190 gondolas or lack there of

[BaldEagl]

20mm FF used against buffs are not worthless in AH.

The ballistics difference between the MGFF and the MG-151-20 ar so different it's hard to believe they mounted them together.  If you're hitting at typical buff hunting distances you'll miss with one set or the other and you better hope it's the punchless MGFF's that are missing the target.  Either that or you're getting in too close and risking a collision or being shot.

For the added weight they just aren't worth it for any reason.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

The ballistics difference between the MGFF and the MG-151-20 ar so different it's hard to believe they mounted them together.  If you're hitting at typical buff hunting distances you'll miss with one set or the other and you better hope it's the punchless MGFF's that are missing the target.  Either that or you're getting in too close and risking a collision or being shot.

For the added weight they just aren't worth it for any reason.

In real life the cannons were considered a bit more leathal than here though. Nobody in real life would start chuggling away in a buff - hey look at that tard he tries to shoot us with those crappy MG-151-20:s LOLZ! One 151 through the aluminium skin of a bomber can maim or kill several crew members.

[Oldman731]

The ballistics difference between the MGFF and the MG-151-20 ar so different it's hard to believe they mounted them together.  If you're hitting at typical buff hunting distances you'll miss with one set or the other and you better hope it's the punchless MGFF's that are missing the target.  Either that or you're getting in too close and risking a collision or being shot.

For the added weight they just aren't worth it for any reason.

I seldom attack bombers, so I can't contest this conclusion.  But in a fighter v fighter situation I've found that I much prefer having the four cannon, even if two are MG-FFs.  The added weight isn't really noticeable, but the added firepower at close range is.

- oldman

[Stampf]

I seldom attack bombers, so I can't contest this conclusion.  But in a fighter v fighter situation I've found that I much prefer having the four cannon, even if two are MG-FFs.  The added weight isn't really noticeable, but the added firepower at close range is.

- oldman

Funny how folks have different experiences/conclusions about the same condition.

I can't stand those outboard guns and never load them up.  For me...the performance drop off/limited ammo/ballistic discrepancy and punch aren't worth it.  The 190A series is a wonderful little fighter and a ton of fun to fly and fight in. When I want the big hitter...I load out the 4x20 in an A-8.

It comes down to personal preference.

[Oldman731]

Funny how folks have different experiences/conclusions about the same condition.

I can't stand those outboard guns and never load them up.  For me...the performance drop off/limited ammo/ballistic discrepancy and punch aren't worth it.  The 190A series is a wonderful little fighter and a ton of fun to fly and fight in. When I want the big hitter...I load out the 4x20 in an A-8.

It comes down to personal preference.

You have far more experience in the A5 than I do.  People are well-advised to adopt your preference, not mine!

- jkw

[Stampf]

You have far more experience in the A5 than I do.  People are well-advised to adopt your preference, not mine!

- jkw

You are a fighter pilot's pilot, OM.  Simple as that.  I wouldn't lightly discard anything you had to offer about fighter vrs. fighter engagements.

<S>

[Tank-Ace]

I personally always took them, considering total weight increase is only a little over 100 lbs, and the roll is already so superior that it can take the almost unnoticeable hit.

[GScholz]

Curious, the A-5 with the clean wing had 2 x 20s per wing. Yet in the photo its only a single 20 in the wing root and then the 2x20 pod. Wonder why the internal 20 was deleted when the 20 pod was attached and not just kept in place to complement the 20 pod. Performance being like a pregnant yak something to do with it?

IIRC, the MGFFs were removed because the space in the wings were used for the magazines for the gondola guns. Same with the MK 108 guns we have in the game.

[Krusty]

Yes. I don't think it's the ammo, though. I think that might be in the gunpod itself. Not totally sure. The gunpods occupied some of the space, though, as well as blocked the bulges for the ammo canisters for the MG/FF. You could not have kept functional MG/FF with the gunpod.

Also, the MG/FF aren't nearly so bad as suggested in here. They're not AS good as MG151/20s, but they are still good. When you set the convergence the same, they will hit at the same point (with variation for recoil of individual guns). They "lob" a bit more, so if you're trying to get max-deflection shots and nothing else, some of them will miss.

I fly both with and without the outboard guns. When you want a bit of a boost, go without. When you want the extra firepower, take it. The A-8 is worse with outboard guns installed than the A-5, but still it makes a difference.

I've done the "light" thing with A8s and I've done the "take 30mm into furballs" with it. Either way you're fighting against the odds, but it just depends on what you want to do at any given time. It may get you killed more, but it sure is hilarious to pop 2 targets in a row nearly instantly with those 30mm fireballs. After that, you may be SOL, but until then you'll have some laughs.

[MiloMorai]

Yes. I don't think it's the ammo, though. I think that might be in the gunpod itself. Not totally sure. The gunpods occupied some of the space, though, as well as blocked the bulges for the ammo canisters for the MG/FF. You could not have kept functional MG/FF with the gunpod.

Ammo for the dual 20mm pods was carried in the wings.

[Krusty]

For those that don't know, my JG11 skin on the 190A5 was a plane that carried these WB151 gunpods. I know they killed performance, but I'd love to toy around with them on both A5s and A8s in game some day.

[GScholz]

Yes. I don't think it's the ammo, though. I think that might be in the gunpod itself. Not totally sure.

In the standard 4x MG151 armament of the 190A-6 to A-9 they fitted the gun inside the modular wing bay with the side-mounted magazine. With the twin cannon gondola however, they put the guns under the wing in the gondola and the top-mounted magazines recessed inside the wing bay.

[morfiend]

  Looking at the diagrams I wonder how much wiring came into play. I understand some room was needed for the ammo belts but it looks like there was only 1 wiring connection and it made me think it was a case of either/or based on the wiring of the firering mechanism.




   

[Tank-Ace]

Might have been modular in nature. Take off the gun pod, open up the wing and install the single cannon, and hook up the wires left from the gun pod.

Sorta like replacing a blown speaker in your car. You don't necessary have to run new wires, you unhook the battery, remove the old speaker, drop the new one in, and hook it up to the old wires.

[morfiend]

 Upon some further checking I found the arming system could only arm 4 weapons at a time!  It would overload the system otherwise.

  It appears they used the same electrical connection for either the inwing guns or the gondolas. The gondola's ammo was stored inthe wing to take advantage of the heating system in place for the onboard guns.

 The main trigger fired mg's and inboard 20's as they were on 1 system and the secondary trigger fired the outboard guns or gondies,they use a sepperate electrical panel and wired a seperate trigger for either bombs or rockets,this was on the A models.