Suggestion: Gun Jams

[Wotan]

Some planes did jam under g, thats different then setting an articial point where all guns jam.

At what g level? andt how often?

[Dowding]

That's my point Wotan - you won't find that data. I'm guessing that most R&D establishments were more interested in finding out 'why' rather than 'how often', in terms of malfunctions. Very little time would be spent establishing how often a problem occurred compared to solving the problem itself.

Adding in artificial compromises for a perceived gain in 'realism' is self-defeating, as far as I can see.

Personally, the only area where randomness should come into play is perhaps where a fuel leak is concerned. Perhaps you'll make it back to base ok - but maybe you'll be toast instead. At least in that case, you have already suffered severe damage - instead of just flying along and suddenly losing your engine without an enemy in sight.

[Wotan]

I know Dowding my last remark

"Now go find the data" was sarcastic because I doudt anyone can.

The main arguement behind gum jams will be

"pilot xxx says xx guns jammed all the time, where xx pilot says he never heard of guns jamming".

I dont think that would be good enough to model gun jams on.

[fffreeze220]

Originally posted by Imp
The MG151 gondolas on the 109 had trouble under G load I think.
A 109 pilot said it jam under G load and would not fire anymore.

Who needs Gondolas anyway

[brady]

No I should think that kind of porakified evidance has got most of the US thinking 50cal rounds can be bounced off the ground to strike the underbelly of Tigers and kill them.....

  No matter what is is for certain to be widely debated:

[Modas]

Originally posted by Wotan
Pongo defined prolonged firing?

heat transfer from the gun barrel to atmosphere on plane traveling at 300mph and at altitudes above sea level is great.

You wont melt a barrel or warp it with less then 15 sec continous fire.

That's only partly true.  Heat transfer is going to be directly related to how much surface area is exposed to the airflow.  In the case of the .50s on a mustang, most of the barrel is enclosed within the wing.  Although there are clearances around the barrel and the wing, the amount of airflow entering into the wing is going to be very minimal.

Now, I've never heard of warping an a/c gun barrel from extended firing, but I have read numerous books of the rifling getting burned out from excessive firing/heat.  Bud Anderson's book "To fly and fight" has a reference to this very fact.  Unfortunately, there are no actual firing times.

I would love to see the ability to burn out rifling if prolonged firing was done.

[maxtor]

shouldn't gun accuracy decrease with use?

[Wotan]

ambient temperature effects that as well, as long as new air is introduced and the heated air is removed you will have decent heat transfer.

Whats the temp at 15k doing 300mph? on a average summer day?

Burning out the rifling refers to the lands and groves that cause the bullets to spin. When those lands and groves are worn the bullet trajectory is effected, the gun doesnt cease to function.

Edit

Yes turbot

[Modas]

Very true, burning the rifling doesn't cause the gun to stop functioning, but it will make it mighty inaccurate.  Without having the rifling to spin the bullet, it'll probably start to tumble very shortly after leaving the barrel.

[mrsid2]

I've read accounts of removing the hispano in favour of a MG simply because pilots hated the jamming POS.

Sure it blew stuff up, but it got you soon dead when it jammed in the wrong moment.

[humble]

I think your opening a can of worms...gun jamms where only a part of the issue....

You'd need to model engine fires in 190's (lot of good sticks died that way) also parachute failures, tail failure on Typhoons. Friendly ack on both sides. Hypothermia on ditches and all kinds of other "fortunes of war" stuff.

Best left alone IMO.

[Imp]

Originally posted by mrsid2
I've read accounts of removing the hispano in favour of a MG simply because pilots hated the jamming POS.

Sure it blew stuff up, but it got you soon dead when it jammed in the wrong moment.

Early hispanos had jamming problems, late war ones were much better.

[Magoo]

Personally, I don't care how they model gun jams as long as it doesn't happen more than 10-20% of the time. I know I'll be doing a gun check immediately upon takeoff just to ensure my ground crew's hangover didn't affect my ability to reach out and touch someone  If they jam from G forces or a spazmodic trigger finger then at least I have a choice to make.

The focus of the game will be to complete the mission and coordinate with your countrymen as much as getting a kill, so it's not like the sortie would be a total washout if you get a jammed gun. Even if you do, the bad guys don't know it! I also think that all the guns won't jam simultaneously unless there is a problem with the trigger mechanisms (if they even model that).

Let's not forget about other mechanical problems either. Talk about being at the mercy of the randomizer. No matter what, you won't be the lone ranger out there when it comes to these type problems.

Imagine trying to figure out if the reason that Farkin' wolf that's 200 yds off your six ain't firing because his guns are jammed or it just seems that way because he didn't load any tracers and he's just a lousy shot. Kinda adds a new dimension the the virtual experience.

If you can't warm up to not always having your guns work then maybe AH2 Tour of Duty isn't for you. I do know if they ever tried that stuff in AH Classic I'd be the first to squeak.

I wonder if we'll be using a progressive plane set that updates as the theater ages? I guess that's another thread...


Magoo
The Blind Sniper

[fats]

I recall reading about Hispanos that they increased the cyclic rate for Mk V because the gun life time exceeded the aircraft life time and there was no point keeping it lower.


// fats

[Wotan]

No they dont oep you can check this using the dot target command.

The gunsite shakes, but the guns themselves remain stable.