Timeline for Why do missiles typically have cylindrical fuselage and not a fuselage that generates more lift?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2022 at 18:45 | history | notice added | Jamiec♦ | Needs detailed answers | |
| Nov 2, 2022 at 11:20 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Nov 7, 2022 at 9:18 | |||||
| Nov 2, 2022 at 4:22 | comment | added | jwenting | Note that these missiles were designed for fitting 8 on a rotary launcher in the bomb bay. That's the main reason for the body shape, another shape wouldn't fit that number in the bomb bay so this one maximises the number of missiles that can be carried internally. This was especially important for the B-1 as it was initially designed for internal weapons only. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 22:28 | history | edited | WPNSGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added how many missiles and where they are.
|
| Nov 1, 2022 at 22:15 | comment | added | WPNSGuy | @WaterMolucule - That's actually 6x missiles. 3 front and 3 behind. Mounted on a B-52 wing pylon. | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 22:01 | comment | added | WaterMolecule | What are we looking at here? Three missiles attached to a support? Two? Or is the whole thing one missile? | |
| Nov 1, 2022 at 6:30 | comment | added | Mookuh | The Taurus KEPD 350 (another air-launched cruise missile) has a similar body shape. | |
| Oct 31, 2022 at 17:07 | history | edited | WPNSGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 39 characters in body
|
| Oct 31, 2022 at 16:39 | history | answered | WPNSGuy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |