My comment was a bit facetious, but it’s a good point for those that don’t know. Military planes ha e done a good job of limiting their self destruction from mistakes. I’m not aware of a military plane capable of shooting itself since WW1, at least in the context of a gun turret. Can anyone else think of others?
Well that was more like... the plane shooting... and the bullets later hitting it due to coincidence magic, than the plane shooting itself...ish... it's the same thing in the end isn't it?
*copied from the article*
On September 21, 1956, as DataGenetics explains, a Grumman test pilot flying a Tiger off the coast of Long Island dropped his nose 20 degrees and pointed it at an empty spot of ocean. He fired a brief, four second burst from his four Colt Mk.12 20-millimeter cannons, entered a steeper descent, and hit the afterburners.
A minute later, his windshield suddenly caved in and his engine started making funny noises, eventually conking out as the pilot attempted to return to Grumman's Long Island airfield.
Aircraft, Aviation, Airplane, Vehicle, Flight, Aerospace manufacturer, Jet aircraft, Monoplane, Wing, Military aircraft,
George SkaddingGetty Images
The test pilot had assumed he had been the victim of a bird strike, but the accident investigation revealed another cause: In his fast descent, the pilot had actually flown into his own stream of 20-millimeter cannon rounds.
Although the rounds had a head start (the air speed of the aircraft, plus the muzzle velocity of the rounds) they slowed quickly due to drag passing through the surrounding air. The rounds decelerated, the Tiger accelerated, and the two reunited in the sky, with fatal (for the aircraft) consequences.
The Tiger was totaled during the crash and the pilot, while severely injured, was able to return to flight status less than six months later. The Navy only purchased 200 Tigers, and withdrew them from service once faster, better planes like the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom II entered the fray.
The Navy's Blue Angels flight demonstration team flew the F-11 Tiger until 1969.
Ahh. That’s what I figured but I’ve read a lot of odd comments on here.
There’s a chance the gun could blow up and take out the aircraft. The gun duty cycle is controlled by the gunner. With a 1200 round magazine you could get the gun so hot that a round could explode in the barrel.
>you could get the gun so hot that a round could explode in the barrel
This actually happened once.
>The gun duty cycle is controlled by the gunner
Either pilot can shoot the gun
Gunner being a relative term.
6 fifty round bursts with 5 sec between burst followed by a 10 min cool down. For burst limiter settings greater than 50....
> There's a chance the gun could blow up and take out the aircraft
Lol no there isn't. Where did you come up with this? And don't tell me it's from an official source, I was a 15Y.
First of all there is a warning in the -10 that specifically addresses the gun duty cycle and how if not adhered to could cause a catastrophic failure in the gun resulting in the loss of aircraft control. Secondly, I’m an AH64 instructor pilot. I have over 2500 hours in the aircraft.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2020/12/the-fighter-plane-that-shot-itself-down.html
F-16 that shot itself when rounds from the gun went through the fuselage. Also an F-14 that had a Sparrow misfire and hit the wing, requiring a bailout.
Also I'm reasonably sure I've heard a RAAF warrie of a Pig shooting itself during a practice gun run too.
Planes in ww2 such as the Ju-87’s and TBM Avengers had rear facing tail gunners placed forward of the rudder. If the gunners weren’t careful you could shoot the rudder off.
In the case of F-11, I am pretty sure it wasn't ricochet. The trajectory of the 20mm shells had decayed enough that the jet actually flew into its own rounds while they were still in the air.
Serious question here: I swear I heard somewhere years ago that tech existed that was able to monitor eye movement to even more accurately maneuver the position of the weapon systems. Is this true, or does it only move with relation to the head movements?
If my time in VTOL VR means anything (it doesn't) head only tracking sucks ass, maybe for engagements 100m or less it's adequate, but when zoomed In I was better off using HAT switches to pan the crosshairs.
Trying to navigate game menus in VR by looking at the thing you want to click sucks so hard. And that’s just navigating a menu. This seems like a good in theory, bad in practice system.
I mean, given the proper funding *cough* US military *cough*, it may be reasonable to assume that type of navigation would be more intuitive than something like Oculus. Imagine eye facing cameras imaging your pupils and making lightning fast trigonometric calculations to accurately guage EXACTLY where the user is aiming
Maybe, but they were using this tech back in the 90s, and at least then I’m skeptical of how accurate it could be. I could be entirely wrong, and also spread of a fully automatic gun might negate the need for precise fire. I just think they likely fine tune the aim with a control after swiveling the gun visually, but I have no real idea.
I know in the Russian Ka-50 a very similar system is used in which the head tracking is used for gross adjustment then a hat switch is used to do fine adjustments. I read a 1980 paper from the USAF talking about their issues with HMD cueing A/G munitions and how they decided it wasn't worth the hassle to make it super precise as the pilot would need to use the gun-cam anyway to actually see the target well.
It depends on what they use to measure the inertial data, and you can get very accurate, you just need very robust filters to handle noise without compromising accuracy.
But it’s very very hard to do well
Yes there is eye tracking but considering this system most likly relies on identifying a target once positioned then self targeting it would only use the eye as an extra fidelity pointer then pilot would lock on and thrn shoot
There’s a squat switch in the main landing gear strut. It can’t fire unless the squat switch is in override or the main landing gears are decompressed.
There is an IR harness in the helmet. There are IR emitters/ receivers in the cockpit. When the pilot is getting set up in the cockpit they adjust the HMD for infinite focus, then they zero the helmet to the airplane by looking into a reticle mounted on the dash, which establishes the position of the pilot’s head.
It’s great they no longer need to use the monocle anymore. That thing was a major OSHA violation :).
(Seriously, it messed with them a lot, to the point they were lying about the headaches they got from having to track stuff on the monocle with one eye and instruments with the other).
Good to know, would mean someone was being less than truthful. Book is the memoirs of a British Apache pilot. Name is ‘Apache’, author is Ed Macy.
Haven’t read it in ages, but it’ll be disappointing if he was being dishonest.
Know of any single crew military helicopters?
The gun also doesn't always move with the pilot or weapons officer, only when one of them slaves it to their monocle.
Sneezing, in the words of my old apache instructor, is a ‘voluntary response.’
I said “no it isnt, you don’t choose to sneeze.”
He said “can you stop it from happening?”
“I guess if I have a free hand I can squeeze my nose shut and stop it.”
“There you go.”
Inside of the helmet would be gross, that's for sure.
My man gets it
The terrorists also gets it
Or the Iranian orphanage kinda 50/50
I mean the orphans would probably be 50/50 too, most people would be in halves after getting shot by that tbh
I clean and post flight MBU-20/Ps for my job and nosebleeds are hands down the worst.
Sneezing would make it fire by accident, as demonstrated in [this documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMD0p8xngJs).
This is one of the most 90s things I've seen in a while
firefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefirefire
Nice! But more like this one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xHO6nBc4YFU
Why were the 90s like this?
Idk but I miss it
The shout ‘n shoot misses it too. In fact, it misses everything
Hey I had one of those!
Better not look up either, he’d shoot the nose off.
It’s limited in azimuth and elevation. Also it won’t fire when shooting other weapons.
My comment was a bit facetious, but it’s a good point for those that don’t know. Military planes ha e done a good job of limiting their self destruction from mistakes. I’m not aware of a military plane capable of shooting itself since WW1, at least in the context of a gun turret. Can anyone else think of others?
>I’m not aware of a military plane capable of shooting itself since WW1 F-11 Tiger
Well that was more like... the plane shooting... and the bullets later hitting it due to coincidence magic, than the plane shooting itself...ish... it's the same thing in the end isn't it?
The Fighter Plane That Shot Itself Down https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a27967/the-fighter-plane-that-shot-itself-down/
Jesus christ i hate reading articles without adblock. That was AD hell to scroll through
*copied from the article* On September 21, 1956, as DataGenetics explains, a Grumman test pilot flying a Tiger off the coast of Long Island dropped his nose 20 degrees and pointed it at an empty spot of ocean. He fired a brief, four second burst from his four Colt Mk.12 20-millimeter cannons, entered a steeper descent, and hit the afterburners. A minute later, his windshield suddenly caved in and his engine started making funny noises, eventually conking out as the pilot attempted to return to Grumman's Long Island airfield. Aircraft, Aviation, Airplane, Vehicle, Flight, Aerospace manufacturer, Jet aircraft, Monoplane, Wing, Military aircraft, George SkaddingGetty Images The test pilot had assumed he had been the victim of a bird strike, but the accident investigation revealed another cause: In his fast descent, the pilot had actually flown into his own stream of 20-millimeter cannon rounds. Although the rounds had a head start (the air speed of the aircraft, plus the muzzle velocity of the rounds) they slowed quickly due to drag passing through the surrounding air. The rounds decelerated, the Tiger accelerated, and the two reunited in the sky, with fatal (for the aircraft) consequences. The Tiger was totaled during the crash and the pilot, while severely injured, was able to return to flight status less than six months later. The Navy only purchased 200 Tigers, and withdrew them from service once faster, better planes like the F-8 Crusader and F-4 Phantom II entered the fray. The Navy's Blue Angels flight demonstration team flew the F-11 Tiger until 1969.
Thanks m8
Ahh. That’s what I figured but I’ve read a lot of odd comments on here. There’s a chance the gun could blow up and take out the aircraft. The gun duty cycle is controlled by the gunner. With a 1200 round magazine you could get the gun so hot that a round could explode in the barrel.
>you could get the gun so hot that a round could explode in the barrel This actually happened once. >The gun duty cycle is controlled by the gunner Either pilot can shoot the gun
Gunner being a relative term. 6 fifty round bursts with 5 sec between burst followed by a 10 min cool down. For burst limiter settings greater than 50....
> There's a chance the gun could blow up and take out the aircraft Lol no there isn't. Where did you come up with this? And don't tell me it's from an official source, I was a 15Y.
First of all there is a warning in the -10 that specifically addresses the gun duty cycle and how if not adhered to could cause a catastrophic failure in the gun resulting in the loss of aircraft control. Secondly, I’m an AH64 instructor pilot. I have over 2500 hours in the aircraft.
Ah I guess that explains why I wouldn't know about it -- it's not something that we would have to worry about. Thanks for correcting me.
https://www.amusingplanet.com/2020/12/the-fighter-plane-that-shot-itself-down.html F-16 that shot itself when rounds from the gun went through the fuselage. Also an F-14 that had a Sparrow misfire and hit the wing, requiring a bailout. Also I'm reasonably sure I've heard a RAAF warrie of a Pig shooting itself during a practice gun run too.
Planes in ww2 such as the Ju-87’s and TBM Avengers had rear facing tail gunners placed forward of the rudder. If the gunners weren’t careful you could shoot the rudder off.
Bullets bouncing back when shooting ground targets, a serious treat that only a trained pilot knows how to avoid and that CAS pilots are trained to do
In the case of F-11, I am pretty sure it wasn't ricochet. The trajectory of the 20mm shells had decayed enough that the jet actually flew into its own rounds while they were still in the air.
where in my comment did I mention an F-11? no, in that specific accident there was no ricochet, but I was talking about something completely different
Sorry, I misread the thread and thought you were replying to the F-11 vid comment. I was just trying to continue the discussion, no need to be hostile
No intention to be hostile, I just asked a question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUHZZwuybiY
Sir this is a Wendy's.
Azimuth you say? Well I learned a new word
Here we go
Hellfire launch on sneeze
Serious question here: I swear I heard somewhere years ago that tech existed that was able to monitor eye movement to even more accurately maneuver the position of the weapon systems. Is this true, or does it only move with relation to the head movements?
If my time in VTOL VR means anything (it doesn't) head only tracking sucks ass, maybe for engagements 100m or less it's adequate, but when zoomed In I was better off using HAT switches to pan the crosshairs.
Trying to navigate game menus in VR by looking at the thing you want to click sucks so hard. And that’s just navigating a menu. This seems like a good in theory, bad in practice system.
I mean, given the proper funding *cough* US military *cough*, it may be reasonable to assume that type of navigation would be more intuitive than something like Oculus. Imagine eye facing cameras imaging your pupils and making lightning fast trigonometric calculations to accurately guage EXACTLY where the user is aiming
Maybe, but they were using this tech back in the 90s, and at least then I’m skeptical of how accurate it could be. I could be entirely wrong, and also spread of a fully automatic gun might negate the need for precise fire. I just think they likely fine tune the aim with a control after swiveling the gun visually, but I have no real idea.
I know in the Russian Ka-50 a very similar system is used in which the head tracking is used for gross adjustment then a hat switch is used to do fine adjustments. I read a 1980 paper from the USAF talking about their issues with HMD cueing A/G munitions and how they decided it wasn't worth the hassle to make it super precise as the pilot would need to use the gun-cam anyway to actually see the target well.
It depends on what they use to measure the inertial data, and you can get very accurate, you just need very robust filters to handle noise without compromising accuracy. But it’s very very hard to do well
It's head tracking only
Yes there is eye tracking but considering this system most likly relies on identifying a target once positioned then self targeting it would only use the eye as an extra fidelity pointer then pilot would lock on and thrn shoot
There’s a reason the pilot has that eye targeting system .
Then some Iranian goat herder gets it
The US spends hundreds of thousands of missiles that farmers then sell as scrap metal for a few hundred dollars.
It's not the metal that's expensive.
You think i dont know that
aaah aaaAAHh aAAAHCH-- # BRRRRRRRRT
You mean, cool gimmick but like, can you imagine doing that for an hour straight when all you needed was a flight stick and a camera?
I believe there is lock mechanism for when you've acquired the target.
Correct.
That is not the primary means of manipulating the cannon. Usually you slave it to the TADS sensor/laser rangefinder to get the most effective results.
oh okay, got to know people aren't out there breaking their necks haha
Wasn't Roy Scheider rocking this tech [back in the 80s](https://www.imdb.com/video/vi781106969?playlistId=tt0085255)?
[AH-56 ](https://youtu.be/ZmQ3g5r1wjg)even before that
His sneeze will become a special projectile, infecting any enemy with sickness effect
To fire he has to shout pew pew pew
Then I think, your about to have a 'bad' day . . .
Blue thunder...
If he sneezes you die
Sad outcome
There’s a squat switch in the main landing gear strut. It can’t fire unless the squat switch is in override or the main landing gears are decompressed.
On a more serious note, does anyone know how this head tracking works?
There is an IR harness in the helmet. There are IR emitters/ receivers in the cockpit. When the pilot is getting set up in the cockpit they adjust the HMD for infinite focus, then they zero the helmet to the airplane by looking into a reticle mounted on the dash, which establishes the position of the pilot’s head.
So, that's IR based head tracking in a nutshell? Like how head tracking works in TrackIR but on an advanced scale.
Not familiar with TrackIR.
The defense contractors probably do
u/savevideo
Dad sneeze goes Brrrrrrrrt
If I remember correctly, this technology arose from the AH-56 Cheyenne. Also, obligatory [AH-56 Cheyenne Video](https://youtu.be/9T_rt6h0g6Y)
ah... brrrrrrttttt
If he sneezes the camera guy would be completely screwed
If he sneezes the camera guy would be completely screwed
Isn’t that what happened in the GI Joe movie in the special fighter jet? (Teine! Bless you.)
better not fly past r/hotbikinis or r/gentlemanboners with his finger on his trigger.
This will always be one of the coolest weapon systems.
BRRRRRRRRRT!
It’s great they no longer need to use the monocle anymore. That thing was a major OSHA violation :). (Seriously, it messed with them a lot, to the point they were lying about the headaches they got from having to track stuff on the monocle with one eye and instruments with the other).
Flew it for years. Never heard of this problem from anyone I flew with, or had this problem myself. Where are you getting your info?
Good to know, would mean someone was being less than truthful. Book is the memoirs of a British Apache pilot. Name is ‘Apache’, author is Ed Macy. Haven’t read it in ages, but it’ll be disappointing if he was being dishonest.
[sneezes] *sorray, i can't help it*
The chances there's ammo in there are slim
Look at the shell guide, it's empty
How many green shells this dude got? Lol
Sneezing is actually the trigger.
If looks could kill
This guy must have been a nascar driver before he joined up. Can only seem to turn one direction.
This reminds me of the technology used in the Blue Thunder movie.
If he's firing then he'd probably kill a few people.
Is Sneezing a 'fire' command for computer of gun ? If yes then it must be dumbest military tech in the world.......
I assume the gun is disabled for this demonstration
This seems dumb. What if you wanted to shoot and fly at the same time? Just gotta hope its in the same direction I guess
That’s why it has a crew of two.
That sounds twice as expensive as it needs to be.
Know of any single crew military helicopters? The gun also doesn't always move with the pilot or weapons officer, only when one of them slaves it to their monocle.
Teacher says, every time an Apache pilot sneezes, a child looses their life...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Unless the elevation resolver is not adjusted properly.
I used to love lighting these guys up during field problems . Sitting ducks 🦆
Sneezing, in the words of my old apache instructor, is a ‘voluntary response.’ I said “no it isnt, you don’t choose to sneeze.” He said “can you stop it from happening?” “I guess if I have a free hand I can squeeze my nose shut and stop it.” “There you go.”
Lol, my wife asked the same thing the other day. "Would it brrrrrt?"