Alright, I'll stop being a dick and explain why your math for the "golden round" is wrong.
There are several different factors that you did not account for in your example throwing your math off, which in turn negates it. When I first posted the "I've never looked at the specs for any gun on any German plane" statement negated all your math it is because of this:
Your rounds between firing is correct, but that is the only thing you got correct. When you fire a round that round has a velocity. It is that velocity that determines "when" the round impacts not only how fast the target is crossing you. That means Round Velocity plays an integral part of the equation, no? And when you said " I've never looked at the specs for any gun on any German plane" that means you do not know the round velocity. Without which, your calculation is completely inaccurate.
Another part of your equation that you failed to mention or calculate for, is your own plane's velocity. You are traveling forward as well are you not? Airplanes can't hover, obviously, so yes you are. You also will need to take that into account (your forward velocity) when you are calculating when a "hit" will occur because you have a "closure rate" between the two aircraft which, in turn, decreases the distance between the two targets for every round that is fired.
Round diameter (if it impacts/where it impacts/how much of the explosion reaches and effects the target), constantly changing angles vs. the two points of reference(you vs. your target) etc.
All of that would will need to be calculated for to get your "golden round %"
Make sense?
Spork
Yup, makes sense, but it's a common misconception.
The velocity of the round doesn't factor into the "time between the spaces", so to speak. It factors into the timing in how far ahead (in time and or distance, depending on how you want to look at it) of the target you'd need to aim. The distance the target will travel between the time the rounds are fired is the same regardless of the velocity of the round. The round could go ten times as fast as it does, but the target would still travel the same distance in the time between each round leaving the bore (if the RoF is the same). I can elaborate more tomorrow night if need be, but if you think it through I think you'll see it.
It's a rate of fire question, not a velocity question. Velocity would effect how much lead is required, it wouldn't effect how far the target moves between round 1 being fired, and round 2 being fired.
I didn't factor the forward progress of the 109 in, because it's really fairly negligible compared to the speed of the round. It really only makes a difference of a few percent generally. And again, it doesn't effect the distance the target travels between the time the rounds are fired. As proof, think of it like this- if you fire at a plane crossing in front of you at xxx mph, the target will travel xxx feet every x seconds. Now, fire your guns forward while that plane crosses behind you... How far does he travel in the time between the rounds being fired? The same distance as he would if he was in front of you, or beside you, or under you...
The other reason I didn't factor in a whole multitude of things into the equation is that almost all of them reduce the likelihood of a hit. There are really only a few things you can do to improve your chances of a hit, whereas there are a whole lot of things that make your chances worse. In reality, the stationary, "rock-solid" firing platform, vs the pure 90 degree crossing shot on a known-speed, known-size, and known-distance target is as good as it gets. Forward motion of your plane also has negative connotations when it comes to aiming, especially in a situation where closure is high, and required lead is great. It'll reduce your chances of a hit almost invariably, because it makes estimation (which ties to lead calculation) more difficult. Your first shot fired is the generally your best-aimed shot. When it fails, and you need to re-adjust, you'll now have less time and a different set of variables to contend with. Of course, the target
is a little bigger...
Look at the 62% estimate, and then consider the arguments (although I agree that they do have merit). The argument seems to be that 62% isn't a high enough probability of a hit? In reality, how high is the probability of a hit by any 30mm round fired? 62% is ridiculously high... If the best 109 pilot in the game counts his 30mm hits for a week or a month, or whatever, what % will be hits? Is anyone holding a 62% hit% with the 30mm's? Why not?
