Talk:Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23

Spin up.

Why would being gas operated have any effect on the rate of "spin up"? This delay is caused by the inertia of the rotating assembly; given a sufficient power source of equal force to the gas pressure in the system of this gun, there should be no difference. The only way to significantly speed up the acceleration is to lighten the rotating assembly (which may well be the case with this gun). But that has nothing to do with it being gas operated. If by some chance, the US gun used an electric or hydraulic motor which produced significantly less torque than the force of the gas pressure in the system, all that would need to be done is increase the hydraulic pressure or install a larger electric motor. But I still think that any (alleged) increase in spin-up is due to a lighter barrel assembly, not because the US is using motors that are too weak..45Colt 00:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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) 15:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The gun uses a pyrotechnic starter. See the Russian-language article.

Hence - "...they focused on internal operation with pyrotechnic charge or electric starter..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.174.101 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

By redirecting some of the firing gases through an impulse turbine (check out the shape of the "muzzle brake") you can drive the barrels with high power, minimal weight and complexity: it's just a compact piece of machined metal with no moving parts. An electric motor of similar power would be much bulkier and heavier; a hydraulic one even more so, when you take plumbing and pump into account. They also need maintenace and if they fail, the gun can't fire. You can mangle that "turbine" pretty badly before it won't be able to do it's job and turn the barrels. It's the russian/soviet application of the KISS principle. 46.97.68.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So, to answer the original question "Why would being gas operated have any effect on the rate of 'spin up'?" : by using firing gas for driving the gun mechanism you have access to much greater power than would be practical with an external motive source AND the whole "rotating assembly" is lighter with less moving parts, which further reduces spin up time and increases maximum achievable fire rate. 46.97.68.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you missed the part, where some guns are using electric starter. Anyway, electric motor got pretty much instant and really strong torque and can be easily regulated (!). It's the fastest and simpliest way, really. You just need quite powerful and reliable energy source for full-electric drive (even slow-ass M230 chaingun got 3,7kW electric motor, GAU-12/U got something like 10kW..) and so the other solutions were developed, but gatling with internal operation always (!) need external source for spin-up (pyrocharge, compressed air, electricity or mechanical spring), because gas operation cannot be as easily and progressively regulated like external one (more torque during spin-up, less torque after reaching nominal RoF), pressure taken from gas port is mostly constant. With gas ports only, if you take too much pressure from barrels, not only it would decrease projectile velocity (because you need a lot of pressure for fast spin-up), you would also get pretty unstable nominal RoF and if you take less pressure from barrels for stable RoF, you get also super slow spin-up.

GAU-4 is basically M61 redesigned with gas operation. Guess what was the reason for development of such gun? To use it where powerful energy source isn't available - like gun pods (SUU-23/A) pneumatic starter gives it initial RoF just 1300 rpm in first 0,31s (in comparision, M61 got ~6000 rpm in 0.3s) and its a bit heavier (although version used in german F-104s afaik used electric starter). Btw pneumatic starter is used also on GSh-6-30 (presurised to 6,9MPa).

Also rotating assembly for gas operated gun is by no means simplier or lighter, than electric-driven one, I really don't see what was your thinking to get such idea. In fact it's pretty much opposite (you kidding with "no moving parts" right?), it needs basically everything externaly operated gun needs and gas assembly on top of that. Same goes for maintenance as gas-operated guns got more fouling in the mechanism. Russian gatlings are not even close to KISS (honestly, no gatling is, but gas operated ones are just more complex). However, the electric motor and transmission obviously means increased weight and volume overall.

Trivia: There were experimental gas operated gatlings in Czechoslovakia, esentially just proof of concept with very low RoF, still, spring-loaded one had significantly better spin-up and overall RoF than one with gas ports only. The 9A624/JakB-12,7 (the four-barreled 12,7mm gun on Mi-24) also got spin-up spring by the way (which is cleverly re-compressed via "spin-down" which I found kinda neat).

This whole "less spin-up on gas operation" is just a myth - spread by people with very little knowledge about various gatling designs - which lives on its own, as all sources basically pointing at each other in a loop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.195.174.104 (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Fact check:

The M230 uses a 2 hp (1.5 kW). Looks like the figure for the GAU-12/U is accurate. It is worth noting that the gun is only fired for very brief periods (the A-10 will deplete all ammunition for its autocannon in 18 seconds of continuous firing, and even that's way longer than the time typically spent firing on one target), and that combat radar on such aircraft has similar power requirements (6 kW typical with spikes to 30 kW for the AN/APG-80). Also, electric motors are quite lightweight. A quick google search for "10 kW electric motor" turned up one that's 36 pounds, and that includes the heat sinks it needs for continuous operation which would certainly not be necessary in the rotary autocannon application. 100.19.9.93 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403100210/http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_23.htm to http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_23.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Misquote percent operational

"At present all aircraft in the Russian Air Force are flying with fully operational guns.[7]"

I checked through the article and found no such information. I believe this was misquoted anyway because it says ALL Russian aircraft and ALL are fully operational. I doubt that all Russian aircraft carrier this gun, and what aircraft do carry it I can't imagine they have a 100% operational rate. There has to be one of these things that is either malfunctioned, or in repair, ...

Tapalmer99 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)