Author Topic: 190 A/F engine dammage Test (Read 1303 times)

Nifty · « **Reply #45 on:** June 25, 2001, 02:00:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
You cant really compare the .50cal and MG131 in AH. Whatever the various advantages of the .50 or the MG131 might be they are overwhelmed by the fact any of the US fighters carry at least twice as many .50cals than does any LW carry MG131.

Sure you can, if you want to do it for testing purposes. Just fire the secondary MGs on the D-Pony, D-Hog, or Hellcat. You're using just 2 .50 cals at that point, which is comparable to using 2 12.7mm's.

I see your point though, you'll never be hit with as many 12.7's per burst as you will with .50 cals in actual AH combat.

Wilbus · « **Reply #46 on:** June 25, 2001, 02:27:00 PM »

Hey Nifty, good way to compare like that, harder to hit the same spot with the wing mounted 50 cals on the US planes though, german planes have nose mounted 13mm, makes the hits come closer and thus make more dammage.
However, a thing that seam to be a common mistake, 50 cal is half an Inch. 1 inch equals 25,4 mm (2,54 cm). Half of 25,4 mm = 12,7mm wich is US 50 cal.
German counter part, Heavy MG, is 13mm wich equals 51 cal. (.51 cal).

Just to clear some things

<S> Sir!

Hooligan · « **Reply #47 on:** June 25, 2001, 03:03:00 PM »

Vermillion:

.50 AP/I has about 1 gram of incendiary. Mg131 HE has about 1 gram of explosive.

Hooligan

Toad · « **Reply #48 on:** June 25, 2001, 05:39:00 PM »

Thanks, Hooligan.

1 gram of explosive = 15.43 grains or 0.035 ounces.

The 131 round weighs 534 grains so roughly 3% of the overall weight is explosive in nature.

Is this a TNT mixture? .03 ounces of TNT?

Hooligan · « **Reply #49 on:** June 25, 2001, 06:06:00 PM »

PETN was specified for the explosive content. However this was subject to availability and alternate explosives (such as TNT) were often used.

Hooligan

Toad · « **Reply #50 on:** June 25, 2001, 08:26:00 PM »

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/part12.htm

Chapter 12 Military Explosives

If I understand this page correctly (and I may not

) PETN has a little over twice the relative strength of TNT.

"RS = Pot (PETN = 6.01 x 106 = 2.21" (Relative to TNT)

Also, the page makes a point of the fact that an unconfined explosion liberates a lot of its energy simply as heat. So a small charge.. say 1 gram

going off in a large area (aft fuselag?) or an area open to the atmosphere (previously torn open wing panel?) will be more heat than damaging force.

Hooligan · « **Reply #51 on:** June 25, 2001, 10:04:00 PM »

Toad:

The explosive power of TNT is 4.1 to 4.6 KJoules/gram. For PETN it is 5.9 to 6.0. So PETN has about 35% more power than TNT.

Hooligan

Toad · « **Reply #52 on:** June 25, 2001, 10:07:00 PM »

Hooligan,

You know way to much about this stuff!

It's great!

Do you have a home page with more good stuff like this?

Thanks!

Looks like what Verm said... not much explosive power in those.

Hooligan · « **Reply #53 on:** June 25, 2001, 10:31:00 PM »

I have a fair amount of data (too much idle time spent exchanging data with the likes of Vermillion, Hoof and Gerzzz) but little of it is posted on the web. Basically you have seen pretty much everything I have on the web with the possible exception of:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jayboyer/ballistics.htm

Hooligan

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** June 25, 2001, 10:44:00 PM »

Jeez! ROFLMA at MYSELF!

You have all my potential arguments already carefully crafted, reasonably stated and perfectly summed up!

In the future I'll just say... "see Holligan's pages!"

Great job!

bigUC · « **Reply #55 on:** June 27, 2001, 10:15:00 AM »

Dammit! It should EXPLODE after 1 ping!