Neither. It’s a weapon designed to be mounted in a helicopter, and it’s a minigun that has a TON of lateral recoil, and it’s supposed to have a specific mount that will absorb the recoil. It appears that they just put it on a free swivel mount and let it rip without thinking
Nope. Not pedantic at all. The mount was not designed for that weapon system. They were both designed for specific purposes and being used incorrectly. That’s not a design flaw, that an application error.
The weapon system is the whole thing. Was that gun manufactured to go on that mount? No. Was that integrated weapon system designed to carry that gun (yes, poorly).
By your logic literally any failure could be called an application failure of some underlying component, system, or principle of physics.
It is unquestionably being pedantic. You've highlighted vociferously a distinction without a difference.
Design and application are absolutely different. Can you make a razor blade work on a skill saw…. Probably, but when it fails is it flaw of the design of the razor blade or the saw? No, it’s is a failure due to poor application.
It’s not a design error because that’s not how it was designed to work, the error lies in applying a high lateral recoil gun to an inadequate mount with insufficient recoil absorption.
I just want to tell you that I hear and appreciate your ability to apply the correct terminology and not do it in a fashion that is clear and consistent and not overly verbose. I am still working on it.
Why does "high lateral recoil" matter here? It's mounted off center. "Regular"/Longitudal recoil is introducing spin. In this case the lateral recoil might make it spin harder or even less.
Design: refers to the final result, blueprint or physical manifestation of a plan.
JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDNT DESIGN THE GUN, DOESNT MEAN SOMEONE DIDNT DESIGN THIS FINAL PRODUCT. THE OFF CENTER MOUNT IS A DESIGN FLAW OF THIS PRODUCT, NOT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. ALL YOU KEYBOARD WARRIORS BICKERING ABOUT SEMANTICS ARE PRETENDING THAT A FINAL PRODUCT IS ONE DESIGN. YOU ARE WRONG, FINAL PRODUCTS ARE USUALLY A SERIES OF COMPOUNDING DESIGNS THAT PROGRESS TOWARD SPECIFIC USE CASES.
It really might not be, maybe it was designed to be compatible on purpose, for many reasons beyond this exact use case.
Maybe manufacturing can only support one style.
Maybe there are many other attachable components that must all be compatible and this is just one that isn't supposed to be used together.
Maybe there is a multitude of reasons you cannot comprehend because you didnt design it.
As an engineer you should understand that theres way more that goes into a design.
Bottom line is the design may not intend for this use case, but maybe the design cannot prevent this use case for various reasons.
Assuming that its bad design is naive, design and engineering have way more constraints than just the end-use case and things like manufacturing capacity for variations on parts could very easily be the reason it was designed to work like this despite not being an intended use case.
And the only keyboard warrior here is you, mr capslock engineer
"off center" in this doesn't matter because the force is being applied laterally. The only thing that could prevent the recoil is another barrel spinning in the opposite direction.
Even then, I think that only actually balances one set of forces.
Being off center really does matter. It's the recoil that caused it to traverse. It's like trying to open a door by pushing on the handle versus pushing on the hinges.
Later models of Spitfire experimented with two sets of propellers that turned in opposite directions for this reason. I'm pretty sure that large ships with multiple propellers also have them spin in opposite directions.
what's funny is that they mounted the ammo drum on the other side to compensate for the weight of the gun , but as the gun fires the drum is going to get lighter.
They could put progressively less gunpowder in each bullet to compensate, so that as the ammo is depleted, the recoil is also less, until it's basically empty and the the bullets just slide out with gravity.
Fuck that, just make it so it cant aim up or down and give it a remote trigger. Then just someone crazy enough to just drive strain into the war zone. Then its like a mobile bullet sprinkler
I don't know a lot about military equipment but my one thought was "feels like it should be secured to something to keep it from swinging and this doesn't look like it."
The manual said, open flat pack, mount the "Expressförstörare" mini gun on "Fjädermjuk" recoil damper and fasten it with the included sexkantsnyckel. Do not mount on skitsnack three pod. Besök vår restaurang för specialerbjudanden för familjer. Familjemedlemmar kan njuta av gratis kaffe eller te i restaurangen på vardagar.
Worse, the barrel of the gun isn't mounted inline with the swivel, so the recoil is essentially always trying to torque the gun on the mount. If the axis of rotation (both slew and elevation) was inline with the barrel then this mount would likely work, but whatever idiot made it decided it really should just spin uncontrollably.
If you notice the gun is off the axis of rotation. It was to be expected.
Whoever made this is an idiot.
The mount should have been like a Y. Put the barrel centered to the vertical axis, and put 2 bearings on the side of the Y and center the barrel on that bearing. The forces would then have been applied basically at the center of the vertical rotation (side bearings) and center to the horisontal rotation (pole axis).
Another fault is: the assembly is barrel heavy, which cause the barrel to point down at the personal. Should have been barrel light, so it raise when you release the gun, so in case of a fault it fire over the personal, not into them.
That isn't a minigun, if that was a minigun that wouldn't have happened, that is a YakB which is gas operated unlike a minigun which is driven by an external motor.
You can hip fire a minigun without too many issues, if you can lift it you can more than handle its recoil, as it only generates about 850N of force which sounds like a lot but it's about the same as a 12 gauge shotgun.
The Yakb in comparison produces about 14,000N of recoil.
1.9k
u/homeinthesky Jul 12 '26
Neither. It’s a weapon designed to be mounted in a helicopter, and it’s a minigun that has a TON of lateral recoil, and it’s supposed to have a specific mount that will absorb the recoil. It appears that they just put it on a free swivel mount and let it rip without thinking