PDA

View Full Version : Head winds and Tail winds/Round velocity must be modeled



VMF-214_HaVoK
03-21-2005, 02:42 PM
Before PF I often wondered why I my gunnery percentage was so effective with the P-40 versus the P-51 and P-47. Like many I stated thier is a difference and the P-40 tears planes up more then other US planes equiped with .50s. I would say in the JUG I could average about 5-7% on ten or so kills. In PF while flying the Wildcat I average about 11-16% on ten or so kills. Once again Im thinking man this plane tears stuff up compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.

The other night while watching the Military Channel they had a special on the B-52 and were discussing the .50s mounted in the tail. It stated how MIGs would close on its six and not taking in to consideration that they would fire into a 500mph head wind and the return fire would be with a 500mph tail wind. So they would never be in range to fire before they were fired at.

So my point is that perhaps its more difficult obtaining a high hit % on planes such as the P-51, P-47, Corsiar, ect. Is because combat speeds are usually way higher then while flying slower planes such as Wildcat and P-40. This would apply to all aircraft firing mg rounds. Cannon rounds are heavier and one would think not be as effected as the smaller rounds.

What you all think?

VMF-214_HaVoK
03-21-2005, 02:42 PM
Before PF I often wondered why I my gunnery percentage was so effective with the P-40 versus the P-51 and P-47. Like many I stated thier is a difference and the P-40 tears planes up more then other US planes equiped with .50s. I would say in the JUG I could average about 5-7% on ten or so kills. In PF while flying the Wildcat I average about 11-16% on ten or so kills. Once again Im thinking man this plane tears stuff up compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.

The other night while watching the Military Channel they had a special on the B-52 and were discussing the .50s mounted in the tail. It stated how MIGs would close on its six and not taking in to consideration that they would fire into a 500mph head wind and the return fire would be with a 500mph tail wind. So they would never be in range to fire before they were fired at.

So my point is that perhaps its more difficult obtaining a high hit % on planes such as the P-51, P-47, Corsiar, ect. Is because combat speeds are usually way higher then while flying slower planes such as Wildcat and P-40. This would apply to all aircraft firing mg rounds. Cannon rounds are heavier and one would think not be as effected as the smaller rounds.

What you all think?

JunkoIfurita
03-21-2005, 03:55 PM
Hmmm, I'm not certain about the cannon rounds. They are heavier, so they have more inertia when it comes to wind, but they also are of a larger surface area (larger calibre by a factor of a lot), so I'd say the wind affects them significantly as well.

----

ruf9ii
03-22-2005, 09:12 AM
erm, not sure if they are or not, but i think this is moot point. have you ever shot at a plane from extreme range (800m - 1Km)?

the distance for most shooting is around 150-300m, in which space the effects of windresistance etc isnt really a big factor.

WOLFMondo
03-22-2005, 09:32 AM
I find I hit better in P40's because I have more time on target. When BnZ'ing in a P47 I get probably 1 second at best half a second at worst on target and within the convergence of my guns before having to pull up. With a P40 or Wildcat there slower, the target is slower so I get more time on target to fire accurate bursts.

VW-IceFire
03-22-2005, 10:51 PM
I think the P-40's advantage is twofold:
1) Its a bit slower (not significantly so) meaning that you usually approach the target at a wee bit of a lower speed. Although this is subjective.
2) Its guns, on the E and N models, are tighly arrayed and very close in. On the Mustang they are a bit further out and the P-47 they are all the way out on the bloody edge of the wing.

Combat speeds aren't much higher between a P-40 or Wildcat and a Corsair or Mustang. Not to make any difference worth mentioning.

Badsight.
03-22-2005, 11:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Before PF I often wondered why I my gunnery percentage was so effective with the P-40 versus the P-51 and P-47. Like many I stated thier is a difference and the P-40 tears planes up more then other US planes equiped with .50s. I would say in the JUG I could average about 5-7% on ten or so kills. In PF while flying the Wildcat I average about 11-16% on ten or so kills. Once again Im thinking man this plane tears stuff up compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.
What you all think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i think that the awesomeness the P-40 had over other .50cal planes dissapered when AEP was released & before the .50cal accuracy fix patch v2.04

Badsight.
03-22-2005, 11:16 PM
id like to add that i believe there is a problem that "Many MG" planes suffer from , & that is how the sim seems hard pressed to correctly create/track ALL the rounds that a plane with multiple MG's should spit out

planes like the Hurricanes , Jugs , Ponys , P-40's should release massive amounts of rounds from breif trigger presses , i think planes with multiple MG's are held back in destructive power due to the game code struggling to moddel that amount of rounds accurately

Jex_TG
03-23-2005, 06:24 AM
I had a conversation about wind over on the Lock On forum concerning missile. The conclusion of that discussion was that 'wind' has no effect on air targets. Therefore if I fired a missile at a plane and I'm travelling with the wind, and the other plane fires a missle and he's travelling against the wind, both our missiles will hit at the same time (as long as they were the same missile, fired under the same parameters).

In this example, the bomber is travelling at say 300kts, so are the gunners bullets - backwards. The fighter is travelling at 400 kts say, so his bulelts are already travelling at 400kts forwards. However, relative to each other there is no difference apparently. No being an expert in areodynamics I can't really add to this.

I think it has to do with wind no affecting airborne targets because both vehicles are travelling in the wind, therefore you do not take it as a factor. Of course the bullets are still susceptable to air resistance (which has nothing to do with wind.

To further complicate the issue - wind does have an impact if your attacking ground objects lol.

HotelBushranger
03-23-2005, 06:30 AM
Hm, I've noticed that the P-40 seems to have the worst accuracy; I fly it regularly and know its limitations, however once I was flying a Corsair, and sniped a Ki-43's wing off at 500+ metres http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

My opinion is to the opposite of these other people, perhaps I just haven't flyed to Corsair and Mustang enough (probably so, like to stick to my Kittyhawk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

WOLFMondo
03-23-2005, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Combat speeds aren't much higher between a P-40 or Wildcat and a Corsair or Mustang. Not to make any difference worth mentioning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd say the difference is pretty big. In a P47 or P51 I often enter combat on my own terms 650kph+, in a p40 your wings fall off at those speeds! In a P51 you might be flying at 700kph and hitting a target thats doing around the same speed, in a P40 your hitting a target at 400-500kph tops, usually even slower if its not a bounce but already a dogfight, around 250-350kph and the target your hitting is probably the same speed, thats massive difference, which means a huge differnce on the time you can spend with your guns on the target plane.