Re: WOW - Shots fired at skydiving plane in NY...

[Buff5200]

I believe the "minigun" is the chopper door mounted version of the
electric gattling guns.

Arnold was hand holding one in "Predator" and "Terminator II".

The weapon that's as long as your aircraft, throws 6,000/min of death
is the Vulcan Cannon of A-10 Warthog fame.

A mini gun would be the perfect weapon to pod mount on a Cessna.

Roger Halstead wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:54:56 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>if my Baron ever gets fixed I think some hard points and a mini gun are in
>>>order
>>>
>>>
>>A mini-gun is about as long as my aircraft and weighs a good deal more than
>>my useful load. I'll settle for a couple of .30 calibers.
>>
>>
>
>Yah, and a Baron wasn't meant for flying backwards.<:-)) Those things
>blow out over 17 KG of exhaust gas per second, throw out 600 slugs of
>over 2# each and spill all that brass (aluminum now) per second.
>
>They had to do a redesign as the early test version kept killing the
>engines with the spend propellant gas.
>
>
>
>>A good craftsman doesn't need a sledgehammer to drive tacks.
>>
>>
>
>I at least like the nail, or tack to stay in the same board.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>
>>George Patterson
>> The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
>> pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
>> James Branch Cavel
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Buff5200" > wrote in message
...
>I believe the "minigun" is the chopper door mounted version of the electric
gattling guns.

No, the Vulcan is a 20mm, the Minigun is .308 caliber.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

I believe the "minigun" is the chopper door mounted version of the electric gattling guns.

Arnold was hand holding one in "Predator" and "Terminator II".

The weapon that's as long as your aircraft, throws 6,000/min of death
is the Vulcan Cannon of A-10 Warthog fame.

The Vulcan cannon is actually the single-barrel cannon on most fighter planes in the US asenal.

The A-10 uses the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gatling cannon.


A mini gun would be the perfect weapon to pod mount on a Cessna.

Roger Halstead wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:54:56 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
if my Baron ever gets fixed I think some hard points and a mini gun are in
order
A mini-gun is about as long as my aircraft and weighs a good deal more than
my useful load. I'll settle for a couple of .30 calibers.

Yah, and a Baron wasn't meant for flying backwards.<:-)) Those things
blow out over 17 KG of exhaust gas per second, throw out 600 slugs of
over 2# each and spill all that brass (aluminum now) per second.

They had to do a redesign as the early test version kept killing the
engines with the spend propellant gas.

A good craftsman doesn't need a sledgehammer to drive tacks.

I at least like the nail, or tack to stay in the same board.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[H. Adam Stevens]

get over it
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message ...

I believe the "minigun" is the chopper door mounted version of the electric gattling guns.

Arnold was hand holding one in "Predator" and "Terminator II".

The weapon that's as long as your aircraft, throws 6,000/min of death
is the Vulcan Cannon of A-10 Warthog fame.

The Vulcan cannon is actually the single-barrel cannon on most fighter planes in the US asenal.

The A-10 uses the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gatling cannon.


A mini gun would be the perfect weapon to pod mount on a Cessna.

Roger Halstead wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:54:56 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
if my Baron ever gets fixed I think some hard points and a mini gun are in
order
A mini-gun is about as long as my aircraft and weighs a good deal more than
my useful load. I'll settle for a couple of .30 calibers.

Yah, and a Baron wasn't meant for flying backwards.<:-)) Those things
blow out over 17 KG of exhaust gas per second, throw out 600 slugs of
over 2# each and spill all that brass (aluminum now) per second.

They had to do a redesign as the early test version kept killing the
engines with the spend propellant gas.

A good craftsman doesn't need a sledgehammer to drive tacks.

I at least like the nail, or tack to stay in the same board.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Chilcoat wrote:
>
> Not to mention that the 850-lb recoil thrust would stop that Maul cold in a
> few seconds. Can you say "Stall Warning!"?

Ok, I admit to not paying attention, but didn't some thread state that thrust
and horsepower are equivalent? Or a 2/1 ratio? Something like that.

I have a 160 hp engine. I'd be moving backwards shortly after hitting the
trigger.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Big John]

pacplyer

One of my last missions in VN. Could hear the super sonic crack of the
bullets going by my bird and saw where they came from so 'zap'.

Had another earlier occasion with 'troops in contact' and an Army
chopper called "Andy" (my call sign) "your taking a lot of ground fire
on the east end of your orbit".This was massed ground fire (every one
firing their rifle) which was tactic the VC started using '67-'68. We
(Air Force) decimated (destroyed) a VC battalion which had been giving
the sector a lot of trouble for years.

Was a war we won every place but in the media.

Big John
Point of the sword




On 9 Jul 2003 00:33:51 -0700, (pac plyer) wrote:

>Big John > wrote in message >...
>> The last time I got shot at I put four 500 pounders on the S-O-B.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>
>Good for you John, I'll bet they didn't whine much to the liberal
>press about annoying aircraft orbits in their area after that. ;-)
>
>Love it!
>
>pacplyer

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, I admit to not paying attention, but didn't some thread state that
thrust
> and horsepower are equivalent? Or a 2/1 ratio? Something like that.

Nope. Or rather, if some thread did say that, it wasn't correct.

There's no single ratio to convert thrust to horsepower. You need to take
into account the aircraft's speed as well.

> I have a 160 hp engine. I'd be moving backwards shortly after hitting the
> trigger.

Well, regardless of the conversion, a 850 pound recoil thrust would
certainly hurt your airspeed. Hard to say exactly how much, since it would
depend on how long that 850 pounds of thrust was acting on the airframe.

Seems to me that there's a pretty good chance the force would just tear the
gun from the airframe, or break the airframe. Assuming a structure strong
enough to withstand it, you might find you can't take off with your 160hp
engine.

However you slice it, there's problems afoot with the plan. :)

Pete

[Bob Chilcoat]

I came up with the 850 lb from (probably defective) memory. I worked it out
once based on muzzle velocity, firing rate (6,000 rpm) and bullet mass, to
see if Arnold or Jesse could actually hold and fire a minigun hand held. I
think I ignored propellant mass. IIRC the number was 850 lb. The number
that's more interesting (and accurate because it's quoted in a book I have)
is for the 30 mm Avenger gun in the A-10. That one produces 9,000 lb of
thrust at its maximum rate of 4,200 rpm, which effectively cancels out one
engine! I was thinking about a movie plot once where someone would mount an
Avenger gun in a full sized van (rigidly, firing forward) to use for some
nefarious purpose. Unfortunately, if the van plus gun weighed 9,000 lb, the
acceleration would be - 1 g backwards. Might be a problem...

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ok, I admit to not paying attention, but didn't some thread state that
> thrust
> > and horsepower are equivalent? Or a 2/1 ratio? Something like that.
>
> Nope. Or rather, if some thread did say that, it wasn't correct.
>
> There's no single ratio to convert thrust to horsepower. You need to take
> into account the aircraft's speed as well.
>
> > I have a 160 hp engine. I'd be moving backwards shortly after hitting
the
> > trigger.
>
> Well, regardless of the conversion, a 850 pound recoil thrust would
> certainly hurt your airspeed. Hard to say exactly how much, since it
would
> depend on how long that 850 pounds of thrust was acting on the airframe.
>
> Seems to me that there's a pretty good chance the force would just tear
the
> gun from the airframe, or break the airframe. Assuming a structure strong
> enough to withstand it, you might find you can't take off with your 160hp
> engine.
>
> However you slice it, there's problems afoot with the plan. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

[John Galban]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message >...
> Not to mention that the 850-lb recoil thrust would stop that Maul cold in a
> few seconds. Can you say "Stall Warning!"?
>
I'd recommend the XM214 for a Maul. It generates around 250 lb.
recoil at top speed (10,000 rounds/min), but can be quite managable at
lower firing rates. 1,000 rounds/min is only 25 lb. of recoil. The
whole package, including ammo, weighs about 90 lbs.

http://members.shaw.ca/stanryker/test01/test01minigun.htm

Can you say "Very interesting 337"?

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Galban wrote:
>
> 1,000 rounds/min is only 25 lb. of recoil. The
> whole package, including ammo, weighs about 90 lbs.

Only 90 pounds? I WANT ONE!!!!!

Pull the rear doors off, mount it sideways in the back, and call me Spooky!

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[John Galban]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> John Galban wrote:
> >
> > 1,000 rounds/min is only 25 lb. of recoil. The
> > whole package, including ammo, weighs about 90 lbs.
>
> Only 90 pounds? I WANT ONE!!!!!
>
> Pull the rear doors off, mount it sideways in the back, and call me Spooky!
>

Think that's cool? Check this out : http://www.saracen.org/

They build these locally. It's pretty amazing to see in action. The
minigun is stowed in the back. When trouble strikes, the sunroof
opens and the minigun is deployed via a scissor-type mount. Just the
thing to get you through that morning rush hour traffic.

The last test I saw, that minigun destroyed 3 cars in about 10 seconds

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[David]

In article >, Peter Duniho
> writes

>Well, regardless of the conversion, a 850 pound recoil thrust would
>certainly hurt your airspeed. Hard to say exactly how much, since it would
>depend on how long that 850 pounds of thrust was acting on the airframe.
>
>Seems to me that there's a pretty good chance the force would just tear the
>gun from the airframe, or break the airframe. Assuming a structure strong
>enough to withstand it, you might find you can't take off with your 160hp
>engine.

What is needed to assess that effect better is
1. The mass of each shell
2. The muzzle velocity
3. Rate of fire
4. Time for shell to accelerate down the barrel and/or effective
muzzle length.

Rapid but short applications of force might shake the airframe violently
rather than stop it in mid air. 3000 ft/sec in 5 ft might only take less
than .007 secs.

As long as the weapon is rigidly fixed to the airframe it is the
momentum change that the airframe feels in terms of velocity.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to >
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Buff5200]

> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/arm/arm8.htm


You are correct, the GAU-8 is the weapon on the A-10.

However, the Vulcan IS a gattling gun originally used on F-15, F-16,
B-52, ect


Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote:

>
>
>
> The Vulcan cannon is actually the single-barrel cannon on most
> fighter planes in the US asenal.
>
> The A-10 uses the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gatling cannon.
>
>

[Big John]

pac plyer

Nope. Was FAC (Air Commander) that day marking targets for the fast
movers. I was low and slow (peddling as fast as I could <G>), they
were both high and low but fast. My primary job was Director of II
DASC at Pleiku but was able to sneak away and get lots of missions
during the year. When paper work was done I could fly (over 300 hours
with over 200 missions).

Night TET started (1968) I was able to get airborne and provided
control for strike A/C the rest of the night. Left aircraft lights off
on take-off due to firing around the airport and across the runway.
They turned R/W lights on at my call and off as soon as I reported
airborne (lots of tracers but nothing close as they couldn't see me,
just hear engines). Morning fog moved in and had used all of my gas.
Finally found a 'sucker hole' and dropped through and landed with dry
tanks. All in a days work.

The little choppers were like water bugs, flitting all over the place
and right down on the tree tops. Lost a lot way they were operated
(probably hit with rocks or bow and arrow). They operated in pairs a
lot. One would fly low and troll for enemy fire and the other would
stay high in case #1 got shot down. Pretty high risk missions but not
as bad as Air Force and Navy up north.
..
Big John
Point of the sword


On 12 Jul 2003 00:17:08 -0700, (pac plyer) wrote:

----clip----

Glad you made it back in one peice. My neighbor lost a number of
pals in his unit that flew Hughes 500's for spotting. There's a sight
on the net he showed me comemorating the missions. You must of been
flying something really hot like huns or thuds huh?

----clip

[pac plyer]

Big John,

Did you ever sit on your helment or a frying pan or anything... seems
like to me (having only experienced it on the silver screen) that
controlling could've been one of the most hazardous missions cuz
you're just milling around in orbits waiting for Charlie to pump
something your way.

Enjoy reading your stuff. Keep those hairy tales comming.

pacplyer
baa baa, err, I mean
"wolf wolf" cargo dog

[pac plyer]

Big John > wrote
> Some of the war stories get a way off thread. Probably should find a
> place where they are told as lots here probably don't like???
>

Pac sez,

Naw... don't worry about that. The subject was Shots fired at
airplanes..so you're spot on. besides... I suspect if it's that
annoying somebody will say something... Even my Usenet nemesis get
quiet when I tell a tale or two. I interpret that silence as nothing
but acceptance and admiration: LOL! ;-)

The other sight on google: aviation.stories is moderated by a moron.
He only posts a few stories a year and allows left wing political
tripe and dead links to sit displayed forever.... so I say: it's
better in the unmoderated real world.

Since you're a nice guy John, and have considered this for others, I
could recommend a suggestion: the convention was used over at RAH
that when someone goes a little off-topic they post a new thread and
in the title somewhere put "zzzzzzzZZZ" to denote this is about the
infamous Captain Zoom, which most readers are unfamiliar with, and may
not want to read. So maybe we could put in there some where "War
Story" or "warS" or something?

What say you all?

pacplyer
champion of off-topic war stories