P39 damage.

[Bronk]

Krusty how many P-39s have you sat in?

Never mind I'll just go with Bodhi on this one, K.

[Krusty]

Bronk's trolling aside, THIS:



Doesn't look very spacious. Almost all the photos I've seen with pilots flying the real plane have had the door at eyeball or forhead level. More commonly at eyeball level. This pilot is actually dipping his head forward to look sideways. Upright heads (not dipped) have very little room between them and the upper canopy, similar to P-38 pilots from photos I've seen.

And here HTC gives it almost non-existent frames in the screenshot.




It just doesn't look right.

[Bodhi]

Your opinion aside Krusty, that is almost exactly what the interior view looks like.

I am sorry you do not feel that way, but it is what it is.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Crusty, im sorry man, but i make 3d models, you also have to keep in mind this is a forward shot. Fov "Field of view" also takes effect in this screen shot, your point is valid, but also remember that when we do look to the left and right, that bar will be blocking the eye area.

Thats no doubt, a simple delete, f10 on the 4/6 numpad will fix all that instantly.


Just sayin' it probably wont be a problem.




This view is from a left/front standpoint(7) , not even the direct 4 or 6 viewpoint's.  one would think because the bar is even closer to your eyes, it should thus also fill more of your view.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bodhi
The prop pitch on the P-39 is controlled by oil pressure.  As far as I can recall, the oil pressure for the prop pitch on the P-39 was provided by the engine like a P-51, B-25, F6F, or F4u.  Lose oil pressure, and you lose the propellor pitch (RPM) control.

P-39s had one of two types. Early P-39s used Curtiss Electric props. No oil issues there. Most versions used an Aeroproducts hydraulic prop that was self-contained with its own oil tank which was located behind the reduction gearbox armor. Some using the Aeroproducts prop had their designation changed. For example, a P-39K was was a P-39D with the Aeroproducts propeller.

P-39F used the Aeroproducts prop.

All P-39Ks used the Aeroproducts prop.

All P-39Ms used the Aeroproducts prop.

When we get to the P-39N, we find that they used one of two versions of the Aeroproducts prop.

The largest production version was the P-39Q. All blocks had one of several Aeroproducts props (the P-39N-21 and -25 used a 4-blade prop).

All P-39s had a small 2 gal. oil tank for the reduction gearbox. This tank was located behind the 5/8" gearbox armor. Engine oil tanks were also protected by 1/4" face hardened armor from the P-39M on thru the Qs.

My regards,

Widewing

[Krusty]

Kharma, I get what you're saying, but AH uses a -- what? -- 90-degree FOV default? Even taking into consideration this is just the fwd view (not the fdw/left or fwd/right), from head position and camera angle I'd think it would be more like stretching the arches forward more (not just filling more screen, but moving them further into the middle as well, like the difference between our P-38 default and our P-38 with head moved all the way back.

If you understand how I'm describing it?

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

its k a r m a

yes i did not make the bar thick enough as it would lead over the pilots left sholder, and yes i understand you perfectly.
by what others have said the default fov is something around 100-110, maby more.

[Bodhi]

Widewing,
Regardless of whether the Curtiss Electric is used or not, there is still going to be a reduction gear set up from the engine to the propellor.  That system will have oil in it.  That oil will be vulnerable to leak.

1/4 inch face hardened armour will not stop a .30 api rnd at 500 yds.  12.7 mm will just laugh as it passes through.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
its k a r m a

Sorry!

P.S. I think Skuzzy's said you can't exceed 90 degrees in DirectX without getting horrible fisheye warping.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Widewing,
Regardless of whether the Curtiss Electric is used or not, there is still going to be a reduction gear set up from the engine to the propellor.  That system will have oil in it.  That oil will be vulnerable to leak.

1/4 inch face hardened armour will not stop a .30 api rnd at 500 yds.  12.7 mm will just laugh as it passes through.

As I stated, the reduction gear has a 2 gallon tank, behind 5/8" (.625 in) thick armor. These tanks did occasionally leak and the oil drained down and out through the nose gear doors on the underside of the aircraft. There could be some seepage up and out to the windscreen, but I haven't seen a single instance of this occurring that made it into print.

According to the US Army penetration table, .30 cal API will probably not penetrate .25" face hardened steel at ranges greater than 300 yards.

Penetration, fired at 7/8-inch thick homogeneous armor plate (not face hardened) at 100 yards, will be not less than 0.42 inch. Penetration, fired at 500 yards, will not be less than .23 inch. This test is based upon an angle of 0 degrees. Any relative angle will degrade penetration. 1/4" face hardened armor is roughly equal to 3/8" homogeneous armor.

Of course, .50 cal API will penetrate .25" at ranges out to at least 1,000 yards. Penetration tables show that the .50 API will penetrate .7" of homogeneous armor at 600 yards, and .5" of face hardened armor at 600 yards.

My regards,

Widewing

[Bodhi]

WW,
I do not know much about US Army Penetration Tables, but I do know what we have done to 1/4 inch face hardened steel.

For giggles one day in NC, we took some 1/4 inch face hardened armour (left over Halftrack Armour) down to the range and decided to see what could and could not penetrate the armour.

Using Mil surplus 30-06 API, we routinely blasted holes through at a variety of different ranges (including what I listed), or if they did not go all the way through, the back side spalled horribly.

Shooting it with standard ball ammunition with the .50 just shattered the armour.  

Kind of neat all the way around to see what the effects of the rounds were.

[Charge]

You will not get a clean shot at an armour plate through aircraft structure.

It is highly probable that the round is already out of balance or tumbled so its armour piercing capability is significantly reduced.

-C+

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Krusty
Were they:

- an option for the m4 cannon mounted in army planes? Or just for ground guns?

- ever used anywhere, ever, in an p-39?

- used regularly, or just once, or just in tests?

- distributed via supply chains to units using the P-39? (you mention we never sent any to Russia)

The M80 37mm AP round was not designed for, nor ever used in ground guns.  It was developed specifically for the M4 cannon in a P-39. The 37mm M4 cannon used 37x145mm ammo vs the 37x223mm ammo used by M3/M6 37mm cannons mounted on the US ground vehicles and ATGs.  The only ground use of the M4 that I've read about was when M4 cannons stripped from wrecked P-39s were mounted on PT boats in the Philippines.

The M80 was "standard" round for the M4, but as to who got supplied how many and where, that would have to be researched.  I know the Russians didn't get any because I just got done reading the "Soviet Aces, American P-39s" book, and the guy tells how they ripped up german bombers with the HE ammo, and how the tank busting role on the eastern front was a myth because they didn't have the M80 AP ammo.

Given that HTC seems to model an "average" damage per aircraft cannon round instead of modeling the effects of each individual round (like the mine rounds on the MG-151s), it might not make much difference.  

EagleDNY
$.02

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

This shell uses the point detonating fuze, M56. The complete round weighs 1.99 pounds (900 g); as fired, the projectile weighs 1.34 pounds (1,050 g). The 0.16-pound (70 g) charge of M2 powder is a Hercules NG formula of single perforated grains with 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) web and gives the projectile the prescribed muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second (600 m/s).

The M54 features the shell-destroying tracer in addition to the point-detonating fuze. The tracer, which has a burning time of three seconds, sets off an igniting relay charge of 1.68 grains (0.109 g) of Grade A-5 Army Black Powder which ignites a relay pellet to detonate the charge and destroy the shell before ground impact.

The bursting charge of tetryl weighs 0.10 pound (45 g), and the alternate Composition “A” charge weighs 0.105 pound (48 g). The tetryl loading consists of a 200 grain (13 g) tetryl pellet pressed into the shell cavity under 9,000 to 10,000 psi (60 to 70 MPa pressure and the remainder of the charge of two equal increments pressed under approximately 9,000 psi (60 MPa) pressure. The Composition “A” bursting charge is loaded in the same manner as the tetryl charge, except that the relay pellet with the Composition “A” weighs 36 grains (2.3 g) as against 23 grains (1.5 g) for the pellet used with the tetryl load.

The round
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/M54_round_drawing.jpg

This would also mean if modeled correctly, the rounds would travel for three seconds, they blow up mid flight. Could also make contact and still detonate beforhand, making this weapon a two-fer.

If we could get the "mini flak burst" at the end for the p39's m4 cannon, that would make me smile for a long long long time to come.

[DPQ5]

the 190s also had batterys