PDA

View Full Version : One thing that is not modelled ....



WTE_Galway
10-27-2008, 09:37 PM
In IL2 your guns always fire even when the engine is not running.

Not so in real life ... the Spitfire for example needed the guns heated and sufficient air pressure in the tanks before the guns would fire.


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/guns.jpg

Bearcat99
10-27-2008, 09:46 PM
They dont always fire... I have had mine jam..

HayateAce
10-27-2008, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
They dont always fire... I have had mine jam..

That's because you were probably shot in the wings.

WTE_Galway
10-27-2008, 10:43 PM
Indeed.

The guns in game jam from damage.

The point is in-game you can jump in a plane sitting on the airfield with the engine off and fire the guns.

Stafroty
10-28-2008, 06:36 AM
In IL2 your guns always fire even when the engine is not running.

Not so in real life ... the Spitfire for example needed the guns heated and sufficient air pressure in the tanks before the guns would fire.


some planes had battery and used electrical means to operate guns?

Duckmeister
10-28-2008, 07:29 AM
Yes, this can be annoying, but it's realistic to have the guns still fire for a minute or two after you have turned the engine off. In their positions in the plane, the guns will take a little while to cool down enough to not be able to fire.

So, for example, sometimes in order to get out of a spin I turn the engine completely off. It's still realistic to be able to fire the guns.

But let's say I've landed and been in the hangar for a bit, being able to fire the guns is unrealistic.

Zoom2136
10-28-2008, 07:53 AM
Same for guns that fired through the prop...

R_Target
10-28-2008, 10:24 AM
It depends on the plane I guess. Some use electrical or hydraulic systems to power the guns.

By powered I mean charging.

PanzerAce2.0
10-28-2008, 10:56 AM
Um....maybe I'm a moron, but why are people here thinking that guns need to be heated up and 'powered' in some way to fire? So long as the gun is charged and the trigger mechanism is actuated, the gun should fire. The only reason I can see for the heating thing to matter is to prevent the grease from freezing up, but that would NOT mean that you can't fire the guns while on the ground.

How do you guys think they used to set the convergence on these birds? I'm willing to bet they didn't crank the engine then wait till the coolant warmed up.

VF-17_Jolly
10-28-2008, 12:30 PM
Pnematic system - An engine driven air compressor feeds two storage cylinders for operation of the flaps,brakes,guns and landing lamps. The cylinders are connected in series, each holding air at 200lb/sq inch pressure

It stand to reason that there would enough pressure to fire the guns, brakes and operate the flaps even with the engine not running (not indefinitely mind you)

Otherwise the ground crew would have to run up the engine or connect a ground compressor to the aircraft every time they had to move the plane

M_Gunz
10-28-2008, 01:00 PM
It gets cold at high alt, the gun heaters keep the mechanism from freezing.
And the pneumatic tank probably does get charged when ground crew pre-warm the engine on test.

There's a lot of things not modeled that matter so little, you're not supposed to notice.

VF-17_Jolly
10-28-2008, 01:38 PM
There's a lot of things not modeled that matter so little, you're not supposed to notice
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aaron_GT
10-28-2008, 01:48 PM
But let's say I've landed and been in the hangar for a bit, being able to fire the guns in unrealistic.

If there is electrical power for the firing mechanism the unless it's the depths of winter they should still fire. It was only really an issue at higher altitudes or in winter.

Duckmeister
10-28-2008, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But let's say I've landed and been in the hangar for a bit, being able to fire the guns in unrealistic.

If there is electrical power for the firing mechanism the unless it's the depths of winter they should still fire. It was only really an issue at higher altitudes or in winter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, to get back on the original topic, about Spitfires specifically, which did not, at least according to the topic starter's research, have electric firing mechanisms. So it still is somewhat unrealistic, but really, who cares?

KG26_Alpha
10-28-2008, 01:54 PM
quote:
But let's say I've landed and been in the hangar for a bit, being able to fire the guns in unrealistic.

Landing with ammo !!!!!!

What are you a whimp ??

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well none of my radio gear in my He111 is not working either http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif, would be fun to see a Spit up at 8000m behind me going >> click click click

Aaron_GT
10-28-2008, 01:56 PM
Um....maybe I'm a moron, but why are people here thinking that guns need to be heated up and 'powered' in some way to fire? So long as the gun is charged and the trigger mechanism is actuated, the gun should fire.

It was an issue at high altitude. The Spitfire was one of the first to evidence it as it had thin wings well spread out. The obvious solution was to duct exhaust gases but it still took a while to sort it out. Had it used evaporative cooling then that would have fixed it from the start!

The P51B, though, used electrical heating.

Flexible guns on bombers also often froze solid.

I suspect art of the popularity of the earlier P-40s in Soviet service was that the fuselage guns were kept warm by the engine. The wing guns might well be frozen in winter conditions so saving the weight by removing guns likely to be inoperable made sense. It's probably also a reason why fuselage mounted guns were so popular on Soviet designs.

Duckmeister
10-28-2008, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
quote:
But let's say I've landed and been in the hangar for a bit, being able to fire the guns in unrealistic.

Landing with ammo !!!!!!

What are you a whimp ??

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm not allowed to practice takeoffs and landings and then fire wildly all over my own airbase? Darn!

Phas3e
10-28-2008, 02:01 PM
There a Normandy typhoon pilots book that recalls a pilot letting off a burst of 20mm fire over the heads of German POWs as the marched past the airstrip boundry fence,
so I guess it depends of the aircraft?

lesterhawksby
10-28-2008, 02:09 PM
I don't think this is unreasonable. IL-2 has a pretty strong emphasis (not only in scenarios but in flight model, etc) on low altitude, where gun freezing is less of a concern. Situations where you're undamaged but there's no power in your pneumatics can't be all THAT common in the situations we find in the sim. And many planes didn't suffer this problem (electric guns or whatever) - I don't know about the Russian craft this game started with! So, honestly, this one I can forgive without a second thought...

Aaron_GT
10-28-2008, 03:15 PM
Well, to get back on the original topic, about Spitfires specifically, which did not, at least according to the topic starter's research, have electric firing mechanisms.

True, the early Spits and Hurricanes with 303s used pneumatic firing (not sure about Hispanos). I think the 303s could be charged pneumatically too (but I might have misremembered that) but not the Hispanos. I think these might also have had electric feeders for the later belt fed versions, hence the retention of the bulges even when drums were no longer used as these then covered the cyclindrical belt feeders (there's a good pic on spitfireperformance.com and I am assuming these are electrically driven). The drum fed Hispanos didn't need extra drives AFAIK.

The signal to actually release the bolt and fire the guns is initially electrical, though.

leitmotiv
10-28-2008, 03:43 PM
I'd love to have guns jam (especially the P-51B/C which had a big problem with jamming guns). I've never experience non-damage-related jamming.

Aaron_GT
10-28-2008, 04:10 PM
Haven't jams been hinted at for SoW?

Divine-Wind
10-28-2008, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Haven't jams been hinted at for SoW?
Would be neat if they were included. Just as long as they don't occur too much. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Aaron_GT
10-28-2008, 04:18 PM
Depends if you are flying one of the half-dozen Spitfire IBs or not!

Bearcat99
10-28-2008, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
They dont always fire... I have had mine jam..

That's because you were probably shot in the wings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct.. that and flak..



Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Indeed.

The guns in game jam from damage.

The point is in-game you can jump in a plane sitting on the airfield with the engine off and fire the guns.

Ahh!! I understand now...

Divine-Wind
10-28-2008, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Indeed.

The guns in game jam from damage.

The point is in-game you can jump in a plane sitting on the airfield with the engine off and fire the guns.
Well, actually, wouldn't the ground crews have warmed up your planes already? Unless maybe it was a scramble, but then they'd have been on stand-by, no?

WTE_Galway
10-28-2008, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Indeed.

The guns in game jam from damage.

The point is in-game you can jump in a plane sitting on the airfield with the engine off and fire the guns.
Well, actually, wouldn't the ground crews have warmed up your planes already? Unless maybe it was a scramble, but then they'd have been on stand-by, no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if they have the in-game gauges do not show it.

When you spawn the engine appears as a cold engine not one that has just been shut down. There is no air pressure and the engine temperature gauges are cold.

Divine-Wind
10-28-2008, 08:20 PM
Ah, true. I hadn't thought of that...

Choctaw111
10-28-2008, 09:23 PM
I know that many fighters were fitted with a device to "charge" the gun if is misfires or jams. You can't get out, climb on the wing and fix it your self.
Wouldn't the fighters take off with a "round in the pipe" and ready to fire?
I always thought that the "assistant" devices used were only there to correct jams and
malfunctions and in some cases help feed the ammo.
I have heard of gun heat before but am not entirely sure why this was used. Perhaps to gain the maximum efficiency from the guns and even decrease the possibility of a jam in very low temperatures which is known to happen.

WTE_Galway
10-28-2008, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I know that many fighters were fitted with a device to "charge" the gun if is misfires or jams. You can't get out, climb on the wing and fix it your self.
Wouldn't the fighters take off with a "round in the pipe" and ready to fire?
I always thought that the "assistant" devices used were only there to correct jams and
malfunctions and in some cases help feed the ammo.
I have heard of gun heat before but am not entirely sure why this was used. Perhaps to gain the maximum efficiency from the guns and even decrease the possibility of a jam in very low temperatures which is known to happen.

According to the notes in the book that the crew poster above was copied from (the original poster is in the RAF Museum) the early Spitfire would only fire when radiator temperature was between 80 and 90 degrees Centigrade and air pressure between 280 and 300 lbs.

The information specifically mentions "will not fire" not "might jam". I am not sure why, perhaps there was a temperature safety override to prevent firing of the guns until the temperature is correct.

ytareh
10-29-2008, 02:42 AM
I think this is just one of the hundreds of aspects that separate our 'game' from real life...If it were exactly modelled we would need far too long to even take off!

M_Gunz
10-29-2008, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I know that many fighters were fitted with a device to "charge" the gun if is misfires or jams. You can't get out, climb on the wing and fix it your self.
Wouldn't the fighters take off with a "round in the pipe" and ready to fire?
I always thought that the "assistant" devices used were only there to correct jams and
malfunctions and in some cases help feed the ammo.
I have heard of gun heat before but am not entirely sure why this was used. Perhaps to gain the maximum efficiency from the guns and even decrease the possibility of a jam in very low temperatures which is known to happen.

It's awfully cold much above 10,000 ft. They ski year round up on the heights of Hawaii for example.

Aaron_GT
10-29-2008, 04:48 PM
According to the notes in the book that the crew poster above was copied from (the original poster is in the RAF Museum) the early Spitfire would only fire when radiator temperature was between 80 and 90 degrees Centigrade and air pressure between 280 and 300 lbs.

I was a bit off saying exhaust heat - it was (and this makes much more sense in the context of the poster) exhaust hit air from the radiator (not the engine). Too many meanings of exhaust for my poor brain! It took a few attempts to get the ducting right and to reject the idea of using hot air from the oil cooler.

In theory even without heat some of the guns might fire, but it would be a low success rate. Unless there was a temp cut off.

I'm not sure if the guns were charged initially or not. The poster implies the MGs may not have been, but I think the cannon were.