Letters cont.
from page 5
Dear Mr. Barrow,
I am writing to point out certain crip-
pling flaws in the "Guided Missile" design
published in Volume I, #7, of the PMA.
The first and most obvious flaw is the
lack of aerodynamic stability. The devices
from which the planform of yours is copied
reply for stability on sophisticated semi-
automatic guidance systems which spin the
missile on its axis in flight and switch
control functions from one set of fins to
the other depending on the attitude of the
missile at the moment. Most, to simplify
control and lower the needed skill level,
have a permanent "up" bias to keep the
thing up long enough for the operator to
sort himself out and assume control. Yours,
of course, has no such guidance system and
will therefore be inherently unstable.
30 PMA
The second flaw is the lack of a sus-
tainer motor. This is a low-thrust, long-
burning motor which powers the vehicle all
the way to the target, enabling the opera-
tor to steer the device along his line-of-
sight and making it unnecessary for him to
know the range, except in very general
terms. Since your device's boosters will
burn out in a few seconds and its planform,
with center of pressure (cp) well behind
the center of gravity (cg) prevents an ef-
ficient glide, your device's trajectory
will be essentially ballistic rather than
aerodynamic. All control corrections will
have to be made during the thrust phase
with the missile climbing steeply. The
firer will need lightning reflexes, theodo-
lite eyes and the brain of a ballistic com-
puter. In its present form, therefore, it
is not practical.
The aerodynamic problem is easily
solved: I suggest a pair of delta wings
with c.p. close to but slightly behind the
c.g. of the missile. They need not be cam-
bered but should have a definite dihedral
angle to keep the device on an even keel,
(figure 1). The vertical fins should be
smaller and set back as far as possible.
 The sustainer is another matter. I can't
be specific about designs since I have no
data available to me. The specifications
(long burn, low thrust, visible trail) sug-
gest a long, thin, end-burning grain
'spiked' with something to give a colored
exhaust flame. The only propellant I can
think of that burns slowly and is easily a-
vailable is JETEX fuel in pellets. It would
have to be dissolved, spiked and recast. I
have no way of calculating the length-to
diameter ratio of the propellant grain, or
the nozzle dimensions until I discover the
specs of the pellets. In any case, for a
reliable "zero-length" launch I recommend
that a powerful booster (or several, de-
pending o n what's available) be placed so
that they thrust down instead of straight
back, and their thrust lines go through the
c.g.. This will 'levitate' the missile and
start it moving forward but without point-
ing the nose up. This allows the operator
to acquire the missile without having to
feed in a large correction, and reduces the
possibility of a crash-dive through opera-
tor error or a stall when the booster(s)
burn(s)-out,(see figure 2). The sustainer
should be fired when the boosters are.
If you publish my letter I will assume
that you are interested and will let you
know when (and if) I am able to design a
sustainer. If this letter seems too criti-
cal, let me assure you that I have the
highest respect for anyone willing to un-
dertake such an ambitious project.
.
A few second thoughts about the guid-
ance system; digital proportional gear is
expensive and unnecessary for one-time use.
To reduce expense and the weight of the on-
board equipment, I suggest using either an
escapement or a reed system, and dry-cells
instead of nicads. However, one dummy
'trainer' should be built with rechargeable
cells. It should be weighted and balanced
just like the live rounds and fired at
cloth silhouettes draped over bales of hay
or other targets from which the practice
round could be recovered without damage.
Prospective 'crewmen' should get plenty of
practice under conditions as realistic as
possible, since firing a guided missile re-
quires some skill.
References: Jane's Weapon Systems
Brimley, Rocket Manual for
Amateurs
Brimley, Advanced Radio
Control
Sincerely, Francois
P.S.,
I would like to point out that the term
"SAM" stand for Surface-to-Air-Missile. The
soviet wire-guided AT missile is called
SAGGER, and does not cost $1000/unit! God
help us all when the terrs get SAM's!
Dear Francois,
Yes, I'd like to see the sustainer when
completed. Thanks for your unique insight
into missiles. Although lengthy, my missile
article admittedly lacks a great deal. How
do you other readers feel about this type
of weapon? We would like to purchase your
missile design info or articles. Clyde
PLEASE NOTE: I don't even want to see
government material that is currently
classified as secret/restricted/national
security, etc.
PMA 31