Talk:Hardpoint

Shotgun Shell

Someguy, here is my dilemma, I know what book it came from, but I can not find the part of the book where it is found. The index is rather poor in terms of coverage. I also have some anecdotal sources, but can't use those as refences. LWF 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

But that's just a completely absurd way to do it. They could just have a catch that mechanically releases the bomb. Some guy 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

They do have a catch. The trouble is that in order to give the bomb a push off, they have to have something like the shotgun shell. Just releasing something without the force could result in an erratic path, due to the slipstream of air around the bomb. LWF 21:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not actually a shotgun shell though - it's a specially designed charge (a bit of research turns up that the current US standard ejector charge is the CCU-10/B) and is, technically speaking, mounted in the ejector, not in the hardpoint. Perhaps your book described it as being about the size or power of a shotgun shell? FiggyBee 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was described as a shotgun shell. And another source (forum so it can't be used) mentioned it too. The person mentioned that one time something had happened during the loading and he ran aand ducked to avoid getting a "chest full of buck shot". Although since I can't find a citation for what I've said we should go with your research. Since you have found citations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LWF (talk • contribs).

[1] lists a whole series of US impulse cartridges. [2] also mentions them as the devices used to eject stores from aircraft. I'm well aware that I haven't cited anything in my rewrite, but I'd really like to get my hands on something fairly solid (like an official training manual) to make the cites from. Using an actual shotgun shell as an ejector sounds bizarre: what possible function could the shot serve? FiggyBee 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[3] and [4] have a cutaway diagrams of various impulse charges. They do look a bit like shotgun shells, except they're fired electrically rather than percussively, and of course there's no shot, they're all propellant. FiggyBee 04:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Can we please create redirects from weapon station and weapon store(s) to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.243.16 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Six JDAMs

The caption to one of the images claims there are 6 JDAMs on the shown ejector rack. I only see 4. Are there more that aren't visible? Seems like this should be clearer for an example image. DudeFromWork (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Stay away from things you don't know anything about or do proper research. The B-52's rack is an ICSMS with nine stores, not six, not three. In the image it mounted only six because the bombs are large Mk84 JDAMs, hence, the center three were left empty. Here's an image showing the complete pylon.[5] I'm reverting the wrong edit. Mightyname (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

C of G

"The pylon is designed to position the rack and its stores to keep them clear of control surfaces and position them close to the aircraft's center of gravity."

Garbage, or they wouldn't be on the wings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.47.180 (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Terms in this article are unclear

For an example of the confusion in this article, under which heading would the LAU-142/A be covered? Hcobb (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting

The article is biased and laymanish, I'm willing to rewrite it and give more accurate explanations and set things right. But references are hard to come by as the terms and information are generally viewed as common knowledge coming from their regular uses in technical manuals and literature. This mostly applies to the nomenclature being used. While digging for examples is a problem of going through a large amount of literature for a small number of references that are not that important. In any case I will have to rearrange and rewrite everything while trying to keep the good parts. If you feel there is no need or want to veto, speak up, please. Otherwise there will be a need for everyone to check and approve the rewriting. Mightyname (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your comment. You're saying you can't find references because the terms and information are so common in technical manuals and literature nobody bothers to reference them? Why not cite the technical manuals and literature then? Some guy (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have all the important references it's just definitions wise there aren't such things other than the glossary for the abbreviations. There's nothing like a dictionary for the terms. Only some get a kind of like an explanation. As to citing, the bits and pieces are everywhere could as well copy the whole things. It's all technical. I figured the best would be to summarize the important things (to know), set things right and leave the details be. Anyone can look it up in the references. And yeah, someone needs to write up the article for the standard I'm going to reference, too. It's not like I can't do it's just I dunno who much is appropriate aside from the need for all the images. Mightyname (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm not following what you're saying very well. I'd say go ahead and make the changes, we can always improve or revert them. Some guy (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, don't mind if I remove the laymanish parts which is pretty much the term hardpoint only. I'm adding a background section to deal with it in more or less proper manner. If someone can come up with a better solution feel free to make the changes. Perhaps this will elevate the article to a better class. Mightyname (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I think an example image of an assembly example would serve best to illustrate the whole suspension equipment system being used by NATO. Mightyname (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I did some initial cleanup. I'm not sure where you heard that the term hardpoint originated in inverse kinematics, but here's a US Army research document from 1972 which includes the term "hard point"; we can surmise the term has been an official term in aeronautics for at least that long, which I'm guessing predates any 3D modeling IK terminology. I've never heard an external mount referred to as a station, but I have only casual interest in this subject. Can anyone else weigh in? Other than that, I think you got too caught up in definitions - the article isn't a dictionary, we don't need to spend half of it defining vague or inconsistent technical terms.

edit: "hard point" in a 1964 patent Some guy (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

True, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia of sorts definition are part of it. Besides Hardpoint doesn't appear in the majority of manuals or other important books in use. Just run a search on them. The inconsistency listed is just a precaution it doesn't mean it's everywhere, it's actually only in one source. And I think the reason being to keep it simple in order not to confuse readers, rather than being correct technically as in the standard paper. Mightyname (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(←) I just don't see some of the technical definitions as adding anything of value to the article (e.g. "There are many different forms, sizes and designs of pylons distinctly termed accordingly like a wedge adaptor or stub wing pylon.") You aren't keeping it simple right now; providing multiple unnecessary synonyms for terms you don't really need to define gets confusing; phrases such as "Ambiguously and for simplicity, the term rack is also being used to refer to some support structures" make the article much more confusing. Again, I think you're too caught up in definitions, but I'm hoping we can get input from a third party. Some guy (talk) 04:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DC-10 crash illustration

The article is currently illustrated with a diagram of the engine pylon whose failure caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 191. That's better than nothing. A point on the picture is labeled "failed wing clevis". No explanation is given. It would be great to have an illustration of working hardpoints. TypoBoy (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)