Bare metal YF-12A at Groom, mid-1963

shockonlip said:
The RCS pole model has no paint, no verticals (that I can see), the inlet spikes are not in
Mach 3 position, and the canopy glass is fared over. What have I missed!
Click to expand...

cable attached to the nose so that it can be rotated.

looks as if there also a round fairing at the back of the fuselage. Probably its another place to mount the pole. So it could probably be placed in a position pointing straight up.
 
It's noteworthy that virtually all information on the missile seems to be paraphrases of information from two individuals, one of which is the well respected Andreas Parsh. As far as warheads go, some of the citings say it had a 250 KT thermonuclear warhead and some say 250 lb high explosive. Interesting that both use the number 250.

That would be a rather awkward millisecond if the wrong missile was loaded.
 
The 250kT figure is completely wrong. The W-42 warhead was an 0.25kT warhead, not 250, and it was dropped early on in favor of a 100lb HE warhead.

elmayerle said:
Hmm, sounds like F-12Bs, or other aircraft, carrying AGM-76s, could be used to clear out the oppositions air defenses in the van of a SAC strike.
Click to expand...

No more than they would if they were carrying AGM-45s or AGM-78s. The missile was a quick response to the USAF's need for an ARM in Vietnam. It was never intended for, nor tested from, the YF-12A. Long range and a good sized warhead made it an ideal candidate for Hughes to fool around with though, but like I said, the AGM-78 was procured instead. Probably because it had a fully existing production and support line, I assume.
 
RyanCrierie said:
The "anti-radar" description in this DOD-published listing is no surprise, because that's how the AGM-76 is described in the USAF's official request for nomenclature.

Hmm, any chance we could see the USAF official request if you got it scanned?
Click to expand...

Check these out, I'm pretty sure these are the same documents. I'm also pretty sure that Andreas sent them to me a while back.
 

Attachments

  • agm-76a-1.pdf
    676.6 KB · Views: 53
  • agm-76a-2.pdf
    370.8 KB · Views: 26
  • agm-76a-3.pdf
    351.9 KB · Views: 31
Is there a complete scale-plan of the definitive F-12 with chin extending on the radome like the SR showing if it was to have the ventral fin ?
I remember reading the fact the chin stopped at the radome on YF-12A was the reason they had to install that retractable ventral fin.
 
Last edited:
galgot said:
Is there a complete scale-plan of the definitive F-12 with chin extending on the radome like the SR showing if it was to have the ventral fin ?
I remember reading the fact the chin stopped at the radome on YF-12A was the reason they had to instal that retractable ventral fin.
Click to expand...

I've read that too but I think somebody crossed wires somewhere. The chine influences area in one plane, the ventral perpendicular to it. I think it's not so much that it's because the chine got cut back but because the profile of the radome is so much larger than the original nose. Note that those with stepped cockpits have the small ventrals beneath the nacelles despite having unmodified chines.

16132484230_e119165cd4_b.jpg
 
Thks, yes maybe that big nose added enough profile surface up front that they had to have that stabilizing surfaces at the back.

(And note for myself, "chine", not "chin"... :p)
 
galgot said:
Thks, yes maybe that big nose added enough profile surface up front that they had to have that stabilizing surfaces at the back.

(And note for myself, "chine", not "chin"... :p)
Click to expand...

Yes, rule of thumb - increased vertical area ahead of the CG is destabilizing. That particular rule came close to killing me, but my golden hand recovered the aircraft...
 
When Boeing went with the X-32 design, they certainly had alk their Navy guys deported in the foremost remote corner of their plant.
The amount of unnecessary constraints brought by the chin mounted inlet was staggering.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom