The problem there is the bomb (fuse) itself.
IMO those shitty glide bombs are excellent relative to their useless dumb ammo and overly expensive large missiles. PUCCIA BBC have a lot of gaps in their ammo capabilities.
>The problem there is the bomb (fuse) itself.
no
the arming mechanism is just dogshit aka the string attached to the front of the bomb and the aircrafts hardpoint
fighterbomber (a russian telegramm channel from a russian pilot) already said plenty of things about how shit this is and all the problems with it during the Belgorod bombings and it has nothing to do with its payload
>the arming mechanism is just dogshit aka the string attached to the front of the bomb and the aircrafts hardpoint
Yeah but that's the payload, a FAB 500. The gliding part can't fix the russian fuses
the FAB 500 in its normal configuration doesnt have some string mechanism to arm its fuze
this is something that was added with the JDAM kit for some reason
Anon, nobody would design a new fuse just for a gliding kit.
That's a nose fuse (PD fuse) and it's way older than the gliding part. Tail fuses (delayed) don't need that cringy string. A mark 83 would work just fine with that gliding kit, the problem is the fuse itself, the payload.
Edit: > don't need that cringy string
in the nose* Anyway, blame the designers of those fuses probably not vantik proof enough. (ukraine recovered at least 2 shaheds with not armed fuses)
Ah, you are talking about the tiny vertical offset. That isn't going to matter at all, you are already running a PID control system and it can easily be tuned for much more extreme asymmetric drag / lift.
Ah, you are talking about the tiny vertical offset. That isn't going to matter at all, you are already running a PID control system and it can easily be tuned for much more extreme asymmetric drag / lift.
So if it can fly why can't a tuned PID compensate for any turning effects?
Also still waiting for the official name for vertically offset wings so I can read some papers, surely you know it.
Vertical offset doesn't matter as long as both wings are the same distance away from the rotational point
if they are not the same distance away from the rotational point then you get stuff like
[...]
where you have to constantly correct into the other direction
>where you have to constantly correct into the other direction
Why? I get that extremely low you might have one wing in ground effect and the other out causing asymmetric lift issues but why outside of ground effect would slightly different wing hights produce roll?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>but why outside of ground effect would slightly different wing hights produce roll?
laws of Physics
more specifically the Lever Law
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
In this extreme case each wing tip is trying to move towards the the CoG, assuming equal lift there will be a net zero rotational force.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/Yfa9Maa.png
In this extreme case each wing tip is trying to move towards the the CoG, assuming equal lift there will be a net zero rotational force.
In this case the left wing does have a longer lever to produce roll to the right but the CoG is still far below the CoL producing a righting force.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>not him
That residual torque isn't a problem for a guided bomb and would reduce the range marginally.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
this wasnt about whether or not the guided bomb gives a shit about its native roll but about why this happens in the first place
Vertical offset doesn't matter as long as both wings are the same distance away from the rotational point
if they are not the same distance away from the rotational point then you get stuff like
Please give the proper name for vertically offset wings so I can read some papers and learn.
Also
?si=ttuDpkggrCwDm3KA
where you have to constantly correct into the other direction
Wing position has a very definite effect on roll stability, so i'd guess that offset wings have an effect as well. Whether any of it matters in a marginally controllable bomb with a PID autopilot is another matter. I suppose a well optimized glide bomb flies at the very edge of the envelope when going for maximum range
Shouldn't be a problem, trimming is a standard procedure on airplanes.
That being said, yes I can very well imagine that it is a problem that got solved in a less than ideal way.
The problem there is the bomb (fuse) itself.
IMO those shitty glide bombs are excellent relative to their useless dumb ammo and overly expensive large missiles. PUCCIA BBC have a lot of gaps in their ammo capabilities.
>The problem there is the bomb (fuse) itself.
no
the arming mechanism is just dogshit aka the string attached to the front of the bomb and the aircrafts hardpoint
fighterbomber (a russian telegramm channel from a russian pilot) already said plenty of things about how shit this is and all the problems with it during the Belgorod bombings and it has nothing to do with its payload
>the arming mechanism is just dogshit aka the string attached to the front of the bomb and the aircrafts hardpoint
Yeah but that's the payload, a FAB 500. The gliding part can't fix the russian fuses
the FAB 500 in its normal configuration doesnt have some string mechanism to arm its fuze
this is something that was added with the JDAM kit for some reason
Anon, nobody would design a new fuse just for a gliding kit.
That's a nose fuse (PD fuse) and it's way older than the gliding part. Tail fuses (delayed) don't need that cringy string. A mark 83 would work just fine with that gliding kit, the problem is the fuse itself, the payload.
Edit:
> don't need that cringy string
in the nose* Anyway, blame the designers of those fuses probably not vantik proof enough. (ukraine recovered at least 2 shaheds with not armed fuses)
Is normal, bomb drank too much vodka.
puccians could never
So the wings are not lined up with each other. Guess it just have to steer left all the time? Probably not at all an issue for precision.
>the wings are not lined up with each other
Can you draw some red circles, they look aligned (before impact) to me.
One wing is placed on top of the other on their pivot point. I'm not drawing anything, just look at it.
Ah, you are talking about the tiny vertical offset. That isn't going to matter at all, you are already running a PID control system and it can easily be tuned for much more extreme asymmetric drag / lift.
Look at the hinge, one wing is on top of another
aerodynamically speaking this literally doesn't matter btw
>t. Dunning–Kruger effect enjoyers
tl;dr no u
Looks almost nationalsocialistic
>twin offset vertical stabilizers
You are giving me ideas anon.
>t Blohm & Voss anon
hivemind...
Never said it wouldn't fly retard.
it doesn't have to "steer left" either retard, it flies NORMALLY
So if it can fly why can't a tuned PID compensate for any turning effects?
Also still waiting for the official name for vertically offset wings so I can read some papers, surely you know it.
>where you have to constantly correct into the other direction
Why? I get that extremely low you might have one wing in ground effect and the other out causing asymmetric lift issues but why outside of ground effect would slightly different wing hights produce roll?
>but why outside of ground effect would slightly different wing hights produce roll?
laws of Physics
more specifically the Lever Law
In this extreme case each wing tip is trying to move towards the the CoG, assuming equal lift there will be a net zero rotational force.
In this case the left wing does have a longer lever to produce roll to the right but the CoG is still far below the CoL producing a righting force.
>not him
That residual torque isn't a problem for a guided bomb and would reduce the range marginally.
this wasnt about whether or not the guided bomb gives a shit about its native roll but about why this happens in the first place
Please give the proper name for vertically offset wings so I can read some papers and learn.
Also
?si=ttuDpkggrCwDm3KA
Vertical offset doesn't matter as long as both wings are the same distance away from the rotational point
if they are not the same distance away from the rotational point then you get stuff like
where you have to constantly correct into the other direction
Wing position has a very definite effect on roll stability, so i'd guess that offset wings have an effect as well. Whether any of it matters in a marginally controllable bomb with a PID autopilot is another matter. I suppose a well optimized glide bomb flies at the very edge of the envelope when going for maximum range
Shouldn't be a problem, trimming is a standard procedure on airplanes.
That being said, yes I can very well imagine that it is a problem that got solved in a less than ideal way.
Meh if have the science it doesn't matter 10 ways to fix
It actually amazes me how insensitive insensitive explosive is. And apparently the explosive the US uses is even more insensitive.
when is Ukraine going to be able to start hitting Russian positions with concentrations of 50 of these things per day?
can't Ukraine make shitty glide bombs, too? are there not enough dumb bombs around?
>Runaggers
>Reliable [anything]
Pick one, pajeet
To be honest they begun trying only like a year ago. They are doing not so bad considering that they have to nagger-rig them.
What am I looking at?
Russia glide bomb kit strapped to a dud.
Hamas gets much of their explosives from JDAM duds...