190A5 MG ammo

[Apeking]

I was curious as to how much effect the weight of the 7mm MG ammo in the 190A5 had on the aircraft's overall weight and climb rate, so I decided to have a rough test in the offline arena using the E6B. Perhaps this has been done before, but I can't find anything on the forums.

My methodology was simple. I loaded up with 100% fuel. I stopped the engine as soon as I appeared on the runway and noted the weight. Then I fired off the MG ammo. Then I noted the weight. Then I took off, and noted the rate of climb as I passed 1,000 feet. This is for the purpose of comparison rather than an absolute map of climb rates and times. Ideally I should have noted the time it took to reach 1,000 feet rather than the rate of climb at that point, but I don't have a stopwatch! I opted to record an abstract performance measurement instead. I then took off normally with a full MG load and noted the climb rate at 1,000 again. I performed each test once.

The figures I got, going by the E6B's weight and climb measurements, are:

190A5
Normal weight, 4x20mm
8780
Climb at 1,000
2719

Normal weight, 2x20mm
8584
Climb at 1,000
2809

Unloaded weight, 4x20mm
8663
Climb at 1,000
2768

Unloaded weight, 2x20mm
8467
Climb at 1,000
2870

The MG ammo load of the 190A5 consistently weights 117 of the game's units, which suggests that my weight figures at least are accurate. Each 7mm bullet weights 0.065 units, which tallies with my figures for the MG loadout in the 109F4. I can deduce therefore that an Ju88 would weight 295.75 units less if you fired off all the ammo. It's tricky to test that, however, because you can't fire off the crew guns when you're sitting on the ground at the start.

I'm at a loss as to deduce anything from the figures, other than that there is a mild gain from getting rid of the MG ammo. I would have to generate a lot of data in order to construct a climb rate graph and I'm sure there's a faster, automated way of doing this. And perhaps someone has done it already - but what keywords to use?

[Lusche]

Originally posted by Apeking
It's tricky to test that, however, because you can't fire off the crew guns when you're sitting on the ground at the start.

Just reduce fuel burn multiplier in Arena Settings to lowest possible setting (0.01 ?) and fuel induced weight loss during takoff & testing is no issue anymore.

[Krusty]

I know some folks fire off those MGs before flying. I don't. I used them every time. They only add 200lbs. That's less than adding the outboard MG/FF adds. I've run out of 20mm on a 190a5 before and used the 7mms to take out 2 lancasters. Granted they were terrible shots so I had a fairly easy time of it, but I use them for long range lead shots (600yard banked adjustment shots, spray off bursts of 7mm til you get hit sprites then pound the secondary fire instantly when you do). I rarely run out of all of them, but I use 'em.

I'm liking this new weight meter in the E6B. It's a handy diagnostic tool. I've been watching it lately in certain planes as my fuel decreases, to note how light I am at different stages of the sortie.

[Keiler]

Just for the nitpickers, the german MG-17 have a calibre of 7.92mm, often just referred to as "8mm".

Matt

[Denniss]

Another nitpicking: it's MG 17 and not MG17 or MG-17

The 8mm Mauser reference is not of german origin, AFAIK it's called so in the US.

[Apeking]

"Stopwatch"

Although I don't have a stopwatch, I do have the film recorder. So I have decided to run a similar test, measuring the time it takes to reach 10,000 feet from a standing start on the runway in a 190A5 with 100% fuel, fuel burn turned off.

I sortied from the same runway, in the same direction. The runway is A1 on the islands map. It is at 0K, on the coast. At the onset I turned off the engine. Then I started the film recorder and the engine at the same time, and waited until I had climbed to about 10,500 feet. Fuel burn was set to 0.001 as per the instructions above. I let the auto-climb do the work. I did not use WEP. I have never seen Caddyshack all the way through. I did not sit looking at the screen for four minutes a time - I have a dual core machine, and so I alt-tabbed and looked on the internet for pictures of Kimberly McArthur. There is no better use for the internet.

I checked to make sure that my 190 had not received damage from the ground ack, which has happened to me before and could alter the final time.

The results are, time to 10,000 as per above:
190A5, 4x20mm, 1800x7mm
4:10

190A5, 4x20mm, 0x7mm
4:05

190A5, 2x20mm, 1800x7mm
4:02

190A5, 2x20mm, 0x7mm
3:57

For the sake of curiosity I tried the first test, but I fired off the MG ammo as I sped down the runway and took off rather than whilst sitting on the ground. I reached 10,000 in 4:07.

I can conclude that, in terms of climb, there is a very small gain to be had from unloading all the MG ammo in a 190A5, although it exists. It could also be the case that unloading the ammo adversely affects the balance of the aircraft. I did not test that.

I suspect that the same test performed with the .303 Spitfires would yield similar results. It would also be interesting to compare the four different weapon loadouts of the P47 models.

"8mm"

I do not call them 8mm. I call them whistleswan.

[Bruno]

"8mm"

I do not call them 8mm. I call them whistleswan.

Denniss didn't say you did, read Keiler's post.

The only reason to dump the 7.92 mm is in addition to leaving the useless MGFF in the hangar. In events and scenarios that call for high altitude fighting (above 22000 ft.) losing the weight of the MGFF and MG 17 rounds improves performance at those higher altitudes. At those altitudes even a slight performance gain on paper is a considerable improvement in game combat. For normal main arena type sorties there is no tangible gain to dumping the 7.92 mm. In fact for those who worry over such things as 'rank' dumping the MG will reduce hit % considerably.

The same is true for the A-8. Dumping the 13 mm and taking just 2 MG151/2cm cannon improves the A-8s handing at high altitude.

The whole deal with dumping the MG rounds in the Fw's revolves around early AH events and scenarios where it was typical to engage bombers at 30000ft + and allied fighters even higher. Later events instituted altitude CAP limits but both the A-5 and A-8 have a rough time above 22000ft. Less weight adds to climb and general maneuverability up high where the Fw's are pigs.

[Apeking]

"Denniss didn't say you did, read Keiler's post."

You are trying to nitpick a man who calls machinegun bullets "whistleswan". There is something wrong with you.

[Charge]

The problem I have with those MGs is that they provide you with an erroneous information of hits if you fire all the guns at the same time especially in a turn fight you tend to get hits which "do nothing". I wouldn't fire them all away but leave half for emergencies and you sometimes you can kill a pilot with a lucky shot.

What I'd like to see is different sizes of hit sprites for different guns.

IRL I doubt if you really even noticed you hit something with those small MGs... So only flashes you saw was the left overs of tracer substance from tumbling bullets or pieces of debris flying off aircraft when hit. Of course the hits of 20mm (or larger) HE are most visible but a hit from 20mm AP could go unnoticed until something really broke off, e.g. wings etc.

-C+

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Bruno
In events and scenarios that call for high altitude fighting (above 22000 ft.) losing the weight of the MGFF and MG 17 rounds improves performance at those higher altitudes.

Yes but the same can be said of firing off half your 500 20mm rounds. You're probably going to save a lot more weight there, as well.

And the same can be said for only taking 50% fuel. I bet the amount of fuel burned off while trying to get to 20k is more than that of the MG ammo you fired off on the runway. It's a measely 200lbs. Hell the DT weighs 500-1000lbs as well, leave it off.

I think the only reason folks fire off the MGs is because they perceive them as useless. The A5 MGs are very light, but still useful. I don't ever fire a burst without using them as well. The A8s guns are even better, and you can bring down enemy planes with them (as long as the enemy doesn't turn while you're firing).

I think it's just that folks are too fixated on cannons in this game, and if it's MG they don't want it (unless there's 6, or 8, and it's called "fiddy cal").

[hubsonfire]

Useless weight is one thing. Fuel and cannons are entirely another. Taking your example a bit further, your 190 would be much lighter with all the ammo fired off, and 25% fuel. It would also be all but useless. You need gas to fly, and you need cannons or heavy MGs to kill, but 2 light MGs and the few hundred pounds they add aren't really useful for most folks. And any advantage, even a small one, can mean the difference between a successfully flown frame, and an hour wasted as your involvement in the frame is ended.

[Krusty]

Most people can get 5+ kills in spitfires or planes with smaller cannon loads. Firing off half the 500 20mm rounds would give you the same amount, give you the same chance for a lot of kills. Having all that extra surplus ammo could very well be considered "useless weight"

Here's the thing. If this were a spitfire, or a zero, and they wanted to remove the MGs, give it just 60rpg for the hispanos, and strip the radio, drain the oil, lighten the pilot's weight, and all that, to get a better, tighter, sweeter, turn fighter, that's one thing.

It's another thing to think that taking a measely 200lbs from a 9,000lb fighter, that can't turn worth a damn, is going to suddenly make it turn worth a damn

So the only benefit is at extreme alt. If you're going to extreme alt you know it's going to take a while. So it takes 15 minutes instead of 13. That's not that much of an issue, because you'll already be at that alt, cruising, long before you meet the enemy