PDA

View Full Version : Are we Wrong?



edgflyer
10-16-2005, 03:16 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=752779055479512...e%22+playable%3A true (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=75277905547951258&q=%22P-47+Guncamera+footage%22+playable%3Atrue)

Checkout the non-synced guns and the tight dispertion of the shots. I remember somebody telling us we were all wrong before and they were only changed to sufice the whinners. Maybe we are not as wrong as one may have thought.

Not trying to bash Oleg. I think the game is great. However, maybe the "u is wrong" setiment will be looked at differently in this game.

Chuck_Older
10-16-2005, 03:24 PM
I think the .50s are fine personally

Some US aircraft had synched guns, some had unsynched ones

One actually had both. It was a ten (yes 10) .50 machinegun US plane that had a large contract, had contra-props, and eventually wasn't used. Not made by any of the major manufacturers, but the company that owned the maker of the plane made planes for Grumman

Any guesses? Hint: it was named for a bird

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 03:29 PM
Chuck, The planes that are in this game did not have synced guns. The point was we were told the guns dispersion was tightened up to sufice the whinners and then I see this video. Everyone who ever says anything might be wrong in the game is attacked and told we are wrong all the time and finally a video to prove otherwise.

jds1978
10-16-2005, 03:37 PM
Any guesses? Hint: it was named for a bird

Spruce Goose?

Chuck_Older
10-16-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
Chuck, The planes that are in this game did not have synced guns. The point was we were told the guns dispersion was tightened up to sufice the whinners and then I see this video. Everyone who ever says anything might be wrong in the game is attacked and told we are wrong all the time and finally a video to prove otherwise.

I see. So this is a sticking point for you, and since you feel I obviously don't agree with your viewpoints, I am now supposed to allow you to take your frustrations out on me, is that it?


Move along, son. I'm not in the mood.

Chuck_Older
10-16-2005, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any guesses? Hint: it was named for a bird

Spruce Goose? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spruce Goose? Heavens no, the Spruce Goose wasn't a combat aircraft, and no bird is named Spruce Goose anyhow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I don't want to hijack the thread any more than usual, so I'll let on:

Fisher (as in Fisher Body Division of General Motors) P-75 "Eagle"

VW-IceFire
10-16-2005, 03:49 PM
I think there are some interesting artifacts from the whole syncronization issue.

1) Syncronized machine guns and cannons were for the purposes of firing through a propeller without introducing strikes on the propeller blade. This technology was invented in WWI and in WWII was used extensively on many types of aircraft.

2) The issue at hand is the syncronization of tracer bullets in the belting of all .50cal armed aircraft except the P-40E Field Mod. and Spitfire IXe which have randomized or alternating belt loads. What we should be saying is alternating tracers rather than syncronized or desyncronized for the sake of not introducing further complexities.

As for the video.

This video is superb and I feel it shows a few things.

1) Most aircraft did not instantly blow up, fall apart, or explode on contact with .50cal strikes. The three or four aircraft shot at in those pictures are damaged and severely so by .50cals but they definately represent the kind of experience we normally get flying against those types of targets. With exception of the pilot seat armor plate on the 109 and the nearly inpenetrable fuel tank on the FW190 these experiences match our own (subjectively).

2) The arguments about dispersion are BS. The current level of dispersion seems to be roughly what we see in those videos (if you can go by the tracer bullets anyways). The shotgun like effect before was rediculous and I think most would agree. Like the German gunsight error that was fixed in AEP, I suspect this is a measurement and translation issue compounded by the passage of 60 years. From what I understand of the argument, there was even confusion over what the measurement of MIL's even was...how the Army measured it, what similar measurements were, and how it could be explained.

Not to restart this issue...but I think we're definately on the track towards being more correct now than ever before.

As for syncronized tracers...this is partly an aesthetic issue with a minor bug issue. There are presently gaps between .50cal rounds. It should be a fairly complete stream of bullets while the trigger is held down. I suspect this is a bug and I've heard rumors that this may have been solved in the upcoming patch.

Personally, the tracers can come out however they want...its the actuall bullets being or not being there that counts.

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by edgflyer:
Chuck, The planes that are in this game did not have synced guns. The point was we were told the guns dispersion was tightened up to sufice the whinners and then I see this video. Everyone who ever says anything might be wrong in the game is attacked and told we are wrong all the time and finally a video to prove otherwise.

I see. So this is a sticking point for you, and since you feel I obviously don't agree with your viewpoints, I am now supposed to allow you to take your frustrations out on me, is that it?


Move along, son. I'm not in the mood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck, how did I take my frustrations out on you? You obviously read into something. There was no attack targeted at your post about the plane you mentioned at all. So don't feel like I was attacking you. Like I said, maybe the "U Is Wrong" attitude will that I always see on this forum will be less frequent.

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think there are some interesting artifacts from the whole syncronization issue.

1) Syncronized machine guns and cannons were for the purposes of firing through a propeller without introducing strikes on the propeller blade. This technology was invented in WWI and in WWII was used extensively on many types of aircraft.

2) The issue at hand is the syncronization of tracer bullets in the belting of all .50cal armed aircraft except the P-40E Field Mod. and Spitfire IXe which have randomized or alternating belt loads. What we should be saying is alternating tracers rather than syncronized or desyncronized for the sake of not introducing further complexities.

As for the video.

This video is superb and I feel it shows a few things.

1) Most aircraft did not instantly blow up, fall apart, or explode on contact with .50cal strikes. The three or four aircraft shot at in those pictures are damaged and severely so by .50cals but they definately represent the kind of experience we normally get flying against those types of targets. With exception of the pilot seat armor plate on the 109 and the nearly inpenetrable fuel tank on the FW190 these experiences match our own (subjectively).

2) The arguments about dispersion are BS. The current level of dispersion seems to be roughly what we see in those videos (if you can go by the tracer bullets anyways). The shotgun like effect before was rediculous and I think most would agree. Like the German gunsight error that was fixed in AEP, I suspect this is a measurement and translation issue compounded by the passage of 60 years. From what I understand of the argument, there was even confusion over what the measurement of MIL's even was...how the Army measured it, what similar measurements were, and how it could be explained.

Not to restart this issue...but I think we're definately on the track towards being more correct now than ever before.

As for syncronized tracers...this is partly an aesthetic issue with a minor bug issue. There are presently gaps between .50cal rounds. It should be a fairly complete stream of bullets while the trigger is held down. I suspect this is a bug and I've heard rumors that this may have been solved in the upcoming patch.

Personally, the tracers can come out however they want...its the actuall bullets being or not being there that counts.

Ice, mind you not attacking you sir. I brought up the dispersion from before like you mentioned because we told it was tightened up to sufice the whinners. If I can find that post I will and quote it. I agree that the dispersion is good right now. I just used it as an example of treatment that some get when they do not agree with majority rule in this forum.

FritzGryphon
10-16-2005, 05:03 PM
I don't understand the orignal post.

You can see in that video that the various guns fire out of sync. Watch the tracers and the impacts on the ground.

There are rare occurances where tracers do appear to be parallel, but of course that will happen on occasion. For the most part, they are randomly distributed.

It's interesting how the same video can be held as 'proof' for two opposite things. It's not the video, it's what the person watching chooses to see. Just like some might see Tigers blowing up at the end http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
10-16-2005, 05:09 PM
that video was impressive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
10-16-2005, 05:39 PM
1) Syncronized machine guns and cannons were for the purposes of firing through a propeller without introducing strikes on the propeller blade. This technology was invented in WWI and in WWII was used extensively on many types of aircraft.


Actually this is a common misunderstanding. The MGs firing through a propeller do not hit the blades, but the blades hit the bullets and cause a large dispersion doing so. For that reason those a/c had strengthened prop-blade-edges.
Synchronization was implemented in Fokkers "Eindecker" in 1915 and proofed deadly because of the increased accuracity.

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
I don't understand the orignal post.

You can see in that video that the various guns fire out of sync. Watch the tracers and the impacts on the ground.

There are rare occurances where tracers do appear to be parallel, but of course that will happen on occasion. For the most part, they are randomly distributed.

It's interesting how the same video can be held as 'proof' for two opposite things. It's not the video, it's what the person watching chooses to see. Just like some might see Tigers blowing up at the end http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The original post is to prove that guns are not firing correct in the game and that when dispersion was an issue there was a reason and it is not just whinning like the "experts" say.

WTE_Ibis
10-16-2005, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1) Syncronized machine guns and cannons were for the purposes of firing through a propeller without introducing strikes on the propeller blade. This technology was invented in WWI and in WWII was used extensively on many types of aircraft.


Actually this is a common misunderstanding. The MGs firing through a propeller do not hit the blades, but the blades hit the bullets and cause a large dispersion doing so. For that reason those a/c had strengthened prop-blade-edges.
Synchronization was implemented in Fokkers "Eindecker" in 1915 and proofed deadly because of the increased accuracity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
--------------------------------------------------

http://premium1.uploadit.org/Ibissix//FoxNewsWhat.jpg

Sorry I don't understand that one.

.

bolillo_loco
10-16-2005, 06:34 PM
too many variables to be conclusive. Barrel condition, quality of armorers, how the pilot fired guns; very long bursts that wear the barrel out quickly, or short choppy bursts which do not wear out the barrel. Were the barrels stellite lined, chromium-plated, or standard? Providing that regular lined barrels in good condition were used and the armorers properly mounted and aligned the .50 cal; it could provide a tight pattern when properly harmonized. Pilots were instructed that you could fire a 75 round burst with a cold barrel, but after that 25 round bursts should be used to avoid excessive barrel wear. I have read quite often how an over zealous pilot fired a long burst and after that he could see his tracers scattering all over the sky; he had shot the barrels out.

also remember this is only one film. There are plenty of other films out there that show short .50 bursts taking wings off german aircraft, especially Fw-190s. I have often wondered if it is the out board cannon ammo of the fw 190 exploding. The explosion takes place at the out board cannon station. The 190 had no fuel in the wings and the .50 cal does not creat such an explosion. What else could it be? The one thing missing which is apparent in this video and all the others that I have seen is when a bf-109 is peppered with .50 cals around the first 1/4 of the wing root you can see a lot of steam escaping.

BTW stellite lined and chromium plated barrels began to become standard issue in early 1944. You can however see older barrels still in use late in the war. The older barrls usually lack the heavy sleeve and have a hollow sleeve with many perforations. The newer barrels have a solid metal sleve. I have seen old barrels with the perforations still in use as late as early 1945 on P-38s in the PTO. Sometimes they are mixed with old and new which is easily seen in the pics I am describing.

Like I have said, far too many variables to be conclusive one way or another. It is only one film as well.

Kuna15
10-16-2005, 06:35 PM
Actually Leadpitter was perhaps right. Someone has his quote in sig. Goes something like (cannot remember exact sentence); "if they documented performance of aircraft in game so we can see the data we would have a happier community instead of you is wrong".

Bearcat99
10-16-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think there are some interesting artifacts from the whole syncronization issue.

1) Syncronized machine guns and cannons were for the purposes of firing through a propeller without introducing strikes on the propeller blade. This technology was invented in WWI and in WWII was used extensively on many types of aircraft.

2) The issue at hand is the syncronization of tracer bullets in the belting of all .50cal armed aircraft except the P-40E Field Mod. and Spitfire IXe which have randomized or alternating belt loads. What we should be saying is alternating tracers rather than syncronized or desyncronized for the sake of not introducing further complexities.


When you fire the 50s in most planes in the sim that use them what you get is an almost wavelike effect when looking at the tracers as they leave the shooting aircraft.. in a Mustang all 6 guns fire at once.... that is what is meant by desynching the guns. It has nothing to do with shooting through props or synched tracers. Perhaps you are right though.. perhaps the reason why they are like that is because the coding of the desynched version would have been more computations on an already complex engine. In any case though it would be nice to have guns on my Jug that fire more like the ones on the guncam footage.... I can deal with with what we have if it doesnt get changed.

p1ngu666
10-16-2005, 06:51 PM
just watched the first bit so far, seems desynced AND just a pair of guns with tracers?

the wing blowing off guncam footage, ive no idea what the shooting aircraft is ive seen it with so many vids
mossie,spit, maybe tiffy/tempest, plus ofcourse the american aircraft

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
too many variables to be conclusive. Barrel condition, quality of armorers, how the pilot fired guns; very long bursts that wear the barrel out quickly, or short choppy bursts which do not wear out the barrel. Were the barrels stellite lined, chromium-plated, or standard? Providing that regular lined barrels in good condition were used and the armorers properly mounted and aligned the .50 cal; it could provide a tight pattern when properly harmonized. Pilots were instructed that you could fire a 75 round burst with a cold barrel, but after that 25 round bursts should be used to avoid excessive barrel wear. I have read quite often how an over zealous pilot fired a long burst and after that he could see his tracers scattering all over the sky; he had shot the barrels out.

also remember this is only one film. There are plenty of other films out there that show short .50 bursts taking wings off german aircraft, especially Fw-190s. I have often wondered if it is the out board cannon ammo of the fw 190 exploding. The explosion takes place at the out board cannon station. The 190 had no fuel in the wings and the .50 cal does not creat such an explosion. What else could it be? The one thing missing which is apparent in this video and all the others that I have seen is when a bf-109 is peppered with .50 cals around the first 1/4 of the wing root you can see a lot of steam escaping.

BTW stellite lined and chromium plated barrels began to become standard issue in early 1944. You can however see older barrels still in use late in the war. The older barrls usually lack the heavy sleeve and have a hollow sleeve with many perforations. The newer barrels have a solid metal sleve. I have seen old barrels with the perforations still in use as late as early 1945 on P-38s in the PTO. Sometimes they are mixed with old and new which is easily seen in the pics I am describing.

Like I have said, far too many variables to be conclusive one way or another. It is only one film as well.

Conclusive for what? I am not talking about the strength of the gun. I choose this video to show how the guns are unsynced and not firing in waves as Bearcat says.

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 07:06 PM
Perhaps you are right though.. perhaps the reason why they are like that is because the coding of the desynched version would have been more computations on an already complex engine.

It can't be a coding issue. Shoot the P40 Field Mod and you will see. By the way, no attack on you Bearcat.

Bearcat99
10-16-2005, 07:21 PM
rgr.. and yeah you are right.. so really it wouldnt be a big deal...... Who knows maybe we will get it in 4.02..

edgflyer
10-16-2005, 07:26 PM
I sure hope so

Mjollnir111675
10-16-2005, 08:18 PM
But who is to say that all of the ammo belts were loaded "in Sync" with one another amongst all guns? Meaning that all belts started with a tracer round and within exact sequence as the first round out of each gun muzzle?
Never mentioning the fact of factory misloads during a crucially high manufacture rate, even if the product being sold to the govt. ANY govt. are supposed to be "with-in spec" ?
And if fer a moment yer gonna have me believin' that all planes in a rush had all belts of ammo sync'd with each other, especially in field conditions, Im gonna disagree and there aint two ways bout it.

Late,

ElAurens
10-16-2005, 08:56 PM
The Fisher Eagle, Chuck. The remaining prototype is under restoration at the USAF Museum, I have seen it.

BTW, it never flew with the armament installed. It was quite possibly the worst fighter aircraft ever designed.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75-6.jpg

T_O_A_D
10-16-2005, 09:03 PM
I wish I could see my tracers ingame that well.

VW-IceFire
10-16-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
Ice, mind you not attacking you sir. I brought up the dispersion from before like you mentioned because we told it was tightened up to sufice the whinners. If I can find that post I will and quote it. I agree that the dispersion is good right now. I just used it as an example of treatment that some get when they do not agree with majority rule in this forum.
No worries. Not an attack...a fair challenge.

My feeling is that Oleg made a mistake. No skin off his nose...everyone does. But he's held to such a high standard by everyone and attacked at every angle that its quite hard for him to say anything.

He may have been trying to model dispersion accurately on the M2 but I think they screwed up. And not necessarily in a bad way...but like I said...the issue, once put under the spotlight, seemed to take on a variety of questions requiring the clarrification of more than one U.S. Army gunnery person to help put to rest and even that never solved the whole thing.

I think with the .50cal issue we hit a wall in terms of what is possible on todays computers, what was attempted, what information is available, and how it was calculated. Why Oleg said what he said...I don't know...a peace offering to one group without getting the other group riled up.

My feeling is that I don't know the answer but the issue was more complex than I had first thought and I think thats telling of how right someone can be on the whole thing.

@Bearcat: I think I understand what you mean...but I'm not sure if syncronization is the right word. Even we're getting confused what we're talking about so I'm not sure if its the right word.

GR142_Astro
10-16-2005, 10:55 PM
This clip also blows from the water the lame theory that black and white film somehow intensifies .50cal tracers more than they were in real life. If 1C was to give us realistic tracers the hit percentage would go up dramatically, and .50cal aircraft users would probably be much more content.

Zjoek
10-17-2005, 12:32 AM
Excellent film!
I especially like the bit where the P47 comes in low and shoots inside the hardened bunker.

Well, it sure looks like a steady stream of tracers most of the time.. In other bits it looks like they're firing short bursts.

MAYBE Oleg made the P47 guns to protect ourselves. P47 pilots were instructed not to fire for too long because the recoil would slow 'em down too much http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

nakamura_kenji
10-17-2005, 02:24 AM
may just say NOT only america plane this ki-61-i-ko/otsu, ki-43 also sync tracer, though two fire throw prop so gear driven .america not only one have sync gun if gun america plane get desync hope do also for japanese.

here reason why think be desync.

all gun unless made perfect excat same specification and quality or driven gear through prop, have different fire rate due either manufacture or wear this why fire for machine gun often give range ie 800 to 900 rpm. so even if ammo belt were sync the gun would desync themsleve so would be little point to sync ammo.

ie gun 1 could have 820 rpm rate 2 gun 800rpm 3 gun 780rpm 4gun 810rpm so gun eve with same belt rapidly go out sync this bit etreme example but show point

ps if want see nice unsync fly hurricane mk-II with .50 x12mg ^_^

Sharpe26
10-17-2005, 03:13 AM
wasn't a steady stream of tracers an indication the pilot was low on ammo?

I don't see why guns should either be synched or desynched in this game anyway.

edit: I'm wondering now (having tried the field mod P40) about the following possibillity; a tracers and non tracers option.

Fehler
10-17-2005, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
There are plenty of other films out there that show short .50 bursts taking wings off german aircraft, especially Fw-190s. I have often wondered if it is the out board cannon ammo of the fw 190 exploding. The explosion takes place at the out board cannon station. The 190 had no fuel in the wings and the .50 cal does not creat such an explosion. What else could it be? The one thing missing which is apparent in this video and all the others that I have seen is when a bf-109 is peppered with .50 cals around the first 1/4 of the wing root you can see a lot of steam escaping.

I think your assessment on the 190 is correct. Vids that I have seen with 190 strikes in that area seem to yield some quite violent explosions, and as you said, no fuel or anything else to go BOOM!

I think the 109 hits are the rads. I really wish that radiator damage was modeled in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

edgflyer
10-17-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
But who is to say that all of the ammo belts were loaded "in Sync" with one another amongst all guns? Meaning that all belts started with a tracer round and within exact sequence as the first round out of each gun muzzle?
Never mentioning the fact of factory misloads during a crucially high manufacture rate, even if the product being sold to the govt. ANY govt. are supposed to be "with-in spec" ?
And if fer a moment yer gonna have me believin' that all planes in a rush had all belts of ammo sync'd with each other, especially in field conditions, Im gonna disagree and there aint two ways bout it.

Late,

We are talking about de-syncing the guns. Please read completely.

msalama
10-17-2005, 06:45 AM
"if they documented performance of aircraft in game so we can see the data we would have a happier community instead of you is wrong".

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kuna15
10-17-2005, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
The Fisher Eagle, Chuck. The remaining prototype is under restoration at the USAF Museum, I have seen it.

BTW, it never flew with the armament installed. It was quite possibly the worst fighter aircraft ever designed.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p75-6.jpg

Huh that thing looks like a real monster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
I wish I could see my tracers ingame that well.

Yes, I would also like to see that too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Sharpe26
10-17-2005, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
There are plenty of other films out there that show short .50 bursts taking wings off german aircraft, especially Fw-190s. I have often wondered if it is the out board cannon ammo of the fw 190 exploding. The explosion takes place at the out board cannon station. The 190 had no fuel in the wings and the .50 cal does not creat such an explosion. What else could it be? The one thing missing which is apparent in this video and all the others that I have seen is when a bf-109 is peppered with .50 cals around the first 1/4 of the wing root you can see a lot of steam escaping.

I think your assessment on the 190 is correct. Vids that I have seen with 190 strikes in that area seem to yield some quite violent explosions, and as you said, no fuel or anything else to go BOOM!

I think the 109 hits are the rads. I really wish that radiator damage was modeled in PF. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention cooling system damage like glycol leaks.

Kocur_
10-17-2005, 08:56 AM
Btw. I wonder what was practical ROF of those M2s firing through TWO counter-rotating props http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-17-2005, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by edgflyer:
We are talking about de-syncing the guns. Please read completely.

Er, you mean de-synchronising the tracers, right? I very much believe that the tracers eventually would end up out of synchronisation, if they ever where loaded synchronised in to begin with. The guns on the other hand would be synchronised every time you pull the trigger.

IL2-chuter
10-17-2005, 01:00 PM
I'm seeing different definitions to syncing in this thread. One is rate of fire and the other is tracers(?). The first is, well, rate of fire. The second is . . . interesting, seeing as you start shooting the guns all at the same time but, in RL, you could have as much as a 200 rpm difference between the guns (actual Eighth Air Force tests). It would take an awful lot of effort to match guns just so they would be close. In this light I would say you CAN'T keep the tracers popping out like synchronized swimmers even if your computer's backup power depended on it. In RL, that is.

Just my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-17-2005, 02:31 PM
Synchronising the guns happens every time you pull the trigger. The trigger is electric, the moment you pull it, all 6 or 8 guns spring to life, sending out the round they have in the chamber. As the rounds start to cycle, the slight variation in rate of fire will make some guns be ahead of the other, by about a round a second (that is, the fastest gun may have fired 10 rounds in a second, the other 9 and a slow one only 8). However, the moment you let go of the trigger, no more rounds are fired and all guns are left cocked. The moment you fire again, the guns go off simultaneously again.

This mean that the tracers will come unsynchronised after a few bursts (unless they are very short bursts), but the guns themselves will synchronised, at least for the first half second of fire or so.

effte
10-17-2005, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Actually this is a common misunderstanding. The MGs firing through a propeller do not hit the blades, but the blades hit the bullets and cause a large dispersion doing so. For that reason those a/c had strengthened prop-blade-edges.
Synchronization was implemented in Fokkers "Eindecker" in 1915 and proofed deadly because of the increased accuracity.

Sheesh... now that was a very uncommon misunderstanding. Bullets do hit the props. This does damage the props, to the point that they will break off clean and, if you are unlucky, tear the engine off the mounts. Bullets move at seriously supersonic speeds. Propellers are designed specifically to keep the tips from going supersonic, which means the rest of the propeller will be well below supersonic speeds. Those are the facts. Now, as the bullets are travelling at quite a few times the velocity of the prop blades, what is hitting what?

There have been and are propellers with metal reinforced blade edges. This was to protect the propeller mainly from rocks thrown up when on the ground.

One of the first remedies to the problem of bullets hitting the propeller when firing through the propeller disc was to fit metal wedges to the backwards facing face of the propeller blades, which diverted the bullets which hit the blades. That was dispersion, and intentional as a solution to the problem of shooting the propeller off the aircraft. Synchronized guns came soon thereafter.



Petter,
the guns were made to not start firing simultaneously. They were sequenced so that you'd have a steady stream of bullets coming out from the moment when you pulled the trigger to when you let go. You'd also want them to fire left-right-left-right wing, to avoid having multiple firings on one wing directly in sequence yawing the aircraft and throwing your aim off. On top of this, they were synchronized with the firing inhibited when the gun would hit a propeller blade. The tracers will also be completely unsynchronized at all times. Gun 1 does not know when gun 4 is about to fire a tracer. If you load the belts to have every first round a tracer and then every nth round a tracer you could get some synchronization between tracers going I guess... at least until the propeller syncronization threw things off... but why bother when it is a drawback anyway? They'd probably make sure not to create this situation.

Cheers,
Fred

major_setback
10-17-2005, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
that video was impressive http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HARD_Sarge
10-17-2005, 07:17 PM
very nice clip !

interesting how sharp and steep a number of those ground attack runs were, if we were to do that, we would be lawn darts

(really loved the one low level run, when you see plane come up on a pole in the middle of the frame, good reflexes on the pilots part to pull over it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

edgflyer
10-17-2005, 09:47 PM
Some of the coolest shots if you watch the tracers hit the ground you can see them actually richote.

Estocade85
10-17-2005, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by effte:
the guns were made to not start firing simultaneously. They were sequenced so that you'd have a steady stream of bullets coming out from the moment when you pulled the trigger to when you let go. You'd also want them to fire left-right-left-right wing, to avoid having multiple firings on one wing directly in sequence yawing the aircraft and throwing your aim off. On top of this, they were synchronized with the firing inhibited when the gun would hit a propeller blade. The tracers will also be completely unsynchronized at all times. Gun 1 does not know when gun 4 is about to fire a tracer. If you load the belts to have every first round a tracer and then every nth round a tracer you could get some synchronization between tracers going I guess... at least until the propeller syncronization threw things off... but why bother when it is a drawback anyway? They'd probably make sure not to create this situation.
Fred

That sounds right to me. If I wanted to plump a plane full of holes, that's the best way to do it IMHO. So if the guns are desynced, how can the tracers be? IT would be way to complicated...plus in that vid, the pilot has an idea of where he's shotting because of the irregular tracers.
That's my two cents.

BTW Wow at that video! The big explosion is really impressive and I like how the tracers look, like yellow electric noddles (instead of X-wing lasers)

FlatSpinMan
10-18-2005, 04:56 AM
You see a lot of yellow electric noodles in your part of the world, Estocade? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-18-2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by effte:
the guns were made to not start firing simultaneously. They were sequenced so that you'd have a steady stream of bullets coming out from the moment when you pulled the trigger to when you let go.

I'm not concerned with guns firing through the propeller, but aircrafts with multiple wing-mounted guns, like Hurricane, Mustang and the Thunderbolt. An apparatus to halt the firing of the guns in, lets say a Thunderbolt, to make a continuus stream of bullets would have to be very precise, orchestrating a continuous staggered firing from 8 guns that as all debatants have claimed was impossible to make fire at the same rate in the first place.

I can't help but think that this sounds overly complicated. What you describe is not an unsynchronised firing, it is stagered firing, sending of a salvo of precisely timed shots from 8 guns in one 10th of a second, then all 8 again in the next 10th of a second and so on. To have these guns continue firing staggered, you'll actually have to first synchronise the notoriously unsynchroniseable Browning€s. This would mean electrical discharge, and if I'm not mistaken, the M2 round was fired conventionally by a striker.

I must say I have a hard time believing in such a wondrous apparatus, unless someone can point me to one. It seems a highly vulnerable piece of equipment to put in a war-plane in the 1940ies. In the more modern air superiority fighter like a Mustang or a Thunderbolt, I may believe in such a device, but in Hurricanes, P-40€s and other more primitive aircrafts I am rather more inclined to believe they just pulled the trigger and let the guns do the job.

KG26_Alpha
10-18-2005, 02:19 PM
Edit
Cant be bothered