He's too close for Missiles Goose, switching to guns

Well, “shot itself” isn’t really accurate most likely. Probably the round was defective and detonated upon leaving the barrel (or inside the barrel).
 
NovemberEcho said:
Well, “shot itself” isn’t really accurate most likely. Probably the round was defective and detonated upon leaving the barrel (or inside the barrel).
Click to expand...
Pretttnear more serious than the "Immediate Action" needed for an M16 to clear a jammed round and whatnot...especially at near Mach speeds.lolol

This ought o assist in more F35 cost and criticisms...apparently there's a former CAP cadet thinkin this is the end all be all fighter for the USAF...must be a starry eyed USAF type...
 
NovemberEcho said:
Well, “shot itself” isn’t really accurate most likely. Probably the round was defective and detonated upon leaving the barrel (or inside the barrel).
Click to expand...

wouldn't be surprised. Happened many a time in the A-10, where the exploding round detonated in the gun barrel/feed mechanism, and destroys the gun mid-barrel area, gun drive, the nose landing gear well and often the nose landing gear itself. Resulting in a gear-up landing. Have witnessed it a good few times.

Usually the result of something in the drive zigging, when it should’ve zagged, like the below

579DA418-A251-4694-9064-26A926C7F017.jpeg
 
MikeD said:
wouldn't be surprised. Happened many a time in the A-10, where the exploding round detonated in the gun barrel/feed mechanism, and destroys the gun mid-barrel area, gun drive, the nose landing gear well and often the nose landing gear itself. Resulting in a gear-up landing. Have witnessed it a good few times.

Usually the result of something in the drive zigging, when it should’ve zagged, like the below

View attachment 58495
Click to expand...
Nicely illustrated MR Mike D.......kinda the thing that one wouldn't be around. Did the cannon ever take a digger pogoing theA10?
 
3ef74fe6a24d7cdc3a5862f61dded43f.jpg

Inadvertent flight testing of the “short barrel” modification for the M134.

Stuff happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
stroboli62 said:
Nicely illustrated MR Mike D.......kinda the thing that one wouldn't be around. Did the cannon ever take a digger pogoing theA10?
Click to expand...

if you landed with nose gear up and mains down, it would, which was normally fatal for the pilot. Hence was a landing configuration specifically not recommended.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Yeah but it's the greatest thing ever for reasons I can't tell you about and if we don't spend another few billion on it your kids will grow up speaking Russian.
Click to expand...
WElp

I agree....seemed like the Iron Dart and Dagger back in the 1960s etc kept us from speaking Russian.... as I was a youngster...I Imagine the cost were equal to today in those daze dollars!!
 
I saw a recent contract for 48k rounds of 25mm PGU-48/B FAP rounds for the F-35 for $6.5MM. That works out to about $135/round. Not sure if the external pod in this incident uses the same kind.

1616724105148.png

(probably not, lol)
 
They put an A10 into Alpena a couple of years ago after the gun exploded over grayling gun range. They landed the A10 gear up as the nose gear wouldn't come down.
 
MikeD said:
wouldn't be surprised. Happened many a time in the A-10, where the exploding round detonated in the gun barrel/feed mechanism, and destroys the gun mid-barrel area, gun drive, the nose landing gear well and often the nose landing gear itself. Resulting in a gear-up landing. Have witnessed it a good few times.

Usually the result of something in the drive zigging, when it should’ve zagged, like the below

View attachment 58495
Click to expand...
Is that from an F-18?
 
Minuteman said:
I saw a recent contract for 48k rounds of 25mm PGU-48/B FAP rounds for the F-35 for $6.5MM. That works out to about $135/round. Not sure if the external pod in this incident uses the same kind.

View attachment 58508
(probably not, lol)
Click to expand...

That’s actually a bargain given the low number in that purchase lot and the specified capabilities of the round it’s self.

The 30mm TP (solid training round) was about 45 dollars each, and it’s mostly in the cost of the aluminum casings which we turned in for recycle. The actual HEDP M789 rounds were closer to 200 per round, and that’s a 1960s design. The air burst capable round the Army looked at and is considering again with the Stryker Dragoon program came out to about 3x that, but it could kill something in 2-5 rounds that in Afghanistan you would sometimes spend 80-100 on and not achieve effects because moondust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
MikeD said:
if you landed with nose gear up and mains down, it would, which was normally fatal for the pilot. Hence was a landing configuration specifically not recommended.
Click to expand...
Somebody told me that in every case of an A-10 wheels-up landing the aircraft returned to service. Might not be true but sounds possible.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Somebody told me that in every case of an A-10 wheels-up landing the aircraft returned to service. Might not be true but sounds possible.
Click to expand...

wouldn’t be surprised. The engines are high enough up that the only damage from a decent wheels up landing would be primarily sheet metal stuff on the fuselage
 
Pilot Fighter said:
Somebody told me that in every case of an A-10 wheels-up landing the aircraft returned to service. Might not be true but sounds possible.
Click to expand...

Any inboard pylons get shaved down a little. But in a gear up landing, the jet sits on its main wheels and the tail. The main wheels protrude halfway outside the gear wells and there’s no main landing gear doors. So when retracted, the tires still roll and the brakes still work. You can land, shave a bit off of racks 4/8, shave a lot off of racks 5/7 and 6 if it happens to be installed, roll on the wheels and stop, with the only other damage being to the vertical stabilizer bottom caps and antennas. Even had one guy on a gear up landing that was intentional, landed, and rolled with a left turn exiting the runway at a high speed taxiway and braking to a stop, clearing the single runway.

Of course, the brakes thing with the wheels up was discovered by accident...
 
Last edited:
MikeD said:
Any inboard pylons get shaved down a little. But in a gear up landing, the jet sits in its main wheels and the tail. The main wheels protrude halfway outside the gear wells and there’s no main landing gear doors. So when retracted, the tires still roll and the brakes still work. You can land, shave a bit off of racks 4/8, shave a lot off of racks 5/7 and 6 if it happens to be installed, roll on the wheels and stop, with the only other damage being to the vertical stabilizer bottom caps. Even had one guy on a gear up landing that was intentional, landed, and rolled with a left turn exiting the runway at a high speed taxiway and braking to a stop, clearing the single runway.

Of course, the brakes thing with the wheels up was discovered by accident...
Click to expand...
This makes me curious, next time I have an airplane on jacks for gear swings with the doors disconnected I'm going to ask for a brake application with the gear up. On a Gulfstream the brakes are applied by return hydraulic pressure from the actuators as the gear is retracted, you can watch the applied brake pressure, on a G-IV for example, if you have the hydraulics page selected on one of the EICAS displays. It's a normal check done during gear swings, monitor the indications and have people physically spinning the wheels as the gear retracts to ensure the wheels stop spinning before they get up into the wheel wells. I'd never even thought of testing the brakes with the gear up. Also, if any of you are flying a Gulfstream and your brakes are being applied when you haven't applied them but you are moving the flaps it's likely there's a jacked check valve and a filter that needs to be replaced, the brakes and flaps share return hydraulic plumbing.

Edit: If you're flying a Hawker, good luck.
 
knot4u said:
This makes me curious, next time I have an airplane on jacks for gear swings with the doors disconnected I'm going to ask for a brake application with the gear up. On a Gulfstream the brakes are applied by return hydraulic pressure from the actuators as the gear is retracted, you can watch the applied brake pressure, on a G-IV for example, if you have the hydraulics page selected on one of the EICAS displays. It's a normal check done during gear swings, monitor the indications and have people physically spinning the wheels as the gear retracts to ensure the wheels stop spinning before they get up into the wheel wells. I'd never even thought of testing the brakes with the gear up. Also, if any of you are flying a Gulfstream and your brakes are being applied when you haven't applied them but you are moving the flaps it's likely there's a jacked check valve and a filter that needs to be replaced, the brakes and flaps share return hydraulic plumbing.

Edit: If you're flying a Hawker, good luck.
Click to expand...

on the Hog, no pressure applied to the mains for braking and they don’t sit against anything in the wells. You can feel them spin down some on initial liftoff and climb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top