A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 10th 03, 07:02 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old July 10th 03, 07:57 PM
Bob Chilcoat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old July 11th 03, 11:35 PM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.