PDA

View Full Version : Gun jams during high / negative Gs and sustained firing



XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:15 PM
One thing I would LOVE to see included is guns jamming up when you're firing during extreme manuvers, and when you fire a sustained burst.

Would help with two things:
1) Cut down on firing while making extremely tight turns / loops (you can fly like a UFO, or shoot AT a UFO, but there will be NO ARMED UFOs ALLOWED! >http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2) Assist in quickly teaching pilots to use short, controlled bursts--marksmanship would be compelled to improve rapidly (this is a *good* thing).

Planes with manual charging handles accessible from the cockpit (P-39, MiG-3, etc) or mechanical charger controls for wing or nose guns (P-51, P-47, etc) could attempt to cycle the charging handles and clear the jam (not 100% assured fix).

This would be an option that can be toggled on and off under realism settings.

Stenciled on the side of my Dora:

"Lasst das H√¬∂llentor √¬∂ffen, es friert hier oben!"
("Leave the gates to Hell open, it's FREEZING up here!")

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:15 PM
One thing I would LOVE to see included is guns jamming up when you're firing during extreme manuvers, and when you fire a sustained burst.

Would help with two things:
1) Cut down on firing while making extremely tight turns / loops (you can fly like a UFO, or shoot AT a UFO, but there will be NO ARMED UFOs ALLOWED! >http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

2) Assist in quickly teaching pilots to use short, controlled bursts--marksmanship would be compelled to improve rapidly (this is a *good* thing).

Planes with manual charging handles accessible from the cockpit (P-39, MiG-3, etc) or mechanical charger controls for wing or nose guns (P-51, P-47, etc) could attempt to cycle the charging handles and clear the jam (not 100% assured fix).

This would be an option that can be toggled on and off under realism settings.

Stenciled on the side of my Dora:

"Lasst das H√¬∂llentor √¬∂ffen, es friert hier oben!"
("Leave the gates to Hell open, it's FREEZING up here!")

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:25 PM
i dont know about guns jamming in high manuvers, never heard of that. but the guns randomly jamming would be welcome.

<center>I know my name is spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 08:48 PM
At least some planes (P-51B and F4F Wildcat) had frequent jams during high g manuvers. I don't know how common this was with other planes.

Jams were caused by the rounds (belts) not following the feed path or a empty casing not being ejected correctly.

Gun jams were very common with US jets in Vietnam. The F8F frequently jammed all 4 (I believe) 20mm guns. Missle reliability was even worse.

I agree that an occassional random jam would be a "fun" factor.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 09:08 PM
Yep, the -51B's jam tendency was exactly what reminded me of this. Even Ds had jam problems when trying to fire during 5+ G turns.

The bigger factor was sustained firing--operating procedures for any machine gun or rapid-fire cannon always include, SOMEWHERE, 'cool-down period between bursts'. Gunbarrels simply aren't designed for 6-700 rounds all at once. They overheat and wear, and that causes jams. Especially dangerous with 15 / 20mm cannons, since those shells contain explosive and can cause quite a problem if they detonate in the barrel. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif



Stenciled on the side of my Dora:

"Lasst das H√¬∂llentor √¬∂ffen, es friert hier oben!"
("Leave the gates to Hell open, it's FREEZING up here!")

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 09:21 PM
Want to support this!

Random jamming would be fun and sustained burst jamming would bring an end to those guys spraying MK108 rounds from their jets when ammo is unlimited!
Sustained burst jamming should be part of 'realistic gunnery' (as i noticed not many people use unrealistic gunnery).

Don't know much about high-G jamming but it surely would bring some extra realism!

Nice idea PlaneEater!

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 09:40 PM
Hi,
On the WW2 Fighter disc from Janes there was an interview (G Rall i think) that stated he flew only with standard armament cause the chains controlling the firing mechanism in the underwing gondolas had a tendency to break during hi G manouevres thus rendering them useless!

Regards HP

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 09:45 PM
actually, if my memory serves well, the jamming was mostly caused by the torsion of the wings under high G-load. It weapons that suffered from that were those in the wings. If such jamming is present, it should, basically, concern only planes with wing-mounted armament... and not even all of them. Late P51s didn't have that proble because of a thicker wing in which the guns were positioned differently allowing the ammo belts to feed them more directly (in a straighter line)

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:09 PM
Yes I agree with the idea that wing mounted guns would be more likely to jam. The earlier P-51 models had the Brownings tilted at a 45 degree angle (as I recall) which did contribute to jamming.

OT but related: the F4F Wildcats had a lot of problems with jams at the start of WW2. If you want to read two books with the most in depth analysis of the naval airwar in the Pacific try the two "First Team" books. About a 1000 pages combined covers only the first 12 months or so of the war.

I only wish there were books on eastern front air battles that covered the material in such detail. I have the two Black Cross/Red Star Volumes but the same detail isn't available.

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:11 PM
One model of early Mustangs had a bad jamming problem which was fixed into not a bad jamming problem. I'm sure you could still jam the guns when firing in high G's but it wasn't nearly so often. One one model it was the addition of more power to the belt feed and IIRC later they straightened out the belt paths. I'm sure that Butch2K has the details somewhere as he's a super-aircombat-grognard among other things.

It's funny how many people latch onto teething problems in different planes as if those defined the entire series. Can or will FB have different models of all these with and without the fielded differences, field-applied and factory mods, etc? Who would choose to fly the LaGG with the flammable varnish, etc?

Random jamming? I'd rather not see the threads for that. How about for overlong bursts instead with the number of rounds fired passing a base + random limit with the base determined by feed type and maybe a G-factor?

I wonder if there's room in the code because, no freaking way even the best home PC's available can cover most of the details we can want! At this point we can't even get changes to an internal view 3D model and that requires no coding at all.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 10:22 PM
Wing torsion was one issue, but the bigger problem was definitely overheating during sustained firing.

While I'm not as familiar with VVS armament, I do know that *all* of both USAAF and Luftwaffe MGs and cannons had what are nowadays referred to as duty cycles--designated burst durations that pilots were sternly warned not to exceed if at all possible.
Usually for MGs it was something along the lines of '3-5 seconds of cooldown per second of burst, no more than 2-3 second burst, and in emergency, generalized as no more than 200 rounds / min' (.30 cal and 7.92mm / 13mm). Cannons were around 1 sec burst, 5-10 sec cooldown, no more than 50-100 (depending on weapon) rounds / minute.

Of course these were exceeded in many cases--sometimes by a heck of a lot--but that's the point at which the guns started to seriously suffer from overheating, and do very un-cooperative things like jam, incorrectly eject casings, wear down the barrel, and cook off ammunition.

I don't see why there wouldn't be code in the realistic gunnery computations for this. You're only dealing with a few factors: current G load and G-load jam threshold, gun temp, delta rate of heat increase during firing, delta rate of cooling, and a "Am-I-Jammed, can-I-fire" yes/no boolean. There's probably a few more that could be added to make it more accurate, but that would be plenty for starters.

Stenciled on the side of my Dora:

"Lasst das H√¬∂llentor √¬∂ffen, es friert hier oben!"
("Leave the gates to Hell open, it's FREEZING up here!")

Message Edited on 08/07/0302:30PM by PlaneEater

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 11:40 PM
In theory, it`s good idea, jamming is not modelled in Il-2 (one aspect where Il-2 is inferior even to the "Red Baron"). It should be. However, actual implementation would be more difficult. There`s 80 flyables in the game, plus the AI planes. Now, how the heck can one gather SO MUCH test data relevant to gun jams? A Browning .50 is likely to jam in a P-51B (HOW MUCH likely exactly?). Not so much likely to jam in a P-51B (How much less likely?). And we have no idea about jams on a, say P-39 (Oh, and are we speaking of fusalge or wing guns jam rate?).

You get the point. And alternative solution is to associate a few levels jam rates (Say Notorious Jammer, Avarge, Super-Reliable). But then, imagine the whining... it`s not correct etc.

Still, some kind of jamming and/or gun overheating model would be nice.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vez√©r√ľnk a B√°tors√°g, K√¬*s√©r√¬Ķnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-07-2003, 11:56 PM
since we're talking about the guns.. i know this is kind of off topic, but it's also something i'd like to see. in all of the real footage videos of planes firing, the bullets seem to fly out every which way. the bullets don't go in a straight line like in FB, and many times they look like they curve out and fly slanted (i know they don't, but i'm just saying how they look). i would like to see them fly this way in the game

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:02 AM
Although a very cool idea, I doubt this will be implemented because Oleg and his team would have to go back and investigate what were the circumstances for a gun jam/overheat on all the guns/planes in this game. There are simply too many guns/planes and too little/unreliable information. And surely, people would be flaming the forums, "This gun took over 30 seconds of continuous fire to overheat!!!1 blah bah..." My guess would be that Oleg didn't want to deal with this.

http://www.assonetart.com/ClashofArmor.jpg
"Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once."

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:30 AM
MOH_TRACKER wrote:
- since we're talking about the guns.. i know this is
- kind of off topic, but it's also something i'd like
- to see. in all of the real footage videos of planes
- firing, the bullets seem to fly out every which way.
- the bullets don't go in a straight line like in FB,
- and many times they look like they curve out and fly
- slanted (i know they don't, but i'm just saying how
- they look). i would like to see them fly this way in
- the game
-
-

in that footage it looks like that because of the recoil from the guns shaking the camera

any gun with a rifled barrel is gonna shoot pretty straight, the bullets arnt gonna go off in all crazy dirrections unless the gun is pointed in a different direction between each bullet that is fired

----------------------------------------

http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviation/xfl-1.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 12:59 AM
Remember IL 2 before any patches? I got a gunjam after firing the nose cannon of a bf-109. Then I downloaded the patch 1.1 and it was gone. I have never gotten a gun jam unless hit by enemy fire. Pity

http://utenti.lycos.it/AEREOFAN/images/saetta.jpg

caccia buon!

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 02:44 AM
TooCool_12f wrote:
- actually, if my memory serves well, the jamming was
- mostly caused by the torsion of the wings under high
- G-load. It weapons that suffered from that were
- those in the wings. If such jamming is present, it
- should, basically, concern only planes with
- wing-mounted armament... and not even all of them.
- Late P51s didn't have that proble because of a
- thicker wing in which the guns were positioned
- differently allowing the ammo belts to feed them
- more directly (in a straighter line)
-
-

There is at least one definite acception to that rule "TooCool," that being the MK108 cannons on the later 109's. Even though they were mounted in the nose of the plane, they were notorious for jamming in hard manuvers and stressfull "G" situations, thus making pilots shun away from them for figther encounters.

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 03:14 AM
I have read (in a book) from a 109 ace from WW2 that he hated having the gun pods attached to his planes. Not only did it hamper the aerodynamics and add extra-unwanted weight to his plane but it also had an odd side effect. If he made high G maneuver at any time the flex in the wings would snap the chains attached to the firing mechanism for the gun pods leaving they inoperable.

Regards,
Mad

XyZspineZyX
08-08-2003, 08:56 AM
The gun jamming in high -G would really be a nice aspect to air combat.

USAF pilot quickly removed the 37mm nose cannon from P-39 because it usually jammed after couple shots?
The 20 mm Hispano Suiza cannon was allso known to jam a lot (at least the early models)in high-g.Allso i have read that usaf 0.50 browning jammed in high-g manouvers allso
Try to post some links later when i get to home