Pictures of Cold War aircraft. (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

yj52fc3wwifr816xml86trzksmjn8oyahfdbvbgijmk.jpg
 
Four in da nose and two in da wings, equals six Ma Duce .50!

Consider also that they were Browning AN/M3 machine guns that fired at a considerably faster rate than the AN/M2 that was almost universally used during WW2. One second on the trigger sent a total of about 120 rounds downrange, it's basically equivalent to a battery of ten wartime .50 cals.

On the subject of gratuitous firepower, herewith an F-4E Phantom II armed with a pair of GPU-5/A 30mm cannon pods:

1743939843059.png


The GAU-13 was developed in the late 1970s for use in gun pod applications for fighter aircraft and attack aircraft use, primarily for air-to-ground and anti-tank attacks. It is a four-barreled rotary cannon based on the mechanism of the larger GAU-8, sharing the same massive 30 mm ammunition. Like the Avenger, it has a double-ended feed system with reverse clearing to remove unfired rounds. Unlike the GAU-8, however, it is pneumatically driven, giving it a rate of fire of 2,400 rounds per minute. Minimum time between stoppages is estimated at 32,000 rounds, making it a very reliable weapon.

The GAU-13/A uses the same range of PGU-13 High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) and PGU-14 Armor-Piercing Incendiary (API) rounds (which contain a depleted uranium penetrator) as the Avenger. Despite its somewhat lower rate of fire compared to the seven-barreled Avenger, it is an immensely powerful weapon. The principal application for the GAU-13/A was the GPU-5/A gun pod (originally marketed as the GEPOD 30). The pod is 4.3 metres (14 feet 1 inch) long and can be mounted on any standard NATO 762 mm (30.0 in) suspension lugs. It holds 353 rounds of ammunition, enough for approximately nine seconds of continuous fire. The GPU-5/A weight is 600 kg (1,300 lb) empty and 841 kg (1,854 lb) fully loaded. The pod is completely self-contained.
 
That Cutlass needs some TLC!!! I'm reading the Al Casby/Tommy Thomasson Cutlass book at the moment and realise more and more how it is a really misunderstood and erroneously maligned aircraft. Also how much of a liability Westinghouse seems to have been. It also seems at the juncture I'm at in the book, that most of its accidents were attributable to poor piloting technique, especially related to misuse of high-lift devices on take-off and landing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back