Ordnance – Recoilless gun – Having pressure-control means
Reexamination Certificate
2000-08-02
2002-10-08
Johnson, Stephen M. (Department: 3641)
Ordnance
Recoilless gun
Having pressure-control means
C089S014050
Reexamination Certificate
active
06460446
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to a low recoil and low bore heat gun system. In particular, the low recoil gun system uses a delayed pressure release mechanism of the fired propellant charge. More particularly, the delayed pressure release of the exhaust gases causes a sonic rarefaction wave along the length of the barrel bore to arrive at the muzzle end of the gun barrel at a predetermined time, generally coincident with the fired projectile. The mechanism of the present invention allows a maximum amount of energy to be imparted into the fired projectile.
2. Brief Description of the Related Art
Recoil from a fired vehicle mounted gun system causes excessive motion of the vehicle, at times, creating the possibility of toppling the vehicle or causing extreme discomfort to the gun crew. As stated by Newton's third law of motion, i.e., to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction, the momentum manifest within a gun system during the weapon launch is equal and opposite to sum of the momentum which is imparted to the projectile launched from the gun system, including the propellant gases that are subsequently ejected from the gun system. Minimizing the recoil increases the utilization of these gun systems.
Several methods are known to reduce the total forward momentum imparted during the launch of a projectile from a gun system. Momentum, as a vector quantity, does not dissipate as kinetic energy does, which is a scaler quantity. For a traditional gas gun, the launch momentum equals momentum imparted to the projectile, and the propellant gas that follows the projectile out of the muzzle. For a given projectile momentum, the total launch momentum may be reduced by redirecting the forward moving propellant gas to lower its forward speed, or reverse it.
Alternatively, some other inertia may be ejected out of the gun in the opposite direction from the projectile to achieve some degree of momentum cancellation.
All guns are subject to recoil, thus the problem has exited ever since the invention of the gun. The first known concept of a recoilless gun was sketched by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) in which a gun fired two projectiles; one forward and one rearward, to balance the momentum. During World War I, Commander Cleland Davis, United States Navy, reduced the two projectile gun to practice. The Davis gun fired an ordinance projectile at the target, and a dummy projectile of Vaseline and lead dust, having an equal mass to the ordinance projectile, was fired in the opposite direction. The original Davis gun used a cannon that was open at both ends and loaded in the middle, and was apparently intended to target high altitude Zeppelins. Problems with the Davis gun include hazards to friendly forces from the rearward fired projectile and subsequent muzzle blast, added system weight from a second barrel and additional charge needed to obtain equal fire power of the projectile, and containing pressure in two directions. As such, the Davis gun has logistical burdens, munitions handling problems of heavy ammunition, a high system weight, and double length gun barrels that may limit mobility of a fighting vehicle.
Other developments in eliminating recoil from gun systems resulted in recoilless guns. Recoilless guns incorporated a nozzle in the breech to eject propellant gases out of the rear of the gun, permitting part of the propellant gas to flow backward and counter-balance the momentum of the fired projectile and any propellant that was propelled forward. A gun system that incorporated diversion of propellant gases through a nozzle located at the breech was developed by the Russians in 1936 using a design from a patent filed in 1917 by the Russian mathematician Riabouchinski. During World War II, United States Army Colonel René R. Studler, at the Research and Development Service of US Army Ordnance, developed a lightweight recoilless gun resulting in a shoulder fired weapon that could propel a three pound (1.36 Kg) explosive shell with a muzzle velocity of 1200 feet per second (366 m/s). The recoilless concept is used in the U.S. Army M40AD 106 -mm recoilless rifle that allows propellant gases to escape through a perforated chamber case between the projectile and breech, and the German LG 42 105 mm recoilless Howitzer that uses a bursting disk located at the breech to contain the propellant through ignition as opposed to a perforated chamber. Problems with recoilless rifles include poor ignition characteristics of propellant within the open chamber system, ejection of unburned propellant through the nozzle, erosion problems in large caliber direct-fire tank cannons from created pressures and temperatures (limiting recoilless guns to relatively low pressure applications), loss of substantial amounts of chemical energy from the propellant, added cost and weight from a perforated cartridge to contain the propellant while it burns, revealing back-blasts that also hazard firing crews, and limited nozzle design for recoilless rifles dictated by interior ballistic pressure.
Recoilless guns also have been developed using front orifices developed by the Frigidaire Division of the General Motors Corporation in collaboration with the Armour Research Foundation in the early 1950's. The front orifices allow the ignition process to occur in a closed chamber, increasing efficiency. The gun initially behaves as a conventional weapon. However, shortly after the projectile begins to travel down the bore of the gun barrel, orifices integrated within the gun barrel that lead to a rearward facing contraction expansion nozzle are uncovered by the projectile obturator, allowing propellant gases to be vented from the gun and achieve forward thrust for recoil cancellation. Problems with a front orifice recoilless rifle include adequate ducting of escaping rearward muzzle gases at a substantial distance along the bore from the rear of the weapon, reduced pressure behind the launching projectile after the orifice is enabled and throughout the remaining duration of the ballistic cycle, limited chamber pressure, increased ammunition weight, and the initial imbalance in recoil loads requires a flexible, i.e., heavier and more complicated, mount to accommodate the initial rearward motion of the gun system prior to the uncovering of the orifices and their recoil mitigation effect. As such, recoilless and front orifice rifles present a logistical burden and munitions handling of heavy ammunition relative to that achievable with a traditional closed breach gun system, limited internal ballistic pressure, and an inability to operate in a closed-breech mode when firing low impulse rounds.
Muzzle brakes may be used to reduce firing impulses. French Colonel Chevalier Truielle de Beaulieu, in 1842, recorded the first known diversion of propellant gas using a crude muzzle brake to reduce the combined launch momentum. Muzzle brakes deflect the gases flowing out of the muzzle thus redirecting a substantial portion of the gas momentum. The efficiency of muzzle brakes generally ranges between 30 and 40 percent, with exceptional muzzle brakes achieving efficiencies as high as 70 percent. In this context, the muzzle brake efficiently is defined as the percentage reduction in the kinetic energy imparted to the recoiling gun system mass. During launch, the projectile is propelled by the high pressure propellant gases and when the rear of the projectile exits the main gun barrel it enters the muzzle brake. The muzzle brake allows the propellant gases to escape from behind the fired projectile. Through a combination of further gas expansion, and redirection of the gas flow, the net forward momentum of the propellant gases may be dramatically reduced, or even reversed by the muzzle brake. Problems with muzzle brakes include crew hazards from the excessive over-pressure of the blast, i.e., air disturbances or propellant gas moving at high velocity, loud noise and heat, creation of debris in the air obfuscating targets, added weight and cumbersome barrel redirection, limita
Johnson Stephen M.
Moran John
Sachs Michael
The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of
LandOfFree
Sonic rarefaction wave recoilless gun system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Sonic rarefaction wave recoilless gun system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Sonic rarefaction wave recoilless gun system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2960165