![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ----------------------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | February 1st 04 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | December 1st 03 06:27 AM |
First US Plane fired on? | TooPlaneCrazy7 | Military Aviation | 5 | November 16th 03 10:54 AM |
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) | Grantland | Military Aviation | 1 | October 2nd 03 12:17 AM |
A Good Story | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 15 | September 3rd 03 03:00 PM |