Talk:Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-30

message: The Mikoyan_MiG-27 article contains an interesting quote about the test firing of GSh-6-30А by test pilot Kondaurov. It could appear on this page as soon as the source has been found.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liotier (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote (and a whole lot more information about this weapon) can be found at http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/guns/gsh630.html  There are several books cited, with sources at the end of the article.. (20040302 (talk))
There is an article on the site of Anthony G Williams that he edited for Denis Evstafyev at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/GSh-6-30.htm
With his publication history, Williams should probably qualify as a SME on automatic weapons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.174.94 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote about use on Mig-27M 

message: It seems to be missing from the article. How many bullets per second does it fire? 68.44.132.25 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate of fire is missing? 

message: Any more details on this? Seems like mounting a gun on an angle to the direction of travel of your aircraft would make for some interesting aiming. On the other hand, could be good for strafing while avoiding ground fire. CrazyCanuck (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the following taken from the similiar "GAU-8 Avenger" answers it : "Each barrel fires when it reaches roughly the 9 o'clock position, when viewed from the front of the plane. Because the gun's recoil forces could push the entire plane off target during firing, the weapon itself is mounted off-center in the other direction, toward the 3 o'clock position, so that the firing barrel lies directly on the aircraft's center line."
92.195.113.37 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mounted obliquely? 

message: How can it be in service since 1964 if it was designed in the early 1970's and entered service in 1975? Bizzybody (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service date? 

message: The article lists the force of recoil at 5500 kg, but kg is not a measure of force. My *guess* is that this is from a unit conversion from pounds (which are both mass and force) and the correct recoil is about 54kN. I don't have a source though, so if anyone can find one please correct this. 
69.8.120.3 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pounds are a unit of mass NOT a unit of force. Pounds-force (lbf) are a unit of force. Just as well, there is the kilogram-force (kgf) which is a unit of force, equal to 9.8 or 10 newtons, depending on how much of an engineer you are. People are not that rigurous when distinguishing between the two notions (just like you did above by saying that pounds are both mass and force) so in this context 5500 kg of recoil should be read as 5500 kgf of recoil which is about 54 kilonewtons like you computed.89.120.104.138 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force of recoil 

message: I don't understand how being gas operated would make the weapon spin up to full rate faster than an American Gatling gun. Maybe a bit faster if the total impulse provided by the gas is greater than the torque provided by whichever motor (electric or hydraulic) that is used on the American gun, but in either case there is significant inertia to be overcome, and a 30mm weapon will be heavier than a 20mm like the M61. No matter the drive system, being a rotary cannon, spin up will not be instantaneous in any case, and the American gun can easily be accelerated faster by utilizing a stronger drive motor. I would like to see some solid numbers on the M61, the GAU-8 and the GSh-6-30, personally..45Colt 17:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (I already wrote this under GSh-6-23, so once more) - It's complete nonsense, gas operated gatlings generally suffer from exactly opposite problem - their spin-up time would be too long, with just internal operation and that is why they have starter (kinda like starter in your car) for initial spin-up. Thing is, Russian avionics was always quite power hungry (especially large radars) and their electric systems less than stellar, so gatling fully driven via electric motor would drain a lot of electricity in short period of time and thus they focused on internal operation with pyrotechnic charge or electric starter, as it's less stressful for on-board power source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.239.68.21 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin up 

message: It seems to defeat the whole purpose of neutrality.
OC39648 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should 'Crazy Russian Weapons' /really/ be a tag?