Author Topic: Gun jam option, perhaps? (Read 1201 times)

RAM · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2001, 04:51:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad:
Ram,

Just so I'm sure I understand you then:

If I go out and do 3-4 minutes of 3-4G maneuvers in an aircraft, without a G-suit, I will "lose much of its (my) capability"?

Further, you are telling me (based upon reading books about WW2) that if I do 3-4 minutes of 3-4G maneuvers without a G-suit I will end up unconscious?

Huhm, no, not unconscious, I didn say that.

If not used to G effects, you will be highly disoriented and with quite reduced endurance and SA, for sure.
You can expect your abilities to be VERY reduced,too.

And used to them and trained or not, any exposure to G loads reduces your tolerance to further G-loads. A trained individual will endure more time under high G activities than a non-trained...but eventually he will also get tired.

So if you go into the 5Gs you can expect to feel that your head doesnt work as well as it should (I.E. your reflexes suffer, and you can't expect to work as good as at 1G). over 6G the blood doesnt reach well your head (its stuck on your legs) and after some time (10-20 seconds?) the blackout starts to happen.

That is if you start from a perfectly fresh situation, with no G-suit. if you have been in a close combat pulling 3-4Gs for long time, you can expect to have less tolerance to more Gs, so you can expect the blackout to happen before, and to have your reflexes ,SA, and orientation, very affected.

Also remember that here you can turn your head 180º in a 6G turn, to look behind. In real life you'd be pressed enough to stand the forces, let alone to look back.

Please note I didnt say that you'd end unconscient with 3-4G loads. I said that you will end with reduced capabilities, wich is true.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-09-2001).]

Camel · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2001, 04:56:00 PM »

Gunjam flying HTC arenas???
He told a pretty funny story about a remote control boat of Hitechs at JackedIN.

Mayhem · « **Reply #32 on:** January 09, 2001, 05:08:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAM:
Toad the 3-4 minutes of high G exposure is meant to be between 3-4G in not very well prepared individuals.

The exposure to higher Gs than those are much more pronounced in Aces High, at least in the TnB birds, because the pilot doesnt suffer for the forces as in real life.

I've never pulled Gs piloting a plane...but if you go in a rollercoaster you notice how hard can get to raise the hands. THe Gs involved never go over 2-3Gs, and it ends with you putting a feet on the land feeling disoriented, and a bit tired. No disorientation in AH. no tiring in AH. Only pulling a stick you cant feel what it is in real life.

About the personal evidence...lol I wish I had it. But for reading quotes, WWII stuff and aviation stuff in general, one really ends knowing something...not much, stil...something.

Mayhem only three things

the Hispano M2 is NOT (i repeat NOT) the 12.7mm colt MG. It is a completely different weapon. So stop it dead on tracks because you seem to be talking about a completely different thing that I am doing.

the M61 is the standard six-barreled gatling 20mm gun aboard virtually all the cannon-armed planes in the US inventory (I can think only about the A-10 as a cannon bird with different cannon). I advice you to read some more aviation stuff

And about the F4U1-C hell no, I dont die by far as I get kills on the Chogs.

it is simply that Its getting old to see the same bird everywhere and the same 1K spray and praying roadkill tactic. If you can't understand it...well. Better for you

BTW I dont want to see the Chog perked. I want the american Hispanos performing as the sources say they did in WWII: So bad and awful that the navy turned back into the 50 cals until the WWII had ended.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-09-2001).]

sorry forgot about the vulcan we have another name for it in the army. I thought you was refuring to an M60

again the only catologed M2 is the browning m2 50cal bmg. the hispano doesn't use the m2 numbering in Us military to my knowledge. and What I said about putting that many rounds threw the gun getting it that hot and warping the barrel was done with an M2 the same one used in the old vitage WWII air craft. You do not have that much ammo per gun. now freak accidents and stress induced malfuntions due to defects or imperfections do happen from time to time. iam basically asking you to show me proof that they where that bad becuse they simpley sucked not mantaince problems lubercations or spacing and timming errors.

hell I can't hit anything past 800 with canon I may fire a few round to see if I can spook the guy into turning. now 50 cal on the other hand Ive nailed people out to 1.2K and i got lots of ammo to spray and pray with. i don't get those options with the chog or any other heavy cannon equipt fighter. I need to make my shots count. lag has a big factor here to.

You say you want this and why, iam telling you I don't and why.

You say the hispano's suck Iam asking for true blue DOD statics that aren't including Manufaturing defects, Poor maintance, poor lubercation and incorect spacing. Ive always been under the impresion from all the books I've read that the hispano's where superior to the 20mm used by the japanese and germans.

------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"

Mayhem · « **Reply #33 on:** January 09, 2001, 05:23:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RAM:

Huhm, no, not unconscious, I didn say that.

If not used to G effects, you will be highly disoriented and with quite reduced endurance and SA, for sure.
You can expect your abilities to be VERY reduced,too.

And used to them and trained or not, any exposure to G loads reduces your tolerance to further G-loads. A trained individual will endure more time under high G activities than a non-trained...but eventually he will also get tired.

So if you go into the 5Gs you can expect to feel that your head doesnt work as well as it should (I.E. your reflexes suffer, and you can't expect to work as good as at 1G). over 6G the blood doesnt reach well your head (its stuck on your legs) and after some time (10-20 seconds?) the blackout starts to happen.

That is if you start from a perfectly fresh situation, with no G-suit. if you have been in a close combat pulling 3-4Gs for long time, you can expect to have less tolerance to more Gs, so you can expect the blackout to happen before, and to have your reflexes ,SA, and orientation, very affected.

Also remember that here you can turn your head 180º in a 6G turn, to look behind. In real life you'd be pressed enough to stand the forces, let alone to look back.

Please note I didnt say that you'd end unconscient with 3-4G loads. I said that you will end with reduced capabilities, wich is true.

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-09-2001).]

Your not taking into account recovery time. back to back turns are the same as one continues one. however give yourself enough time between them seconds to minutes depending on how many G's you sastained and for how long and you can pull another turn with the same effect. the way you make it sound the airforce has to retire pilots becuase they used up all thier g's and they can't pull any more ever. I think i know what your talking about and thats sustaining a high G load turn and then going imediately into another with little or no recovery time. and Yess your right if he doesn't get the recovery time he will black out faster becuase it becomes one long exposer to g forces if the pilot doesn't take the time to recover.
one You're exuasted if the g load was high enough and need a break and two the blood has not fully spread back into the body so its mostly still in your lower body.

------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"

[This message has been edited by Mayhem (edited 01-09-2001).]

Daff · « **Reply #34 on:** January 09, 2001, 05:37:00 PM »

"I've never pulled Gs piloting a plane...but if you go in a rollercoaster you notice how hard can get to raise the hands. THe Gs involved never go over 2-3Gs, and it ends with you putting a feet on the land feeling disoriented, and a bit tired."

That's only because you arent used to it.
Go on the same rollercoaster 10-15 times in row and you wont notice it.

I can pull 3-4 G's repeatedly in 30 mins without feeling "exhausted". I can look around happily at 4 G's, because I anticipate the forces on my neck.
What drains me, is the mental effort to fly the maneuvers accuratly and correcting mistakes, not the actual G's.
Once I do get exhausted though (both mentally and physicly), my G-tolerance drops.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** January 09, 2001, 05:57:00 PM »

Well, Ram, if you read it in a book, you must be right.

I have pulled about a G or 5 in various aircraft without G-suits and more than 5 in aircraft that had G-suits. At G levels below 6 in either situation I really haven't experienced what you describe. I've never flown more than about 30-40 minutes of continuous acro though, so maybe it happens after that.

The only times I remember being "highly disoriented" were because I screwed up the maneuver, not because I was pulling G's.

I don't remember being so tired I couldn't pull more G's and do a few more maneuvers after 30-40 minutes of playing around either. Usually I had to quit because I was running out of gas or the airplane was due back.

I don't remember my grayout point changing during a ride either, as long as I was ready for the G-load and was doing my "grunt". It always happened at about the same G load at any point in the ride or on any given day.

I just don't remember Ram: "your reflexes ,SA, and orientation, very affected." either. It seemed to me that whatever I could do at the beginning of the ride I did better at the end of the ride as I got more familiar with the particular airplane and practiced the maneuver.

I do remember being pleasantly tired about 30 minutes after landing. Sort of like the feeling you get after a good game of tennis or riding a bike for a while.

Probably though all that G-pulling messed me up permanently and that's why I can't remember that stuff.

After all, you read it in a book. I must be wrong.

Mayhem · « **Reply #36 on:** January 09, 2001, 05:59:00 PM »

Ok the two weapons are cataloged as
Hispano M1 20mm Cannon
Brownming M2 .50cal Machine gun

not sure about our current 20mm and 25mm chain guns. But I now for a fact we still use the Browning M2 50 cal.

------------------
Mayhem 33rd S.G.
"Destination anywhere, so far gone, I'm already there!"

Kweassa · « **Reply #37 on:** January 10, 2001, 06:48:00 AM »

Ok. These discussions are fun but I do hope
it doesn't get quite outta hand(though it d
oes seems too late for that -.-)..

'kay, somebody asked for where I got that i
nfo about the 20mm cannons on F4U-1C, Well,
it wasn't from a book actually. I got that
info from Raomi who also flies in AH,and is
a professional WWII aircraft historian who
has his own column in an aviation magazine
in our country. I am a dweeb myself and aft
er I saw some of the discussions upon "uber"
planes, I inquired about it to Raomi. So pe
rsonally, his quote about the 20mm cannons
seemed reliable to me(which also seems rel
iable to RAM).

I think low reliability and gun jams are ju
st about enough for people to tolerate in a
'game'. The ultra-realism issues Ram suggest
s might be actually fun, but it also seems j
ust a bit hard for a lot of players. I mean,
we can't all be super-aces. There are always
more "dweebs" like me(well, polite and good
mannered ones, anyhow) who'd enjoy the compe
tition and effort but would freak out if it
was almost unmanageably hard...

I remember gun jams existing in a few flight
sims, and I think it wasn't that bad. I reme
mber the nervousness I felt when I had a pla
ne on target and suddenly my guns would jamm
up, and that experience was actually stimula
ting.

Personally I thought it might be a reasonabl
e solution if reliability to hit the target
and gun jams were modeled in. That way:

1) The general performance of aircrafts wil
l not be altered

2) But still would give things to think ove
r which might highly enhance the differing
preferences over aircraft selection.

The "spray and pray" certainly does not seem
much fair. I mean, unfair in a totally diffe
rent manner than the usual "waah you're flyi
ng a uber plane!" whining. Whining about gen
eral aircraft performance does seem pathetic
, but I think there is some reason to compla
in about the "spray and pray" issues.

The gun jams and reliability issues would ca
st a slight disadvantage to the planes which
problems will be modeled in, but I think it
seems manageable enough.

I think it's a negotiable point between "whi
ners" and "hogmongers" .. maybe a bit 'o win
win scenario even.

Well, at least thats what I thought.

Vermillion · « **Reply #38 on:** January 10, 2001, 07:22:00 AM »

So, in other words, your "quote" as you originally represented it, was not really a quote. Let alone from a source we could confirm as reliable.

See I laugh, because I can provide quotes from reliable sources and studies that say the exact opposite. As I already have here on this board several times. In fact over and over again.

And most of these are directly from the US Navy who were actually flying and using the equipment.

Alot of equipment in WWII had reliability problems initially, if not most. That doesn't necessarily represent the service life of the equipment. Deal with it.

I am as sick of the -1C, as alot of other players in AH.

But lets try to stay away from the misleading statements, half-truths, and the downright pure unadulterated Luftwhine propaganda.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 01-10-2001).]

RAM · « **Reply #39 on:** January 10, 2001, 07:32:00 AM »

Vermillion, you want sources? You want to know why do I claim that I HAVE READ SOURCES saying that in 1945 the Chog had unreliable guns?

Read:
"Corsair aces of world War 2"
Text by Mark Stirling&Tony Holmes
Osprey Publishing
ISBN (Complete book)-84-8372-185-6
ISBN (short booklet, I have it in spanish): 84.8372.229-1

You are Happy now? You have a book to look into. Its curious that the quote I can read in my book of it signals facts that match almost virtually the cannon problems that the quote posted at first.

I already gave the name of this book before and noone took the time to look for it, or even aswer. Now you have it again. Look at it and READ THE Chog STORY TOLD BY Joe D.Robbins, VBF-8, of his sortie in 8-april-1945. when he tried to fire his hispanos NONE, ZERO, NO, VACUUM, NIL, OF THEM FIRED!

Same happened to the members of his flight. out of all the F4U1-Cs in that mission none of them was capable to fire a single round to a Japanese plane. THe cannon was damned unreliable!!!!

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 01-10-2001).]

Westy · « **Reply #40 on:** January 10, 2001, 07:41:00 AM »

"Well, it wasn't from a book actually. I got that info from xxxxx..."

Poor form. I suspected as such. It was grammatically and contectually better than anything I recal from the Gamestorm boards, but it holds about as much weight - in other words, zip.

I have to laugh though, RAM hoisted himself upon this petard so willfuly and beautifully. Seems RAM will believe just about anything from anyone that finds fault with US equipment or capabilites back in WWII but cannot accept the same in reverse. This topic sure removed what vestidges of credit I had left to give you RAM. You've been sure working at making yourself look like a baffon. Live with it now.

And RAM, your instant your refering to? I don;t beleive it. Pur bull. I put as much wieght into that story that not one shell was able to be fired as you do for the Galland/Lowell combat encounter.

-Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-10-2001).]

fd ski · « **Reply #41 on:** January 10, 2001, 07:41:00 AM »

I have a "quote from reliable source" that in reality NONE of the FW 190s and Me109s never carried any guns !!! They weren't even fitted for it !!! REMOVE ALL THE GUNS FROM LW PLANES NOW !!!! I HAVE A RELIABLE QUOTE !!!

------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF

Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998

Northolt Wing Headquarters

Hooligan · « **Reply #42 on:** January 10, 2001, 09:02:00 AM »

fdski:

Actually your last post seems like pure BS. However after reviewing the evidentiary criteria for this thread, I have concluded:

“fdski is correct”.

Look!!!!! Another quote supporting your position. What you said must be true!!!!

Who else besides me thinks that Kweassa is a Pseudonym?

Hooligan

RAM · « **Reply #43 on:** January 10, 2001, 09:23:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Westy:
"Well, it wasn't from a book actually. I got that info from xxxxx..."

Poor form. I suspected as such. It was grammatically and contectually better than anything I recal from the Gamestorm boards, but it holds about as much weight - in other words, zip.

I have to laugh though, RAM hoisted himself upon this petard so willfuly and beautifully. Seems RAM will believe just about anything from anyone that finds fault with US equipment or capabilites back in WWII but cannot accept the same in reverse. This topic sure removed what vestidges of credit I had left to give you RAM. You've been sure working at making yourself look like a baffon. Live with it now.

And RAM, your instant your refering to? I don;t beleive it. Pur bull. I put as much wieght into that story that not one shell was able to be fired as you do for the Galland/Lowell combat encounter.

-Westy

[This message has been edited by Westy (edited 01-10-2001).]

Go back to the marihuana, Westy...I just gave you a book name and ISBN. Before you talk and discredite a guy with name, surname, who was in WWII and tried to hunt a zeke in a F4U1-c and couldnt because his guns didnt fire....before that, I say, why dont you try to READ THE BOOK?.

oh, and I havent supported that quote because it said Hispnos were unreliable, but for the fact that I had already read things like those in more than a couple of books. You have one of those books' ISBN, read it or shut up.

RAM · « **Reply #44 on:** January 10, 2001, 09:26:00 AM »

BTW I know this is a lost campaign. THe pro-US bias of some guys in this forum is absolutely infame. THey call for sources and when sources are posted thy act as if they doesnt exist.

Bah, you know what?...you can have your damned ubersuperduperturbolaser on the Chog. But the blasterbird will be perked soon ,and the X-ray planes will be in a great part a thing of the past.

If you want perk planes before realistic gunnery and reliability, its your bussiness. ANyway soon I wont have to fly thru clouds of Chogs. So in the end, I will be happy.