Talk:GAU-8 Avenger

The rate of fire is listed as 4200RPM in the section about the recoil, but in the section immediately below it's listed as 3900RPM. Which of those is accurate?

"It is also said that this is to deal with the substantial deceleration of the plane that results from firing. This is however a myth (see below)."

That's a bit confusing. The plane *does* decelerate from firing the weapon, as the myth buster itself points out. The myth is actually that the plane would fly backwards/stop the plane. -- Moogleii 07:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree here. It's ridiculous to assert that a reaction force equal to half the total maximum thrust of the engines wouldn't cause the aircraft to slow down. Chances are the engines are not at full throttle when the A-10 is nose down and firing its gun at tanks. If the airspeed is approximately constant before firing the gun, the thrust and drag are equal in magnitude. Suddenly adding 10,000 lbf in the drag direction by firing the gun would definitely cause the aircraft to lose airspeed. I recommend this section is changed so as not to perpetuate a physical impossibility--that is, unbalanced force with no acceleration.

" It is the largest (it is the size and weight of a family saloon car), heaviest and most powerful aircraft gun in the United States military."- What about the howitzer on the AC-130? --I think the logic is "gun intended for an aircraft", because the 105mm gun on the AC-130 is the old gun from the M1A1 Abrams.

In terms of total system weight and size, the GAU-8/A is larger both in volume and weight than the M102 105mm howitzer. --Falcon48x 23:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the average recoil force is found to be 44.5kN[1] These facts come from straight the producer; General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP)--Mad Max 19:04, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Tweaked the section about the myth further. While the product homepage states the recoil force at 44.5 kN, I think there is he possibility that they made an error when converting from Pounds to kN (if they did that). The measurment "10 000 Pounds" only holds one significant digit while 44.5kN holds three. I compromised by stating 45kN in the article. --J-Star 13:00, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

The USAF did actually experiment with a few ways to mitigate the effect of the recoil on the plane during during the 80's and 90's. One of these included extending the nose of plane to form a cowling around the end of the gun which acted as a muzzle brake (similar to that seen on large caliber sniper rifles/mobile artillery pieces). This was decided to be too expensive and too much effort for the effect it had. Also the reason the gun is mounted off the centreline of the plane is that the recoil forces are great enough that when they originally had the gun mounted on the centreline the recoil forces were actually enough to push the gun off target. This is because by the time the bullet leaves the barrel, the barrel it is being fired from is in the 9 o'clock position. Thus with the gun mounted on the centreline the recoil forces are off the centreline. --SgT_LemMinG 16:23, 2006 Dec (+10)

Spinning

How are the barrels rotated? Electrical, hydraulic, gas-actuated? How long is typical spin-up time? --Andrew 09:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Q. How are the barrels rotated?

A. The rotational force is delivered by two hydraulic drive motors operating off of both main aircraft hydraulic systems (A+B). The motors deliver their torque to gearbox in the Hydraulic drive assembly. This in turn delivers the force to two drive shafts. The forward one goes to the rotor assembly on the GAU-8 itself, while the second delivers it's power to the ammunition drum.

Q. How long is typical spin-up time?

A. While the system is capable of operating at 4200 rounds per minute, it is limited to 3900 while installed in the aircraft. Since the GAU-8 has 7 barrels it needs to spin at 1/7th of the firing rate. Basically since it's rotating a touch over 550 rpm the spin-up time is almost instantaneous.

On another point the statement on the gun gas on affecting the engines is complete rubbish. During the firing of the GAU-8 the engines ingest so much gun gas that the engine igniters (think super spark plugs) must fire to ensure a stall does not occur. The engines also will ingest so much soot from the firings that they need to be "water washed" (have water and a mild cleaning solution misted into the engines while running at approx. 80% power) periodically to remove soot from the blades. Anyone who has had to clean an A-10 will tell you the gun gas goes just about everywhere aft of the nose.

There is video from the early flight test days of the A-10 firing the gun, then actually stalling the engines as a result. They fixed the problem, but clearly the gasses do go everywhere. By the way, that same video shows the pilot ejecting since the engines would not restart after the shutdown. Ask USAF. It did happen. --22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How does a 30mm compare to a .50 calibre?

Which is more powerful?

Q. "Which is more powerful?"

A. The 30MM round is roughly double the diameter of the .50 cal round. The mass of the actual projectlile is roughly 22 times as much with a corresponding increase in powder. The GAU-8 is a large order of magnitude more powerfull than the GAU-18 (.50 cal weapon).(Also try it this way 30mm vs 12.7 mm)

Pop Culture References to the GAU-8 Avenger...

I am new to Wikipedia, but I must comment that the addendum to this article titled "Pop Culture References to the GAU-8 Avenger" really has deserves no merit for inclusion to this page. Quite frankly, it is poorly written and does not make sense. I ask if others share the same opinion.

I am changing it to ......

In Mark E. Roger's satirical graphic novel Samurai Cat, the GAU-8 Avenger has been featured as a weapon of choice by many characters, some with the ability to lift and fire immense weapon.

Information about production needs updating?

The page states that production was finished in the 1970s. However, the Goalkeeper CIWS states that it uses the gun in a point defense role. Would it be possible to determine whether these guns are newly-made, or at least update the page with details as to the weapons new usage?

58.28.149.143 02:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reiver

Strange claims of mass and size...

In the "History" section of this article, a rather extreme claim is made that "On the...A-10, the GAU-8 fills half of the aircraft fuselage and represents one third of its unladen weight."

This doesn't add up, given the numbers for weight and length of the GAU-8 in this article and the corresponding figures given for the A-10 in A-10 Thunderbolt II:

GAU-8:
weight of gun alone: 620 lbs
weight of gun, feed system, drum and max ammunition load: 4029 lbs
length of entire system: 19 feet

A-10:
empty weight: 24,959 lbs
length: 53 feet four inches

Given these numbers, the claim of the GAU-8 filling 50% of the aircraft volume and 33% of its empty weight is absurd. The GAU-8 is 228 inches long, which is only 35.6% of the A-10's 640 inches. Given that a gun is a denser piece of machinery than an aircraft and the aircraft is certainly wider than the gun system, a gun that is only 33.6% as long as its carrying aircraft is certainly not going to fill 50% of the aircraft's fuselage space.

Similarly, at 4029 lbs, a GAU-8 gun system with a full load of ammo is just a hair over 16% of the weight of an unloaded A-10, less than half of the 33% claimed in the article.

I've just now signed in around here, so I'm not going to delete the offending hyperbole myself, but I would think that a more experienced editor would be wise to do so.

Molon Labe 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and edited the offending material. --Molon Labe 03:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DU?

I deleted the brief and inaccurate commentary on DU in this article because it is covered in much greater detail and balence in the linked article on DU. The comments appeared to refer to the Basrah University leukemia study but do not represnt the prevailing scientific view that a link to DU is not proven. I retained the link that explains the controvery adequately. 12.10.223.247 01:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Debunking the Avenger

Remember, The wepon is not as accurate as this says, it had a test with a similar target, and found out only 1% of the rounds hit, as they didn't find all the bullets the first time, another problem, it only packs less explosives then a M79 grenade, well expected, as M79 is 40mm. also, it is insanely unreliable, jamming every other second. it overheats at an obscene rate. also, it is not very durable. it is the sole reason the A-10 is being phased out, the USAF is too stupid to just replace the damn gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.199.78 (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)