|
Post by paddy on Jun 3, 2007 15:18:15 GMT 12
Are they going to get any of these for the new Helicopters? Almost (Almost) better than the Skyhawks
Enjoy
Paddy
|
|
|
Post by paddy on Jun 3, 2007 15:20:27 GMT 12
P.S. I remember the Knucks didn't like tracers. They knew the 20mm ricocheted but didn't want to see it. I now know why>
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 4, 2007 18:32:06 GMT 12
Nope, new helicopters will get the MAG58.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 4, 2007 18:58:18 GMT 12
Miniguns are great - until you lose your power supply.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 4, 2007 20:58:26 GMT 12
If your RNZAF Skyhawks carried only 75 RPG instead of 100 capacity then tracers are useful for practice especially on the air to air banner (in pre-Kahu days). Tracers are useless otherwise in such a small amount of rounds against a real target. Then the discussion becomes are H.E. (high explosive) rounds or Solid rounds better, or a mix of the two? So it goes.
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Jun 4, 2007 22:58:10 GMT 12
The Miniguns certainly throw out a lot of metal- and not just out the front end! Looking at similar clips I note that there are two different streams of expended material coming out of the side and the bottom of the weapon I assume these are the links and the spent cartridges? the amount explains the huge flexible tubes leading to a pan under the belly of the helo - it would make a mess of the tail rotor if it ended up back there!
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jun 5, 2007 22:05:43 GMT 12
Damn those things are scary Still, I have to admit I was laughing my butt off when they minigunned the RX-7 on 'Monster Garage". Was anyone else waiting for an A-10 to show up and demonstrate the heavy metal end of the rotary spectrum? ;D
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 5, 2007 22:31:33 GMT 12
If your RNZAF Skyhawks carried only 75 RPG instead of 100 capacity then tracers are useful for practice especially on the air to air banner (in pre-Kahu days). Tracers are useless otherwise in such a small amount of rounds against a real target. Then the discussion becomes are H.E. (high explosive) rounds or Solid rounds better, or a mix of the two? So it goes. The rounds we used for battle mix were APT mixed with HEI, I can't remember the ratio though. Most of the time we used 50 rounds of TP. 75 rounds of battle mix was bloody heavy to load. The RAF Chinooks are using one M60D and one minigun, exactly because the minigun wont work if the power goes offline, but an M60 will.
|
|
RobinK
Warrant Officer
Posts: 36
|
Post by RobinK on Jun 6, 2007 0:13:53 GMT 12
The 9 Squadron RAAF UH-1H gunships at Vung Tau and Nui Dat had two forward-firing miniguns, 7.62mm cal, each pumping out 3,000 rounds per minute.
On a firing run, as I recall, the airspeed would remain static – ie the recoil was sufficient to hold back acceleration down the slope (this was a UH-1H, useable but not designed as a gunship, without the agility or steep dive angle of such as the AH-1 Cobra). In contrast, on a rocket-firing pass (we carried two pods of seven 2.75-inch rockets as well) without using the guns it was sometimes difficult to keep the speed within limits and still have a reasonable diving angle.
The miniguns were fired in about 3-second bursts. If one of them stopped in mid-burst, the effects on directional control could be significant.
In fact, at the time I arrived, meeting the appetite of the miniguns for ammo had become a bit of a problem. The feed arrangement was complicated. Rows of ammunition boxes were neatly clipped to the floor, with the belted ammunition layered in each and then into the next box and so on. Periodically there were electrically-driven rollers to help things along as the guns were firing. All pretty hairy, and prone to failure. It was also a long job to re-arm – at least 25 minutes, sometimes more than the half-hour.
Then a new engineer officer arrived. He took one look and said “there has to be a simpler way”. So he sat down and designed one. He replaced the myriad of standard small ammunition boxes and drive mechanisms with one large box each side, holding the entire supply of ammo for each gun inside. It turned out, too, that a simple freewheeling roller at the lip, feeding direct into the gun, was sufficient – no need for electric boost motors.
The incidence of stoppages went to zero. Equally important, the re-arm time went from 30 minutes to less than five (including the pilots' sidearms!). A huge increase in operational effectiveness all round. And all done on the spot – no tracking back and forth to Canberra's engineering offices for clearance. We simply told them what had been done after we'd done it.
So the total armament was the two miniguns, two rocket pods with 14 rockets, and twin pintle-mounted M60 door guns each side. The miniguns normally had 10% tracer; the door guns 100% - except in the dry season, when the tracer component was reduced because it was inclined to set fire to the pad during an assault landing.
Fully-laden in the heat of the day, the RAAF UH-1H gunship was unlikely to be able to hover with more than more than a few inches under the skids (I'm not exaggerating), and would have to do a very careful cushion-creep type takeoff to get airborne.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 6, 2007 0:32:59 GMT 12
Thanks for the No.9 Sqdn info. Some of my compatriots went to Vietnam with the EMU (Experimental Military Unit) with the RANHFVs. Do you know if they devised similar arrangements with their gunships after you showed them how to do it? :-)
And thanks for the other (Skyhawk RNZAF?) info.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 6, 2007 0:41:18 GMT 12
Fascinating stuff Robin, thanks for that. It's always really good to read your posts here.
I'll bet the noise must have been significant in the cockpit when the miniguns were fired.
|
|
RobinK
Warrant Officer
Posts: 36
|
Post by RobinK on Jun 6, 2007 1:02:56 GMT 12
Re the query on RAN and gunships, at the time I was there the RAN crews were flying American equipment from a base south of the Delta, and their gunships would probably have been C-models. The C model started out its life as a slick, but later became a dedicated gunship with the armamant hard-engineered in. It also had a different rotor system, more suited to the role.
In contrast our UH-1H gunship was a local jackup arrangement, and would not have been relevant elsewhere. It worked and was very useful - indeed ingenious in a way - but the necessity to make-do in this kind of way is forever a reminder that sending good people to war with inadequate equipment is a characteristic not always confined to New Zealand governments.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 6, 2007 1:36:51 GMT 12
Several RAN FAA pilots served with No.9 Sqdn. Did you know any in your time there? Here are some names: 1968-9: Waddell-Wood; Hill; Craig; Vidal; Ward; Vote; Ey and Brown
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 6, 2007 11:37:06 GMT 12
Miniguns are great - until you lose your power supply. Thats why most new fits contain their own power supplies (ie a battery). The only advantage I can see of the Mag 58/M60 over a minigun fit (with it's intergral pwr supply) is that you can take it with you if you crash. And if that happens you're in big trouble regardless. The Ausse Army Chinooks had 2 fitted in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 6, 2007 17:44:50 GMT 12
"You looking at me, punk? ?"
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Jun 6, 2007 18:54:36 GMT 12
"If I said you had a nice flash suppressor would you hold it against me?" ;D
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 7, 2007 18:36:47 GMT 12
Sam, she probably would hold it against you - when it was red-hot. ;D
|
|
RobinK
Warrant Officer
Posts: 36
|
Post by RobinK on Jun 7, 2007 19:46:49 GMT 12
Ref the RAN and 9 Sqn RAAF, some did indeed fly with 9 Sqn. But by the time I got there (1970) those times were past. They were then flying with US units in the Mekong Delta region south of Saigon.
In fact my logbook tells me that on 25 December 1970 I flew as safety chase from Vung Tau to somewhere in the Delta for the Australian Minister for the Navy who was visiting his sailors for Christmas. I can't remember the name of the base, but I do remember it was exposed to incoming from time to time. The logbook says the round trip took three hours five minutes flying time, which at 100 knots would make it a maximum of 150 miles from Vung Tau; though it was probably less, given that we would not have flown direct.
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Jun 7, 2007 20:35:43 GMT 12
An official record has the 135th EMU moving to Dong Tam in Sept 1970. It is in Dinh Tuong province about 5 miles from My Tho (I can guess what that place was called). It is recorded that there were many rocket attacks in October and November, with some EMU personnel injured by these attacks in November. Did not realise until now that the last RAN pilot had left the detachment to No.9 Sqdn RAAF by May 1969.
|
|
RobinK
Warrant Officer
Posts: 36
|
Post by RobinK on Jun 8, 2007 0:43:41 GMT 12
We're going a bit off-track now, but just to follow up on the Naval connection with No 9 Sqn RAAF. It's deeper than it looks; and it includes New Zealand connections dating from well before Viet Nam! The unit was first formed in 1925 as No 101 Fleet Cooperation Flight operating Seagull Mk3 amphibians in naval support roles. It was land-based initially, then embarked in the seaplane tender HMAS Albatross. Hence the albatross and the naval crown in the unit crest: The albatross connection endured. The unit generic callsign for UH1 aircraft in Viet Nam was still "Albatross" followed by the mission number or tail number. In 1939 101 Flight became No 9 Fleet Cooperation Squadron, with Seagull Mk 5 and Walrus aircraft. They served during WW2 up to 1944, when the unit was disbanded. Squadron elements had served aboard RN, RAN and RNZN ships (HMNZS Achilles). The unit lost aircraft and personnel in the sinkings of HMAS Sydney, Perth and Canberra. 9 Sqn was re-formed in 1962 as a helicopter unit. It served in Viet Nam June 1966 to December 1971, and was finally disbanded in February 1989 with the transfer of helicopter assets to Australian Army Aviation. During service in Viet Nam the unit flew 58,768 hours; 237,806 sorties; carried 414,818 passengers and 12,207 tonnes of freight; 4,357 casevacs/medevacs; fired 15,512,361 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition and 29,282 2.75in rockets. Maintenance effort was 250 Major servicings and 1,800 Intermediate servicings. Aircraft availability averaged 13 of 16 on line daily (83%). Seven aircraft were lost; 23 suffered battle damage. Six were killed; 8 wounded. Now you know.
|
|