PDA

View Full Version : About the .50 cals



Mike8686
07-21-2004, 11:32 AM
Dispersion definitly fixed, however, is it just me or have they always seemed to ignore the effects of gravity? They just go straight.

Mike8686
07-21-2004, 11:32 AM
Dispersion definitly fixed, however, is it just me or have they always seemed to ignore the effects of gravity? They just go straight.

RedDeth
07-21-2004, 11:39 AM
50s shoot straighter much longer than cannons. standard ballistics stuff

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

RedDeth
07-21-2004, 11:39 AM
50s shoot straighter much longer than cannons. standard ballistics stuff

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of 12 time Champions AFJ http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS/round9.cfm http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/120_1088291823_taylor-greycap.jpg

BS87
07-21-2004, 12:05 PM
You'll notice this with all the HMGs in the game.

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedDeth:
50s shoot straighter much longer than cannons. standard ballistics stuff
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But why do they shoot straighter?

We KNOW that earth's gravity is the same for .50s and CANNONS.. So both will have the same accelerate towards the ground as they drop.

So why do CANNON Shells seem to drop off faster? The answer has more to do with the initila velocy of the round then it's size (ie mass)

Dont belive me?

Go here

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/ProjectileMotion/jarapplet.html

CASE 1: Only change the MASS.. Note changing mass and leaving velocity and angle constant and the LARGE bullet and SMALL bullet make the same path (arch) through the air

CASE 2: Only change the SPEED.. Note changing the velocity (ie inital velocity) has a big effect on how long and far the bullet will go

NOTE: Bigger bullets tend to have a bigger area.. Thus more drag.. Thus that factors into this too.. BUT IN LIGHT OF THE FACT that alot of the German BIG GUNS have BIG if not BIGGER initial velocitys I dont exactally understand why they drops so much.. Unless the drag factor is a big deal.. ie bigger then my gutt thinks it should be.. But also conisder this.. This is very simple Physics.. Therefore I can not imagine Oleg making a mistake on this stuff. Just remeber a little change in velocity makes a big dif.. because it is a squared term

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

jenikovtaw
07-21-2004, 01:15 PM
mk108 30 mm cannon has a initial velocity of 450m/s, while even russian 12.7 SHVAK has 830m/s, so .50 cal is about there to, so its roughly 2ce as fast initially as the cannon.

http://www.theartofwarfare.net/ftp/graphics/sigs/EXT-jenikovtaw.jpg

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 01:31 PM
KE=1/2mv^2

That is everything there is.

It has nothing do with the matter of weapon being cannon or machinegun, that is just another myth.

Cannon can fire (much) flatter than machineguns, and some of them do infact more curving trajectories like Mk108 (a true worst case scenario...)

-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

1.JaVA_Razer
07-21-2004, 01:33 PM
First off .50 cal is supersonic(yes it is supersonic)
second, they weigh MUCH less, now run this scenario in that pallet.(fun thing BTW)
and be sure to include air resistance to.
big guns(mk108's) use big(much drag),slower ,and heavier ammo,while .50's r lighter, smaller,and faster

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

1.JaVA_Razer
07-21-2004, 01:33 PM
First off .50 cal is supersonic(yes it is supersonic)
second, they weigh MUCH less, now run this scenario in that pallet.(fun thing BTW)
and be sure to include air resistance to.
big guns(mk108's) use big(much drag),slower ,and heavier ammo,while .50's r lighter, smaller,and faster

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
KE=1/2mv^2

That is everything there is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is everything if you want to figure out the kinetic energy of the round.. thus the energy that will be transfer to the aircraft when it hits (i.e. excluding explosive charges) but it does NOT tell you much about the TRAJECTORY of the round.. Where as the link I posted does

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
It has nothing do with the matter of weapon being cannon or machinegun, that is just another myth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. not even in your equations above.. note the "m" that is mass thus matter

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Cannon can fire (much) flatter than machineguns, and some of them do infact more curving trajectories like Mk108 (a true worst case scenario...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, not true

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

OldMan____
07-21-2004, 01:43 PM
MK108 is supersonica also.. sound speed is 340 m/s. And its speed was reporte between 450 and 550 .

Weight says NOTHING in here after the bullet left the gun. Although DENSITY does.. more dense bullets drop less speed.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
First off .50 cal is supersonic(yes it is supersonic)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Bet

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
second, they weigh MUCH less, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But as that applet shows, a change in mass does not make a difference.. In that acceleration (ie earths gravity) is a constant (within reason)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
now run this scenario in that pallet.(fun thing BTW)
and be sure to include air resistance to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do the CASE where you ONLY CHANGE the MASS and note the curves are on top of each other.. ie no big difference! The NOTICABLE difference comes from the change in VELOCITY! ie the initial velocity of the round as it exits the barrel.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
big guns(mk108's) use big(much drag),slower ,and heavier ammo,while .50's r lighter, smaller,and faster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>lighther or heavier dont make a big difference.. the difference comes from VELOCITY

IN SUMMARY if what jenikovtaw posted is correct, ie

450m/s for 108 30mm
830m/s for 12.7 SHVAK

Then it is CLEAR as to why the SHVAK looks like a lazer comparied to the 108.. The initial velocity is nearly double!!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Zyzbot
07-21-2004, 01:56 PM
Basic ballistics:

[URL=http://members.aye.net/~bspen/ballistics.html]

"Obviously, different bullets, fired at different velocities, will perform differently. A major factor in determining the shape of the Path is the rate at which the bullet, of whatever shape, slows down. Since True Drop is a constant, occurring at a constantly accelerating rate, we can see that if a bullet is traveling very fast, it will travel a long distance downrange for any given unit of time, and for a certain amount of True Drop. If it is traveling slowly, it will travel a much shorter distance downrange in that same unit of time, but it will drop exactly the same amount. "

NegativeGee
07-21-2004, 01:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Cannon can fire (much) flatter than machineguns, and some of them do infact more curving trajectories like Mk108 (a true worst case scenario...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, not true
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So lets get this straight, a (automatic) cannon can never have a flatter trajectory than a HMG? I think that depends on the individual characteristics of the weapon under consideration and the ammunition being fired.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
So lets get this straight, a (automatic) cannon can never have a flatter trajectory than a HMG?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
I think that depends on the individual characteristics of the weapon under consideration and the ammunition being fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sure it does.. because the individual characteristics and ammunition will dictate the initial velocity of the round exiting the weapon

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

RAF74Leadfinger
07-21-2004, 02:06 PM
A quick Google search turned up this link:
http://www.ww2guide.com/guns.shtml

I have not cross referenced this data, but I assume they are at least in the ballpark.

Note the differences in muzzle velocity between the Browning M2 (870 m/s) vs. the various cannons. You can see that the cannons that have very curved trajectories (i.e. the Mk108) have much lower muzzle velocities. You can also see that cannons with flatter trajectories (like the Hispanos and the Mk103) have similar muzzle velocities to the M2.

While it is true that the actual mass of the projectile does not affect it's motion, we are not talking about point masses here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The heavier projectiles (i.e. cannon shells) are also larger and tend to have much less aerodynamic shapes. (Someone around here used to have a sig picture that showed the various rounds all together, from the machine guns to the 30mms.) This will greatly affect the drag coefficient of the projectile, resulting in effects on the trajectory.

Ok, why not scale up the machine gun projectile to 30mm? We already know mass doesn't matter, so it's ok for it to increase on our new shell. The shape will be identical, because we have simply scaled it up to a larger size, so the drag coeffient will be the same. If we can somehow launch these with the same muzzle velocities (not likely, but let's pretend), they should have the same trajectory, right? Wrong. This is because the larger projectile will have a larger actual drag force acting on it, even though the drag coeffient is the same. (Note that even if we still wanted to build this, we haven't explored the practical considerations of actually building it. I.e. size of the actual rounds, etc.)

-----------------------------
RAF74_Leadfinger
A-Flight Leader
Recruiting Officer
RAF No. 74 Squadron (http://www.raf74.com)

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
It has nothing do with the matter of weapon being cannon or machinegun, that is just another myth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not true.. not even in your equations above.. note the "m" that is mass thus matter

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Cannon can fire (much) flatter than machineguns, and some of them do infact more curving trajectories like Mk108 (a true worst case scenario...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, not true
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ok, Smart. You tell me which has flatter trjectory: 40gram .50 bullet at 850m/s or 125mm 6000gram APFSDS round at 1800m/s? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

And which of these rounds retain it's KE better making it fly flatter even further away? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I tried to make it simple to understand by just quoting one formula, but it seems oversimplification isn't any good either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll give you something more to chew on. Let's take bullet that has .50in diameter. It is shot at 500m/s and has a certain trajectory. Then we make a upscaled version of this bullet 1.0in in diameter - the shape remains the same. It is fired at 500m/s.

Guess which round has flatter trajectory? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Hint: the frontal area (air resistance) grows in square in the upscaling process, while mass grows in ^3 (-&gt; KE=...m...). Get it?


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

NegativeGee
07-21-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
So lets get this straight, a (automatic) cannon can never have a flatter trajectory than a HMG?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you did reply by saying "not true" Jippo's statement of "Cannon can fire (much) flatter than machineguns, and some of them do infact more curving trajectories like Mk108 (a true worst case scenario...)". That statement can be true as I read it.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Ok, Smart. You tell me which has flatter trjectory: 40gram .50 bullet at 850m/s or 125mm 6000gram APFSDS round at 1800m/s? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill do you one better, take your data and go plug it into that link I posted and answer your own questions! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
And which of these rounds retain it's KE better making it fly flatter even further away? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are not talking about the Kinetic Energy here, we are talking about the trajectory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
I tried to make it simple to understand by just quoting one formula, but it seems oversimplification isn't any good either. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll give you something more to chew on. Let's take bullet that has .50in diameter. It is shot at 500m/s and has a certain trajectory. Then we make a upscaled version of this bullet 1.0in in diameter - the shape remains the same. It is fired at 500m/s.

Guess which round has flatter trajectory? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Hint: the frontal area (air resistance) grows in square in the upscaling process, while mass grows in ^3 (-&gt; KE=...m...). Get it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh I get it.. but you don't seem to understand that we are NOT talking about the amount of energy retention here.. i.e. in the hopes of hitting our target hard.. We are talking about trajectory.. in the hopes that we can aim beater (ie dont have to account for so much drop) and thus hit our target so we can transfer that energy.. Get it?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 02:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NegativeGee:
Well, you did reply by saying "not true" Jippo's statement of "Cannon can fire (much) flatter than machineguns, and some of them do infact more curving trajectories like Mk108 (a true worst case scenario...)". That statement can be true as I read it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well as I pointed out early on.. the shape of the round does factor into it all.. drag and such.. but all Im saying here is the real driving factor of the trajectorys is the initial velocity

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is hilarious!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

First point about high speed cannon versus trajectory. I don't need a program to tell me which one is of flatter trajectory, I have fired both so I know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Second point of the two identical bullets of .5in and 1in diameters. The heavier bullet has better KE/air resistance. It retains it's original muzzle velocity far better than the smaller bullet, thus at 100m distance it travels faster, more so at 200m, even more so at 300m. Difference grows exponentially giving more and more advantage to heavier bullet. This is what I call "basic physics"! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
This is hilarious!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
First point about high speed cannon versus trajectory. I don't need a program to tell me which one is of flatter trajectory, I have fired both so I know. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Send me your address and Ill send you a gold star to stick on your fridge! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Second point of the two identical bullets of .5in and 1in diameters. The heavier bullet has better KE/air resistance. It retains it's original muzzle velocity far better than the smaller bullet, thus at 100m distance it travels faster, more so at 200m, even more so at 300m. Difference grows exponentially giving more and more advantage to heavier bullet. This is what I call "basic physics"! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree! When drag is takin into account the mass does have a bigger effect.. But the driving factor is still the inital velocity.. Without it.. you wont have much to retain in the first place! Basiclly Speaking! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
I agree! When drag is takin into account the mass does have a bigger effect.. But the driving factor is still the inital velocity.. Without it.. you wont have much to retain in the first place! Basiclly Speaking! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So at a point where a cannon fires heavier projectile at similar or higher speeds then a machinegun, it can not have a flatter trajectory? (As per your original statement: "Again, not true", in reply to my outrageous claim that cannon can fire on much flatter trajectories than machineguns.)


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
So at a point where a cannon fires heavier projectile at similar higher speeds then a machinegun, it can not have a flatter trajectory?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>At similar or HIGHTER speeds.. I would expect it to have similar trajectorys.. espically at the biggining of the flight.. Near the end of flight (beyond vis range?) they would start to deviate from each other.. But the KEY thing here is your ASSUMING simular speeds... Typically (ie RULE) cannons dont have as high of an initial velocity as a MG.. There are special cases (ie EXCEPTIONS to the RULE) as I pointed out in one of my first posts.. The Germans made some very high velocity cannons!!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 02:57 PM
Don't generalise, it looks bad.

There are far more cannons that have flatter trajectories than .50 than there are those which don't...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Don't generalise, it looks bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Generalise? So you dispute the RULE?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
There are far more cannons that have flatter trajectories than .50 than there are those which don't...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of me saying the Germans made some cannons with high velocitys did you not understand?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Kasdeya
07-21-2004, 03:20 PM
Do you guys know what you were discussing in the beginning...cuz I don't. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://img61.photobucket.com/albums/v186/Kasdeya/demonmoving.gif (http://www.361stvfg.com/)
CWoS Forums. More Cheese, Less Whine (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

Gibbage1
07-21-2004, 03:28 PM
Ash. The only German high velocity canon's modeled in IL2 are the Bk3.7, BK5 and the Mk-103. MGFF, MG151/20 and Mk-108 are all relitivly low velocity, short berrals, low charge and very poor shell aerodynamics. Plus the HE rounds used thin-walled shells. Meaning they were lighter. A light projectine wont keep itsvelocity. Add to that the already low MV, short berral, and poor aerodynamics and you get very poor ballistics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Don't generalise, it looks bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Generalise? So you dispute the RULE?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
There are far more cannons that have flatter trajectories than .50 than there are those which don't...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of me saying the Germans made some cannons with high velocitys did you not understand?

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ash. The only German high velocity canon's modeled in IL2 are the Bk3.7, BK5 and the Mk-103.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, ok, thanks Gibbage! So if that is indeed the case.. It looks like the RULE holds true and not the EXCEPTION to it that some would have us belive. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
MGFF, MG151/20 and Mk-108 are all relitivly low velocity, short berrals, low charge and very poor shell aerodynamics. Plus the HE rounds used thin-walled shells. Meaning they were lighter.

A light projectine wont keep itsvelocity. Add to that the already low MV, short berral, and poor aerodynamics and you get very poor ballistics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. so that kinds of further blows that EXCEPTION to the RULE theory out of the water even farter?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Aaron_GT
07-21-2004, 03:39 PM
All other things being equal the more massive round will have the flatter trajectory.

The reason is that drag as well as gravity acts on the round. Roughly as you scale up a round mass is proportional to the cube of the radius. Drag is related to the wetted area - cross section (square of radius) and length (proportional to radius). The energy of the round is proportional to the mass, or r^3. Thus the drag:energy ratio scales as roughly 1/r at any given round velocity.

In the Hispano II the muzzle velocity is almost identical to the M2. So why is the Hispano trajectory worse? The Hispano HE round is less dense than the Hispano round and it is shorter than a scaled up M2 round. It's drag:mass ratio is worse - it bleeds energy faster as a proportion of the muzzle energy.

At ranges of up to 200m the trajectory of the Hispano won't be much different to the M2.

Obi_Kwiet
07-21-2004, 03:39 PM
I hope Oleg didn't get mad and modle them too accurately.

Aaron_GT
07-21-2004, 03:43 PM
"Typically (ie RULE) cannons dont have as high of an initial velocity as a MG.. There are special cases (ie EXCEPTIONS to the RULE)"

These exceptions include the Hispano II,V, M2 and M3 20mm cannon, ShVak and B20. I.e. all the allied 20mm cannon in the game.

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 03:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
All other things being equal the more massive round will have the flatter trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is another way of saying equal initial velocitys.. To which I agree.. But typically cannons dont have as high of initial velocitys

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Zmir88IAP
07-21-2004, 04:28 PM
http://www.ktp.at/zeili/Zeili/Flieger/Rohrwaffen.xls
(maybe you like it...)
If you cant calculate it(i cant calculate it too...but a 20mm should have more problems than the aerodynamik clean .50 bullet) think about that:

The .50M2 had better ballistics than the Hispano.
And the Hispano had the best ballistics of all fighter cannons-thats it.

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
All other things being equal the more massive round will have the flatter trajectory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is another way of saying equal initial velocitys.. To which I agree.. But typically cannons dont have as high of initial velocitys
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many times do you have to be told that you are not correct. First of all: what cannons are you talking about? Only WW2 vintage? Only German? Or cannons in general????

Even if you are talking about WW2 German cannons you are wrong!

Here is a table of German Flak cannons which all have better ballistics than 12.7x99. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Strange huh?

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Flak.png

And now you want to revert from "all cannons" to German AA cannons only, don't you? Well surprise, surprise - you're wrong there too...

From original Luftwaffe documents (I don't want to post them here as they are A4 size paper each) muzzle velocities (AP listed when possible)

MG 151/15 = 960m/s
MG 151/20 = 805m/s (low vel huh?)
MG/FF Aus.F. A = 600m/s
MG/FF Aus.F. B = 585m/s
MG/FF Aus.F. M = 690m/s
MK 103 = 900m/s
MK 108 = 385m/s
Flak 18 = 820m/s

So actually there are 2 types of cannons in the LW arsenal that have worse trajectory than .50 (MG/FF & MK 108), while rest of them match it (MG151/20) or outperform it (MG151/15, MK103, Flak 18)

Of course the big cannons of 5cm to 7.5cm range for anti armor use are still far superior, but it is then air to ground mainly.

But I guess what ever I write you cannot be reasoned with...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 04:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Plus the HE rounds used thin-walled shells. Meaning they were lighter. A light projectine wont keep itsvelocity. Add to that the already low MV, short berral, and poor aerodynamics and you get very poor ballistics. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HE rounds didn't have thin walls, Minengeschoss rounds did. These are two different things.

Also in addition of different types of HE and MG rounds Germans utilised a variety of AP, API, API-T, HEI, and HEIT rounds which have significantly different trajectories.

Lightest of German cannon projectiles was that of MG 151/15 at 65 grams, and thus being over 20grams heavier than .5 M2 projectile. Add to that the MV which was at snappy 900+ m/s.

Define to all how a cannon AP round has worse aerodynamics compared to M2 round, please.

Barrel length has no effect on trajectory.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 04:49 PM
And sorry to leave you so suddenly but I'll need to take a nap and then head out for some quality summer vacation time.

But have fun with the topic! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

SeaFireLIV
07-21-2004, 04:53 PM
Don`t waste time with him, Jippo. He`ll go on and on and will never shut up!

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
How many times do you have to be told that you are not correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
First of all: what cannons are you talking about? Only WW2 vintage? Only German? Or cannons in general????

Even if you are talking about WW2 German cannons you are wrong! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well in light of the fact that this forum tends to be about WWII aircraft I think it would be safe to assume we are talking about WWII aircraft cannons.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Here is a table of German Flak cannons which all have better ballistics than 12.7x99. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Strange huh?

http://www.kolumbus.fi/jan.niukkanen/Flak.png
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. not so strange when you consider that ground based cannons can be larger and heavier and the ammo too.. Thus able to use a lot of powder to get the initial velocity to a high value.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
And now you want to revert from "all cannons" to German AA cannons only, don't you? Well surprise, surprise - you're wrong there too...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, but you seem to be on a quest here.. So Ill allow you to run your coarse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
From original Luftwaffe documents (I don't want to post them here as they are A4 size paper each) muzzle velocities (AP listed when possible)

MG 151/15 = 960m/s
MG 151/20 = 805m/s (low vel huh?)
MG/FF Aus.F. A = 600m/s
MG/FF Aus.F. B = 585m/s
MG/FF Aus.F. M = 690m/s
MK 103 = 900m/s
MK 108 = 385m/s
Flak 18 = 820m/s

So actually there are 2 types of cannons in the LW arsenal that have worse trajectory than .50 (MG/FF & MK 108), while rest of them match it (MG151/20) or outperform it (MG151/15, MK103, Flak 18) Of course the big cannons of 5cm to 7.5cm range for anti armor use are still far superior, but it is then air to ground mainly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of me saying the Germans made some cannons with high velocity did you NOT understand? How many times do I have to tell you that? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
But I guess what ever I write you cannot be reasoned with...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, but you clearly seem to keep missing the part where I said the Germans made some cannons with high velocity.. Now the only question left is do you consider these exceptions to be the rule? Or does my initial statement of "cannons typically have lower initial velocity" still rub you wrong? Note.. I didn't say German cannons typically.. The only time I specifically called out German cannons was to make note of what I consider to be the exceptions.. i.e. the high velocity German cannons. Now I can post that again.. But I have said it three times along in this very thread.. So take a deep breath.. count to ten and read it!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Don`t waste time with him, Jippo. He`ll go on and on and will never shut up!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Poor SeaFire.. Still upset huh? Ah that's too bad.. Why are artiest so sensitive?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

El Turo
07-21-2004, 05:01 PM
Jippo wins.

Callsign "Turo" in IL2:FB & WWIIOL
______________________
This place
was once
a place
of worship
I thought,
reloading my rifle.

~V.

Gibbage1
07-21-2004, 05:03 PM
Were do you get these numbers?

I get 725M/s for the MG151/20. Compaired to the Browning M2 at 880m/s thats quite a bit lower. Your number of 805m/s is also still lower then the M2's 880. A smaller denser projectile with very clean aerodynamics will fly farther, flatter and retain energy better then a larger projectile thats less sense and has lass velocity. Its very simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
MG 151/20 = 805m/s (low vel huh?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Korolov
07-21-2004, 05:08 PM
Why are we still arguing this? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Gibbage1
07-21-2004, 05:11 PM
OK. A pic is worth a 1000 words.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/HMG1.jpg

2nd from the left is the M2 round. 2nd from the right is the MG151/15 round. That bice big fat blunt nose is not very good for aerodynamcis. If you cant agree with that, then I guess the Ju-88 is as aerodynamic as a P-51.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
Define to all how a cannon AP round has worse aerodynamics compared to M2 round, please.

Barrel length has no effect on trajectory.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Were do you get these numbers?

I get 725M/s for the MG151/20. Compaired to the Browning M2 at 880m/s thats quite a bit lower. Your number of 805m/s is also still lower then the M2's 880. A smaller denser projectile with very clean aerodynamics will fly farther, flatter and retain energy better then a larger projectile thats less sense and has lass velocity. Its very simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
MG 151/20 = 805m/s (low vel huh?)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source is LW datasheet "Einbauzeichnung VS 6721 B1.1 W.2" dated 30.5.1941, altered 8.4.1942.


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Fw-190D-9
07-21-2004, 05:18 PM
Just a quick question. Why don't the Brownings in the AMerican fighter have any traser smoke? I have seen WWII photography that has had the traser smoke.

Korolov
07-21-2004, 05:19 PM
Jippo, is it possible that the data Gibbage is using refers to late war, lower quality ammunition?

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
2nd from the left is the M2 round. 2nd from the right is the MG151/15 round. That bice big fat blunt nose is not very good for aerodynamcis. If you cant agree with that, then I guess the Ju-88 is as aerodynamic as a P-51. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it will start with twice the KE (can't be bothered to count the figure), it will have twice the energy to bunch through the air and retain it's speed. Which was already higher than 12.7x99 to start with....

But as I said, see you later and have fun. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

Jippo01
07-21-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Jippo, is it possible that the data Gibbage is using refers to late war, lower quality ammunition?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different ammunition types have different MV's in the same weapon, HE and AP will not usually have the same speeds. Also lot of variation between sources - all sorts of figures floating around...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
www.ju88.de.tf (http://www.ju88.de.tf)

John_Stag
07-21-2004, 05:30 PM
Oh yes; Don't forget the size of the charge behind the round.

[This message was edited by John_Stag on Wed July 21 2004 at 04:41 PM.]

Gibbage1
07-21-2004, 05:31 PM
I agree. My low number may be from HE round were his high number may be from AP round. It does not state on my source.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Jippo, is it possible that the data Gibbage is using refers to late war, lower quality ammunition?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different ammunition types have different MV's in the same weapon, HE and AP will not usually have the same speeds. Also lot of variation between sources - all sorts of figures floating around...


-jippo

LeLv28 - Fighting for independency since 2002
http://www.lelv28.com

Falkster's Ju-88 fan site:
http://www.ju88.de.tf<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
07-21-2004, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
But as I said, see you later and have fun. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok place your bets.. place your bets.. How many think he will be here till dawn? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Zyzbot
07-21-2004, 05:34 PM
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm

"EXTERNAL BALLISTICS
Just two key factors determine the external ballistics of a projectile; the muzzle velocity and the ballistic coefficient. The ballistic coefficient is significant because it determines the rate at which the projectile slows down, and in conjunction with the muzzle velocity this decides the maximum range (at any given elevation) and the time of flight to any particular distance. The time of flight in turn decides the amount by which the projectile drops downwards as this happens at a constant rate due to gravity. The curved path of the projectile which results from the muzzle velocity, the ballistic coefficient and gravity drop is called the trajectory.
In most types of long-range shooting (whether by rifles or large cannon) a short time of flight is considered desirable because it maximizes the hit probability by reducing the time of flight and flattening the trajectory. It also results in the projectile striking the target at a high velocity and therefore with greater effect. The main exception is when artillery fires in the "upper register" (above 45 degrees elevation) to achieve plunging fire.
The advantages of a high muzzle velocity in reducing the time of flight are self-evident. So are the disadvantages: more propellant is required, the barrel will need to be longer, the gun will be heavier and (in the case of a mounted weapon) so will be the mounting to cope with the greater recoil. In an automatic weapon, the rate of fire is also usually lower. As we have seen, there is also a practical limit to how high the velocity of any given projectile can be pushed. To make the most of the muzzle velocity, we need to achieve a high ballistic coefficient.
There are two elements which decide the ballistic coefficient (BC); the sectional density (SD) and the form factor (FF). The SD is a simple calculation as it is the ratio between calibre and projectile weight. The formula is:
For metric measurements: multiply the projectile weight in grams by 1.422, then divide the result by the square of the calibre in millimetres. So for a 12.7mm bullet weighing 40 grams: (40x1.422)/(12.7x12.7) = an SD of 0.353
For Imperial measurements: divide the projectile weight in pounds by the square of the calibre in inches (if bullet weights are in grains, divide the result by 7,000).
The higher the SD figure, the better the velocity retention (assuming equal form factors).
What the SD measures is the weight (or momentum, when moving) behind every square millimetre of the projectile calibre (i.e. the cross-sectional area of the projectile). If projectiles were solid cylinders then for a given SD figure they would all be the same length regardless of their calibre. In practice, of course, the length varies with the calibre; a 40mm projectile will be about twice the length of a 20mm, and will therefore have about double the SD figure. This explains why artillery shells travel much further than rifle bullets, no matter how fast or streamlined. Other things being equal, the bigger the calibre, the longer the range and the shorter the flight time to any given range.
Other things are of course far from equal, which is where the form factor comes in. The FF measures the aerodynamic efficiency of the projectile's shape, and is much more complicated to calculate; without access to manufacturers' data, only approximate estimates can be made. It is obvious that a projectile with a pointed nose will have much less air resistance than a simple cylinder, and it will therefore have a better FF, but problems arise when you try to become more specific.
The first problem is that the FF is different at subsonic and supersonic velocities, because shapes which work best at subsonic speeds are not the best at supersonic velocities. At subsonic speeds, the drag caused by the low-pressure area created at the back or base of the projectile is significant, and major reductions in drag can be made by tapering this to some extent (boat-tailing). At supersonic speeds, it is the nose shape that is critical; finely pointed noses are needed, but the back end doesn't matter so much. Some taper towards the base is useful, but the optimum taper angle is different from that at subsonic velocities. The benefit of boat-tailing at very long range can be demonstrated by two .30-06 bullets, both weighing 180 grains (11.7g) and fired at 2,700 fps (823 m/s). At sea level, the flat-based bullet will travel a maximum of 3,800m, the boat-tail 5,200m.
A further factor affecting military projectiles is the addition of tracer elements. These generate gas which helps to fill the low-pressure area at the base, reducing drag. This gives them a different trajectory by comparison with non-tracer rounds, not helped by the fact that as the tracer burns up the weight of the projectile reduces, thereby worsening its sectional density. Tracers can therefore never achieve a perfect match with other projectiles and can only ever be an approximate guide to their trajectory."

LuftLuver
07-21-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:

The German Mk.108 30mm was not a cannon; it was little more then a mortar designed for pumping large amounts of bad news into bombers at close range; it isn't supposed to be a dogfighting weapon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, amen and amen.

Nowhere in history books or biographies is there common mention of this german wonder weapon. Yet in FB you see nothing but mk108 armed lufters shooting up what? Fighters.

Do you all want an accurate sim or Forgotten Crimson Skies? Let's bring down the accuracy of this thing to historical usage as a bomber buster. Then the real German aces can step forward into the spotlight with their 20mm. I really respect these guys.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."

Gibbage1
07-21-2004, 05:56 PM
If I said that I would be torn appart from Luftlovers. Every 190A8 and 109G6 you see flying around online has Mk-108's.

BTW. In 2.01, the Mk-108 had less spread then the M2 .50 cal. FYI http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuftLuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John_Stag:

The German Mk.108 30mm was not a cannon; it was little more then a mortar designed for pumping large amounts of bad news into bombers at close range; it isn't supposed to be a dogfighting weapon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, amen and amen.

Nowhere in history books or biographies is there common mention of this german wonder weapon. Yet in FB you see nothing but mk108 armed lufters shooting up what? Fighters.

Do you all want an accurate sim or Forgotten Crimson Skies? Let's bring down the accuracy of this thing to historical usage as a bomber buster. Then the real German aces can step forward into the spotlight with their 20mm. I really respect these guys.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"All your bases are belong to us."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Atomic_Marten
07-21-2004, 06:03 PM
hmmm... does this all means that in near future I won't be able to shoot elephant from range 0.10 with T9, or Bk3.7 gondolla on Bf110?(you see this is rather rethoric question, 'cause in IL-2 I *already* cannot shoot anything with that, except for lucky shots).

I just have a enlightning thought: maybe some of guys flying in IL-2 for 10 or more hrs a day, actually develop in more skilled pilots that those actual aces in WW2? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

StellarRat
07-21-2004, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
I just have a enlightning thought: maybe some of guys flying in IL-2 for 10 or more hrs a day, actually develop in more skilled pilots that those actual aces in WW2? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In some respects this is not far from the truth. The people flying FB a lot probably do have more skill then a real ace IN FB, but put them in a real plane and things would be different! However, if you put an FB player in real combat for 10 hours a day for a couple years and they managed to survive I'm quite sure they would be as good as any WW II ace (or better).

Copperhead310th
07-21-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1.JaVA_Razer:
First off .50 cal is supersonic(yes it is supersonic)
second, they weigh MUCH less, now run this scenario in that pallet.(fun thing BTW)
and be sure to include air resistance to.
big guns(mk108's) use big(much drag),slower ,and heavier ammo,while .50's r lighter, smaller,and faster

------------------------------
Teamplay on a dogfightserverhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif
It sounds like a classic game of air-quake!?


Quote from extreme One


------------------------------
http://www.entity-project.tk
------------------------------
AMD 2500+ @3200+
Asus A7n8X-X
512MB DDR 3200 Apacer
Hercules 9200(soon to have a X800 pro)
2Coolermaster fans
Thermalright SP 97 CPU cooler
Sunbeam rheobus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Razer. that's waht i was going to say. beat me to it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://imageshack.us/files/copper%20sig%20with%20rank.jpg
310th FS & 380th BG website (http://www.310thVFS.com)

SkyChimp
07-21-2004, 07:31 PM
Gib, there is more to it than just the blunt nose - although that has some to do with it.

3 points about the .50 BMG round:

-First, the .50 bmg projectile had a very aerodynamic shape with a high ballistic coefficient - necessary for a good trajectory.

-Second, the projectile was fairly heavy for its size, which gave it a good sectional density - good for retaining energy.

-Third, the projectile was fired at a high muzzle velocity.

That combination of attributes made the .50BMG a very hard hitting and flat shooting round.

Any given cannon round may shoot faster, or fire a heavier round, or shoot a higher velocity. But if that cannon round doesn't possess a good combination of all three of the above attributes, it probably will not shoot as flat or as far as the .50 BMG.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

SkyChimp
07-21-2004, 08:08 PM
One more thing, the 20mm HS and the .50 BMG step-out at roughly the same muzzle velocity. But the .50 BMG projectile is more aerodynamic than the 20mm projectile - therefore it doesn't slow at the same rate as the 20mm. The difference can be seen in times of flight to 500 yards. The .50 BMG projectile will get to 500 yards in .62 seconds, the 20mm in .75. That translates to smaller leads, and increased chances of hitting.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

LeadSpitter_
07-22-2004, 01:10 AM
take a look here, this is from the book ballistics of wwii all documented facts with sources. I have the book and all this information is takken from it.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-th.html

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

Aaron_GT
07-22-2004, 01:43 AM
ASH_SMART wrote:
"Which is another way of saying equal initial velocitys.. "

Er.. no

Skychimp wrote:
"-Second, the projectile was fairly heavy for its size, which gave it a good sectional density - good for retaining energy."

But Skychimp understands perfectly!

If you look at M2 round, it has a radius of 6.35mm, and a mass of 43.3 grams. If it was simply scaled up to 20mm calibre (10mm radius) we'd expect it to weight 169 grams. The actual weight of a 20mm Hispano round is 130g. Thus the initial energy(mass):drag is worse for the Hispano round.

Checking I see I'd misremembered the speed of the ShVak and B20 - they are not high velocity, but the Ho-1, Ho-3 and Oerlikon FF S cannon, breaking 800m/s muzzle velocity, might be.

"The .50 BMG projectile will get to 500 yards in .62 seconds, the 20mm in .75. That translates to smaller leads, and increased chances of hitting."

500 yards is a bit marginal for a dogfight, though. Dou have any figures for circa 150-200m?

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-22-2004, 05:24 AM
you guys really think that this is the right dispersion at 800m ..?

http://merlin555.free.fr/fb/053.jpg

come on--

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 05:26 AM
no, they think it should be tighter http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nanuk66
07-22-2004, 05:42 AM
WoW,

i bet those longer winter nights just fly by for some of you lot!

-----------------------------
English lesson 101:
The word is 'Lose' not 'Loose'. e.g.
That IL2 is gonna lose the fight against that 109.
That IL2's wing looks loose, its gonna fall off.
If i dive too vertically i will lose my wing. k thx.
------------------------------

NorrisMcWhirter
07-22-2004, 06:19 AM
Hi,

800m?

I thought the effective range of the .50cal was ~250m ?

Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Zyzbot
07-22-2004, 06:48 AM
250 meters? The usual figure I have read many times for maximum effective range of the 50 caliber is 1000 yards.

It is accurate far beyond that distance in a scoped weapon but that is not what we are talking about here.

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 06:52 AM
Curious zyzbot, the Official US manual about aerial gunnery with .50 tell that maximum effective range is 300 yards... Where did you find 1000 yards?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FA_Maddog
07-22-2004, 06:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

800m?

I thought the effective range of the .50cal was ~250m ?

Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
http://www.chavscum.co.uk
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



1200 ft. or 366 meters.

VMF513_Sandman
07-22-2004, 06:58 AM
merlin, understand that the convergance that u set in the arming screen is to adjust the guns' pattern to intersect at that point. if u set for 300 meters, then at 300 meters, the gunfire is going to be all at that point, then gradually spread wide past that. so if u have it set for lets say, 220: ur most lethal cone of fire will be at 220 or under, hits possible to .4. at .4 shooting accurately, there's a chance u'll do damage if he's just hangin there(like at the top of a loop), but ur most wicked fire will be at convergance..u will get his attention even if the mg fire didnt do much damage. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
btw, from lookin at the pic, what was the convergance u had at that time. it would generally be a waste of ammo shooting at that range against fighters...bombers, u'd do good since their such a wide load http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 06:59 AM
yep, you're right, 1200 feet... so 400 yards.... but far from 1000 yards anyway.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
07-22-2004, 07:02 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Curious zyzbot, the _Official_ US manual about aerial gunnery with .50 tell that maximum effective range is 300 yards... Where did you find 1000 yards?


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2-50cal.htm

http://www.impactguns.com/store/ramo_M2HB.html

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/smallarms/50cal.htm

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/50quad.htm

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 07:02 AM
That's easy to understand sandman, he setted its convergence at much more than 400m... Why not? this way he can obtain good results at 800m range.

And remember that 400 yards is the maximum effective range, not the maximum effectiveness range.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 07:04 AM
lol zyzbot, yes, the bullets are still lethal at that distance... now you better return at this famous USAF manual and have a closer look at what exactly is an effective range in aerial gunnery....

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-22-2004, 07:04 AM
thx Sandman, however I know how do a convergence setting work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

here, the convergence was set to 800m.. wich means that at 1000m, 200m after the cross of the "X" of the mg, the dispersion is still very tight.

Now, of course using a 800m convergence give you less lethal spots at 300m, but well, assumin that you will hit at least one single spot with at least 3 Brownings (in case of D mustant) , it is still a very good compromise, which allow you to shoot at close distance with a reasonnable efficency, and allow you at the same time to hit escaping tgt, at a distance below 1000m, which is very useful-

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

FA_Maddog
07-22-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Curious zyzbot, the _Official_ US manual about aerial gunnery with .50 tell that maximum effective range is 300 yards... Where did you find 1000 yards?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your right that is what it said but 400 yards or 1200 ft. and not the 300 yards. Of course this probably applies with all the planes. Wouldn't the faster .303's ROF would cause it to be further and the slower cannon ROF be of shorter range?

VMF513_Sandman
07-22-2004, 07:10 AM
303's would get there fast maddog, but not much energy left to do much. .303 was a rifle bullet. raf pilots thought they were junk, but then again, they also had 8 of those pipsqueaks to shoot with. up close n personal, even the 303's would do damage. personally, i'd rather get very close. i dont like revealing my position untill i know i'm gonna be adding some bbq sause to 'cooked jerry' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 07:12 AM
I wonder what the rof have to do here.....

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Zyzbot
07-22-2004, 07:20 AM
Sorry..I'm not familair with what the manual's definition of effective range is. Semantics is is often a problem

I do know that some people accept the definition of maximum effective range as that range at which the round of ammunition begins to transition to sub-sonic flight.

No doubt other definitions vary.

FA_Maddog
07-22-2004, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I wonder what the rof have to do here.....

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, since we are talking about that manual, the effective range it was talking about was being able to put enough lead on to the target at the maximum distant to cause damage. I believe it talked about one 50 cal. hit for every 1.6 sq. ft. @ 1200 ft., hence the ROF would greatly influence the chance of hitting the target.

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-22-2004, 07:22 AM
..ok, for Sandman.. here what you get shootin at a plane at 200m with a convergence at 800m (which allows you what i showed you previously..)

http://merlin555.free.fr/fb/054.jpg

You hit at least with 3 .50 at one signle spot, and if you are lucky, you can hit 2 spots, with 3 .50 each http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I admit its less effective than having all the 6 in one single spot, but using such big convergence allows you to be relatiely dangerous at all distance.. from 100m to 800m

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

purzel08
07-22-2004, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
..ok, for Sandman.. here what you get shootin at a plane at 200m with a convergence at 800m (which allows you what i showed you previously..)

http://merlin555.free.fr/fb/054.jpg

You hit at least with 3 .50 at one signle spot, and if you are lucky, you can hit 2 spots, with 3 .50 each http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I admit its less effective than having all the 6 in one single spot, but using such big convergence allows you to be relatiely dangerous at all distance.. from 100m to 800m

------------------------------
http://www.checksix-fr.com Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is Star Wars - The Tie Fighters have arrived. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

greetings...

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 07:34 AM
Oh, you believe that it is what the manuel was refering to? I don't believe, or interpret, or anything. I read, that's all... If you want to have a conversation about other guns, i suggest you either bring in manual of those guns, or find someone who can... I think we already had enough hypotheses brought to us by wannabe ballistics engineers... Either you have facts, or you don't... Coming with artful nombers juggling doesn't prove anything, not even that you are competent on the subject.

If you need german data, i suggest you ask butch2k, he is a recognized authority about historical researchs concerning the luftwaffe.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-22-2004, 07:39 AM
oh well.. seems that Hoar got pissed off http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dont be agresive my friend Hoar. being agressive make people think you might not be right.

the same thing said without any kind of agressivity is like "THE TRUTH" , because, in facts, you are right in what you are sayin right now.

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Hoarmurath
07-22-2004, 07:43 AM
my answer looked aggressive? sorry, forgot again to put some smileys in it... Fell free to had some of those in the message to reduce aggressiveness in it :

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

If there are not enough smileys, just let me know so i can post some more.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FA_Maddog
07-22-2004, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Oh, you believe that it is what the manuel was refering to?


Yes.



I don't believe, or interpret, or anything. I read, that's all...



Your wasting your time then.



If you want to have a conversation about other guns, i suggest you either bring in manual of those guns, or find someone who can...



Excuse the the hell out of me, I thought I was asking if someone knew.



I think we already had enough hypotheses brought to us by wannabe ballistics engineers... Either you have facts, or you don't...



That is what the manuel said not me, so there is your facts.



Coming with artful nombers juggling doesn't prove anything,



Again look above.



not even that you are competent on the subject.



And you are?



If you need german data, i suggest you ask butch2k, he is a recognized authority about historical researchs concerning the luftwaffe.



I don't.



http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AnaK774
07-22-2004, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:


I just have a enlightning thought: maybe some of guys flying in IL-2 for 10 or more hrs a day, actually develop in more skilled pilots that those actual aces in WW2? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Most likely more experienced inviduals of different ingame situations trying to simulate air combat... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dying is still undermodelled

AKA LeOs.K_Anak

VMF513_Sandman
07-22-2004, 09:03 AM
1 thing is for sure, it makes hittin with the 50's harder with the pattern so tight...but god help the poor shmuck that flies in it LOL

Aaron_GT
07-22-2004, 09:21 AM
"250 meters? The usual figure I have read many times for maximum effective range of the 50 caliber is 1000 yards."

The chances of hitting a plane at 1000m when in a dogfight is pretty minimal. They are effective as a dogfighting weapon only at much shorter ranges. In ypical dogfight engagements firing took place in the 100-300m range.

Aaron_GT
07-22-2004, 09:25 AM
"Your right that is what it said but 400 yards or 1200 ft. and not the 300 yards. Of course this probably applies with all the planes. Wouldn't the faster .303's ROF would cause it to be further and the slower cannon ROF be of shorter range?"

According to "Britain's Wonderful Airforce" the .303 has an effective range of 300 yards and it is anticipated that a 2 second burst is needed to down an enemy plane (assumed to be a fighter although it doesn't say). However this book was published in WW2 and is a bit off on some things (such as the He113). It states the max effective range of the 20mm cannon to be 700m, and the 37mm in the P39 to be 1000!

FA_Maddog
07-22-2004, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Your right that is what it said but 400 yards or 1200 ft. and not the 300 yards. Of course this probably applies with all the planes. Wouldn't the faster .303's ROF would cause it to be further and the slower cannon ROF be of shorter range?"

According to "Britain's Wonderful Airforce" the .303 has an effective range of 300 yards and it is anticipated that a 2 second burst is needed to down an enemy plane (assumed to be a fighter although it doesn't say). However this book was published in WW2 and is a bit off on some things (such as the He113). It states the max effective range of the 20mm cannon to be 700m, and the 37mm in the P39 to be 1000!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Thanks, that was what I was wanting to know.

Hard to believe anyone could hit anything at 1000m.
Maybe they had a very good deer scope. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by FA_Maddog on Thu July 22 2004 at 08:41 AM.]

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-22-2004, 09:29 AM
for your information, most airkills were and are not done in dogfights, but by fast and quick attacks.. So your remark about the effectiveness of 600m+ shoots in DF is irrelevant here-.

being able to hit at 600m+ is very appreciable in combat situation, when the enemy is always trying to evade the fight when he doesnt have the advantage.

Very hard to escape somebody that can get you at 600m+

If you are faster, and goes straight to get the hell out of there, you still can be hit for few LONG seconds (if not minute) .. and if you decide to move not to be hit, you are not getting the hell out of there.. You are getting the hell nowhere.. exept maybe to hell http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

NorrisMcWhirter
07-22-2004, 10:11 AM
Hi,

In response to Luftluver, the reason why you see LW guys flying around with 30mm cannons is to compensate for overmodelled DMs in other aircraft.

Back to the point; we know what the maximum effective range to be now and it's approximately 350m - thank you for the correction there.

What we don't know is how the efficiency of the weapon 'rolls off', to use an electronics term, after this point, or what type of target the efficiency is based upon (armour class etc).

Anyone have data on the roll off?

I find it amazing that people expect to be able to laser a plane from 800m away...I never shoot from further than 300m.

It pains me to embark on a .50 cal discussion but the 800m expectation is worth the suffering alone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-22-2004, 10:19 AM
Norris. you dont believe you can hit a escaping tgt at 800m..?

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

ddsflyer
07-22-2004, 10:36 AM
Ballistic drop due to gravity is the same with any projectile over TIME whether it be a baseball or a bullet. The accelleration due to gravity is, after all, a constant. How fast a projectile slows down is due to several factors, those being aerodynamic drag modified by the projectile shape and the sectional density of the projectile. A hollow or low sectional density, or short stubby bullet will slow dowm quicker than a longer, thinner more sectionally dense one will. Generally speaking, less sectionally dense, low velocity cannon shells will slow down quicker and drop more over DISTANCE than will a solid bullet. There are some exceptions such as the 30mm GAU-8 uranium core A-10 shells which are very dense indeed.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZ
ATI Radeon X800XT PT
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS
NEC FP2141SB

crazyivan1970
07-22-2004, 10:43 AM
Back to square 1. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Aaron_GT
07-22-2004, 10:54 AM
"I find it amazing that people expect to be able to laser a plane from 800m away...I never shoot from further than 300m."

Offline, approaching from the 6, I try to leave it to 200m to start firing, convergence at 150. I like to be gaining on the target so my distance to target will pass through 150m. It's much harder to judge distances in deflection shots. Playing with the P80 versus 262s yesterday it became apparent that a longer convergence is needed as a guns solution is a lot harder at speed. I can see the logic of the M3 .50 as that will fire more when you happen to be on target. It would be interesting to see how the 4 20mm armament of the Meteor or Vampire would perform, or the 6 20mm originally proposed.for the Meteor. At longer ranges of engagement the Hispano ballistics wouldn't be so good, but the destructive power when hitting (briefly) would be better. The muzzle flash and FPS slow down on the 262 makes it hard to fly.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-22-2004, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
Norris. you dont believe you can hit a escaping tgt at 800m..?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said that I was surprised that people expect to *laser a plane from 800m* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I'm going to be facetious and imagine that this is the expectation that most people will end up with cos that's what happens around here.

So, hitting is one thing, expecting to cripple it or similar at what amounts to over twice the effective range of the weapon is another.

All this, of course, is why I asked about the roll off of the weapon efficiency so we could ascertain what might be the reasonable result of hits at this distance http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

Scen
07-22-2004, 12:52 PM
Just to lighten the subject a little...

Check this link out... It's a bunch of gun nuts going crasy shooting .50 and everything else in the desert.

Towards the end it does show a .50 hitting a 50gal drum... Pretty nasty stuff.

http://www.kimmershow.com/SupportFiles/Scripts/FileTamer.asp?FileID=1375

Lifetaker999
07-22-2004, 01:01 PM
Guns and bullets don't kill people. People kill people. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/sonar.gif

Atzebrueck
07-22-2004, 05:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scen:
Towards the end it does show a .50 hitting a 50gal drum... Pretty nasty stuff.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imagine it being hit by a 20mm grenade. You can't compare the visual effects of AEP with a video http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
Before 2.04 such videos have been posted to prove, that the .50 has been undermodeled :P. Now they are used to show, that the Browning M2 .50 is anything special ... compared to other heavy machineguns, it isn't.

my skins:
http://vow-hq.com/files/jg51_atze/skin.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=JG51_Atze&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)

DaBallz
07-22-2004, 05:58 PM
Ok guys, lets all calm down, take a deep breath
and look at the subject carefully.
All the 12.7 (.50 cal) rounds for the various
nations are close, very close.
Case capacity varies, and so does projectile
shape and weight.
I will now paraphrase a statement by the late
great P.O.Ackley (world renowned gunsmith and ammunition expert).
"The .50 cal BMG represents the maximum case capacity
for the .50 cal bore"
Exceeding the "bore capacity" of a given calibre
reduces efficency and generates excess heat.
The .50BMG (.50 cal US) holds 225 Gr. of
somokeless powder. (H870 source Hodgon Powders Manual No.26).
This gives nearly 3,000 fps out of a 29.5 in barrel.
In my real life testing I was getting 2950fps
with a 750 grain boat tailed millitary Carbide
cored bullet.

My point is that those huge cases with seemingly
similar bullets are gaining you little or nothing.

Ok, so assume all 12.7's are so close as to
be indistingushable.
Bullet shape, as the Chimpster noted, counts
even at short ranges.
Here the US .50cal is a stand out.

Practical range for any WWII era cannon or heavy
machine gun is around 300M. But this tells
only 1/2 of the story. True max range to
make kills is closer to 2,000m !!!

Firing your .50 cal at an atticking fighter
from a bomber will be a waste of precious
ammo at over 300 yards. No doubt here.
Even in a fighter anything past 500 yards is
a "Hail mary". But the enemy pilot is justified
in doing his best to put mote distance between
his plane and yours. A careful shot can easily
kill out to 2,000m. But hits are unlikely.

I will add that if you got your "hold over"
correct and the lead is correct a 1,000M+
shot would be worth it, especially with 8 .50 cals!

A .50 cal US projectile hits as hard (as much energy)
at 1,000 yards as a .30 cal 1906 (.30-06) at
the muzzle!

Oh yes, longer barrels can help muzzle velocity
but in no way effect long range performance
in of themselves.
If the muzzle velocity is the same, you get
the same result exclusive of barrel length.
Get it?

One last note, a round nosed bullet compared
to an identical spitzer (pointed) bullet
in .30 cal will lose 30% more velocity at
300 yards, that equates to a loss of
half again more energy.
Flat points are even worse.
I'm averaging some data here, but it's
close enough for to make the point.
Bullets vary to much in design to be specific.

In all the .50 cal was a whole lot more effective
than most here want to admit.
If the dead could talk there are a few thousand
AXIS pilots that would attest to that fact.

Da...

SkyChimp
07-22-2004, 08:13 PM
Aaron, Norma, the small arms ammunition company, has a neat ballistics calculator:

http://www.norma.cc/htm_files/javapagee.htm

Choose "Define your own bullet."

You'll need to know the
1) ballistic coefficient,
2) weight in GRAINS for the projectile,
3) and muzzle velocity.

There is no really easy way to calculate the ballistics coefficient without knowing the muzzle and terminal velocities, and time of flight. Another way would be to know the sectional density and form-factor.

In my hobby, the BC is usually provided by the bullet maker. If you don't know it, and can't calculate it due to unknown values, sometimes you just have to guess it based on the profile of the bullets using templates, but I haven't seen one that goes up to 20mm. So we'll compare it to a proportionally equal projectile of a smaller caliber. The 20mm HS projectile was heavy and long which raises ballistic coefficient, but it had a blunt tip which reduced reduced it. A flat-nose all-lead rifle-caliber bullet has form-factor of around .8. I figure a 20mm HS AP round would have a form factor about the same or a little less since the AP round would have been proportionally lighter since it wasn't all lead - but we'll give the 20mm HS the benefit of the doubt.

--

Next we need to know the weight in GRAINS.

Here is a weight conversion tool to get from grams (or whatever) to grains:
http://www.metric-conversions.org/weight/weight-conversions-index.htm

The 20mm HS AP round weight 165 grams. That's 2,546 grains.

--


Now we can calculate the section density of a 20mm Hhispano round with a projectile weight of 165 grams: (165 grams x 1.422)/(20 x 20)= .586. The sectional denisty is .586.

Multiplying the form-factor by the sectional density - .8 x .586 = .467. I suppose .467 is a pretty good guess at the ballistic coefficient for the 20mm Hispanpo 165 gram AP round.

--

20mm HS AP round's muzzle velocity was 2,542 feet per second.

--

Let's plug that in the Norma calculator and see:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/20mm.jpg

=======
=======

Now, let's compare that to the .50 BMG API. All figures I give are published numbers, NOT my calculations.

The M2 API round weighed 665 grains, or 43 grams.

It had a muzzle velocity of 2,854 per second.

It had a BC of .65

Let's plug it in:

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/50bmg.jpg

======
======

I chose 350 yards as the ZERO range (but you can choose any). You can see the .50 shoots flatter and retains it's velocity and energy better than the 20mm, and reaches its target sooner.

Nevertheless, the 20mm hits like a ton of bricks compared to the .50.

The .50 had a better trajectory, but the 20mm hit harder.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature.jpg

OldMan____
07-22-2004, 08:16 PM
Yeap.. and a lot of american and brithis pilots would just say.. What? The last thing I saw was a single Bullet of that Me109 nose hiting my plane...

But does this happen in game?


ooo and I can make a computer program that shows that a rock trhown by hand have better ballistics than a .50.. or that a butterfly outruns a P47 in dive.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

BennyMoore
07-22-2004, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
you guys really think that this is the right dispersion at 800m ..?


come on--
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't. However, I notice that you clowns never, ever will admit that all Russian weapons in the game have even tighter dispersion than that.

I believe that the correct amount of dispersion lies somewhere between the old fifties and the Russian guns. It shouldn't be shotgun-style like the old fifties, but it shouldn't be lasers like the Russian guns and the new fifties, either, at least not with wing mounted guns. Nose mounted guns, like the P-38's and the P-39's, should have a bit more laserlike trajectories.

It's just plain wrong that the Russian guns are lasers and that's fine with you, but the moment United States and British guns turn into lasers, you play martyr. I don't like lasers any more than you say you do, but I'm not partial about it.

alarmer
07-23-2004, 02:17 AM
Calling names on people wont lead nowhere Benny.

And yes I have seen plenty of postings about Russian laser guns before. You just need to compare our Registered dates and figure out why I have and you havent.

Russian laser guns was big nagging issue as early as the first il2 appeared. But dev team didint hear em and people got tired and thats that.

269GA-Veltro
07-23-2004, 02:47 AM
Where is the problem my friends? Don't you like Star-Wars!!! Now we have finally X-Wing in FB with laser, but off course now would be nice if we had some Tie-Fighter, do you agree?

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/VELTROVELTROVELTRO.JPG
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

BennyMoore
07-23-2004, 02:59 AM
Oh, we've had X-Wings for a long time, in the form of every Russian planes. But now I hear Russkie plane fanatics complaining now that the Tie fighters have arrived.

Alarmer, what I'm talking about is the Russian plane flyers that are now complaining about the new fifties being lasers. How hypocritical can you get? Also worthy of ridicule are those who throw up their hands in horror at the new fifties, as if laser guns are an unheard of precedent. They say, "Oh, me! Oh, my! IL-2 is no longer a flight sim, it is a fun game! Woe!" And they pretend that it's never been like that before, and that there's not been laser guns from day one. It's just not okay for both sides to have them, just their preferred one.

As I said, I think that neither side should have them.

Willey
07-23-2004, 03:50 AM
Found a nice P-47 photo, firing at night.

http://www.goodorevil.de/wallpaper/old/p47/page1/Bilder/P47_Thunderbolt-029_jpg.jpg

1. It's clearly visible that they have dispersion (surrporting the argument that the .50 was correct - perhaps too much dispersion at low range - and all the other stuff was off)

Not to mention the dispersion in FB is just generated by getting a random angle at which the bullet leaves the barrel, instead of actual rifling calculations. Again some MK 101/103/108 values for comparison:

Deviation from flight path:

Distance - MK 101 - MK 103 - MK 108
500m - 0,58m - 1,9m - 6,0m
1000m - 2,74m - 9,4m - 29,1m
1500m - 7,68m - 26,3m - 78,3m

2. Muzzle flash is more than overmodelled in FB, but we know that "you is wrong" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

alarmer
07-23-2004, 03:51 AM
Dang Benny obviously I have missed that one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I admit I havent seen any russian pilot complaining about anything considering Allied plane. Now your telling me they are complaining about new 0.5cal dispersion? That is quite funny indeed.

Considering that VVS weaponry is and has allways been damn accurate and their planes can do the infamous lifting my nose with 0 energy manouver.

Indeed if this is so it is worrying.

alarmer
07-23-2004, 03:58 AM
Question:

Is it so that a gun (for example 0.5cal) has allways the same dispersion at the convergence point set in options?

It seems so when looking at the picture Merlin posted earlyer. If this is so it is porked indeed. No I think completely G.A.Y is the right word.

Gotta do some testing after work and post pics if anything "wonderous" comes up.

DaBallz
07-23-2004, 04:52 AM
Chimpsters numbers are exactly correct.
I ran the same numbers on a Sierra ballistics
calculator.

All the various .50 cal ammo (12.7mm) will
have a similar ballistic curve.
the 20mm or bigger ammo will suffer
on the ballistics, but starting with 3X+ more
muzzle energy they will hit a whole lot harder
out to any practical range.

da...

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-23-2004, 05:08 AM
Bennymore.. CLowns might be your mother, but not reasonnable people talkin in here.

Now, of course UBS russian guns have not enough dispersion.

But I'd prefer to have 1 plane realistic, and one porked, than 2 porked.

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

John_Stag
07-23-2004, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hi,

In response to Luftluver, the reason why you see LW guys flying around with 30mm cannons is to compensate for overmodelled DMs in other aircraft.

Back to the point; we know what the maximum effective range to be now and it's approximately 350m - thank you for the correction there.

What we don't know is how the efficiency of the weapon 'rolls off', to use an electronics term, after this point, or what type of target the efficiency is based upon (armour class etc).

Anyone have data on the roll off?

I find it amazing that people expect to be able to laser a plane from 800m away...I never shoot from further than 300m.

It pains me to embark on a .50 cal discussion but the 800m expectation is worth the suffering alone http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
http://www.chavscum.co.uk
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With an appropriate sighting system, you can hit a target with a ground-based M2 at 2000 metres; that's the effective range quoted in the book. The maximum range is 5000 metres. The problem in air to air combat is a little more complicated though; the speed and vector of the target the vector of the shooter; windage. Range isn't really the issue; the question is; at what point does it become impossible for a human being to guage and take the shot?

The same would apply to any weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>:Corporal! Where are you taking those vultures?

Corporal: Officers to the mess, NCO's to the Guardroom, Sir!

:Like hell you are, they're responsible for all this, get them to clean it up!

Corporal: But what about the officers, Sir?

:Give 'em a bloody shovel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoarmurath
07-23-2004, 05:37 AM
Quite funny to have chimp making calculations to show us what should be .50 effitiveness at given range.... mmmmh... do this mean that the US manual that was advanced as an indiscutable proof about dispersion is not to be taken as indiscutable proof when it come to max effective range?

As usual, some people are prompt to forget their proofs as soon as they don't suit them anymore.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-23-2004, 06:17 AM
Hi Stag,

I agree with you; I'm sure most weapons are n times more accurate on a fixed, ground-based installation and, as you say, being airborne is a different matter.

The point still pertains to the US manual which Hoar. states that 300 yards is the maximum effective distance, though.

No one has still answered as to the roll off of the weapon efficiency; this test must have been done at some point because, logically, they wouldn't have been able to work out the maximum effective range otherwise.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

DaBallz
07-23-2004, 06:36 AM
Max effective range in a manual stated so
gunners don't waste ammo on targets they
likely will miss.

That's not max effective range for the weapon.
The max effective range far exceeds that value.

Mr Hoarmurath seems to miss the point.
All the various air to air guns share the same
effective range when judged in the same manner.
The range of a 30mm cannon would not be any better.

Truth is that heavy machine guns and cannon
are all effective well past 1,000m.

So calm down Hoarmurath, you are missing the point.


Da...

Black Sheep
07-23-2004, 06:44 AM
Indeed.

From my time shooting it in my youth I was told the Lee Enfield .303 still had lethal velocity at over a mile.

This doesn't mean to say that anyone but the absolute very best snipers are likely to hit a target that distant or anything like it.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg

Hoarmurath
07-23-2004, 06:48 AM
No daballz, i'm not... maybe you think we are all great aces and that it is normal for us to have much better gunnery skills than the average ww2 pilot, but personnally, i think that if the sim allows us to be more efficient than our real counterparts, there is a problem somewhere.

When a manual state for a max effective range of 400 yards (1200 feet as stated in the manual), i'm feeling quite uneasy to be able to obtain regular good results at twice that distance.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-23-2004, 07:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
Max effective range in a manual stated so
gunners don't waste ammo on targets they
likely will miss.

That's not max effective range for the weapon.
The max effective range far exceeds that value.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it state that in the manual or is that your interpretation of events?

I agree, in part, with you.

I also think that the maximum effective range will also have other factors such as the accuracy and the robustness of the intended target. So, you might well hit the target at 800m but just what kind of damage are you going to do?

Again..we need an accurate source for efficiency roll off rather than speculation.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

FA_Maddog
07-23-2004, 07:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DaBallz:
Max effective range in a manual stated so
gunners don't waste ammo on targets they
likely will miss.

That's not max effective range for the weapon.
The max effective range far exceeds that value.



Your right.

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-23-2004, 08:01 AM
effective range is not the point here.

the point is that dispersion at,or beyhond max effective range is far too tight.

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
07-23-2004, 08:04 AM
i want 8x57IS and K98 instad of the MG151/20 in my FW, i can put 10 in a Wing and they are effective upt to 2k, can penetrate a wall with ease.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

FA_Maddog
07-23-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Merlin (FZG_Immel):
effective range is not the point here.

the point is that dispersion at,or beyhond max effective range is far too tight.

------------------------------
http://www.checksix-fr.com Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would say that was true of ALL aircraft in this game wouldn't you?

Hoarmurath
07-23-2004, 09:57 AM
Maddog, what plane do you use to make kills at 800m? Even while flying a gunship with mk108 i usually have to be closer to shoot at bombers... (you know, those big planes flying straight).

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
07-23-2004, 10:12 AM
"That's not max effective range for the weapon.
The max effective range far exceeds that value.

[...]

Truth is that heavy machine guns and cannon
are all effective well past 1,000m."

So the maximum effective range is greater than the maximum effective range? My head hurts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If by "effective beyond 1000m" you mean "can fly that far and make a hole in a piece of metal at an obtuse angle" you are correct. However the range at which you have a realistic chance of hitting the target and doing sufficient damage to bring it down given a reasonable length of time on target then for WW2 air to air combat it is about 300m or less. This is a combination of the problems of hitting the target and bullet density.

In any case, despite film of guns going through thin oil barrels at 1000m at that distance it would be much harder for an HMG to penetrate very obliquely presented surfaces or armour. The maximum range for effective penetration is greater than that for which hit probability and bullet density dictates maximum effective range.

Zyzbot
07-23-2004, 10:32 AM
Sounds like the discussion would be easier if the terms were defined so that everyone was on the same page.

How is the term EFFECTIVE RANGE to be defined?

How is the term MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGE to be defined?

I know that there are differences in definition in the shooting community.

Some people define Maximum Effecitve range as:

"That range at which the round of ammunition begins it's transition to sub-sonic flight"

Some people define EFFECTIVE range as:

"The range in which a competent and trained individual using the firearms has the ability to hit target 60 to 80 percent of the time"

This definition is, of course, very subjective.

I am sure that other definitions exist.

Hoarmurath
07-23-2004, 12:41 PM
this is an excerpt of this famous US manual about aerial gunnery with .50 caliber MG :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To determine the maximum range at wich the target can be led with reasonable accuracy, using an average bullet velocity, consult ballistic tables to find the maximum range at which changes in altitude and air speed make no appreciable change in the bullet's speed and the maximum range within which the bullet's time of flight is practically proportionnal to the range covered. Such a study of .50 caliber AP ammunition reveals that, at a 600-foot range, excellent accuracy is possible because variations in the bullet's time of flight are negligible under all operating conditions of speed and altitude. At a 1200-foot range, the bullet's speed is still consistent enough to permit reasonable accuracy.
Beyond a 1200-foot range, changes in time of flight of the bullet under different operationnal conditions and aiming errors by the pilot using a fixed optical sight are too great to permit accurate lead.
With the use of the fixed optical sight, the limit of effective range is about 1200 feet and the most effective range is closer and depends on the particular aircraft's harmonization and the pilot ability. Since the pilot does not remain at the most effective range long enough ti get a good burst at that range, he should try to bracket the best range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seem interesting to see that they consider the maximum effective range to be independent of any factors, like harmonization or even pilot ability.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FA_Maddog
07-23-2004, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Maddog, what plane do you use to make kills at 800m? Even while flying a gunship with mk108 i usually have to be closer to shoot at bombers... (you know, those big planes flying straight).

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



I get real close too Hoarmurath, my gun convergence is set at 180 meters. I agree with what the USAAF Manuel says about being not being able to hit anything over 1200 ft. as the Manuel says with "reasonable accuracy".

IMHO anything over the 366 meters or 1200 ft. with the 50 cal., your ability (for the average pilot) to down a plane should be reduced greatly as the range increases. BUT, this should hold true for all planes on both sides. Each weapon like the .303, 12.7 m, 20 mm & etc. would have it's own maximum effective range. Again let me say IMHO and I am not an expert, but I think this range, which would be for ALL including the German, British, & Russan, would be less than 500 meters. I'm talking about hitting the target with "reasonable accuracy" and not damage.

The ability to down a plane at 800 meters with the 50 cal. IMHO is unrealistic and this should be modeled into FB.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
07-23-2004, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
this is an excerpt of this famous US manual about aerial gunnery with .50 caliber MG :

It seem interesting to see that they consider the maximum effective range to be independent of any factors, like harmonization or even pilot ability.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


don't try it anymore, u are talking to G**bage
u remember, Cal .50 killing Tiger Tanks and Sinking destroyers ?

BTW; i finaly found it the PROOVE, it prooves that the Browning M2 was the ultimative weapon..

the top secret document (http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/pics/proove.PNG)


http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/blacksheep.jpg

Cajun76
07-23-2004, 07:01 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif Look who have become .50 cal whiners. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Good hunting,
Cajun76

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/p47nh.jpg
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

BennyMoore
07-23-2004, 09:59 PM
For the last freaking time, why is nearly everyone complaining about the fifties' unrealistically tight dispersion and not the Russian guns' (all of the Russian guns, not just heavy machine guns) unrealistically tight dispersion? Hmmm?

Guess what - I agree that the fifties are too tight now (although I still think that they were too loose before)! But a large number or people here are deliberately ignoring that all Russian guns are either just as tight or even tighter!

heywooood
07-23-2004, 10:02 PM
uffff... again with the .50 cals?

oh the humanutty...



http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/ac_32_1.jpg
"Check your guns"

civildog
07-24-2004, 12:21 AM
First the .50's are crappy, now they are too good...you know how to fix it all? All the crying about the guns not being good enough or too good?

GO PLAY SOME OTHER GAME AND LET THE REST OF US ENJOY IT RATHER THAN HAVE THE THING CONSTANTLY MESSED WITH BECAUSE OF THE WHINING!!!!!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!

Hoarmurath
07-24-2004, 07:57 AM
bump before someone open another .50 thread...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BennyMoore
07-25-2004, 02:31 AM
Or maybe we could have it fixed for real? Hmmm? Or maybe I didn't get my money's worth when I shelled out a huge wad of money for this game? Hmmm? I tell you that I am not going to buy Pacific Fighters unless I see drastic changes in a lot of issues. I only pay for games that I feel are worthwhile, you know?

Maybe Battle of Britain will have a better focus on realism. But I'm not too hopeful.

Hoarmurath
07-25-2004, 02:56 AM
The problem is, benny, what you consider as fixing, and who you consider as being an authority on the subject.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BennyMoore
07-25-2004, 03:06 AM
You're right, of course; all of us are probably wrong. But I just can't trust Oleg after the phenomenal amount of inconsistencies and innaccuracies (corrected, recorrected, and not corrected) that we've all seen. And when you have a glaring inconsisancy like the different machine guns, I tend to go with anecdotal evidence over Oleg's word.

German guns are the only ones with drop, American and British are the only ones with dispersion to speak of, and Russians are the only ones with... Oh wait, the Russian guns don't have any limitations.

Don't you think that at least we could agree on a happy medium? As long as we're going to throw realism out the window (which Oleg has done no matter what way you look at it, unless you actually believe that the new fifties are right), then why not at least promote balance to replace it?

DaBallz
07-25-2004, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
You're right, of course; all of us are probably wrong. But I just can't trust Oleg after the phenomenal amount of inconsistencies and innaccuracies (corrected, recorrected, and not corrected) that we've all seen. And when you have a glaring inconsisancy like the different machine guns, I tend to go with anecdotal evidence over Oleg's word.

German guns are the only ones with drop, American and British are the only ones with dispersion to speak of, and Russians are the only ones with... Oh wait, the Russian guns don't have any limitations.

Don't you think that at least we could agree on a happy medium? As long as we're going to throw realism out the window (which Oleg has done no matter what way you look at it, unless you actually believe that the new fifties are right), then why not at least promote balance to replace it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Truth is this is a Russian fantasy sim to let
us in the west know that Russian planes were
really superior.
There are many paradoxes. the P-39 for example
was rejected by all US pilots. So bad
it made the list of the "Worlds Worst Aircraft".
But the Russkies loved it.
The Yak's in this sim are uber, faster than a
P-51, turn like a Zero.....
But when raced in the Bronze race at RENO
against stock P-51s they get smoked...
And that's with a more powerful engine.

Sad to say this sim is just a game, and unfortunately
the best there is right now. Oleg is influenced
by 80 years of the Bolshivek revolution.
Forgive him for the propaganda that this sim is.
It might be impossible to be objective after
growing up in a Stalinist state.

Trouble is that there is little money in flight sims.
Even hits like Jane's WWII Fighters are money loosers.
Electronic Arts dropped all it's flight sims
because of this economic reality.

So we are stuck with Oleg's world.
Don't take it to heart. The Russian planes
weree not that good, and they got slaughtered
in the thousands on the Eastern Front.

Da...

civildog
07-25-2004, 01:46 PM
"Oleg is influenced
by 80 years of the Bolshivek revolution.
Forgive him for the propaganda that this sim is.
It might be impossible to be objective after
growing up in a Stalinist state." - DaBallz

....hmmmm, I seem to recall reading somewhaere that Oleg Maddox actually tested high-performance fighters for the USSR and the Russian Republic. I think that before someone shoots off their mouth about a person's qualifications they ought to be informed. I think Oleg is more than capable of modelling 60 year old warbirds with better objectivity and more expertise on those grounds alone then a bunch of whiner computer gamers who probably haven't so much as flown a Cessna in worse than VFR conditions - if at all.

As for the opinions expressed that the 39 was **** and Yak uber...the 39 excelled within the parameters the Russians used it in, as did the Yak - according to the pilots who flew them and flew against them.

Now a lot of those pilots died learning how to fly them while getting shot at by Germans with far more experience but that's war for you. An awful lot of US and British pilots died for the same reasons in far "better" planes than the Russians of Finns had. Hey!!- how about those crazy Finns, DaBallz?? How come they kicked the Russian's butts up one side of Finnland and down the other in crappy Buffaloes? Hmmm...maybe because like so many things in life it's the user not the tool that makes the difference.

The USAAF wanted high-altitude fighters for Europe and the 39 (and 38) didn't like the cold thin air so the US rejected it, but it did great in the Pacific (as did the P-38).

I've been using computers since you had to punch holes in cards to make them go and flight sims since Sublogic first produced Flight Simulator and a little wire-frame number called Jet. Forgotten Battles is so far - IM not-soHO is the most realistic I have yet played. It has it's quirks and suspicious kinks, but since I have never flow anything other than a Cessna (and a Comanche) in VFR conditons I have only the years of historical reading, talks I've had with real veterans, and the assumed expertise of the designer to fall back on. If all theose seem to agree more or less then how can I gripe?

After all, how may of you whiners have ever made tough and goes in a real Spitfire/Mustang/109 let alone been in a dogfight with one?

If you don't like the game then go away - you won't be missed.

End of rant.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!

BennyMoore
07-25-2004, 01:56 PM
The only stinking reason the P-51 was better than the P-38 in Europe was because of increase range. The Lighnings couldn't get the Forts to Berlin; the P-51's could. It's that simple. I am very tired of people insisting that the P-38 was an inferior aircraft, "not a fighter but rather a heavy ground attack plane," and other such exquisite bull****.

I'd like to point out once more just for rememberance that it was the highest scoring United States Army Air Force airplane of the war, as well as the aircraft exclusively flown by the highest scoring United States ace. That's an inferior-performance-to-the-Mustang, heavy ground attack plane for you!

DaBallz
07-25-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BennyMoore:
The only stinking reason the P-51 was better than the P-38 in Europe was because of increase range. The Lighnings couldn't get the Forts to Berlin; the P-51's could. It's that simple. I am very tired of people insisting that the P-38 was an inferior aircraft, "not a fighter but rather a heavy ground attack plane," and other such exquisite bull****.

I'd like to point out once more just for rememberance that it was the highest scoring United States Army Air Force airplane of the war, as well as the aircraft exclusively flown by the highest scoring United States ace. That's an inferior-performance-to-the-Mustang, heavy ground attack plane for you!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sir, the P-38 had 30% more range than the P-51
depending on model.
The primary reason for the P-38s failure over Europe
was engine failures in the cold air.
Also the P-38 was more vulnerable to german fighters
than the P-51. There was the economic factor
as well, P-51s were inexpensive.

You could not be more incorrect.

Da...

civildog
07-25-2004, 02:13 PM
Gee, I hope I didn't make you cry when I mentioned the P-38 in the same line as the P-39.

As for Bong's victories...(and the Finns', Russians', and all the poor pilots who didn't know their planes were such ****- according to you expert real life aces) I guess it just goes to show you that when your *** is for real on the line you can do wonders with the plane you have. Even if the "experts" say it wasn't any good.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!

Aaron_GT
07-25-2004, 03:54 PM
"As for the opinions expressed that the 39 was **** and Yak uber...the 39 excelled within the parameters the Russians used it in, as did the Yak - according to the pilots who flew them and flew against them."

Indeed - I don't think it is Oleg creating the myth of a great P39 as there is quite a wealth of VVS pilots that praised it, even postwar when anything from the USA was suspect. Given the paranoia in the USSR in the 1950s we'd expect to see the P39 rubbished, not praised. One of the techniques in historical research is to look at prevailing cultures, and sometimes assign more weight to opinions that contradict the expected version, which puts the praise of the P39 by ex-VVS pilots in good stead. Not only that some US pilots praised it too! Many of the handling problems that plagued the first major production version, the D, were ameliorated, if not full fixed, by modifications to the COG and tail. Sometimes a bad reputation just follows a plane around, though.

For the USAAF the short legs were a problem, for the RAF the build up of fumes from the 37mm cannon was a problem, and its altitude performance meant it wasn't a contender with the Spitfire. The Typhoon failed in the interceptor role as well, but then ended up being a direct competitor in ground attack role with the P39, so the P39 didn't have a clear role in the RAF. For the VVS it fitted in well, though, as a low altitude superiority fighter.

BennyMoore
07-25-2004, 04:51 PM
Daballs, I'll admit that I didn't do research on my post and was just heatedly defending my favorite plane without much research. You may very well be correct about the P-38 having more range but having engine failures. About being an easy target for Germans, well, we'll disagree on that. I'll have to look into the other points.

Hoarmurath
07-26-2004, 01:34 AM
You know Benny, i suspect that you are not entirely objective about this plane... Are you sure you're doing its pilots justice by idealizing it the way you do?

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-26-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You know Benny, i suspect that you are not entirely objective about this plane...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect he is not the only one.. and not ojly on this subject-

How can you wright that :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The only stinking reason the P-51 was better than the P-38 in Europe was because of increase range. The Lighnings couldn't get the Forts to Berlin; the P-51's could. It's that simple. I am very tired of people insisting that the P-38 was an inferior aircraft, "not a fighter but rather a heavy ground attack plane," and other such exquisite bull****.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and than wright that :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Daballs, I'll admit that I didn't do research on my post and was just heatedly defending my favorite plane without much research. You may very well be correct about the P-38 having more range but having engine failures. About being an easy target for Germans, well, we'll disagree on that. I'll have to look into the other points. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif ???

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Black Sheep
07-26-2004, 05:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:

If you don't like the game then go away - you won't be missed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, brother.

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/ilsigs/Nachtjaeger.jpg
.................................................. ..................................................
Formerly flying as Moo.Cow

VMF513_Sandman
07-26-2004, 05:58 AM
the problems the p-38 came from the fact that for its time, it was the most advanced fighter around..almost ahead of its time. they couldnt figure out how to solve the tail compressibility problem that plagued the early 38's. the germans soon figured out the diving away saved their a$$...that worked untill the dive brakes were installed.
pacific theater 38's didnt have to contend with europe's harsh winters. that could have been a serious problem with their water cooled engines. didnt help the engines having to run on infeior gas either; apparently the gas that was in the eto didnt agree with the allison's the 38's had. ran like a raped date in the pacific tho...could the pacific used a higher grade?

as far as range goes, charles linburgh showed the 38 drivers in the pacific how to increase their range substantially with lower rpm, mix, and manifold pressure, and when the pilots tried this, it worked.

the german's didnt call them the 'forktailed devil' for nothing. in experienced hands, the 38 was a potent threat...just like any plane would be. p-39's could have been more effective than they were in the pacific if they hadnt been bogged down with so much armor. then again, they got suckered into the zeke's envelope..low n slow turn fights.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-26-2004, 06:23 AM
er..

Did anyone manage to post anything about the roll off in efficiency or was there just a lot of crying going on?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

NegativeGee
07-26-2004, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by heywooood:
uffff... again with the .50 cals?

oh the humanutty...


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it!

0.50 cal threads seem to be the night of the living dead of forum topics- they have an arcance life of their own and they just keep coming!

http://www.thefleshfarm.com/dawnpic17.jpg

(and no, I'm not saying people who post in these discussions are zombies either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

[This message was edited by NegativeGee on Mon July 26 2004 at 05:46 AM.]

Dora-9
07-26-2004, 07:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
the problems the p-38 came from the fact that for its time, it was the most advanced fighter around..almost ahead of its time.........

the german's didnt call them the 'forktailed devil' for nothing. in experienced hands, the 38 was a potent threat...just like any plane would be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahead of its time ? Advanced ? Why ?
Twin boom ? Armament in the nose ?

http://www.ipmsslc.com/photo/albums/userpics/WWII/normal_Fokker_G1.jpg

That's the Fokker G1 "Air Cruiser" of 1935.

http://httpd.chello.nl/pweezepoel/index5/index5-1%20G1.html

The nickname "forktailed devil" was given the Lightning by the german infantery.

http://www.i-sol.ch/secret/dora-9_sig.jpg

horseback
07-26-2004, 08:51 AM
Dora,

No disrespect to Antony Fokker's products in the thirties, but the P-38 was a quantum leap ahead of them in terms of performance. The coupling of the unspectacular V-1710 Allison with the turbosupercharger in a streamlined, contrarotating, twin-boom design was an artistic, as well as an engineering, triumph.

The G-1, by contrast, looks crude and lumpy next to the Lightning, tied to the idea that two engines required two or more crewmen. The FW-189 owes more to the Fokker than the P-38 does.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Hoarmurath
07-26-2004, 09:34 AM
he just forgot a word... it was the most advanced american fighter... Once you add this single word, the sentence become much more correct historically...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-26-2004, 09:36 AM
^

Even at that, it still makes the P-38 a refinement of the Fokker?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

Merlin (FZG_Immel)
07-26-2004, 09:39 AM
mmm ..Hoar.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that was a provocation.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

------------------------------
www.checksix-fr.com (http://www.checksix-fr.com) Il2/FB/AEP co-webmaster
------------------------------------------------------------
Slot 2 pilot of the Virtual Haute Voltige team, and live video director

http://www.haute-voltige.com/virtualHVteam/concept.htm

Dora-9
07-26-2004, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:

The G-1, by contrast, looks crude and lumpy next to the Lightning, tied to the idea that two engines required two or more crewmen. The FW-189 owes more to the Fokker than the P-38 does.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give her two liquid cooled engines and a decent painting... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As anything else, airplanes have its fashions. In the second half of the 30's, the two engined fighter was "en vogue" and quite a few heavy fighters were build. The "Zerst¶rer" (Bf-110), the "Air Cruiser" (G-1), the "Beaufighter", the "Lightning", etc.

Fokker was one of the first companies, which indroduced the concept.

And YES, the P-38 is a lady, a beautiful lady, a fast lady and one which could fly high. http://www.smiliemania.de/smilie.php?smile_ID=1757

In contadiction the german glasshouse "Zerst¶rer" looks plain ugly and the G-1 whith the radials and the dutch painting ... you already said it ... crude (at best). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

It's the look !!! (or if you like: the aerodynamics and the turbocharged liquid cooled engine) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The concept was not new and other coutries could do it as well: Me-410 and the phantastic "Dinah" from Japan.

The twin boom of the P-38 is just a logic configuration when you have a look the allison engine and the quite long turbo charger installation. But then: She's just a twin engined fighter.

http://www.i-sol.ch/secret/dora-9_sig.jpg

Atomic_Marten
07-26-2004, 11:54 AM
It seems to me that I've seen much "corrected stuff" in this game so far (via patches etc.). Stuff that were working before with(out) much problems. This is especially related to FM's, DM's, and guns modelling. So my two possible conclusions (from what I see) are that someone outhere is just not sure about some things, or another (quite worst IMO) is that the dev. guys just try to ease things.

fly nice http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

horseback
07-26-2004, 12:28 PM
But the Lightning was the first 'heavy' fighter unencumbered by a second crewman or the poor accelleration, maneauverability, or torque of the other heavy types. In a real sense, the Lightning was more of a light twin fighter than a heavy fighter.

The types you refer to (excepting the Dinah; that was designed for fast reconnaissance) all had their roots in the WWI Bristol Fighter, which fought effectively with forward fixed armament and a rear gunner with a flexible mount. I believe it had originally been based on a bomber design, not unlike the Beaufighter and Mosquito. The Me-110 had pretensions to Lightning like capabilities, but the BoB destroyed those illusions, and the 210/410 series easily fell into the 'easy meat' category for all US single seat fighters, including the Lightning.

It seems as though the designers couldn't resist the temptation to pile on the extra weight as soon as they got a few extra horsepower to play with.

The P-38's twin engine layout was in response to an AAF requirement for a single seat bomber interceptor; Kelly Johnson didn't think the needed performance could be achieved by an aircraft with any available single engine (for some reason, Daimler-Benz and Rolls Royce were churlishly unwilling to sell their products to the US military in the late thirties). The heavy fighter concept in vogue in Europe was entirely secondary to him.

Paint jobs aside, though, the G1 has a center pod that looks more like a 1950s era station wagon compared to the Lightning's modern Indy car gondola. That's what makes the big difference between the two. All the green and tan paint in the world isn't going to change that.

cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

Casey_66
07-26-2004, 12:44 PM
This thread seems to have taken a turn to the P-38. Take this for what it's worth:

I once met a Pacific Theater P-38 pilot. He's active with many WW2 pilots and was relaying several stories to me including how really nice a certain Gunthar Rall is and who was supposed to attend their next meeting here in SoCA a couple years back. This pilot also told me that he asked what Gunthar Rall really thought of the P-38 (and he made it sound as though Rall was really reluctant to say) but finally politely stated that they let their rookies or inexperienced pilots attack the P-38s. True story, make of it what you will.

I also asked Bob what he thought of the Spitfire and he said in his P-38 with the boosted controls, he'd be able to make "boxed turns" against one and hold his own...whatever "boxed turns" are. I didn't ask him to get specific on that one so have no clue if he really dueled with one or even what type of Spit he was referring to.

That does seem to be a dichotomy, that the Germans let their Rookies go up against the P-38 yet Bob's P-38 could hold it's own against Spits. Unless the Germans didn't go up against the boosted control 38s.

edit: Oh yeah, in the Pacific where he fought, he said they "never" turned with the enemy because that meant they'd get slow and thus vulnerable to some unseen fighter jumping them. (This seems true of most combats where most pilots never see who shot them down...way different than the deuling going on in most arenas.)

Casey_66
07-26-2004, 12:51 PM
Oh, and didn't the Wright Flyer have a twin boom design? Except it was in front. So even that G1 isn't truly novel.

Blutarski2004
07-26-2004, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Casey_66:
This thread seems to have taken a turn to the P-38. Take this for what it's worth:

I once met a Pacific Theater P-38 pilot. He's active with many WW2 pilots and was relaying several stories to me including how really nice a certain Gunthar Rall is and who was supposed to attend their next meeting here in SoCA a couple years back. This pilot also told me that he asked what Gunthar Rall really thought of the P-38 (and he made it sound as though Rall was really reluctant to say) but finally politely stated that they let their rookies or inexperienced pilots attack the P-38s. True story, make of it what you will.

I also asked Bob what he thought of the Spitfire and he said in his P-38 with the boosted controls, he'd be able to make "boxed turns" against one and hold his own...whatever "boxed turns" are. I didn't ask him to get specific on that one so have no clue if he really dueled with one or even what type of Spit he was referring to.

That does seem to be a dichotomy, that the Germans let their Rookies go up against the P-38 yet Bob's P-38 could hold it's own against Spits. Unless the Germans didn't go up against the boosted control 38s.

edit: Oh yeah, in the Pacific where he fought, he said they "never" turned with the enemy because that meant they'd get slow and thus vulnerable to some unseen fighter jumping them. (This seems true of most combats where most pilots never see who shot them down...way different than the deuling going on in most arenas.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Nice post, Casey. I'm guessing that a "boxed turn" was probably akin to a high yo-yo.

BLUTARSKI

Hoarmurath
07-26-2004, 02:58 PM
Well, we're back to the point where pilots accounts are not clearing anything... Listen to one, it was the eigth marvel, listen to another, it was just scrap metal... As i said in the gibbage post, pilots accounts are useful to try to get a general picture, but you need to backup them with some data... You can't consider them without the backup of raw data...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ddsflyer
07-26-2004, 03:51 PM
Read "The P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter" by Warren M. Bodine (Widewing Publications 1994) In it he states that the P-38J and later L could outturn any german fighter at low altitude. Thomas McGuire said he could even outturn Zeros at 250 knots and above with combat flaps. They (P-38) had a better power to weight ratio and shed airspeed less at high G. He goes into detail the compressability problems (solved with the speedbrake) and the high altitude engine, cold temp and low octane gas problems (never solved). The P-38 internal fuel range was better than the P-51 but less with drop tanks because the P-38 couldn't carry enough of them.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZ
ATI Radeon X800XT PT
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS
NEC FP2141SB

DaBallz
07-26-2004, 04:55 PM
First, correcting a myth.
The problems with the P-38 and the cold air at
altitude were about the high PN fuel it required
to fun at high power levels fouling plugs
when run at low power settings escorting bombers.
The problem was solved, but it cost range.
Every so often the pilots would go to a high
power setting to clear the engine.
There is no easy solution to the plug problem.
A plug that is "cold" enough to run good under
high boost and RPMs is prone to fouling at low
power settings, such as escorting bombers at 220mph.
Add to that the high tetraethyllead content
of the AV Gas and the problem becomes severe.
There was additionally a problem with the intercoolers
being too efficent. Over cooling of the incoming
fuel air mixture made matters worse.

The bad fuel myth is just that, pure myth.

The oil coolers tended to over cool as well.
Oil getting to cold resulted in poor oil
circulation and "jelling" of the oil resulting in
bearing failures.

Kelly Johnson designed the P-38 and it's systems
to run at high speeds. It did not do well
escorting slow bombers at -70 F.

The warmer Pacific theatre, combined with less
need for bomber escort favored the P-38.
Lindburghs stroke of genuis helped. Lower RPMs
but with higher manifold pressures helped range
and may have helped hold off plug fouling.

P-51s also experianced the fouling problem, to a lesser extent.
From what I have read the fighter groups sought
British Merlin spark plugs as they were superior.

No, the plug fouling problem was never 100% solved.
No piston engined plane, or car for that matter, can
run highly leaded fuels at low power settings
for long without risk of fouling.

Today fouling a plug in your car is rare.
I remember leaded fuels and fouling was much
more common than today.

Da...

VMF513_Sandman
07-26-2004, 05:56 PM
its a pity that the game engine cant figure out how to properly model counter-rotating props to cancel torque. if that could be done, the 38 would be more than a match for any plane in the game.
there was a manuver i heard about; the cloverleaf; but cant figure out how the manuver is flown. reportedly, it could be used effectively against tighter turning planes like the spit. 38's will stall, but not like the game engine is modeled. oleg had said the game engine limitation wont seem to allow rl modeling of a 'zero torque' handling. even cfs2's game engine didnt quite do it. with zero torque, the plane didnt have the limitations the corsair and hellcat had. zekes turned better to the left than right, corsairs/cats vice versa. but the 38 could go either way no problem.
this plane was very prone to tail compressibility in dives. until the dive break, to follow a 109 or 190 in a dive was suicidal.

ddsflyer
07-26-2004, 08:17 PM
Plug fouling was finally solved with the advent of the platinum electrode plug. Just ask any pilot flying his own plane today (such as me) what the difference is between massive electrode (standard) and platinum or pallidium fine wire plugs. The fouling is almost nonexistant with the fine wires but requires plug cleaning every 50-100 hours with the conventional ones. Bottom plugs in the cylinder (there are 2 plugs per cylinder) foul worse due to added oil fouling. The fouling is lead deposits and is worse with low power or rich fuel mixture settings, that is why we lean the mixture on the ground during taxi and at any altitude above 5000 feet.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZ
ATI Radeon X800XT PT
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS
NEC FP2141SB

DaBallz
07-27-2004, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddsflyer:
Plug fouling was finally solved with the advent of the platinum electrode plug. Just ask any pilot flying his own plane today (such as me) what the difference is between massive electrode (standard) and platinum or pallidium fine wire plugs. The fouling is almost nonexistant with the fine wires but requires plug cleaning every 50-100 hours with the conventional ones. Bottom plugs in the cylinder (there are 2 plugs per cylinder) foul worse due to added oil fouling. The fouling is lead deposits and is worse with low power or rich fuel mixture settings, that is why we lean the mixture on the ground during taxi and at any altitude above 5000 feet.

P4 3.4GHz Northwood
Intel D875PBZ
ATI Radeon X800XT PT
1.0GB Kingston HyperX PC3200
W.D. Dual 80GB SATA RAID
Plextor PX-708A
Lite-On 52x
Creative Audigy2 ZS
NEC FP2141SB
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Platnum solved the problem.
the Wrights used Platnuim sparking contacts!
The problem was not solved in the 40's though...

da...

DaBallz
07-27-2004, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
he just forgot a word... it was the most advanced _american_ fighter... Once you add this single word, the sentence become much more correct historically...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahhh, Hoarmurath, it is now clear. Nationalitic
pride is what is driving you in this thread.
This explains why you can't understand any
data that suggests that the American .50 may
be useful past 1,200' range.

I hate to pop your bubble but your precious
German cannon had no more useful range
when judged in the same manner.
Don't waste your time with usless graphs and charts.
In air to air combat everything is moving, that
is what restricts range of a weapon.

As to the modern AMERICAN P-38... Yup, you
germans had some impressive fighters.
But they had lousy range.
Show me a German fighter that had the range
of a P-38 and the same performance overall.
Try showing me that in a 1942 vintage German fighter.
While you are at it, show me a turbosupercharged
german fighter that reached production and
first line status.
And add to that, except for night fighters Germany
never fielded an effective twin engined day fighter.
The Bf-110 was a failure in the same time frame as the P-38.

Nationalistic pride has clouded your vision.

Da...

Hoarmurath
07-27-2004, 05:39 AM
Me german? Too bad, i'm french....

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2004, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaBallz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
he just forgot a word... it was the most advanced _american_ fighter... Once you add this single word, the sentence become much more correct historically...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3
56Kers are strongly advised to _NOT_ click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ahhh, Hoarmurath, it is now clear. Nationalitic
pride is what is driving you in this thread.
This explains why you can't understand any
data that suggests that the American .50 may
be useful past 1,200' range.

I hate to pop your bubble but your precious
German cannon had no more useful range
when judged in the same manner.
Don't waste your time with usless graphs and charts.
In air to air combat everything is moving, that
is what restricts range of a weapon.

As to the modern AMERICAN P-38... Yup, you
germans had some impressive fighters.
But they had lousy range.
Show me a German fighter that had the range
of a P-38 and the same performance overall.
Try showing me that in a 1942 vintage German fighter.
While you are at it, show me a turbosupercharged
german fighter that reached production and
first line status.
And add to that, except for night fighters Germany
never fielded an effective twin engined day fighter.
The Bf-110 was a failure in the same time frame as the P-38.

Nationalistic pride has clouded your vision.

Da...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Someone retorting to a 'nationalistic' comment with 'nationalistic' comments?

Ironic!

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

Hoarmurath
07-27-2004, 10:15 AM
thx for informing me about what make a plane more advanced than others...

step one, check range....

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/internationale-ru.mp3)
56Kers are strongly advised to NOT click on my signature http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

civildog
07-27-2004, 10:28 AM
Did the Germans (or anybody) really ever need a twin-engined fighter?

But it seems to me that Jerry's twin jet 262 was a pretty effective twin-engined day fighter! So effective that if Hitler hadn't insisted on making it a bomber the experts all agree it might have extended the length of the war.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!

civildog
07-27-2004, 10:41 AM
And speaking from a nationalistic, American POV: The Germans definitely knew what they were doing with aircraft design. They continued to advance the proven designs they had and held the edge over most Allied designs until the end of the war. Pretty remarkable considering the limited materials and the internecine warfare going on in the Nazi Party and the design bureaus to advance pet projects rather than cooperate towards a single goal. And thank God for that!

It is generally agreed among historians that the Germans were defeated because of the industrial might of the Allies and the will of the Allies to win the war. Not to take anything away form the Allies, but experts also agree that while Allied weapon systems had many advanced features, they were successful more because of their numbers, ease of maintainence, and durability rather than because of being some kind of wonderweapons. Just ask any veteran who flew in a B-17 or fought in a Sherman - which I have. I say it everytime...it's the man not the machine, but lots of men with machines sure helps a lot.

Now that I have you all in the crushing grip of reason, let us pray that this thread dies a swift death before anyone's fragile egos are further damaged because their favorite pretend plane, in a game, in a pretend war, isn't universally thought of as the weapon of the century.

Or are we gonna have to start dropping our drawers and posting screenshots for definitve measurement?

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Or are we gonna have to start dropping our drawers and posting screenshots for definitve measurement?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The NiMH batteries for my digital camera are now on charge...! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

civildog
07-27-2004, 10:56 AM
LOL! I have Photoshop standing by!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!

NorrisMcWhirter
07-27-2004, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
LOL! I have Photoshop standing by!

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v304/civildog/CivilDogsignatureMASTER2.jpg

I often think the whole world is out to get me, but then I remember that some of the smaller nations are neutral.

58th AVG "WannaBees" ...We fly where the angels fear to tread!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Right! - I'm going to fit a telescope to my camera just so I can fit all of "me" on!

And, before you say, I mean that that the telescope is positioned the opposite way around to normal ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

Blackdog5555
07-31-2004, 01:57 AM
Some good points made. ALL PLANES HAD THEIR PROBLEMS. THE P39 IN THE PTO WASNT LOVED BECAUSE IT WAS OUT TURNED BY JAPANESE COUNTERPARTS AND ALL ITS PLUMBING WAS IN THE REAR. A COUPLE OF SHOTS IN THE TAIL AND THAT WAS IT. SO T0 OFF TO THE RUSKIES IT GOES. THEY TAKE THE ARMOUR OUT OF IT AND USE IT FOR A LOW LEVEL FIGHTER/ATTACK PLANE WHERE IT COULD OUT TURN A ME 109. NOW ITS PERFEDTLY SUITED. aLSO, THE FINNS ALSO MADE SEVERAL MOD TO THE BUFFALO. THEY ALSO TOOK THE ARMOUR OUT OF IT AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE A PRETTY GOOD "LIGHTWEIGHT" FIGHTER. THE FINNS WHERE GREAT PILOTS, FIGHTING FOR THEIR HOMELAND. SO, WHAT IM SAYING IS THAT A LITTLE KNOWLEDGE IS A DANGEROUS THING. ALL IS SOUND AND FURY CAUSE 90% OF ALL AIR TO AIR KILLS WERE CAUSED BY AN UNSEEN ATTACKER. SO STEALTH, NOT CAPABILITY WAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN AIR TO AIR COMBAT. AND DUDE IS RIGHT. THE RUSSIAN PLANES HAVE LASERS FOR GUNS. NONE OF THE RUSSIAN PLANES, NONE OF THEM HAVE ANY BAD FIGHT BEHAVIORS. (ALSO, THE ki84 ROLL RATE IS WAY OFF). THE YAK 9U IS A GREAT PLANE BUT NOT THAT GREAT. ANYWAY, ITS JUST A GAME. i FLY THE YAK 3 1944. I WONT FLY IN A ROOM WITH THE KI84. DISPERSION ON THE P51 & P47 WENT FROM SHOTGUN TO LASER. SO WHAT.., I FLY THE YAKK 3 1944.