Early Air to Air missiles

[NARSES2]

Now I know the German's were looking on the X4 wire guided A to A missile in 1945 and the British were working on both wire guided and radar guided A to A missiles based on the 4" RP during the same period but I want something for 1950/1953 ?

As those who read my blog will know I'm struggling to find a role for my Black Hawk. It seems a hell of a waste to arm such a large aeroplane with 4 x 20mm cannon even if they were in that fancy radar guided turret contraption.

So were the US working on a guided A to A missile that might fit the early 50's time frame ? Something quite large that I could stick under each wing would be good. Not sure what the guidance system would be ? I'd rather go for something I could say was in service rather then in development so it doesn't have to be sophisticated.

Thanks in advance

Chris

[Captain Canada]

Avro Canada was working on the Velvet Glove ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Glove

Lots of pics of the big ugly thing out there.....

[PR19_Kit]

The Fireflash only just misses your time frame Chris, by a year at most.

[Mr.Creak]

The US was working on quite a few in that period.
Here's your best bet: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/index.html#_Index_AF
For example, the Ryan Firebird - http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/aam-a-1.html - : first launch of the prototype in 1947.

[kitnut617]

After the war and the RAF got to look at some of the wire guided missiles the Germans had (early TV guided too), they developed a TV guided Tallboy bomb as the intent was to use it to combat capital ships.  So maybe some sort of TV guided missile would fit ---

[rickshaw]

Try the Hughes Falcon, Chris.  Development started 1946, first test launched in 1949, in service by 1954.  http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-4.html

[NARSES2]

Cheers gents. After looking in the "modern" armament compartment of my spares box * I find I have a couple of suitable candidates for something I can call a Ryan Firebird Mk 2 after a little cut & shut  I can say they were tested in Korea by the Black Hawks under combat conditions but it's relative low speed and guidance system meant it was dropped in favour of the Falcons

* An area I very seldom visit

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

1.) What was the diameter of the Fireflash without the booster?

[PR19_Kit]

Haven't got a clue. It looks about 10" or so, but a bit of scaling off a drawing or a photo should give you a closer answer.

[Mr.Creak]

About 6" I'd say, based on this drawing: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1957/1957%20-%201138.html- it looks to be the same size as the boost motor bodies which is given as that figure.
BSP Hypersonics might have a value (haven't got my copy to hand) but Fireflash To Skyflash doesn't say.

[PR19_Kit]

About 6" I'd say, based on this drawing.....

Close counts 

I scaled the drawing below, from Wikipedia, and it comes out to 5.9". But then we're doing Kendra's work for her............

[kitnut617]

But then we're doing Kendra's work for her............

Well, that's Robyn Kit, at least that's what's she's told us on the other forum ---

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19 Kit

I scaled the drawing below, from Wikipedia, and it comes out to 5.9".

Thank you for your help.  5.9 inches is a pretty good diameter for that era -- we ended up designing a beam-riding missile that ended up being 8" despite being intended to be based on a 5" HVAR (It was known as the KAS, then the AAM-N-2, then the AIM-7A and known popularly as the Sparrow).

[PR19_Kit]

But remember that the middle bit of the Fireflash had no motor, the boosters did their thing and then left the 'dart' to glide on at Mach 2.5 or so under beam guidance. Maybe that's why it didn't need to be so big.

[KJ_Lesnick]

PR19_Kit

That's a good point...