|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 26, 2015 18:40:50 GMT
The Lockheed AC-130 Spectre is a "gunship" variant of the classic C-130 Hercules cargo plane. The most "famous" version of the Spectre sports a Howitzer as the main gun. The gun is mounted so that it fires out the side of the aircraft, allowing the plane to continuously circle its target. The weapon, the crew, and the ammo are contained within the former cargo bay. What I'm wondering, however, is this: what would the physics be like if the cannon fired out of the front of the aircraft? Basically, I'm envisioning an air frame in which the air frame is essentially wrapped around the Howitzer cannon. The cannon would be built into the lower portion of the nose and fuselage, and then serviced from above by people in the cargo bay. Aiming the weapon would be the same as aiming the aircraft, give or take, and the attack vector would obviously be "head-on". But would the recoil (et al) have any sort of effect on the ability to continue flying? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Aug 26, 2015 20:14:57 GMT
The Lockheed AC-130 Spectre is a "gunship" variant of the classic C-130 Hercules cargo plane. The most "famous" version of the Spectre sports a Howitzer as the main gun. The gun is mounted so that it fires out the side of the aircraft, allowing the plane to continuously circle its target. The weapon, the crew, and the ammo are contained within the former cargo bay. What I'm wondering, however, is this: what would the physics be like if the cannon fired out of the front of the aircraft? Basically, I'm envisioning an air frame in which the air frame is essentially wrapped around the Howitzer cannon. The cannon would be built into the lower portion of the nose and fuselage, and then serviced from above by people in the cargo bay. Aiming the weapon would be the same as aiming the aircraft, give or take, and the attack vector would obviously be "head-on". But would the recoil (et al) have any sort of effect on the ability to continue flying? A C-130 empty weights something like 80,000 lbs. Recoil should not be an issue. If it doesn't affect the plane from the side, it sure isn't going to from the front. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 27, 2015 1:09:14 GMT
The Lockheed AC-130 Spectre is a "gunship" variant of the classic C-130 Hercules cargo plane. The most "famous" version of the Spectre sports a Howitzer as the main gun. The gun is mounted so that it fires out the side of the aircraft, allowing the plane to continuously circle its target. The weapon, the crew, and the ammo are contained within the former cargo bay. What I'm wondering, however, is this: what would the physics be like if the cannon fired out of the front of the aircraft? Basically, I'm envisioning an air frame in which the air frame is essentially wrapped around the Howitzer cannon. The cannon would be built into the lower portion of the nose and fuselage, and then serviced from above by people in the cargo bay. Aiming the weapon would be the same as aiming the aircraft, give or take, and the attack vector would obviously be "head-on". But would the recoil (et al) have any sort of effect on the ability to continue flying? A C-130 empty weights something like 80,000 lbs. Recoil should not be an issue. If it doesn't affect the plane from the side, it sure isn't going to from the front. the A-10 fires depleted uranium slugs out of its main gun. the gun ultimately was mounted off center, to place the firing barrel on the center axis in order to avoid inducing deflection on the plane. legend has it that the gun actually slows the airplane down, but in actuality, the effect is negligible. the pilots who have been interviewed have said that you DO feel the gun firing, though, an the C-130 gunships, I believe it was the same story - the pilot could feel the gun firing, but there was no problem compensating. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 27, 2015 9:54:27 GMT
Question, too many heads in the cockpit.
Having the pilot fly the thing is difficult in a hostile environment, crowding the cockpit with extra controls?..
Plus, you can only get a head-on shot with that, which is limited time.
Circling the target gives you MUCH more time "On target", and much more ability to get the fleck out of there if it turns hostile... basically you just stop turning and hit the gas.... a circling moving air target that changes height each revolution is harder to hit as well.
Using a c-130 as a gun ship?... bloody hell, thats a BIG bird for such a task.
Unless you have multiple guns on target, and in that case, its over-kill?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 27, 2015 14:54:43 GMT
Question, too many heads in the cockpit. Having the pilot fly the thing is difficult in a hostile environment, crowding the cockpit with extra controls?.. Plus, you can only get a head-on shot with that, which is limited time. Circling the target gives you MUCH more time "On target", and much more ability to get the fleck out of there if it turns hostile... basically you just stop turning and hit the gas.... a circling moving air target that changes height each revolution is harder to hit as well. Using a c-130 as a gun ship?... bloody hell, thats a BIG bird for such a task. Unless you have multiple guns on target, and in that case, its over-kill?.... the original was a C-47, called "puff the magic dragon" in Vietnam. the AC-130 "'muricasized" the concept. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 28, 2015 7:19:09 GMT
Fire and Brimstone... RAF Tornado style.....
ISIL coms vehicle, singe round, viewpoint I suspect is a reconnaissance aircraft (Unknown) published September 2014.
Excuse the rather cr@ppy music, here is more Tornado Brimstone action
And here is your own USA armed forces explaining why, even though we here (UK) have put the thing into FULL service, you cant have it yet.
Your own Congress.
Multiple targets, point, register, the system remembers, collect more targets, press "Go", its then fire and forget, aircraft can then bug out before the first missile strikes, each missile is given its own target, and doesnt bloody miss.
Hey, we have wandered off target....
Not saying much about that, except I can remember what the target(thread) was here, so back on target....
If you put a Hercules out filled with Brimstones, what kind of damage could you get?...
I know they used some Hellfire fired from Herky-bird, but not if they did Brimstone.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 28, 2015 14:38:35 GMT
us yanks still like a more direct approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 29, 2015 22:42:55 GMT
There was a version of the De Havilland Mosquito fighter-bomber that was armed with a 6 pounder anti-tank gun (57mm). This saw success against Uboats during WW2. There is even a reference to a version armed with a 32 pounder gun on Wilkipedia, although I don't recall running across that version before and there is no link/source provided for that part of the entry. Keep in mind that the Mosquito weighed some 17-18000 pounds fully loaded (depending on the model in question) and was made of wood.
The Junkers Ju 87 'Stuka' G were fitted with two underwing 37mm cannon, proving successful on the eastern front as an anti-tank aircraft. This aircraft massed around 10,000 pounds in weight. The Ju-88 carried a 75mm cannon.
The B-25 Mitchel G variant carried a mammoth 75mm cannon in its nose for anti-shipping roles.
The short answer is, therefore, that unless the recoil rips the airframe apart firing any gun you can physically fit in an aircraft will to all intents and purposes have no effect. (The weight and position of such a gun is likely to cause balance and performance issues)
Addendum; It is hardly surprising that the pilots of the A-10 can feel the gun firing given that the breach of the weapon is less than a foot under their feet with the ammunition drum being located directly behind them. The rotating mechanism seems to be located directly under the pilots seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 29, 2015 23:07:49 GMT
so, basically, the takeaway is that if you can mount the gun sideways and shoot it without throwing the plane out of control, you can probably mount it on the axis and fire it without throwing the plane out of control.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldcodger on Aug 30, 2015 16:40:10 GMT
There was a version of the De Havilland Mosquito fighter-bomber that was armed with a 6 pounder anti-tank gun (57mm). This saw success against Uboats during WW2. There is even a reference to a version armed with a 32 pounder gun on Wilkipedia, although I don't recall running across that version before and there is no link/source provided for that part of the entry. Keep in mind that the Mosquito weighed some 17-18000 pounds fully loaded (depending on the model in question) and was made of wood. The Junkers Ju 87 'Stuka' G were fitted with two underwing 37mm cannon, proving successful on the eastern front as an anti-tank aircraft. This aircraft massed around 10,000 pounds in weight. The Ju-88 carried a 75mm cannon. The B-25 Mitchel G variant carried a mammoth 75mm cannon in its nose for anti-shipping roles. The short answer is, therefore, that unless the recoil rips the airframe apart firing any gun you can physically fit in an aircraft will to all intents and purposes have no effect. (The weight and position of such a gun is likely to cause balance and performance issues) Addendum; It is hardly surprising that the pilots of the A-10 can feel the gun firing given that the breach of the weapon is less than a foot under their feet with the ammunition drum being located directly behind them. The rotating mechanism seems to be located directly under the pilots seat. |
|
|
|
Post by oldcodger on Aug 30, 2015 16:59:48 GMT
One version of the Heinkel He 177 Greif,the He 177A-3/R5 had a 75mm cannon in the ventral gondola firing forward. And twenty five Hesnchel Hs 129s(Hs 129B-3)also had a 75mm BK gun.
Both the B-25G and the B-25H Mitchels carried a 75mm cannon. The G model used the same M3 cannon that the M4 Sherman tank used while the H model used the lighter 75mm gun used in the M24 Chaffee light tank.
|
|
