Firing the gunpod in fighter mode-- dangerous?

Syngyne · February 5, 2009

Looking at the placement of the gunpods on VFs like the Valkyrie and Messiah, is there any danger of the pilot blowing his craft's nose off? If, say, the VF was in space, and the pilot pitched the craft's nose down violently while firing the gunpod, would the rounds clear the nose before it swung down into their path?

Mr March · February 5, 2009

It would all depend upon the muzzle velocity of the gun pods. Unfortunately, muzzle velocities of ballistic weapons in Macross are very rarely given. In fact, only one official number has ever been published and that figure was 3,300 meters/second for the 78mm guns on the Destroid Defender.

It's likely muzzle velocity of the gun pods are at least several thousand meters per second and given that most gun pods are mounted rather low on the fighter, it doesn't seem likely an extreme maneuver would cause any self-inflicted damage from the gun pod rounds.

Nied · February 5, 2009

For reference sake the muzzle velocity of a 20mm round fired by an M61A1 Vulcan cannon used in most modern American fighters is 1040 m/s. Given that the gunpods in most variable fighters are designed to defeat armor a lot tougher than modern standards I would imagine their muzzle velocity would be much higher. A VF would have to be spinning like a top to even come close to hitting it's own bullets.

Killer Robot · February 5, 2009

Further, even if it was possible to spin it that fast, it would be fairly trivial to make an automatic cutoff that would interrupt the gunpod when the fighter was in danger of sending bullets into itself. A similar principle to the synchronization gear that old prop-driven fighters used to avoid shooting their own propellers, just that instead of a cam-driven cutoff switch you'd have to measure rotational speed through inertial sensors.

Morpheus · February 6, 2009

They probably compensated it, the same way as the WWI fighter to prevent the onboard machine gun from ripping their own front propeller.

anime52k8 · February 6, 2009

I highly doubt that a valk is ever in danger of rotating into the path of it's own gun fire. considering real planes carry external gun pods and don't shoot themselves, I think a valk will be just fine in fighter mode without any kind of fancy fut off.

now a better question would be is it possible for a pilot to accidentally shoot his own valk with his gunpod in GERWALK and battroid mode. once you start swinging the gunpod around with it's arm, the possibility of pointing the gunpod at the mechs own nose/leg/other arm could happen

David Hingtgen · February 6, 2009

A few planes have shot themselves down, but it generally requires a ballistic-trajectory dive immediately after firing to intercept their bullets---it's never because they were shot AS they fired.

Fade Rathnik · February 6, 2009

After poking around I found the 1000 meter per second is fairly consistent of all the standard performance rounds in the military currently. Only gun i could find in the 3000 range that has been fielded is the stratosphere gun And they don't use those any more in favor of missiles. So that puts macross weapons pumping out their rounds at 3 times the velocity of their real world counter parts. Not totally surprising considering the advanced materials.

Syngyne · February 6, 2009

I highly doubt that a valk is ever in danger of rotating into the path of it's own gun fire. considering real planes carry external gun pods and don't shoot themselves, I think a valk will be just fine in fighter mode without any kind of fancy fut off.

How many of them are mounted on the centerline and towards the rear of the fighter, though? And how fast do those fighters pitch in an atmosphere, as opposed to a spacecraft that doesn't have to worry about air resistance?

Mr March · February 6, 2009

It's OverTechnology. They have anti-mecha missiles no bigger than the size of your sneaker

Like Nied has said, given the powerful defensive technologies in Macross like Energy Converting Armor and Pin Point Barriers, the gun pods have to be pumping out some serious muzzle velocity. Mikhail's sniper rifle is a rail gun, so it has to be firing at 3,500 m/s per second, bare minimum.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Mr March

anime52k8 · February 6, 2009

How many of them are mounted on the centerline and towards the rear of the fighter, though? And how fast do those fighters pitch in an atmosphere, as opposed to a spacecraft that doesn't have to worry about air resistance?

F-4 Phantoms, A-4 Skyhawks, and Harriers... there are quite a few who do centerline pods. and when were talking about rotational speed needed to rotate the plane into it's own line of fire, air resistance isn't going to matter nearly as much as the risk of the plane breaking up or the pilot blacking out/dieing.

let's look at the VF-25 for a second. The VF-25 is 18.72 meters long overall, so if you go by the proportions on the Bandai model, the muzzle of the gunpod is about 8.2~8.4 meters from the nose of the plane. someone mentioned earlier that the M61A1 has a muzzle valocity of 1040m/s. if the VF-25's gun pod had the same muzzle velocity as the M61A1 it would take about .008 seconds, 8 milliseconds for a round to clear the nose of the VF-25.

considering the printed muzzle velocity of the Defenders guns is 3,300m/s it's not unreasonable to believe that the gun pod on a VF-25 has a similar kind of velocity. if that's the case it would take about 2.5 milliseconds to clear the nose of the plane. for perspective, it takes a housefly 3 milliseconds to flap its wings once.

Edited February 6, 2009 by anime52k8

Nied · February 6, 2009

How many of them are mounted on the centerline and towards the rear of the fighter, though? And how fast do those fighters pitch in an atmosphere, as opposed to a spacecraft that doesn't have to worry about air resistance?

Here's a picture of an F-4 Phantom carrying an SUU-23 gunpod, if anything it's mounted further back that what we see on any variable fighter.

Granted an F-4 is not as maneuverable as a VF-25 or even a VF-1 but as has been pointed out, even at the stately (by Macross standards) muzzle velocity of a modern Vulcan cannon your Valkyrie would have to be pitching down impossibly fast. Without an EX-gear system a maneuver like that would make what Guld went through in M+ look like a gentle massage, and the centripetal forces would tear a VF apart before it would even be able to hit itself with its own shells.

hobbes221 · February 6, 2009

I'm with the others in thinking that there might be a limiter built into the flight control system as a safe guard, something along the lines if the pilot is pulling the trigger then the VF cannot pitch down at a rate that would cause the rounds to hit the airframe. And it would real hard to do it in the first place due to the speeds involved as well.

anime52k8 · February 6, 2009

I'm with the others in thinking that there might be a limiter built into the flight control system as a safe guard, something along the lines if the pilot is pulling the trigger then the VF cannot pitch down at a rate that would cause the rounds to hit the airframe. And it would real hard to do it in the first place due to the speeds involved as well.

If the airframe is physically capable of pitching down that fast without breaking apart, I would think that the limiter would be in place to prevent the pilot from being turned to Jell-O, not to keep the valk from shooting itself.

hobbes221 · February 6, 2009

If the airframe is physically capable of pitching down that fast without breaking apart, I would think that the limiter would be in place to prevent the pilot from being turned to Jell-O, not to keep the valk from shooting itself.

I kinda figured it might come to that point, I was just covering the bases what with things like the ICS of the -25. I think its safe to say that a VF won't be shooting itself in the nose anytime soon.

Kronnang Dunn · February 6, 2009

I strongly believe that the only VF capable of shooting itself down (in several ways) is the VF-27 Lucifer... :lol:

SchizophrenicMC · February 6, 2009

If it was dangerous, the engineers behind it wouldn't have done it. End of story. This is like asking if an A-10 could shake itself to pieces by firing its gun. It's never happened, it never will. For that matter, has any plane ever shot itself down?

...Aside from the VF-27

anime52k8 · February 6, 2009

If it was dangerous, the engineers behind it wouldn't have done it. End of story. This is like asking if an A-10 could shake itself to pieces by firing its gun. It's never happened, it never will. For that matter, has any plane ever shot itself down?
...Aside from the VF-27

see...

A few planes have shot themselves down, but it generally requires a ballistic-trajectory dive immediately after firing to intercept their bullets---it's never because they were shot AS they fired.

SchizophrenicMC · February 6, 2009

see...

Well, that answers my question...

Anyway, my point is we've never seen a VF shoot itself down (Or an A-10, for that matter...), and will (in all probablity) never see that. Missiles are a different story, they are. Planes HAVE shot themselves down with their own missiles before....

JB0 · February 9, 2009

now a better question would be is it possible for a pilot to accidentally shoot his own valk with his gunpod in GERWALK and battroid mode. once you start swinging the gunpod around with it's arm, the possibility of pointing the gunpod at the mechs own nose/leg/other arm could happen

Well, I'd say that the Valk's software should be coded so you aren't ALLOWED to point your gun at your own mech, but.... DYRL.

David Hingtgen · February 9, 2009

The F-14 is notable for having its first kill be itself:

"The day I shot myself down": http://www.ejectionsite.com/F-14%20SHOOTDOWN.pdf

akt_m · February 9, 2009

Here's a picture of an F-4 Phantom carrying an SUU-23 gunpod, if anything it's mounted further back that what we see on any variable fighter.

That's really looks like a macross gunpod, now i see where Kawamori got the design.

badboy00z · February 9, 2009

Wouldn't the bullets be traveling at their respective velocity + the speed of the aircraft?

SchizophrenicMC · February 9, 2009

Wouldn't the bullets be traveling at their respective velocity + the speed of the aircraft?

And Badboy gets a prize!

The way it works is accumulative. If you fire bullets at 1000MPH and you're on a train going 1000MPH, the bullet will move at 2000MPH, or 1000MPH in relation to you. It's like light in a way. No matter how fast you go, light will always move at the same speed in relation to you.

Moving on, only the F-14 (Still my favorite plane) can shoot itself down...

Not allowing you to point your gunpod at yourself would have to be a training feature for early training. There are instances (DYRL?) when you'd have to point the pod at yourself.... Roy Focker, you will be remembered.

Everything SK does is based on real designs. That's what makes it cool. Seeing an F-14+18+Su-33(VF-25) transform is AWESOME.

anime52k8 · February 9, 2009

And Badboy gets a prize!
The way it works is accumulative. If you fire bullets at 1000MPH and you're on a train going 1000MPH, the bullet will move at 2000MPH, or 1000MPH in relation to you. It's like light in a way. No matter how fast you go, light will always move at the same speed in relation to you.

actually light doesn't work that way, if you were in a rocket and turn the headlights on, the light from them would travel at the same speed whether you were going 10mph or half the speed of light.

but slower stuff like bullets do work that way.

eugimon · February 9, 2009

actually light doesn't work that way, if you were in a rocket and turn the headlights on, the light from them would travel at the same speed whether you were going 10mph or half the speed of light.
but slower stuff like bullets do work that way.

yup.

ChronoReverse · February 10, 2009

The speed of the bullets coming out is indeed cumulative since the velocities are way below light-speeds. However, a great enough rotational rate will still cause the bullet to collide with the plane. This is because once the bullets leave the gunpod, they travel in a straight line. Which a plane can rotate into.

This would, of course, require a spin rate that is literally Beyond The Impossible since it would imply speeds similar to the speed of the bullets which is ridiculous.

Another thing to note is that the bullets will immediately be subject to deceleration since they would have no more propulsion when they exit the gun while the plane is free to maintain or even continue to accelerate. This is why it's possible to shoot yourself down with your own bullets if you catch up to them <_<

Edited February 10, 2009 by ChronoReverse

SchizophrenicMC · February 10, 2009

actually light doesn't work that way, if you were in a rocket and turn the headlights on, the light from them would travel at the same speed whether you were going 10mph or half the speed of light.
but slower stuff like bullets do work that way.

If you went half the speed of light, hit the headlights, the light would be moving away at the speed of light in relation to you. Also, it would be going the speed of light in relation to the guy you passed .3 yoctoseconds ago at the speed of light. I don't get it, but if Michio Kaku said it, it's GOTTA BE RIGHT!

yup.

Again, man, I heard it from Kaku... :unsure:

The speed of the bullets coming out is indeed cumulative since the velocities are way below light-speeds. However, a great enough rotational rate will still cause the bullet to collide with the plane. This is because once the bullets leave the gunpod, they travel in a straight line. Which a plane can rotate into.
This would, of course, require a spin rate that is literally Beyond The Impossible since it would imply speeds similar to the speed of the bullets which is ridiculous.

Another thing to note is that the bullets will immediately be subject to deceleration since they would have no more propulsion when they exit the gun while the plane is free to maintain or even continue to accelerate. This is why it's possible to shoot yourself down with your own bullets if you catch up to them

The problem is, would you be able to accelerate fast enough in relation to the bullets for them to cause damage? And you're forgetting gravity. By the time they've slowed down for any plane to do that, gravity would be pulling them down because they lack inertia.

Though, like I said, I know there's been morons who caught their own missiles.

VF-19 · February 10, 2009

The speed of the bullets coming out is indeed cumulative since the velocities are way below light-speeds. However, a great enough rotational rate will still cause the bullet to collide with the plane. This is because once the bullets leave the gunpod, they travel in a straight line. Which a plane can rotate into.
This would, of course, require a spin rate that is literally Beyond The Impossible since it would imply speeds similar to the speed of the bullets which is ridiculous.

Another thing to note is that the bullets will immediately be subject to deceleration since they would have no more propulsion when they exit the gun while the plane is free to maintain or even continue to accelerate. This is why it's possible to shoot yourself down with your own bullets if you catch up to them

Oh and for those of you with IL-2 1946, load up a ME-109K, point straight up, fire your Mk-108 nose cannon (30mm shell with a low velocity, but high rate of fire), and you just might hit yourself with your own shells. You may want to consider unlimited ammo just to increase your chances (but make sure that you have the realistic balistics enabled or the rounds won't come down).

anime52k8 · February 10, 2009

If you went half the speed of light, hit the headlights, the light would be moving away at the speed of light in relation to you. Also, it would be going the speed of light in relation to the guy you passed .3 yoctoseconds ago at the speed of light. I don't get it, but if Michio Kaku said it, it's GOTTA BE RIGHT!

well, if you're on the ship, and you turn on the headlights at .5xspeed of light, you observe the light moving away from you at the speed of light, just like when you dive a car at 50 mph and you throw a baseball at 50 mph the ball moves away from you at 50mph.

but for an outside observer, the light from the ship is still only going at the speed of light while the ship is moving half the speed of light. with the car going 50, the ball thrown at 50mph appears to be going 100mph to an outside observer.

oh the joys of relativistic speed.

eugimon · February 10, 2009

If you went half the speed of light, hit the headlights, the light would be moving away at the speed of light in relation to you. Also, it would be going the speed of light in relation to the guy you passed .3 yoctoseconds ago at the speed of light. I don't get it, but if Michio Kaku said it, it's GOTTA BE RIGHT!
Again, man, I heard it from Kaku...

The problem is, would you be able to accelerate fast enough in relation to the bullets for them to cause damage? And you're forgetting gravity. By the time they've slowed down for any plane to do that, gravity would be pulling them down because they lack inertia.

Though, like I said, I know there's been morons who caught their own missiles.

I think you're misinterpreting what was said or maybe mistaking time dilation. Check out this vid:

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vpu6yJPRVQ

As for the bullet thing... this has happened, there's accounts of pilots in WWI who plucked bullets out of the air because their relativistic speed was the same or greater than the bullet's.

SchizophrenicMC · February 10, 2009

well, if you're on the ship, and you turn on the headlights at .5xspeed of light, you observe the light moving away from you at the speed of light, just like when you dive a car at 50 mph and you throw a baseball at 50 mph the ball moves away from you at 50mph.
but for an outside observer, the light from the ship is still only going at the speed of light while the ship is moving half the speed of light. with the car going 50, the ball thrown at 50mph appears to be going 100mph to an outside observer.

oh the joys of relativistic speed.

What I'm saying is that you see light at the speed of light, no matter how fast you go. You can be sitting there and light will move away from you at 128000MPS, and if you're going 64000MPS, you see light going 128000MPS away from you.... GOD, I HATE PHYSICS!

I think you're misinterpreting what was said or maybe mistaking time dilation. Check out this vid:

and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Vpu6yJPRVQ
As for the bullet thing... this has happened, there's accounts of pilots in WWI who plucked bullets out of the air because their relativistic speed was the same or greater than the bullet's.

But my point is you can't go fast enough to catch your bullet with enough force to damage your plane... Even in a VF...

On that note, I'm getting sick of relativistic speed. It can't shoot you down, so it's not important.

anime52k8 · February 10, 2009

On that note, I'm getting sick of relativistic speed. It can't shoot you down, so it's not important.

I think we should just remember the fact that jets and missiles and bullets, even in macross are always going to be going WAY bellow relativistic speeds, so time dilation and special and general relativity don't need to be factored in. all we have to worry about is Newtonian physics.

eugimon · February 10, 2009

What I'm saying is that you see light at the speed of light, no matter how fast you go. You can be sitting there and light will move away from you at 128000MPS, and if you're going 64000MPS, you see light going 128000MPS away from you.... GOD, I HATE PHYSICS!
But my point is you can't go fast enough to catch your bullet with enough force to damage your plane... Even in a VF...

On that note, I'm getting sick of relativistic speed. It can't shoot you down, so it's not important.

Right, because the speed of light is a constant.

oh, sure you can. Fire a slow subsonic round and then accelerate into it. If you hit that round at mach 2, it would do the same damage as if you had been flying at subsonic speeds and the round had hit you at mach 2.

SchizophrenicMC · February 10, 2009

Right, because the speed of light is a constant.
oh, sure you can. Fire a slow subsonic round and then accelerate into it. If you hit that round at mach 2, it would do the same damage as if you had been flying at subsonic speeds and the round had hit you at mach 2.

Only the VF-27 can accelerate that quickly, thus adding one more way to shoot itself down.

Sign In

Firing the gunpod in fighter mode-- dangerous?

Recommended Posts

Syngyne

Mr March

Nied

Killer Robot

Morpheus

anime52k8

David Hingtgen

Fade Rathnik

Syngyne

Mr March

anime52k8

Nied

hobbes221

anime52k8

hobbes221

Kronnang Dunn

SchizophrenicMC

anime52k8

SchizophrenicMC

JB0

David Hingtgen

akt_m

badboy00z

SchizophrenicMC

anime52k8

eugimon

ChronoReverse

SchizophrenicMC

VF-19

anime52k8

eugimon

SchizophrenicMC

anime52k8

eugimon

SchizophrenicMC

Join the conversation

Activity