Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TonyJoey on June 01, 2009, 07:24:51 PM
-
Which do you prefer? Just curious. I, myself, prefer wing mounted guns, and tend to shoot better with them.
-
Nose.
Concentrated fire, less convergence range issues.
-
towards the end of my addiction i liked the nose, as lusche said, less convergance issue and concentrated guns. I also found the wings foriegn when i got used to the nose guns.
-
I like the wing-mounted guns as they tend to be easier to use in turning dogfights.
-
What he said!!!
Nose.
Concentrated fire, less convergence range issues.
But if we take the laws of science out of the equation...................
I'd still like all my guns in the center line!
-
Nothing matches the Mosquito's gun package for air-to-air work.
-
nose by far
-
I also found the wings foriegn when i got used to the nose guns.
Vice versa for me.
-
Either/or/ both
Doesnt matter to me
-
Nose. I teethed on the C205. Love the mosquito and P38. Also cant go wrong in the 190-A5. :salute
-
In a P51 my hit % is around 8 or 9 %. In a P38 it drops down to 4 or 5 %. Nose mounted guns frustrate me for some reason. I guess I've been aiming with my wings more then my nose. :confused:
-
Always been a fan of the guns on the 109. So i will have to say nose for me.
-
Nose. Mossie, P38... Enough said...
-
I tend to believe that those that prefer the wing mounted guns are really reacting to other factors. There is absolutely no doubt that CL mounted guns are superior for concentrated firepower and accuracy over an extended range than wing mounted so CL guns should be preferred but there are other factors. For instance, 109's have relatively poor 20mm ballistics, very poor forward visibility, and only moderate visibility down the side of the nose for setting up shots. The Spit has great 20mm ballistics, an outstanding forward view, and great visibility down the side of the nose. In this comparison it is clear that the 109 is a much more difficult bird for gunnery than is the Spit. So, is the guy who "prefers wing-mounted guns" really reacting to the difference in where the guns are or is it actually airframe and gun characteristics that give him the impression that wing-mounted are better?
-
Does it really matter at 100-200 yards =)
-
I tend to believe that those that prefer the wing mounted guns are really reacting to other factors. There is absolutely no doubt that CL mounted guns are superior for concentrated firepower and accuracy over an extended range than wing mounted so CL guns should be preferred but there are other factors. For instance, 109's have relatively poor 20mm ballistics, very poor forward visibility, and only moderate visibility down the side of the nose for setting up shots. The Spit has great 20mm ballistics, an outstanding forward view, and great visibility down the side of the nose. In this comparison it is clear that the 109 is a much more difficult bird for gunnery than is the Spit. So, is the guy who "prefers wing-mounted guns" really reacting to the difference in where the guns are or is it actually airframe and gun characteristics that give him the impression that wing-mounted are better?
That is definately correct. Spit has definately one of the best over-the-nose making it easier to hit. I also get extremely close to my target before firing, almost ensuring a kill.
-
Wings, I like to look over and see my guns blazing :)
-
It's the gun that counts for me, where it's mounted doesn't matter much. I prefer the Browning .50cal because of its ballistics, range, rate of fire and hitting power, and then I fire in close where the lack of the explosive charge is less of a factor. I can hit almost anything in the F4U or FM-2 with its wing mounted Deuces, but stick me in a 109 and I can barely hit a target with a dead-6 shot with those guns.
-
It doesn't really matter where the guns are on the plane when they are shoved up next to the canopy of the other plane.
-
That is definately correct. Spit has definately one of the best over-the-nose making it easier to hit. I also get extremely close to my target before firing, almost ensuring a kill.
Which is incorrect and if the anti-Spit people (hiya BnZ, Krusty) were serious, that is something that should be fixed and as we have seen so many times, HTC redoing graphics often results in visual airframe changes that significantly reduce usage.
-
=Wing mounted=
Easier to aim in tight or high speed deflection and if you don't get a kill shot you have more of a chance to tag a flight surface. Think spread of bullets before, on and beyond convergence.
Nose mounted guns are like all your eggs in 1 basket for longer range deflection. Not that there's anything wrong with that and IMO they do have an advantage close in when rolling with a con.
-
wing guns = spray~n~pray
nose guns = precision sawsalll
i,ll take nose guns
.
-
I like the ones that have tracers! :aok
-
Easier to aim in tight or high speed deflection
I don't understand why people are saying this. With either one you're aiming the plane, not the gun. The gunsight is the same for both and the vertical component of the ballistic path should be the same too. Having guns in the nose makes little or no difference to the view - which has a better forward-down view, a P-38 or an F4U?
Easier to get a few hits because the wing-mounted guns are scattershot except at convergence range, sure. But two or three .50 slugs aren't likely to do lethal damage, especially at longer ranges.
-
nose of course as I tend to shoot at 300 and less.
-
Nose...Concentrated fire and so on, and I need all the help I can get. :uhoh
-
Ok, what do you people consider long range? :huh I consider outside of 300-ish to be long range.
-
Does it really matter at 100-200 yards =)
Especially at point blank. No risk of missing with a nose gun, whereas wing guns will easily fly around a target.
-
=Wing mounted=
Easier to aim in tight or high speed deflection and if you don't get a kill shot you have more of a chance to tag a flight surface. Think spread of bullets before, on and beyond convergence.
Nose mounted guns are like all your eggs in 1 basket for longer range deflection. Not that there's anything wrong with that and IMO they do have an advantage close in when rolling with a con.
You can't beat the concrentration of nose mounted guns over wing mounted ones. So while you're spraying and praying and just "tagging" the flight surface, the plane with the nose mounted guns just removed the planes wing. Nose mounted guns also better for deflection shots and as you mentioned, long range shots.
As for as gun placement goes, nose/center line mounted is far better than wing mounted.
ack-ack
-
I don't understand why people are saying this. With either one you're aiming the plane, not the gun. The gunsight is the same for both and the vertical component of the ballistic path should be the same too. Having guns in the nose makes little or no difference to the view - which has a better forward-down view, a P-38 or an F4U?
Easier to get a few hits because the wing-mounted guns are scattershot except at convergence range, sure. But two or three .50 slugs aren't likely to do lethal damage, especially at longer ranges.
Hence me saying
Easier to aim in tight or high speed deflection and if you don't get a kill shot you have more of a chance to tag a flight surface. Think spread of bullets before, on and beyond convergence.
Nose mounted you either hit or miss but with wing mounted you stand a better chance to tag the con. That's maybe one wings 50's or cannons tagging the guy, depending what you fly.
Enker
Ok, what do you people consider long range? I consider outside of 300-ish to be long range.
Personally I consider anything over 400 a long range shot and never shoot unless it's a sitting duck. Others may have different opinions.
Moot
Especially at point blank. No risk of missing with a nose gun, whereas wing guns will easily fly around a target.
This is true and why I said
Not that there's anything wrong with that and IMO they do have an advantage close in when rolling with a con.
Ack-Ack
You can't beat the concrentration of nose mounted guns over wing mounted ones. So while you're spraying and praying and just "tagging" the flight surface, the plane with the nose mounted guns just removed the planes wing.
When your spraying and preying your nose ammo at LONG range deflection your missing or hitting. You have no chance to tag the con. There is no in between. Hence me saying
Nose mounted guns are like all your eggs in 1 basket for longer range deflection
As for as gun placement goes, nose/center line mounted is far better than wing mounted.
Which rightly so is a matter of opinion.
-
Which do you prefer? Just curious. I, myself, prefer wing mounted guns, and tend to shoot better with them.
nose mounted, no contest. The only planes I will fly with wing mounted guns is the Fw.190 with the PB1 or whatever rockets, the P51, or the P47, wait I will also fly the P39, that cannon in the nose means one hit and you are dead. I fly other planes with wing weapons only under special circumstances. I am best with nose mounted guns as I don't have to wait to take a shot and I will have the best chance possible.
Hey guys I have a quick question: when I fly the P39 it seems like it is harder to fly then some other planes that are generaly concidered newbish planes. Is that just my imagination or is it really there? and if it is would the cannon cancle out any dificulties the plane has, I have flown it for a bit and have dicided it is probably worth it for bombers and BnZ attacks and a slashing style of fighting but I wanted a second oppinion please make answers as additions to your posts not the posts them selves and once you answered just drop it. I don't want to hijack.
-
Wing. Flying the P38 etc I have it stuck in my head that I need less deflection than for wing mounted guns. When the shooting starters the tracers trails in my gunsight are slightly annoying. I can get used to it and love the chainsaw effect, but find wing mounts more user-friendly for this guy.