e25c60 No.644344
When /k/ finally does go to war, we're going to need air support.
Problem is that we're poorfags and this isn't going to change anytime soon, so lets explore the viability of CAS, Aircav, and medivac on a budget so we can live out our Rhodesian Fireforce fantasies IRL.
As actual helicopters look mad complex to build and maintain, and fixed wing aircraft come with the need for infrastructure, I propose heavy autogyros.
They're far simpler to maintain and there's less to break than helos, they can autorotate allowing for safer engine-out capability than most aircraft, and depending on the design they are only slightly harder to fly than regular fixed wing craft.
The downside is that they are not high-performance in any respect, which is why they are never chosen by organised militaries given the choice between them and conventional aircraft.
e25c60 No.644350
This, but on the cheap is the goal.
Also unrelated question, i'm using pia vpn going through a western european country. Why would i be showing up as russia?
0e52c6 No.644352
>>644350
>i'm using pia vpn going through a western european country. Why would i be showing up as russia?
You're using a VPN from the future.
e8d4e4 No.644353
>>644352
>You're using a VPN from the future.
3e102c No.644356
>>644344
Is there a point to putting canards on a helicopter?
I like canards.
>>644352
<You're using a VPN from the future.
9f2b6c No.644416
The first reason why helicopters are scary is that they could be anywhere. An airplane has fixed landing fields that a guerilla can ignore, or at least knows the direction of the attack.
Second reason why theyre scary is that they can hang around, their ordnance is multidirectional, have tight turn radiuses, and can apply pressure to troops continuously. Airplanes simply go too fast, they have to take "runs" at infantry, which can displace and move during each attack run. Plus if its a bad angle of attack the airplane is fucked, whereas the helicopter just changes position.
I think gyrodynes are the future, theyre less complex than helicopters and offer all the benefits plus extended range. Cheyenne was ahead of its time…
9bc74c No.644427
>>644344
>CAS for poorfags
<Take pic related
<Fill bomb bay with grenades
<Job done
262f48 No.644436
>/k/ builds a gunship
Take Cessna 208 caravan, quest kodiak or similar turboprop skydiving plane.
>lots are used commonly for short-haul cargo and skydiving in 'murica
>cessna 208 is already being picked up by a couple militaries for cointel, including iraq and lebanon
>they even made a 208a attack caravan with hardpoints and flare tubes
>4000lbs load, 2000 after fuel
>fuckhuge door out the side for door guns
>underbelly cargo pod for electronics and flir
>take 105mm pack howitzer, pic related
>range of 4 miles(on land at least)
>2000lbs w/ trailer, hopefully half that without it
>1000lbs remaining for shells and optional minigun
>fly to battle
>remove
262f48 No.644438
>>644436
fucking images didnt post
9f2b6c No.644440
>>644436
Do you mean firing it from the plane? That would fuck up the plane man.
78d462 No.644451
>>644448
>For those who are interested, check out the Bensen B-8.
The design is from the 60's and there are other, more modern tube frame gyrocopter designs out there; the Hornet just off the top of my head.
What motor were you planning on using? The go-to used to be Dr. Porche's Flat Four, but those are getting hard to come by.
bf5ac0 No.644452
2e53f6 No.644453
>>644438
>/k/ommandos take a fucking Cessna meant for civilians, and re-purpose it into a warmachine capable of genocide
bf5ac0 No.644457
>>644453
Rhodies already did that alongside a bunch of mercs in Biafra
9bc74c No.644469
>>644453
Any vehicle is a technical if you want it to be.
9f2b6c No.644478
>>644452
planes are made of soft aluminum and bolts which can only take stress in a few specific directions. recoil force of that cannon can break granite rock into pieces, if it goes off in the airplane it will yank itself out of any kind of restraint and probably take half the airplane with it.
2e53f6 No.644479
>>644478
We won't know for sure until we try it
3e102c No.644480
>>644478
Sounds like a job for the masked man.
78d462 No.644513
>>644478
I would've suggested a recoil-less rifle. Or just load it down with 'dumb' rockets.
9f2b6c No.644528
>>644513
>>644479
>>644480
What rhodies and mercenary airforces did was modify civilian aircraft with low recoil weapons, like 513 said it is mostly rockets and gravity bombs. Even so they often caught modern jet fighters on the airfield and managed to inflict ridiculous casualties.
For example in the raid in nigeria, the biafran rebels hired canuck mercenary bush pilots that hooked cessnas to trucks and drove them to within a few dozen miles of a massive airport under camo nets and the cover of darkness. Then loaded them down with rockets and bombs, flew them toward the airfield, and destroyed eleven modern fighter jets - each of which was worth fifty cessnas.
This is how most fighters die, on the airfield.
That's why investing 100+ mil in a stealth plane is retarded, some soviet milkman (picrel) on a bicycle will deliver a dozen bottles, likely shreking a couple of your jets.
7c8856 No.644545
>>644528
>hooked cessnas to trucks and drove them to within a few dozen miles of a massive airport under camo nets and the cover of darkness
>hurry_ivan_we_will_miss_air_battle.oldasfuckmeme
How long does it take to bolt the wings back on a Cessna 152? Or does anyone make a sport aircraft with folding wings like a carrier aircraft? You could load the whole thing, fully armed, into a box trailer and go all Fresh Fruits on their asses.
262f48 No.644685
>>644453
Cessna already manufactures the cessna 208 attack caravan with hardpoints and flares. its the pic in the post you replied to, you can see the hardpoints. it even says 'air force' on the side.
>>644478
I'm sure the frame could be beefed up enough to support firing a (lower power, shorter brass) 105mm shell. If not, then you can mount any 20 or 30mm autocannon/chaingun you can get your hands on.
Targeting systems would be easier than people realize, precise electric motors are cheap on ebay/alibaba/amazon and FLIR sells the same IR camera turrets that police helicopters use to civilians too.
>>644469
the finest italian engineering
>>644545
>does anyone make sport utility aircraft with folding wings?
hangar space aint free my dude. tons of planes are designed to be easily trailer-portable either by folding or detaching wings. >>644545
fbe630 No.644692
9f2b6c No.644713
>>644685
A low power 30mm autocannon has about 15kN of force, that's still quite a lot. I think you could reinforce it but what's the point?
>>644692
Afghanis do the same thing, bomb bases with rockets all the time, the problem is that they're retarded and don't know how to aim or hit valuable targets. Why do you think our bases there have thick concrete or massive sand bags.
9bc74c No.644740
>>644685
It was an improvement over what came before it.
c2d814 No.644824
>>644478
Didn’t stop the German’s from putting a 57 mm piece in their planes.
bc1314 No.644831
>>644824
it also has two fuckhuge engines to go with it.
for basic shitting on things below oneself with a cessna, basic HEFI rockets or a set of 50. MGs with API would chew through everything you find, just be sure to have tracers on the belt so you can see where your aiming
bc1314 No.644833
>>644478
Use carbon steel fasteners and ribs to strengthen it enough to where it won't self destruct
c2d814 No.644836
>>644831
>more forward force means significantly smaller net reduction when canon is shot
So you just need to add several solid rocket boosters to the Cessna that trigger a second before the canon fires and jettison after burning their fuel.
532582 No.644838
Just mount an rmk30 on it. Slightly more muzzle energy than the shell from the A10, none of the recoil.
9f2b6c No.644859
>>644824
A fucking WWII airplane is made of steel with steel ribbing. Cessnas aren't.
Now quit posting CIA tracker images you giant fucking faggot.
404fc5 No.644909
>>644478
It would just need a soft recoil system with loads of travel to absorb it.
It's how things like the Koksan and 2S7 Pion are possible.
bc1314 No.644943
>>644836
it could be dual purpose. like a volley of rockets + HEAT shell
rockets with extended fuel compartments attached to the plane activate and can only be shot off via activation from trigger pull of the cannon.
kinda like most modern missiles, turn them on to spool it up then launch, with the main difference being the spooling up bit is them boosting the plane and then launching them as the cannon is fired.
2e53f6 No.644944
ITT we take cessnas and turn them into warmachines
6a2c67 No.644950
>>644859
>what is duraluminium
c2d814 No.644951
c2d814 No.644952
262f48 No.645064
>>644713
>>644859
Its not your uncles rental cessna, this is a turbine powered commercial short-haul cargo transport plane. it has a much tougher structure and much more powerful engine than a standard general aviation aircraft. Though not up to military standards, these larger cessnas are tougher than they look and could (and do) easily fly cointel missions.
Also most non-direct-combat ww2 aircraft were made of aluminum.
>>644943
the idea was to shoot a 105mm shell out of the side of the plane, ac-130 style. The plane can carry the weight easily, its a question of beefing up the recoil dampening system enough for the structure to take it. I'm sure it could be done, not sure if it would be cheaper than sticking rocket pods under the wing. The tactical advantage a side gun gives is big imo(orbiting and watching a spot with guns trained, rather than having to line up for a strafing run or use expensive guided missiles)
In the event of a civil war, how hard do you guys think it would be for an organized rebellion to get away with stealing/commandeering planes from airlines? Probably by the point they are capturing airports, foreign support(no rebellions are grassroots) should be giving them enough funds to operate the commandeered aircraft as they are.
How would you militarize an a320, or any large civilian aircraft? be more creative than 'long-range strategic bomber' pls. load up with explosives and fly it(remotely, we're not sandniggers/japs) into the enemy? That would turn it into a stupidly expensive intercontinental cruise missile. But hey, you didn't buy the jet.
6c145d No.645086
Allow me to propose the use of the CZAW Mermaid. It is a light sport aircraft, but one I feel could be of some use. It is amphibious, capable of utilizing both waterways and land strips. Listed takeoff distance is 680 feet from water and a scant 450 feet on land. It's engine is mounted above the aircraft, largely protected from fire below unless it's already penetrated the aircraft. With max fuel (26 gal) it has an endurance of 4.5 hours or 800km. Of course, the payload is where things get a bit dicey
>Payload: 569lbs
>Pilot + personal gear: 200lbs
>26 gal AVgas: 156lbs
<remaining payload for armament/armor: 213lbs
>M2 Browning x2: 166lbs
>100 rounds per gun (not including belts): 52lbs
This would leave us 5 pounds over our max payload. However, if we could get our hands on the AN/M2 aircraft variant of the Browning, we'd reduce the weight of each Browning down to 61lbs each, or 122lbs total. This would leave us with 39 pounds of available payload left. I checked an online calculator and a 2ftx2ft steel plate of a quarter inch thickness weights roughly 45lbs. I figure this could be placed below the pilot to improve survivabilty from handheld rifle fire, although I assume titanium would be a better use of the weight. In any case, the weight deficit can easily be made up by simply removing a few gallons of gas from each tank and operating at shorter ranges.
>>645064
>How would you militarize an a320, or any large civilian aircraft?
Other than shove an autocannon or two in and fill the rest with ammo for hours of CAS fun, I can't really think of too much.
9f2b6c No.645114
>>644909
Why take the risk? Simply pack the "recoil space" with more rockets. Rockets are cheap and simple, even /k/inder can make it.
This is the recipe for rocket fuel:
- 2x Saltpeter
- 1x Sugar
And this is a recipe for warhead mass:
- 2x Saltpeter
- 1x Diesel fuel
Get a 2 inch diameter PVC pipe, two yards long, with screw caps for both sides. Pack 9/10ths of the pipe with the fuel, and the upper 1/10th with the warhead mass. Screw caps on both sides. Drill a hole in both caps. Put a nail gun blank on one side as a detonator, and two wires leading to your launch switch in the other.
A single store bought bag of fertilizer can make about 40 rockets.
Granted this is a shitty rocket and you can get better results by putting pottassium perchlorate in the fuel mass and aluminum dust in the warhead mass, or other such performance improvements. But the basic one isn't even hard.
Now imagine how fucking difficult for a rebel it is to make a cannon, repair it if it gets broke, cast the shells so they're perfect and have no flaws, etc….
bf5ac0 No.645117
>>645114
Its a 1:1 with the first.
t.guy who has an uxo zone.
404fc5 No.645129
>>645114
1. If sand niggers can do it we can not only do it better but also put it in the air like the Germans and Italians did 75-80 years ago.
2. Rockets are xbawx hueg, in the same space and weight you could carry 100 shells you'd be lucky to have 5 rockets of the same yield.
3. Rockets by default have shit accuracy and cost a hell of a lot more to have them be able to land in the same areacode.
4. You can't reload rocket launchers in the air.
Yeah "muh no recoil" and "muh lightweight, cheap launcher" are cute memes but the rockets themselves are at least 6 gorillionX the time, material, and manufacture cost per shot than a comparable shot fired out of a cannon.
The only things rockets got going for them is you can fire a bunch at once and ICBMs, but those kind of launchers have shit aerodynamics that have only gotten worse since WW2.
d4d6ed No.645151
>>645129
Then why aren't we seeing more cannons on aircraft nowadays?
c2d814 No.645185
>>645086
Only having 200 rounds is a pretty low load, with the AN/M2s rof you have about 12.5 total seconds of fire before you’re out. Being .50 cals and not machine canons, means you’ll only really be effective against unarmoured trucks, shooting at infantry seems like a waste of time as the vast majority if not all of your shots will go to waste and sending out cas just to suppress infantry for maybe two minutes total and likely get 0 kills seems like a waste of the plane. Restricting it just to convey raids also would be a waste as that’s an entire plane you need to supply and maintain for such a specific role whereas a more versatile nigger-rigged vehicle would be more useful. I really can’t think of any use that would benefit a small force, even dogfighting with other makeshift combat planes would be tough as those 200 shots will be gone fast. Most WWII fighters carried a few hundred if not over a thousand of rounds for MGs, and if they had canons usually a few hindered rounds for those too.
c2d814 No.645189
>>645151
Governments don’t have the budget of a /k/ommando force fighting niggers in Africa, and smart missiles are much more efficient.
d4d6ed No.645191
>>645189
Oh, right, it's the distinction between "rockets" and "smart rockets" I was missing.
08e3c5 No.645306
I think we'd be best served starting with a home build kit plane and converting from there rather than trying to convert an already existing aircraft like a 172 or the like (152s suck dick at everything except moving 2 people from point a to point b)
Starting from a kit would give much better access to the frame as the aircraft is constructed rather than trying to cut your way into the skin to weld a couple of rocket tubes on. To that end, something like the Murphy Moose pic related would do the job if you wanted something to do a pylon turn over a low intensity fight on account of already having a cargo door in the frame, this would allow easy mounting of a 30 cal. The main reason that I would not want to mount anything larger is for 2 reasons:
A.) weight and balance concerns, not just overall weight being an issue with a 105mm which would probably exceed the useful load anyway, but also the worry of making the plane tail heavy or dip to one side. With a 30 cal GPMG like a PKP or MG3 you could even mount 2 of them for under 100lbs on top of which you would have to add ammo, but that can be moved in the aircraft to feed from boxed more towards the Center of Lift to minimize effects of weight.
B.) Recoil, no matter how much dampening you put on a 105, you're still going to push the airplane, the AC-130 gets away with it because it's a tactical airlift airframe and thus already heavy to begin with. You might be able to use a 20mm autocannon like the Rhodesian did out of their Alouette IIIs but anything more and you risk making the gunship pilot's job harder than it needs to be.
The other way to go about a gunship is to make it more of a direct attack deal. By taking a smaller aircraft (pic 2 related) and mounting a couple of recoilless rifles under the wings and maybe a small bomb mounting point to drop dumb bombs, this would be a better setup for a quick hit and run like hell. Of course neither of these would be ideal for a situation where you don't have air superiority, the hit and run might be a little better since, if built properly it can still have STOL to deploy takeoff hit the target, land and be hidden before the enemy force has time to react, an F-15 is great but it can't be everywhere at once and as we saw in the Nigerian civil war with the Biafria Baby raids, a small cheap strike aircraft can destroy many times its value if it can catch the enemy with their pants down. IDK about how well this might work in the modern day, but the levels of incompetence displayed at times by carious militarizes around the world would give me hope.
fbe630 No.645314
>>645129
>rockets take more time, material and money to make
>posts a Katyusha, a weapon system so stupidly crude and cheap to make that they blocked out the sun in massed salvos as they could be made pretty much anywhere with some mystery pot metal and solid rocket propellant vs canon which require sophisticated heat treating equipment and massive specialized rifling drills to just get the barrel right
Ok.
e88c19 No.645318
>>645151
Because MUHssiles!
3770ac No.645331
>>644352
I know this is a 4 day old post, but holy fuck did I lose my sides and drink.
9f2b6c No.645456
>>645117
That just creates more reaction mass, most of it is unburned. But you're right you can play with those values pretty safely.
>Rockets are xbawx hueg, in the same space and weight you could carry 100 shells you'd be lucky to have 5 rockets of the same yield.
First of all that's not true, it's about a 3:1 ratio not 20:1. Second of all you aren't counting the weight of the cannon and reloading system, which counterbalances that completely.
>3. Rockets by default have shit accuracy and cost a hell of a lot more to have them be able to land in the same areacode.
That problem was solved a long time ago by spin stabilization.
Most of your complaints don't make any sense…
47c9dd No.645477
>>645129
>rockets themselves are at least 6 gorillionX the time, material, and manufacture cost per shot than a comparable shot fired out of a cannon.
This better be bait.
262f48 No.645480
>>645151
f-35 has a 35mm cannon
>>645086
I think its a better idea to just stick a flir IR cam/sensor pod on it and use it for recon. You can actually buy those things as a civilian, but they're extremely expensive(10k+) and apparently power hungry, but that just means a larger alternator or maybe even an APU.
>>645306
The pilots job wouldn't be made *that* much harder, assuming the gun is positioned properly. You should be able to position it so the recoil mostly pushes the plane sideways instead of inducing yaw. I think that's why the 120 is the furthest forward on the c-130, so its closer to the center of lift and sideways cross-section(total sideways drag from the push). From my experience flying ga planes, its generally below the flaps and behind the center of lift. Maybe the cessna 208 isnt the right plane, you kinda need a strutless wing for a gun to go under it.
The main advantage imo for side-mounting the 105 is standoff range. You can stay just outside your enemies effective range (or just inside your own) and 'supress' the enemy with shelling.
Using a .30cal or even a .50 makes this advantage pretty slim against standard infantry and make the plane rely on rockets/bombs to suppress harder targets. A cannon in the air is still necessary for CAS, the question is what caliber. If you ask me, bigger is better.
You may be right about kit-builds, especially stol planes w/ folding wings. A trailer-able plane that can takeoff/land on basically any flat and open quarter mile of road with could be effective(if vulnerable to small arms) air support.
>>645456
biggest advantage is price and ammunition onboard. 3:1 ratio of ammo(is this measured in firepower as in explosives/mass sent downrange?) will still better than rockets as long the gun doesnt weigh any more than 2/3s the useful load. And the cannon will be far cheaper per lb of boom sent to remove the enemy.
9f2b6c No.645644
>>645480
>as long the gun doesnt weigh any more than 2/3s the useful load.
This is very rare, especially for air to ground cannon. Also an airplane has only time to do one or two runs, there's no point in carrying more ammunition than it takes to do that.
9f2b6c No.645647
>>645480
>f-35 has a 35mm cannon
Wat?
c2d814 No.645654
>>645480
>f-35 has a 35mm cannon
Can it be operated for more then 100 rounds without needing a mandatory gunsmith inspection?
bf5ac0 No.645658
>>645654
Better yet having an entire airframe inspection.
4f0b37 No.645659
>>645654
No, it can barely be operated at all
c2d814 No.645661
>>645659
How can every single aspect of this plane (I know that word implies a vessel capable of flight but I don’t know what other word to use) be so god damn awful? You’d think by accident they would have made a single good or even acceptable part, but it never ends.
>>645658
Better make the inspection quick, the fuel truck is waiting on the runway to refuel, and it’s only got a few more minutes before it explodes.
9f2b6c No.645666
>>645654
>>645659
>>645480
>gun pod
>nonfunctional
>lowest velocity available
>"aduurr it has a 35mm gun"
No it has a 35mm grenade launcher to aid in braking while landing.
By the way if having a fucking pod meant you could say an airplane "has a gun", by that logic a 747 has a 100mm naval cannon because theoretically it could fly with the cannon bolted to the airframe.
Also lol
>discoveries
Like they're venturing into an unknown continent, instead of something with billions of engineering hours before it even got off the paper.
c2d814 No.645675
>>645666 the Philippines
>No it has a 35mm grenade launcher to aid in braking while landing
I think that would overheat the plane, remember, you cannot leave the weapons bays closed for more then 10 minutes.
>By the way if having a fucking pod meant you could say an airplane "has a gun", by that logic a 747 has a 100mm naval cannon because theoretically it could fly with the cannon bolted to the airframe.
I don’t see how that’s erroneous. Unless you’d say pic related variant of the Stuka didn’t have guns, just because they were pods.
>>645664
It had to be intentional, there is no way they could do this poorly without trying to do that poorly.
9c7022 No.645680
>>645675
Nobody is going to end the program, so the more broken shit they have, the more money gets thrown at lockheeb.
262f48 No.645706
>>645654
>>645647
I lied/typoed it's a 25mm gatling, and only on the f35a and c, not the vtol. Carries 180rds.
08e3c5 No.645708
>>645480
The trouble with adding a cannon near the center of lift is that there's kind of a lot of structure there. Namely the wing strut and that's just about where the control station is.
It might work to be possible is you setup the cannon in the right seat in stead of the copilot station. I still don't see anything larger than a maybe 37mm autocannon and even that might be too large and make the weight and balance too far starboard giving a small control difficulty. This is of course null if you can just get a source of larger aircraft that could carry something bigger.
Also, I'm going to disagree that you need anything larger than a .30 cal since the grand daddy of all gunships just used 3 GAU-2s so you make up for the smaller projectile with a higher volume of fire. .30 cal should be good enough for most tasks since an aircraft doing a turn around a point can still be outside effective range for rifle fire, not great for anywhere with proper air defense but if they had proper air defense you would want to use hit and run anyway. .30 cal won't destroy heavy armor, but it should be fine if you're mostly looking to hit infantry and unarmored vehicles.
If you're fighting heavy armor, you might need something more in the direct attack rocket category anyway. That or just hit their supply lines, because heavy armor is a bitch to punch through.
Something like a Twin-Otter derivative with a gun mount between the wing strut and front of the propeller. It would have to be mounted about with the floor to minimize deadzones but I think it could be done especially if it is configured with multiple guns. I think 20mm cannons would be a good compromise of weight and destructive potential if you went that route.
404fc5 No.645766
>>645151
1. "Muh rawkets r duh futur" retardation.
2. (((They))) want you to buy a $500,000 smartlaserthermoquided rocket to blow up a turbanhead's house, rather than a shell or bomb that costs maybe $100.
3. They still have cannons on airplanes because despite "G-d's chosen" wanting countries to waste money on their shit, the military still wants at least one effective weapon per vehicle.
>>645314
I see the blatantly obvious implication goes right over your autistic head.
"Budget" rockets only work enmasse because their accuracy is worse than a shotgun in a vidya gaem.
cccb1d No.645804
Could you make a flying wing gyrocopter with pusher engine configuartion? Would it have anything over a more conventional gyro (other than weirdness)?
70dd3a No.645828
>>645804
>flying wing
>gyrocopter
1eb155 No.645909
Easiest, most effective air support will be Cessna 172 or Caravan loaded with a crew of AR-10 streloks. Brass catchers mandatory. You have rounds with a decent chance to do damage, you can fire off axis, no modifications to the airframe, no recoil concerns, and eliminates the danger of "homemade" explosives/materials associated with rockets or bombs. Thermal sights on the AR's, NVG trained pilots, stick to night missions and there's a decent little gunship. If you need a helicopter, R-22 or 44 with 3 AR-10 streloks. Taking any actual weapons/munitions delivery functions away from the pilot/s allows for safer operation in almost every mission profile. Simplicity is key.
c2d814 No.645925
>>645909
Okay but what about the casualties form friendly fire? Surely those will outweigh the positives, plus the weight of even 6 fat ass streloks plus ~10 kilograms of unnecessary gear and butplugs/dragon dildos will alone account for more weight then might be handled.
d7182e No.645979
Streloks, it is I, future Nederlander.
On the topic of cannons in aircraft, consider recoilles rifles, and have it poke through both sides of the aircraft. to maintain balance/drag
In order to reload it, it is slid forward and the breach is swung into the aircraft.
You now have a large diameter cannon inside a light aircraft
d7182e No.645980
>>645979
please excuse redditposting
4f0b37 No.645996
>>645979
The primary problem I see is that recoilless rifles have pretty poor muzzle velocity and range. That'll make hitting a distant target much more difficult, since you've got to remain out of small arms fire since you plan on orbiting the target. Secondly, you're going to be moving at high speed laterally to the target, a motion that will carry over to your projectile. So unless you've got a co-axially mounted spotting rifle with identical ballistics to your main projectile, your chances of landing direct hits on a target are basically nil. It might work if you plan on just firing HE/fragmentation rounds at enemy infantry, but at that point you could probably just use a ground-based mortar and use the plane to spot and correct.
c95b9d No.646048
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
I like the idea of an autogyro-based ground support force, but there are some drawbacks when compared to helicopters. One of the major drawbacks of an autogyro is their inability to take off truly vertically or to hover in place.
One solution to this problem is to use temporarily power the main rotor mechanically and use the rudder to deflect the wash from the pushing rotor to balance the torque.
Another, perhaps better system for temporary hover would be a tip jet system. These are not as fuel efficient as a direct mechanical connection, but if it's only being used for brief periods during take off, landing, and hovering, it shouldn't significantly impact the overall flight time of the aircraft.
c95b9d No.646050
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
One alternative to using an air compressor is to use small engines or motors mounted on the rotor tips. While there have been a number of experimental helicopters that used some sort of jet engine, such as a pulse-jet or micro-turbine, these seem like overkill for intermittent use and may not start immediately, especially in adverse conditions.
Rocket motors can be made quite small while maintaining an excellent power to weight ratio. The one downside to rockets it their abysmal fuel efficiency. This would make them unsuitable for long duration flights, but if it's only being used in a temporary hover or during take off it shouldn't be a problem.
A more conventional powerplant will still be needed for the push rotor, and a second tank containing a liquid oxidizer would be needed for the tip rockets, but it could work and give an autogyro the abilities of a helicopter when needed without extra mechanical complexity.
c95b9d No.646052
>>645996
>The primary problem I see is that recoilless rifles have pretty poor muzzle velocity and range.
A non-propellant countermass can be used to reduce the amount of propellant wasted in the backblast. This setup would also work with a tube-based rocket launcher.
Your other points are spot on.
c2d814 No.646088
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>646048
Pure retarded speculation, but could a similar system be made with electrical differences and insulators rather than compressed air, à la electrostatic induction method?
9f2b6c No.646136
>>645675
>Unless you’d say pic related
The stuka aircraft itself didn't have cannon, a stuka with cannon duct taped to it had cannon.
9f2b6c No.646137
>>645675
AND CAN YOU STOP POSTING CIA FILENAME IMAGES
9f2b6c No.646138
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>645766
You are confusing the term "rocket" with the term "missile".
>>646048
>One of the major drawbacks of an autogyro is their inability to take off truly vertically or to hover in place.
Gyros can take off vertically. The main rotor blades are pre-spun by a machine on the ground (or often an apu that can't be used in flight) and they have weighted tips to save the momentum of the spin. The pilot then just angles the blades and the entire vehicle lurches upward. This is known as the "jump" system. They can also land on a dot.
Hovering in place isn't really useful, it was mainly an idea in the Fulda Gap where Apaches were supposed to hide under the tree line safe from enemy eyes and weapons, then pop up to fire a few missiles, and pop down to hide again from counterfire. The germans invented a crane system that does the same thing for 1000x less cost, the crane raises a weapons platform above the treeline, takes a shot, then winches it down to safety.
It has no real use in regular combat.
c2d814 No.646141
>>646136
>a stuka with cannon duct taped to it had cannon
Stukas didn't have retractable landing gear, ergo stukas didn't actually have landing gear, they just had landing gear mounted to them. An AK doesn't have a magazine, it just has a magazine held in place by a clip. Cars don't have wheels, they just have wheels held in place by nuts.
>>646137
No, not when mobile posting, that's just 'ow it 'as to be, innit?
>>646138
>It has no real use in regular combat
Fast roping. Though for a /k/ommando force fighting to save Rhodesia that's probably not a top priority. I think train Autist kraut should be responsible for logistics.
c95b9d No.646146
>>645766
>They still have cannons on airplanes because despite "G-d's chosen" wanting countries to waste money on their shit, the military still wants at least one effective weapon per vehicle.
Modern air-to-air combat takes place at ranges so great the human eye cannot see the enemy. If an instrument guided missile can make a hit minutes before the combatants close to gun range then the man with the guided missile will win against the man with the gun.
Guns are really only useful in either a ground attack role or as a weapon of last resort when you've run out of guided missiles and guided bombs. Insisting on guns as a primary armament in modern combat birds is like giving front-line infantry pistols instead of rifles.
fbe630 No.646155
>>645766
If cheap rockets are so hard to hit with then how have there been recorded incidents of air to air kills with Zunis in vietnam? Why are they still widely used every day in the ground attack and COIN role by all nations? Could it be that spin stabilized spring loaded folding fins deliver equal accuracy to precision crafted auto-cannon? Its almost like a projectile shaped exactly like an arrow can fly as straight as an arrow.
bc1314 No.646183
>>645064
remove all internals (except avionics, navigation ,etc) down to the bones, use existing rear hatches for paratroops (after possibly rigging up a static line?)
and that's about it. a big difference between a c-130 and any select passenger jet is that the c-130 is designed to move bulk stuff anywhere and carry all the things. and compared to a passenger jet it just has more overall torque and power. the wings are also much more general purpose, airliner wings are made for long hauls.
airliner would do best in its slated role (in military terms) of troop transport + their shit, as well as general supply transport (that may be limited depending on max take off weight.)
>>645086
it would be better suited to an autocannon, if thats the weight of the armament, then you may aswell go with something that is a little more forgiving in the marksmanship department, use any extra payload to armor up, although I can't see it doing much good. give the pilot a flak jacket and a steel pot helmet, pre-install a tourniquet on both arms and legs and at varying points (if you care about the difference of a half or whole leg). also don't forget probability, most rounds coming at him (with the exception of mounted/dedicated AA) will be tyrone and friends taking pot shots at him, 90% of which are guaranteed to miss, of the few (if any) that score a hit, they will already be slowed down due to gravity + mechanics or whatever of the plane moving, unless it was a solid hit without a large difference in angle (between 60 and 90 degrees) it would likely deflect.
This also brings up air doctrine, if he flies high then small arms fire effectiveness will be reduced greatly, but it also opens him up to dedicated AA and other aircraft/missiles (this also has the problem of it being a dedicated CAS aircraft, not a high altitude bomber/fighter)
If he flys low then there will be a small window of fire against him, it will however be more likely to penetrate.
overall assuming the enemy doesnt have everyone unload on him then he should be OK
dff2da No.646190
>>645163
hey thats nice what song is this?
9f2b6c No.646193
>>646141
I can't believe I'm explaining basic logic, but there's a difference between saying "an apple has a worm" and "apples have worms".
>No, not when mobile posting,
You can rename it, so why don't you?
Obvious fuck.
>>646155
It's bullshit, their CEP was comparable to aircraft fired cannon even in WWII, so much so they used the same sights.
The problem is that rockets are fired at ~1km on approach, of course at those ranges they aren't going to be headshot noscope. Even a good sniper rifle would stretch its performance at those ranges.
Skyknight pilots are just used to shooting at 50km not 1km, so they think rockets are inaccurate. It's like a rich person not knowing the value of money. I've never heard a US Marine pilot complain about rockets.
48a87c No.646198
>>646155
>how have there been recorded incidents of air to air kills with Zunis in vietnam?
[citation needed]
bf5ac0 No.646202
>>646198
Purportedly a guy in an A-4 smacked a MiG 17 with one, incidentally it was the only Air to Air kill of a Skyhawk during the whole war.
48a87c No.646205
>>646202
Couldn't A-4s hold sidewinders back then?
bf5ac0 No.646206
>>646205
I guess the pilot was blasting ground gooks when air gook showed up.
c2d814 No.646235
>>646193
>You can rename it, so why don't you?
On fucking mobile? Not that I'm aware of, the final solution would be to only post from my pc, but that's not really doable unless I just stop posting 90% of the time (probably not a bad idea.)
>but there's a difference between saying "an apple has a worm" and "apples have worms".
Not even close to the same analogy, if you fucking mount guns onto a plane that plane has guns, it doesn't matter if those guns are mounted on the inside of the frame or not, which is the only difference. Guns are not an intrinsic property of planes, all planes with guns have them added at some point, and are not necessary for the plane to retain it's "plane-ness". But yet if you fucking mount guns to the outside or mount them in a special panel in the wing, that specific plane now has the property of having guns, regardless of their location. It doesn't stop becoming a plane or become less of a plane for possessing guns. But a plane with gunpods, or internally mounted guns is still a fucking plane with guns.
>The stuka aircraft itself didn't have cannon
The stuka itself also didn't have paint, but you're not going to argue that stukas weren't painted because it the paint is not intrinsic to the plane.
Now stop reddit-spacing all your posts, you colossal faggot.
48a87c No.646240
>>646235
> it doesn't matter if those guns are mounted on the inside of the frame or not
It actually does today. External gun pods dramatically increase drag, tend to misalign by their own recoil, even at smaller calibers, and in the case of the F-35B they cancel stealth.
9f2b6c No.646247
>>646235
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and not assume you're a glow in the dark nigger. Those image names are designed to be tracked online, it's not a coincidence your phone forces them. The phone remembers where it was uploaded, sends the address with the image code to NSA servers. NSA then knows you're connected to this website. They don't log all traffic because it doesn't matter if someone accidentally presses a link and ends up on a "right wing" website, or if someone just browses it. But if you care enough to post it's enough to make the list Then five days later when someone here downloads it and posts it on facebook or some gun forum, google crawlers log the image name and send the same metadata to NSA. The NSA then knows there's at least 1 connection between here and whoever it was that posted it, and the website where it ended up. That's just basic social connections, they also track the spread of "memes" to figure out how to influence culture in general by controlling the "letters" a culture uses to form ideas.
9f2b6c No.646248
Basically don't post images with your phone then. I don't give a fuck that you're endangering yourself and your family, that's your right, but you don't get to endanger this board without pushback.
I will call you out every time I see this.
c2d814 No.646264
>>646248
>but you don't get to endanger this board without pushback.
You still think this is muh sekrit club, and that the feds are actually interested about what gets posted on a Polynesian ivory jewelry craft message board. Sad.
:^)
9f2b6c No.646266
>>646264
Is part of your training to break cover as often as possible?
9f2b6c No.646267
By the way before anyone says "muh leef" this guy is a giant fucking fag, a tranny lover, and his canadian flag is a VPN.
c2d814 No.646268
>>646267
We already went over this when I posted a North American stop sign and a km/h speed limit, with obvious North American architecture, evergreens and snow, unless you can name a single other place that uses English, metric speed limits and is in North America. Not everything is a conspiracy, that’s just your aspergers. Now please take your memegenerator image macros you just made back to reddit. I may occasionally be a phoneposting faggot but at least I have been here longer than 3 months, and actually own guns. Now piss off.
9f2b6c No.646270
>>646268
Are you implying there aren't any NSA portables in all of north america?
c2d814 No.646272
>>646270
Aw dang you got me, now that my plan has been foiled guess we’ll have to delete the file we’ve built up on you. I’ll have to tell my supervisor that we’ll need to cancel the entire 8chan surveillance operation because one sperg found it out. Thats 4 years of data gone now, and your file in particular, with it’s thousands of reddit posts we have logged, will have to be deleted because you called us out. Good job on being the smartest anon on the website. Who would have thought it would take a single newfag to figure us out and topple the entire NSA 8chan division?
ee72c7 No.646275
>>644469
I'm maintaining this thing is one of the smartest thing ever made and I'm still fucking mad nobody is smart enough to do the same thing with a cheap dirt bike and the biggest gun you can fit on it.
It's insane we insist on having heavier and heavier APCs when you read about shit like how the Nip took Singapore because they had bike infantry…
c2d814 No.646277
>>646275
That’s basically what ISIS is doing, but burger, and therefore NATO doctrine is to pretend they actually care about their troops. And besides, Schlomo isn’t going to make as much by selling dirt bike technicals, and by selling 10 Tonne 10 metre wide armoured vehicles.
9f2b6c No.646279
>>646272
>rename the photos
<uuuuuh dont wanna
>post on a laptop
<muuuuh ceeeeeell
>dont post photos when you reply on the cell
<uuuuuh noooooo
>youre endangering everyone
<waaaaaaah im a huge faggot
Because that's normal behavior of a normal guy Hello fellow Commandos! Nah you can keep wasting your time, but I will bring your paycheck up every time you post just to annoy you.
>>646275
That's basically the Taliban tagline, dude at the front with an AK or RPK, dude in the bitch seat with an RPG, or a bag of hand grenades. The RPG is an improvement because it can fire sideways, and hand grenades are really useful if you want to ride fast through a village and clear out every fucking house.
They spread themselves out to have reaction time if a helicopter appears, and they can scatter too fast for a single apache to kill more than a few vehicles.
c2d814 No.646295
>>646279
>dont wanna
I am not able to as far as I can tell
>muuuuh ceeeeeell
If I were a NEET or home more often I would, phone posting is shit, but it’s basically the only way I can access the Internet for 80% of my free time.
>uuuuuh noooooo
Yeah
>youre endangering everyone
Really?
>Because that's normal behavior of a normal guy
Well most normal people are busy, as a student I’m at uni most of the day so I can’t quite bring my PC with me can I? I suppose I could give up visiting image boards but I’d rather not.
>Nah you can keep wasting your time, but I will bring your paycheck up every time you post just to annoy you.
I ducking wish I got a pay check to post mobile images on /k/. If you know a guy I’ll sign up right now, maybe I can eat more then ramen and afford good Wiskey for the first time in a year.
>dude in the bitch seat with an RPG
So they finally learned that backblast can kill friendlies? I didn’t know they were capable of learning.
>and they can scatter too fast for a single apache to kill more than a few vehicles.
mfw Aussies heli pilots get flashbacks to emu war when trying to kill shitskins on mopeds Well to humour you I won’t post pick related but think of a laughing jpeg.
1d6c1f No.646676
404fc5 No.646772
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>646138
>You are confusing the term "rocket" with the term "missile".
>>646155
And how far up the enemy plane's tail pipe was said rocket launched from?
f6b84e No.646967
Give me an RPG, a booster rocket, and some duct tape, and I’ll show you a gunship
9f2b6c No.647037
>>646772
Yes, dummy, the missiles are guided and the rockets aren't. A rocket is just a missile without the expensive parts.
The average solid fuel a rocket uses is less expensive than the propellant for any kind of cannon, and the rest of it is just a casing and some RDX in the nose.
4f9db9 No.647467
what the fuck have you guys done to my thread about gyrocopters
70dd3a No.647474
>>647467
What did you expect?
c2c3cc No.647484
>>646247
Let's set aside the question of whether your claims about the process are actually true or not.
>The phone remembers where it was uploaded, sends the address with the image code to NSA servers. NSA then knows you're connected to this website.
If they know you're posting here it doesn't depend on the filename. They'd know even if you had no file at all.
>it doesn't matter if someone […] just browses it.
Yet that is exactly what you're claiming they're tracing in the end, people who've browsed the site and saved images without necessarily posting.
>Then five days later when someone here downloads it
At which point the image will not have the filename in question anyway.
>and posts it on facebook
lol
>or some gun forum, google crawlers log the image name and send the same metadata to NSA. The NSA then knows there's at least 1 connection between here and whoever it was that posted it, and the website where it ended up
How disastrous! You mean the NSA will be able to figure out that people who post on gun enthusiast sites sometimes post on gun enthusiast sites? What ever will we do?
Your explanation does not involve filenames in the slightest. If they are tracking uploads from phoneposters (or rather, phoneposters specifically using one brand of phone, since others don't do it at all), then they are tracking uploads, and changing the name isn't going to do dick - except stop YOU from knowing it's, allegedly, part of this scheme. If you're that worried about the NSA knowing you post on oriental cartoon boards, then consider not using fucking Facebook holy shit.
Stop being a schizophrenic autist anytime.
dee142 No.647732
Would a multi-rotor system help with the autogyro's chronic speed problem?
>>644344
>heavy autogyros
I'm sure you've meant gyrodynes.
FUCK MUTTS FOR RUINING THEM
9f2b6c No.647766
>>647732
There is no speed problem, think of the gyro's main "rotor" as a parachute. It's the same function and concept, it can just be folded easier, it works in rougher weather, and can take more explosions and punishment than a nylon parachute. But in the end it's just a parachute! You aren't going to turn it into a mach one fighter.
The entire point of an autogyro is trading raw paper performance for efficient practical performance, it is a feature not a bug.
404fc5 No.648033
>>647037
>Cheap but can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside.
>Accurate but costs $500K and has the explosive yield of a hand grenade while taking up more space than a 16" shell and propellant.
dff2da No.653079
>>653078
this is pinacle of helicopters. you might not like it but thats how peak performance looks like
l wonder how cheap we could make it if we scraped all unnecessery parts like floor and walls and cargo compartment
1c3927 No.653080
>>653079
>scrap the floor
What will the soldiers stand on?
>scrap the walls
So they're going to be constantly buffeted by freezing wind while in flight?
478be0 No.653081
>>653079
>>653080
I like the idea of a droid carrier kind of concept, just drop the infantry straight on the ground and not having to walk out the back.
>freezing wind
Shouldn't be too hard to fix tbh
a79167 No.653084
>>653079
>>653078
Step aside, Nerds.
983970 No.653086
>>653078
sucks that it was basically all gun no armor
904b04 No.653170
>>653116
>Rockets are as accurate as cannons
After playing some Jane's simulators I have an extreme aversion towards unguided rockets, they certainly don't seem anywhere as accurate as guns.
904b04 No.653177
>>653176
>Understate the hitting power of a rocket, I'm sorry but that's just a fact.
They are good at creating superficial damage by non-direct hits, something not accounted in even realistic simulators due to only kills mattering, but a 25-30mm autocannon has a much greater chance for a direct hit and therefore a confirmed kill at the same distance.
904b04 No.653181
>>653179
Doubt that pod-borne rockets have the muzzle velocity and even less so rate of fire of any type of autocannon, until not up to Desert Storm era.
904b04 No.653182
cc0173 No.653257
>We have to get cheap, guys
>I know let's just take all those dime-store 155mm artillery pieces and strap them to a Cessna hur-hur
Can't afford a plane you're not going to be getting a bunch of fucking autocannons and arty. OP was right, just drops homemade dumb bombs from a swarm of autogyros or homebuilt ultralight fixed wings. Could even mount a GPMG, but anyone who thinks you're going to CHEAPLY put an autocannon or artillery piece on a civilian aircraft and have it work out okay is a retard.
537823 No.653436
>>653176
Difference being that rockets don't have rifling spin, and end up essentially have the same problems as flechette ammo but ten times magnified or more. And I think 1,000 meters is a lot closer than you picture it as, most engagements where the cannons are used nowadays are many dozens of kilometers up in the air to the point where guys on the ground can't hear the rotors. Which is why they're able to use the cannon effectively in the first place. Modern heli doctrine isn't anything like the low fast african or early cold war soviet stuff.
Pic extremely related.
dff2da No.653441
>>653436
could we make like, rifled rockets? dont russians have arty rockets that spin like that? tornado l think or something
1588a3 No.653445
>>653436
The conversation has largely lost focus as to the terms of what we're designing. Half the people here are discussing how to design a modern CAS vehicle, while the rest are talking about improvised stuff. I personally am alot more interested in the improvised topic, where I feel the rockets have a definite advantage in almost all regards.
ce0a06 No.653448
>>653436
>What is the Hale Rotary Rocket?
Yeah, Britain solved that problem in 1844.
537823 No.653455
>>653443
It's referring to Hydra rockets. Look at the source
904b04 No.653472
>>653432
The rate of fire and ammo capacity is indisputably in favor of autocannons.
904b04 No.653479
>>653472
>>653432
And with a quick wiki Hydra's muzzle velocity is 700m/s while M230 is 850, Shipunov 2A42's is 950, GSh-30's is 900 and GAU-8's 1010 m/s.
2d6498 No.654332
these are pretty cheap and easy and safe to fly.