Dan Neff wrote:
[snip]
> >
> >Regarding weapons mounted on highway vehicles, I've often
> >entertained the fantasy of having a 105mm recoiless rifle
> >centerline mounted on mine. I'd consider 3 rounds per week a
> >reasonable restriction.
>
> Say, I'm no expert on ordnance, but wouldn't something recoiless
> THAT size be considered legal if you called it a "supplemental
> braking system"? :)
>
> dan.
------------------
If it were recoilless, you wouldn't get a braking effect. The reaction
force (to the impulse of the departing round) is absorbed in the weapon
and not transmitted to the vehicle carrying the weapon. A couple of
forward firing 20mm cannon would probably do the trick, though.
Early cannon-armed Spitfires (Supermarine, not Triumph) had problems
with their H-S 20mm cannon jamming, and if just one jammed the recoil
impulse (on one wing only, not balanced by the gun on the other wing
firing at the same time) would make the plane yaw so badly that not only
could the pilot not keep the nose on the target, the plane would judder
on the edge of a spin.
This reminds me - has anyone ever seen (or maybe done this themselves) a
Roadster painted in aircarft markings? Triumph had an ad years back
showing a Spitfire painted in the RAF Standard Camouflage scheme, with
light blue rocker panels and RAF roundels on the doors. I wanted to get
a Spitfire just so I could paint it like that! A friend of mine had an
Opel painted like a Stuka (sans Swastikas - he didn't want to offend the
neighbors) and I saw a VW Bug with a US naval aviation scheme and
markings from the USS Ranger.
Gary McCormick
San Jose, CA
--------------------
|