check these links out about the Aussie Bushrangers.
Great thread also.
You are most welcome!
As I recall spent casings hitting the tail rotor was an unforeseen problem in initial gunship ops. IIRC, I read it in an Ian Allan publication book on the UH-1/AH-1 series.
And it's not just the weight of the stations; the rear one had just the rack for the rocket pod and not the Emerson gun laying assembly. And taking into account the combined weight of the two miniguns, two Emerson assemblies and the ammo... Anyway, all gunship configured UH-1D's (including test examples) I've seen seem to have the guns forward, even when no rockets are carried, so I'm inclined to believe that this was because it made positioning the ammo boxes more convenient due to the interior configuration of long-fuselage Hueys. That way they could avoid potentially jam-causing bends in the ammo feed chute route.
To illustrate the point:
From an old Observer's booklet from the 60's.
And finally, not related to the above, a field mod with the F-100's Pontiac M39 High-Speed cannon in a fixed underfuselage mounting - note muzzle blast panel.
I asked the user Bushranger if he could provide some info and he sent a link that cleared things up. Thanks!
/edit: Bushranger was slightly faster!This layout helped the gunners out because the rocket pods were below the guns and that minimized the back blast effects to the gunners during a rocket run. The forward minigun location moved the shell casing stream further from the tail rotor compared to a UH-1B/C gunship and that could only help minimize "brassing" the tail rotor.
Just thought id add the info mate.
We really had a great time coordination.
You were right again. I can just pull my virtual head about your knowledge. And thanks for additonal infos. Escpecially the one with the cannon from the Super Sabres is a really interesting. I would really like to see this thing in action.
From my time on the Bush Rangers, we had a two station system to allow for quick turn around also. We could remove the rocket pods and still leave the mini guns on if required, and visa-versa.
The dual system also helped with the load out and floor configuration. Additionally, the floor stengthening played a big part, as did the CoG for all the ceramic plate additions for the pilots protection.
Ex RAAF Engine AirFrame fitter.
Thanks for the infos. Did you remove the whole subsystems if just the miniguns or the rocket-pods were used or were they still attached but "empty"? I guess the subsystem on the back were always attached to have a mounting point for the twin M60s, right?
Was the whole floor of the Bushrangers armored or just some parts?
"The Lord Giveth,The Mini Taketh"
nice choice of words and great set of pictures!
It would be cool to see more ARVN, Australian and US Navy gunships. Anyway here is a nice US Army one:
The Bushrangers flooring was limited armour, due to all up weight.
As to removing the system, it depended on the situation. The main armament was installed as a complete unit, and not seperated. Some commanders removed the rockets but left the arms in place to allow for quick installation if required.
The rear arm was originall configured for a single 60 but upgraded to the twins.
Of not is also the installation of a deflector shield on the quarter door to deflect some of the air from the gunners position. This was originally installed on the B mdels, and carried forward onto the D and H vesrions as part of an observation, but never an approved modification.
Surfboards, "Death From Above" under crossed sabers, PA M41 far left = Apocalypse Now...