New gun

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 13:58:57 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote:


Didn't a couple of Mormons, out in Utah back in the late 80's, have a gun
that fired .22 rounds? It was suppose to be able to shoot down a telephone
pole and slice through a moving car - like a knife through warm butter. It
was lightweight and inexpensive because it used .22 shells. Something like
6,000 round per minute. 100/sec

http://www.american180.com/history/index.html

check out "history" and "quad mount"

TC

"Morgans" writes:

Whether that's "quick" or "a myth" depends on your point of view (and
on whether I did my estimations correctly).

What you failed to take into account, is that the engines keep
applying thrust, and will partially negate that issue

Indeed, according to Wikipedia, the engine throttles are firewalled
automatically when the gun fires. What matters is the net force,
which despite the incremental oomph of the engines, appears to be able
to cause considerable braking.

and that the gun is nearly always fired while the airplane is in a
rather steep descent (to get guns on target), so there is more force
to keep the airplane from slowing down. [...]

Some people confuse descent with acceleration. A mere constant-rate
descent (apprx. zero net force) does nothing to change the analysis.

- FChE

"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote in message

Some people confuse descent with acceleration. A mere constant-rate
descent (apprx. zero net force) does nothing to change the analysis.

You lack the ability to change real life application into a physics problem.

If you have your engines set to hold constant speed in level flight, then
push over into descent, what happens to your speed?

Case closed. Now you can use some of that acceleration into pushing against
the guns.

Everyone seems to forget that the guns on an A-10 are only used in 2 to 4
second bursts, most of the time, with the pilot constantly climbing and
diving and turning. To do otherwise while in a combat situation would
invite being shot down. Nobody in these conditions are going to be jerking
the throttle all over the place, or worrying about brief speed excursions-
from the maneuvers, or shooting the guns.
--
Jim in NC

Not sure, but seem to remember that the gun is set to do not
more than 50 round bursts, 1 second and they have about 20
bursts (1100 rounds)



"Morgans" wrote in message
...
|
| "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote
|
| Whether that's "quick" or "a myth" depends on your point
of view (and
| on whether I did my estimations correctly).
|
| What you failed to take into account, is that the engines
keep applying
| thrust, and will partially negate that issue, and that the
gun is nearly
| always fired while the airplane is in a rather steep
descent (to get guns on
| target), so there is more force to keep the airplane from
slowing down.
|
| So it appears as though it would take considerably more to
slow the airplane
| to stall speed, and it the guns fired much longer, they
would be a molten
| pile of metal, or out of ammo. Anyone remember how many
seconds of ammo are
| carried?
|
| As to the engines ingesting the gun smoke, consider how
much air they take
| in. Massive amounts. Most of that is bypassed around the
engine, so only a
| little is burned. Even if some of the smoke is taken in,
I doubt that it is
| enough to make the engine even stutter.
| --
| Jim in NC
|

wrote)

http://www.american180.com/history/index.html

check out "history" and "quad mount"


Yup. That's it. Thanks.

At 6,000 rounds/min and 275 rounds/drums x 4 drums = 1,100 rounds

1,200 rounds would be 12 seconds of firepower.

(Necessary Aviation Content)
OMG!!! Someone mounted TWO of these on an ultralight!

http://www.american180.com/history/index.html
(From the link - Quad Mount)

"ILARCO built a few quad-mounted American 180s. These "Quad 22s" fired from
a tripod at a truely devastating rate of over 6000+ rounds per minute.

An American 180 salesman from the New England area mounted a pair of quad
American 180s on a Falcon ultralight airplane. The "Quad 22s" were placed in
removable brackets of the left and right sides of the fuselage. The salesman
was hoping for sales to third world governments.

The individual guns could be fired in any combination. They could be fired
one at a time, or one on the left and one of the right, or all eight at
once. Using 275 round drums and firing the guns singly produced eighty-eight
seconds of fire.

In most cases, all eight American 180s would be fired at once to minimize
return fire from the ground. This translates into over 12,000+ rounds per
minute!"


Montblack
(.....running AND ducking!)

Montblack wrote:
An American 180 salesman from the New England area mounted a pair of
quad American 180s on a Falcon ultralight airplane. The "Quad 22s" were
placed in removable brackets of the left and right sides of the
fuselage. The salesman was hoping for sales to third world governments.

Hmm, I think I saw this on Knight Rider or The A-Team once (lol).

"Morgans" wrote:

Some people confuse descent with acceleration. A mere constant-rate
descent (apprx. zero net force) does nothing to change the analysis.

You lack the ability to change real life application into a physics
problem.

I'm not sure you are in a position to criticize.

If you have your engines set to hold constant speed in level flight,
then push over into descent, what happens to your speed?

There is a brief acceleration until the airplane reaches its new trim
speed, then (roughly, omitting other factors such as greater thrust at
lower altitudes, ...) it will hold that new higher speed.

Case closed. Now you can use some of that acceleration into pushing
against the guns.

But that acceleration is brief! They won't fire the gun during a
pushover maneuver that is changing aircraft pitch (= aim point).

What I hope you mean that the accumulated extra speed (= momentum)
gives it a greater margin. Indeed, according to one source, the
maximum speed for the A10 is in the 400kt range. On the other hand,
pulling out of such a dive, after firing at the ground (and thus not
too high to start with), would be quite a feat. I'm sure one could
cook up some simple equations to wow oneself with the necessary G
load.

Everyone seems to forget that the guns on an A-10 are only used in 2
to 4 second bursts [...]

Only "seems".

- FChE

Montblack wrote:

Yup. That's it. Thanks.

So. It's a .22 caliber Lewis gun.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

Not sure, but seem to remember that the gun is set to do not
more than 50 round bursts, 1 second and they have about 20
bursts (1100 rounds)

That sounds about right, although I think it might be a 2 second burst.
Either way it's a bad day if you're the guy in the tank being chewed up
and spit out...

I've read the USAF intends to replace the A-10 (amongst others) with
the JSF (F-35A). With only a 20mm internal cannon is the anti-armor job
going to be done with missiles exclusively?

wrote:

The trail of spent gas from the gun was
fairly obvious in the airborne footage of the gun firing IIRC. Also
mentioned in the narration. Also mentioned was the recoil slowing the
aircraft. If this is not accurate then the Military Channel has poor
sources.

This is from the early development stage of the A-10.


Jack