Technical question about shooting

[Hungry]

Is there a cross sectional view of this anywhere for the various planes, I'm flying an LA these days and would love to see the bullet stream from the side at various target distances

[Kingpin]

Is there a cross sectional view of this anywhere for the various planes, I'm flying an LA these days and would love to see the bullet stream from the side at various target distances

I'm not aware of any existing from data within AH.  However, you may find historical charts for bullet trajectories and actual harmonization charts, especially in aircraft manuals.  I imagine data for the Russian planeset is harder to locate.  (Perhaps, Bustr will be along here shortly with something.)

The real problem with creating charts like this is that different convergence range settings will yield different results.

So my first question would be: What convergence do you use (or want to use)?

I suppose you could make a chart at 325 yards (a good firing distance) and another at 650 yards (maximum AH convergence distance) and compare the two.

It wouldn't be all that hard to test and input this into an Excel file and then have it graph the results. In fact I'd be happy to meet up with you to walk you through testing this and making a chart for the La-7, if you like.  Reply here or PM me if you are interested in doing that. 

[Hungry]

Appreciate it, let me give it a try first at say 300 - 400 and 500 (500 is my current setting).  I'm wondering, I just thought of trying F3 offline and being able to see the changes.  Hmmm be back in a bit

[nrshida]

I'll try to post some pictures later today regarding shooting in the vert, Owlblink and Hungry, anyone who's interested. Kingpin is comprehensively covering harmonisation / convergence I think. About aiming under or holding low - just think of a plane with nose mounted armament to remove the lateral spacing aspects. Indeed in a K-4 with a convergence of 600 (which I gathered from Bustr once was the actual effectively the fixed value in the real aircraft) you will have to hold noticeably low at 2-300 yards otherwise the shot will arch over where your pepper is pointing so it would hit the pepper at 600 yards. This assumes where firing pretty well in the flat.

I think why I noticed no difference between armaments with my quick and dirty testing is that in the vert, the bullet drop as we perceive it - or rather distance travelled over time is the same for all projectiles, velocities and shapes: 50 cals, 30-mm, 20-mm, wheel nut off a 1950 Volkswagen Beetle, what-have-you. Gravity is still there but it's now pointing downwards to the gun barrel it came out of. But the sights are designed to cope with you shooting when flying flat. I'm fairly sure it's one of those things where at an incline of 45 degrees it'll be 0.707 of the drop it is in the flat. Does that make any sense?

There was a time in the Ki-84 when I used to fire all guns at once and I had my cowl-mounted MGs set to 150 and my cannon set to 600. At the time an awful lot of my shots where at an opponent crossing my wing line in planform so I wanted to make the dispersion as 'flat' as possible to stitch down the centreline. Here the 150 convergence of the cowl guns weren't 'lofting the shot' up to reach a harmonisation point at a farther distance on my gunsight and the wing-mounted guns, which are physically lower in the aircraft were. I'm fairly sure I tested this with the dot target thingamajig. I was quite scientific in those days (which can take you to certain points of development).

It's all very interesting but since I've got back I can't hit a barn door with my plane parked inside it, pointing at the doors with the doors closed! I believe H. J. Marseille, for instance, relied more on the kind of 'software' we use for throwing and catching balls. That takes a lot of practice to form the software and a lesser amount probably, to keep it up. So it's a perishable skill. Apparently 

[bortas1]

  great read thank you all 

[Wiley]

I did some mucking about with shooting in the vertical in the TA a week or so ago.  My conclusion was pretty much inline with what Shida posted last.

What I discovered about shooting in the vertical, though, was that it made virtually 0 difference to my impact point out to about 500 yards.  It was hitting as close as I could aim.  Beyond that, dispersion was much more of a factor (K4).

So for me, I'm not going to worry about it much.

Wiley.

[Estes]

Welcome back shida, I know the pain. Once I lost my aim (that was my only real saving grace when it was -good-) it was all over, but you talking about something like we used to run into in spit 5's back in the DA? I never really put much thought into it beyond "if I don't hit this shot I'm hosed", and got in a bad habit of forcing for the shot early on lol. 

[Owlblink]

My aim is improving, slowly. I'm getting back into flying to set up an unloaded crossing shot and reminding myself to pull much more lead, when I must sattle up, so I can ease up on the elevator before letting loose a solid stream of lead.

The chalange is getting the enemy to cooperate in your attempt at getting to your favored range and in the desired sight picture. I prefer shooting at D200 but I'll fire out a stream of bullets at 400 if that's what I have to work with.

[bustr]

Something many of use scratch our heads over with lead has to do with how in turns at different alts we miss badly. At low to medium alts we can pull tight with a lot of G in our turns. When you believe you have your lead, the G built up by the turn at those alts requires about 1\3 of a 100Mil reticle radius additional to what you have already pulled for your firing solution. At high alts another 1\2 radius added onto your lead solution. The Air Force only really figured this out after WW2 and entering the Korean war because of the higher speeds and increased G loads from jets.

This comes out of those harmonization charts where the bullet drop in a 60 degree banked turn is calculated for 2, 3, 4 G at 1000ft. An M2 round at 1000ft 1G barely drops. In a 4G banked turn, it drops 20ft at 1000ft. Why BnZ maneuvers gives you better guns solutions. 

[Chalenge]

This is also why the cobra roll is considered to be an 'advanced' maneuver. The whole point of the maneuver is to 'force' your opponent into a stall, while simultaneously avoiding any chance that he might have of hitting you. The advanced part of the maneuver is knowing precisely when his aircraft has lost its ability to influence his nose, and it is then that the target fighter offers a nice juicy target that is coincidently turning into position above the shooters nose. When the shooter pulls for the shot his airplane becomes a falling leaf and an easy target for the energy fighter that is now on top and behind.

99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.

[Bizman]

99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.

Oh you great almighty, would you please please please teach me that maneuver?

[Oldman731]

Oh you great almighty, would you please please please teach me that maneuver?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pugachev%27s_Cobra

- oldman

[nrshida]

99.9% of the "top" sticks in this game fall for this 100% of the time, so once you learn it you can kill each and every one of them with ease.

99.9% of the top sticks in this game do not fall for a common or garden rope 100% of the time in my experience.

[TequilaChaser]

Oh you great almighty, would you please please please teach me that maneuver?

Think of "Topgun movie"...gonna hit the brakes and he'll fly right by... lol


Hope this helps

TC

[Bizman]

Thank you for all of the replies. If you see someone hitting the breaks in a 109-G6, that'd be me.