AIM-4F Super Falcon

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

i have a question regarding the Radome of the AIM-4F , i have 2 pictures showing a pitot like object on the front of the radome other picture show a small conicaly shaped tip and what could be  a retracted pitot or pin that just shows the tip of it

• did the AIM-4F had a pitot or what is this object ?
• has anybody a better picture of the radome front  ?

i also found this picture of an plastic model in scale 1:72 showing the pitot like object as well

 

AIM-4F pictures showing the pitot like object

picture of the radome with a conical shaped tip and something metallic showing on the tip of it ( retractable pitot / pin ???? )

 

any inf or better pictures are more than welcome  ,  i really like to get this missile finish and after so many years of searching for info on this matter maybe somebody can help me out , or maybe there is a museum near by where somebody can make some pictures and get some info about it

 

 

 

[+Soulfreak 6,536]

what I´ve found:

 

[+GKABS 8,868]

I found this and how it will help.

F

G

 

Edited Monday at 02:16 PM by GKABS

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

i´m talking about the little part in the front ( green arrow )  , not all pictures of the AIM-4F are showing this part

[+Nightshade/PR 8,348]

If I read correctly, it's this:

XAIM-4H

The XAIM-4H appeared as the final iteration of the GAR-1D aerodynamic layout, intended to correct many of the deficiencies of the AIM-4D in the anti-fighter role. The USAF funded development of the XAIM-4H in 1969, once the AIM-4D’s limitations in anti-fighter combat had been highlighted in the skies over Vietnam.

The XAIM-4H employed a modified AIM-4D airframe and IR seeker, but added an active optical proximity fuse. This alleviated the traditional Falcon requirement of a direct hit for warhead detonation, potentially making the XAIM-4H more capable against maneuvering targets. The XAIM-4H reportedly introduced a new warhead and enhanced maneuverability as well.

Hughes produced 25 XAIM-4H test rounds between 1970 and 1971. At least two intercept tests took place, with XAIM-4H missiles destroying QF-104A target drones on January 26 and July 17 of 1971. Ultimately, this penultimate anti-fighter Falcon found itself as a victim of budgetary constraints in late 1971, with newer variants of the AIM-9 becoming the standard “dogfight” missile for USAF fighters.

This data came from the following; Section IV:

https://ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html#mozTocId147657

A line drawing is in Annex D:

https://ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html

[+Svetlin 572]

Here is the thing in extended position. The conical tip with slightly bigger diameter than the probe that extends from the nose cone is easily visible.

I was going to question whether the warhead was activated by strong direct hit only, or being a radar-guided missile there was some proximity fuse as well, but it seems Nightshade/PR gave the answer above.

By the looks of it, the probe was kept retracted and extended once the missile was launched. I suppose the picture below shows inert missiles, which could explain the probe being extended for the picture. 

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

1 hour ago, Nightshade/PR said:

If I read correctly, it's this:

XAIM-4H

The XAIM-4H appeared as the final iteration of the GAR-1D aerodynamic layout, intended to correct many of the deficiencies of the AIM-4D in the anti-fighter role. The USAF funded development of the XAIM-4H in 1969, once the AIM-4D’s limitations in anti-fighter combat had been highlighted in the skies over Vietnam.

The XAIM-4H employed a modified AIM-4D airframe and IR seeker, but added an active optical proximity fuse. This alleviated the traditional Falcon requirement of a direct hit for warhead detonation, potentially making the XAIM-4H more capable against maneuvering targets. The XAIM-4H reportedly introduced a new warhead and enhanced maneuverability as well.

Hughes produced 25 XAIM-4H test rounds between 1970 and 1971. At least two intercept tests took place, with XAIM-4H missiles destroying QF-104A target drones on January 26 and July 17 of 1971. Ultimately, this penultimate anti-fighter Falcon found itself as a victim of budgetary constraints in late 1971, with newer variants of the AIM-9 becoming the standard “dogfight” missile for USAF fighters.

This data came from the following; Section IV:

https://ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html#mozTocId147657

A line drawing is in Annex D:

https://ausairpower.net/Falcon-Evolution.html

the one picture with the probe extended i posted is an GAR-3A (AIM-4F ) it is clearly readable on the missile data label , MFR PT NO was  153600

so is this a proximity fuze or a probe to detonate the warhead by a direct hit ???

if the AIM-4H got a proximity fuze i assume this one here is more for a direct hit but at this time they had already better options for a impact fuze

i just wish we could get some close up picture of it

Edited Monday at 06:11 PM by ravenclaw_007

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

a picture from an other GAR-3A showing the probe retracted and just the tip showing out a bit

does not look like a proximity fuse 

[Wrench 10,042]

I moved this back to the SF2 forums; don't know if it was a mistake posted in the SF1 forums. But, well, it's here now!! 

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

29 minutes ago, Wrench said:

I moved this back to the SF2 forums; don't know if it was a mistake posted in the SF1 forums. But, well, it's here now!! 

i did not even notice that i posted it in the wrong forum , Thanks Kevin 

[loborojo 214]

https://www.f-106deltadart.com/piwigo/index.php?/search/psk-20250224-lO5a0ap4ux

[MigBuster 2,892]

It is on these diagrams............doesnt say what its purpose is.............contact fuse is further back.

Says a direct hit is needed for detonation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

4 minutes ago, MigBuster said:

It is on these diagrams............doesnt say what its purpose is.............contact fuse is further back.

Says a direct hit is needed for detonation.

that is what i was searching for thank you so much 

[+streakeagle 880]

AIM-4F has two claimed improvements: better SARH guidance and better ECCM. The nose probe is probably an antenna involved with one of those two improvements. But I can't find any documents online that go into any real detail on the AIM-4 series of missiles.

[+Dels 697]

Maybe it's an aerospike?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag-reducing_aerospike

[+dtmdragon 2,745]

I've asked the question on a Facebook group with  F-106  pilots and maintainers.

Contact fuses for the missile are in the leading edges of each of the missile fins. In the game I have given the warhead a proximity fuse of whatever the distance is from the center of the missile to the tip of one of the fins. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:59 AM by dtmdragon

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

this is what i have now on the 3D model , still have to finish the skin

[+streakeagle 880]

20 hours ago, Dels said:

Maybe it's an aerospike?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag-reducing_aerospike

I would agree that looks plausible. In the other examples, the shape of the cone is very flat or blunt requiring a fairly long spike. Maybe the AIM-4 was sufficiently aerodynamic that it only needed a relatively short one to get the desired drag reduction?

My question would be why only this version of the AIM-4? It seems the aerospike concept was first utilized in the 1970s, a bit before the AIM-4F's time. I would bet that even though it may not have been intended to be an aerospike, that it certainly acted like one.

[+dtmdragon 2,745]

And the answer is......

According to actual F-106 loaders and AIM-4 Maintainers there was no spike on production missiles. Most have never even heard of it. Some recall that it was on the prototype missiles and some early production missiles but were gone by 1964 at the latest. The probe tended to damage and knock off the ceramic nose of the missile. Vague recollection that the probe was called 'sonic boom buster'

[+ravenclaw_007 7,877]

1 hour ago, dtmdragon said:

And the answer is......

According to actual F-106 loaders and AIM-4 Maintainers there was no spike on production missiles. Most have never even heard of it. Some recall that it was on the prototype missiles and some early production missiles but were gone by 1964 at the latest. The probe tended to damage and knock off the ceramic nose of the missile. Vague recollection that the probe was called 'sonic boom buster'

that would explain why there are 2 shapes for the radome , i was wondering why 

so i´m going to make 2 AIM-4F a early one and the late one 

Thanks to MigBusters drawing i was able to change a mystake i made , the total lenght for the AIM-4F is stated as 86.365 inch and i made the missile that way , but the drawing is showing the 83.365 inch including the probe  , after measuring pictures i came to the conclusion that the AIM-4F and AIM-4G have the same basic body dimensions the only exeptyion is the nose part , the one from the AIM-4F is slightly longer

measurment from my 3D model

• AIM-4F body lenght  83.267 inch (without the probe ) 83.365 ( with probe )
• AIM-4G body lenght  82,50 inch

 

that is how the AIM-4F looks like now , still have to finish the skin , the probe looks now more like the one on the picture from Svetlin above

AIM-4F early and AIM-4F late

 

Edited 16 hours ago by ravenclaw_007

[+streakeagle 880]

1 hour ago, dtmdragon said:

And the answer is......

According to actual F-106 loaders and AIM-4 Maintainers there was no spike on production missiles. Most have never even heard of it. Some recall that it was on the prototype missiles and some early production missiles but were gone by 1964 at the latest. The probe tended to damage and knock off the ceramic nose of the missile. Vague recollection that the probe was called 'sonic boom buster'

"Sonic boom buster" is an aerospike. Still curious why it is only seen on this one variant. Maybe they were trying out a new idea. Or compared to earlier designs, the AIM-4F needed a drag reduction to reach performance goals?

[+Svetlin 572]

I 've noticed something both odd and curious, to me at least. The pictures of the missiles, loaded on the F-106 show these with the technical texts/stencils upside down. When the missiles are kept in the storage containers, or displayed, the technical texts are shown in the proper direction to be read, so the attachment mechanism must be on the bottom side, when the missile is not loaded. That would require the missile to be rotated 180 degrees before loading. Isn't that odd? Why would it be so complicated I wonder? A missile that weighs some 68-70 kg to be rotated 180 degrees probably by hand during the loading procedure does not look quite practical and time-efficient.

[+dtmdragon 2,745]

6 hours ago, streakeagle said:

"Sonic boom buster" is an aerospike. Still curious why it is only seen on this one variant. Maybe they were trying out a new idea. Or compared to earlier designs, the AIM-4F needed a drag reduction to reach performance goals?

Explain by this guy in a new reply overnight:

When the AIM4F was first designed, the wind tunnel testing "sort of suggested" that a "sonic boom breaker" was needed to maintain airflow over the control surfaces at the back of the missle. Then, later on, with the design of the AIM4G, they realized it wasn't needed. When I first started working on the AIM4F/G, there were still "threaded studs" molded into the 4F radome. Over the years, as the guidance units were sent through depot, the ceramic radomes were replaced with ones that did not have the threaded stud. So, the "probe" more or less disappeared because it wasn't needed after all.

Edited 10 hours ago by dtmdragon

[+dtmdragon 2,745]

5 hours ago, Svetlin said:

I 've noticed something both odd and curious, to me at least. The pictures of the missiles, loaded on the F-106 show these with the technical texts/stencils upside down. When the missiles are kept in the storage containers, or displayed, the technical texts are shown in the proper direction to be read, so the attachment mechanism must be on the bottom side, when the missile is not loaded. That would require the missile to be rotated 180 degrees before loading. Isn't that odd? Why would it be so complicated I wonder? A missile that weighs some 68-70 kg to be rotated 180 degrees probably by hand during the loading procedure does not look quite practical and time-efficient.

They were stored 'upside down' in the missile containers. I think it's just in museum displays or publicity photos they rotate it so the writing is the correct way up and readable.

[+streakeagle 880]

2 hours ago, dtmdragon said:

Explain by this guy in a new reply overnight:

When the AIM4F was first designed, the wind tunnel testing "sort of suggested" that a "sonic boom breaker" was needed to maintain airflow over the control surfaces at the back of the missle. Then, later on, with the design of the AIM4G, they realized it wasn't needed. When I first started working on the AIM4F/G, there were still "threaded studs" molded into the 4F radome. Over the years, as the guidance units were sent through depot, the ceramic radomes were replaced with ones that did not have the threaded stud. So, the "probe" more or less disappeared because it wasn't needed after all.

Great information. This entire thread was quite the learning experience.