Jettisoned Missiles Shouldn't Tumble, Right?

[Frisco1522]

I mean, it seems like something that should not be happening...right?

By this I mean when I am flying, for example my F-15, and I jettison my stores, all the missiles tumble end over end.

 

Wouldn't they dive like an arrow? I mean, they do that after they are fired and burn out their motors...

The bombs dive straight...

 

What do you guys think? :book::smartass:

 

:helpsmilie:

Frisco1522

[PiedDroit]

I guess they don't have enough speed to be stabilized and they don't have controls either.

[Exorcet]

I don't think the objects have physics on jett.

 

Missiles are kind of weird in that even after stalling and running out of electric power, they hold massive angles of attack on decent.

 

They probably shouldn't tumble, or the tumbling should at least decay, but it's a pretty minor thing.

[HeadHunter52]

Jetted missiles are not "active". They do not have any guidance awake and in control. On terminal approach to ground targets, they have enough speed for guidance to control flight. But a sleeping missile is nothing more than a tube. No forward weight bias to make it act like a dart... tumble is what I'd expect to see.

 

A2A missiles are generally powered all through flight, so I also expect them to tumble when sleeping and quiet.

[Spetz]

So what you are saying is that because the flight are not active it tumbles. So with that rationale a shuttlecock from badminton should tumble as it flies through the air because it doesn't even have control surfaces?

 

The air rushing over the control surfaces, even though not deflectin, is enough to keep them stable in flight. Being dropped from a jet travelling at mach 1 means the missile is initially travelling at mach 1 when dropped. Yes, it will slow due to drag, but should remain stable. I have seen personally missiles been fired from AD systems that have a 2nd stage misfire and they fly just as level into the ground.

[Blackeye]

A shuttlecock is aerodynamically stable, a rocket might not necessarily be, given its design (e.g. front fins) and the fact that unstable usually means better maneuverability if you can keep control.

[Kuky]

I think in reality only missiles that have rear fins only would eventually stabilize ... but with front fins also they shouldn't.

[HeadHunter52]

Shuttle cock is heavily weight biased forward, with a large drag effect rear. An arrow is more closely related to a powered missile as far as weight distribution, but it is also weighted front, drag and stabilized rear.

 

Missiles are entirely different, and each will have its own ballistic tendencies. They were not designed to fly without power and in most cases, guidance. I wouldn't expect them to fly straight and true except by accident.

[snowman[FR]]

Right.

[zaelu]

On 10/3/2015 at 4:40 AM, Spetz said:

The air rushing over the control surfaces, even though not deflectin, is enough to keep them stable in flight. Being dropped from a jet travelling at mach 1 means the missile is initially travelling at mach 1 when dropped. Yes, it will slow due to drag, but should remain stable. I have seen personally missiles been fired from AD systems that have a 2nd stage misfire and they fly just as level into the ground.

There are reasons why launching ordnance is heavily regulated in real life and not a willy-nilly thing. 
 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by zaelu

[=DROOPY=]

2 hours ago, zaelu said:

There are reasons why launching ordnance is heavily regulated in real life and not a willy-nilly thing. 
 

 

 

 

Those A-4 Skyhawks though... Yikes!