PDA

View Full Version : 4.03 bug report- Buffalo Mk.1 wing guns.



GerritJ9
02-18-2006, 05:53 PM
Since I installed patch 4.03, the wing guns of the Buffalo Mk.1 have had their ammunition supply halved. Until 4.03, the wing guns would run out of ammunition approximately 40-50 rounds before the fuselage guns. Since installing 4.03 however, the wing guns run out of ammunition when the fuselage guns still have well over 200 rounds left. According to the official pilot's manual for the Buffalo Mk.1 the wing guns had 500 rounds each so pre-4.03 modelling was correct. Will also test F2A-2 and B-239 to see if anything has changed there.
Also reported to 1C by E-mail.

GerritJ9
02-18-2006, 06:36 PM
Also discovered in further testing that the port wing gun runs out of ammo about 20 rounds before the starboard wing gun does.
Tested B-239 and F2A-2 as well and while the basic load of 200 r.p.g. for wing guns and 250 r.p.g. for fuselage guns hasn't changed, these aeroplanes also now have the port wing gun running out of ammo before the starboad gun does- again, about 20 rounds difference.
This discrepancy was not present previously either.

Kocur_
02-19-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
Also discovered in further testing that the port wing gun runs out of ammo about 20 rounds before the starboard wing gun does.


'De-synchronisation'! ROFs of both guns are not equal anymore-and fine.

GerritJ9
02-19-2006, 04:05 PM
Then I stand corrected as far as the timing of the guns running out of ammunition is concerned- thanks for the explanation. But it still leaves the Buffalo Mk.1's wing guns some 250-300 r.p.g. shorthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-20-2006, 04:21 AM
in 4.02 the Buffalo Mk.I had 500rpg in each weapon. http://www.warbirdforum.com/britdifs.htm
now in 4.03 it has 500rpg in the fuselage guns and 250prg in the wing guns.
dont know why they changed it, perhaps they received new sources.

the B-239 and F2A-2 btw have 250rpg in all weapons - not sure if that is correct. at least the F2A-2 should have a¶so 500rpg in its fuselage weapons AFAIK.........

GerritJ9
02-20-2006, 06:19 AM
All sources I have confirm 500 r.p.g. for all guns in Buffalo Mk.1. F2A-2 had 200 r.p.g. for each wing gun and 250 r.p.g. for the fuselage guns. As far as I know the same applies for the F2A-1 and B-239.
The Dutch B-339C and B-339D (unfortunately not in the sim yet) had two 0.50s in the wings with probably 200 r.p.g., and two fuselage 0.30s, ammunition load per gun unknown.
F2A-3 (due in sim), like the Buffalo Mk.1, also had a larger ammunition load, but from memory 400 r.p.g. Will check when I am at home.

WWMaxGunz
02-21-2006, 03:01 AM
Rate of fire for nose guns is? For wing guns?

GerritJ9
02-21-2006, 03:32 AM
Since all four guns were of the same type i.e. Browning 0.50 cal, the rate of fire should be approximately the same. There is no historical evidence that I am aware of that has the Buffalo's wing guns having double the rate of fire of the fuselage guns- so they should run out of ammunition at roughly the same time.
What the British did do in an attempt to cut weight and therefore increase the Buffalo's rate of climb was halve the ammunition load as well as cutting back the fuel load on take-off. Some had the wing 0.50s replaced by 0.303s or even all the guns replaced by 0.303s as well as removing all unnecessary equipment such as the flare chutes, external radio mast (which also cut drag and increased speed slightly) and cockpit heating. However, this is not the DEFAULT load. And since the rest of the Buffalo's details have not been changed, there does not seem to be any historical basis for reducing the DEFAULT load of the Buffalo in the sim. If 1C were to add a "Buffalo Field Mod" in a similar way as the "Russian Hurricane Field Mod" it would make sense as an option. But then this aeroplane's performance envelope would have to be altered as well- top speed, climb rate, manoeuverability etc. Or alternatively, add "50% ammunition load" as an option similar to the fuel load choice. As is, the Buffalo's top speed is undermodelled- although climb rate and acceleration were markedly inferior to that of the Ki.43, top speed was actually higher- 313 m.p.h. vs. 304 m.p.h.

JG53Frankyboy
02-21-2006, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Rate of fire for nose guns is? For wing guns?

well, the fuselage guns are synchronized = slower fire rate.

there fore the wing guns of a B-239 (for example) are faster empty than the fuselage ones. all for weapons have the same ammoload....

GerritJ9
02-21-2006, 05:10 AM
The B-239 (and F2A-2) carried 200 r.p.g. for the wing guns and 250 r.p.g. for the fuselage guns- therefore the wing guns run out of ammunition before the fuselage guns do and NOT because of any possible difference in rate of fire.

JG53Frankyboy
02-21-2006, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
Since all four guns were of the same type i.e. Browning 0.50 cal, the rate of fire should be approximately the same. There is no historical evidence that I am aware of that has the Buffalo's wing guns having double the rate of fire of the fuselage guns- so they should run out of ammunition at roughly the same time.
What the British did do in an attempt to cut weight and therefore increase the Buffalo's rate of climb was halve the ammunition load as well as cutting back the fuel load on take-off. Some had the wing 0.50s replaced by 0.303s or even all the guns replaced by 0.303s as well as removing all unnecessary equipment such as the flare chutes, external radio mast (which also cut drag and increased speed slightly) and cockpit heating. However, this is not the DEFAULT load. And since the rest of the Buffalo's details have not been changed, there does not seem to be any historical basis for reducing the DEFAULT load of the Buffalo in the sim. If 1C were to add a "Buffalo Field Mod" in a similar way as the "Russian Hurricane Field Mod" it would make sense as an option. But then this aeroplane's performance envelope would have to be altered as well- top speed, climb rate, manoeuverability etc. Or alternatively, add "50% ammunition load" as an option similar to the fuel load choice. As is, the Buffalo's top speed is undermodelled- although climb rate and acceleration were markedly inferior to that of the Ki.43, top speed was actually higher- 313 m.p.h. vs. 304 m.p.h.

how does they call such a plane in "Brewsters over Singapor" ?!
Shadows' Super Sports Special - SSSS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

lets ask for a "SSSS" weaponoption - only 80 gallons fuel instead of 130 , only the two fuselage guns (reduced to 250rpg) , no external radio mast. better performance than http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-21-2006, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
The B-239 (and F2A-2) carried 200 r.p.g. for the wing guns and 250 r.p.g. for the fuselage guns- therefore the wing guns run out of ammunition before the fuselage guns do and NOT because of any possible difference in rate of fire.

i am speaking about the GAME.
nevertheless, propeller synchronization always reduced the firerate.

GerritJ9
02-21-2006, 08:06 AM
First thing to do would be correct the top speeds of all Brewster variants, which are undermodelled in the sim. I have already sent documentation to Oleg so hopefully the deficits will be corrected. The B-239 should be about 20 km/h IAS faster at 5000 metres altitude, the F2A-2 and Buffalo Mk.1 about 30-40 km/h faster in level flight.

As for the SSSS, it can already be partially modelled by us users- simply select 75% or 50% fuel load before flying! Better yet would be a B-339D: faster than A6M2, lighter, more manoeuverable and with a better climb rate than Buffalo Mk.1 (though not as good as A6M2 or Ki.43) plus better hitting power than only two 0.50s. And with a reflector gunsight so better than F2A-2!
(B-239, F2A-2 and all B-339 models had two 62 Imp. gal fuel tanks- F2A-3 had fuel capacity increased by fitting extra internal tanks.)
The SSSS might be easier to model since it doesn't require any changes to the cockpit (KNIL Brewsters had metric instrumentation and everything in Dutch), and externally only removal of the radio mast and the bulges on the wing gun panels. Personally I would prefer a variant with two 0.303s in the wings- only two 0.50s isn't enough hitting power for me!

GerritJ9
02-23-2006, 05:54 AM
Correction: the fuel tanks fitted to all Brewster variants were 80 U.S. gal. each, which translates to 66 Imp. gal., not 62. Or for those of us familiar with metrics, 300 litres each.
The F2A-3 had extra tanks fitted at the request of the U.S. Navy: a 40 U.S. gal. tank in the fuselage (approx. 33 Imp. gal. or 150 litres) and two wing tanks, one in each leading edge, of 20 U.S. gal. each(16.5 Imp. gal. or 75 litres).

WWMaxGunz
02-23-2006, 10:11 AM
If the wing guns fire appx 850 rpm and the nose 600 rpm then the wings would need more
than 280 rds to fire as long as nose guns. But what are the fire rates?

GerritJ9
02-24-2006, 04:07 AM
Just installed 4.04 and checked- wing guns still have same ammunition load as in 4.03 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

GerritJ9
02-24-2006, 04:09 AM
Will try to discover the firing rates of wing guns and fuselage guns, but I don't expect such a significant difference that the wing guns fire off 500 rounds in half the time of the fuselage guns.

Kocur_
02-24-2006, 07:37 AM
Williams&Gustin say, that cowling M2s in P-51A had ROF of 400- 450 rpm, i.e. about half of usual - like in wings.

GerritJ9
02-24-2006, 01:53 PM
Rate of fire for the M2, from the sources I have found so far, is more like 550 r.p.m. Assuming the 400-450 to be applicable to the fuselage guns, this by no means explains the vast difference of some 250 rounds remaining for the fuselage guns when the wing guns are out of ammunition.
Furthermore, the B-239 and F2A-2 still have the same difference they had before 4.03, i.e. about 40 r.p.g. remaining for the fuselage guns when the wing guns run out. Nothing has changed there, so why was the Buffalo Mk.1 changed, and why isn't the change mentioned in the read-me?