I'm calling Bull Shit on that article.

Reference the author's comment "The incident reflects why guns on a high-performance jet are perhaps a less than ideal weapon"

There is absolutely no way the jet is going to catch up to the bullets it just fired.

Now what is possible, while remote, is for the jet to fly into a ricochet of one of its just fired rounds, assuming an unfortunate ricochet direction and possibly a low pull by the pilot to boot.

But no, the jet isn't going to fire a burst of 20MM, then catch up to the bullets and fly into them. Let's not even mention the fact that whatever the muzzle velocity of the rounds would be leaving a static barrel, said barrel is also traveling at the speed of the aircraft.

THIS is a great example of "Fake News"!!

I'm betting on a bit of a SNAFU between lead and the wingman, one of them maybe firing before the other was clear of the target, as they roll in in sequence.

The article was written by a typical "journalist" that does not know what he/she does not know.
Vleihors Range....I strafed on that range many years ago when flying the Warthog. It's strafe pits are just like any other, they are periodically groomed to remove embedded fired projectiles that, if impacted by a bullet can cause a ricochet. Those ricochets can go straight up and directly into the path of the pullout from the firing pass.
Not an unheard of thing to happen.....must have been a slow news day and a journalist that didn't listen really well.

Not the first time it's happened. If the pilot fires the gun/cannon in level flight and then goes into a high speed dive, he can absolutely hit himself.

http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html

I'm thinking that F-104s were the first to this dubious honor, unless this F-11 predates it.

quote:

Originally posted by Smokin Joe:
Not the first time it's happened. If the pilot fires the gun/cannon in level flight and then goes into a high speed dive, he can absolutely hit himself.

http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html

More than likely, these Vipers were zorching around the pattern at 360 to 400 knots or so, rolling in around 6,000 AGL in a 30 to 45 degree dive, firing a 1 to 2 second burst at 500 KTS and 2,500 feet AGL or so, and pulling out in a bottom of around 1,500'.

There is no way in hell they are going to "catch up" to their bullets in that scenario.

Again, two possibilities here.

1) Most likely scenario and a no fault event unless a bit of a low pull, is a ricochet.

2) Less likely but certainly has happened, is Dash 2 rolled in and fired before lead was complete clear.

In any event, the article's author suggesting a gun mounted on a fighter is a less than an ideal weapon is just laughable. A bit like stating a gun mounted on a tank is less than ideal. The purpose of a fighter is to be a killing machine. You need weapons to carry out that mission. It frankly sounds like something a member of the anti gun crowd would say.

My experience with media types is that aviation stories are easily hyped, probably playing on many people's general fear of flying, and rarely are the facts presented without error. Reading this guy's article, I see nothing to contradict that trend.

There's a reason there are pull out altitudes for low and high angle strafing. Been many years, but I'm guessing the high altitude pull up altitudes (like in your post, Todd) are for ground avoidance primarily. But low angle (10 degree strafing run) pull out limits are primarily for self-fragging avoidance. Getting hit with your own bullets isn't unusual if you press the target. But it is from ricochets, not outrunning your own bullets.

"The plane literally ran into its own gunfire"

https://www.popularmechanics.c...at-shot-itself-down/

quote:

Originally posted by A7Dave:
There's a reason there are pull out altitudes for low and high angle strafing. Been many years, but I'm guessing the high altitude pull up altitudes (like in your post, Todd) are for ground avoidance primarily. But low angle (10 degree strafing run) pull out limits are primarily for self-fragging avoidance. Getting hit with your own bullets isn't unusual if you press the target. But it is from ricochets, not outrunning your own bullets.

Agreed Dave.

HaHa. I've got to admit, I missed the last paragraph of this article the first time around. I couldn't get past the BS early on in order to finish it.


Look at the last statement this guy makes regarding the F-16's being replaced with the F-35!


"The F-35A carries the four-barrel General Dynamics GAU-22 Equalizer, a 25mm cannon that carries a mere 182 rounds in its magazine—so about two seconds worth of shells. That might make for fewer opportunities for a self-kill."

In the words of Sheriff Ed Tom: You can't make this stuff up. I dare you to even try!!!

Not knowing what an F-11 was, I did not realize it was operational that far back.

https://theaviationist.com/201...at-the-firing-range/

quote:

Originally posted by just say moe:


https://theaviationist.com/201...at-the-firing-range/

A much more realistic and accurate article on the incident.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I'm calling Bull Shit on that article.

Reference the author's comment "The incident reflects why guns on a high-performance jet are perhaps a less than ideal weapon"

There is absolutely no way the jet is going to catch up to the bullets it just fired.

Now what is possible, while remote, is for the jet to fly into a ricochet of one of its just fired rounds, assuming an unfortunate ricochet direction and possibly a low pull by the pilot to boot.

But no, the jet isn't going to fire a burst of 20MM, then catch up to the bullets and fly into them. Let's not even mention the fact that whatever the muzzle velocity of the rounds would be leaving a static barrel, said barrel is also traveling at the speed of the aircraft.

THIS is a great example of "Fake News"!!

I'm betting on a bit of a SNAFU between lead and the wingman, one of them maybe firing before the other was clear of the target, as they roll in in sequence.

Not fake, like others said it happened back in 1956. I remember the pilot appearing on the old tv show I'v Got a Secret. Cannon was fired at upward angle, aircraft then descended going supersonic and flew through path of cannon projectiles. He had decelerating cannon shells and accelerating aircraft plus the geometry of the shells and aircraft all in perfect harmony for it to occur.

quote:

Originally posted by jkingrph:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
I'm calling Bull Shit on that article.

Reference the author's comment "The incident reflects why guns on a high-performance jet are perhaps a less than ideal weapon"

There is absolutely no way the jet is going to catch up to the bullets it just fired.

Now what is possible, while remote, is for the jet to fly into a ricochet of one of its just fired rounds, assuming an unfortunate ricochet direction and possibly a low pull by the pilot to boot.

But no, the jet isn't going to fire a burst of 20MM, then catch up to the bullets and fly into them. Let's not even mention the fact that whatever the muzzle velocity of the rounds would be leaving a static barrel, said barrel is also traveling at the speed of the aircraft.

THIS is a great example of "Fake News"!!

I'm betting on a bit of a SNAFU between lead and the wingman, one of them maybe firing before the other was clear of the target, as they roll in in sequence.

Not fake, like others said it happened back in 1956. I remember the pilot appearing on the old tv show I'v Got a Secret. Cannon was fired at upward angle, aircraft then descended going supersonic and flew through path of cannon projectiles. He had decelerating cannon shells and accelerating aircraft plus the geometry of the shells and aircraft all in perfect harmony for it to occur.

Go back and read the article again. This is NOT the scenario. This guy was engaged in firing on targets on the range. The article says he caught up to bullets he fired in one of his strafing runs as he pulled out.

That's not the same scenario whereby a guy launches bullets into the stratosphere, then makes a supersonic dive and get's hit by falling bullets.

I'll say again:



Nothing more than the fake media once again sensationalizing a story they have no real knowledge of. Happens every day. All day for that matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

I'll say again:



Nothing more than the fake media once again sensationalizing a story they have no real knowledge of. Happens every day. All day for that matter.

+1

But then, what does one expect when an uncritical journalist (and the editor) can rightly claim their total tactical knowledge was gained by watching the movie "Top Gun"

- Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Redstone:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

I'll say again:



Nothing more than the fake media once again sensationalizing a story they have no real knowledge of. Happens every day. All day for that matter.

+1

But then, what does one expect when an uncritical journalist (and the editor) can rightly claim their total tactical knowledge was gained by watching the movie "Top Gun"

- Mike

And we all know Top Gun was an indisputable reflection of reality!

What? You mean Tom Cruise ain't a "real" fighter pilot?

I'm shocked, I say! Everyone knows that a movie star instantly knows everything about his character, after all, they testify before congress all the time about it!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
What? You mean Tom Cruise ain't a "real" fighter pilot?

I'm shocked, I say! Everyone knows that a movie star instantly knows everything about his character, after all, they testify before congress all the time about it!

So true

Why I am voting for Tom cruise for president

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5Btb8gLy3-E

Besides we all know a gun on a modern fighter is as useful as a flying scarf on a modern jumpsuit

Mike