
.
- References:
- Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- From: Eunometic
- Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- From: Geoffrey Sinclair
- Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- From: Alistair Gunn
- Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- From: Jeff Dougherty
- Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- Prev by Date: Re: What is Hanging from Experimental F-104?
- Next by Date: Re: Things To Treasure.
- Previous by thread: Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- Next by thread: Re: Pilots would rather quit The Force than continue to fly F-22s.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
