Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Ike 2K# on April 29, 2004, 10:44:56 AM
-
Cannon jamming on cannon-armed planes like spits, typh/temp, A6M, C-hog (few exaples of cannon-armed fighters) should be modeled onAH2 when pulling high load Gs...
agree or disagree?
btw, i got this idea from Microprose's European Air War
-
not so simple...
why should they jam? when should they jam?
Hey why didn't his gun jam?!? he was firin longer than me!
SKurj
-
PSHHHHHHHHH NO!
-
And machine guns are immune to jamming?
-
Originally posted by SKurj
not so simple...
why should they jam? when should they jam?
Hey why didn't his gun jam?!? he was firin longer than me!
SKurj
Don't forget:
The Hispano NEVER JAMS! and my ShVAK ALWAYS JAMS! It just more evidence of the OBVIOUS bias in HTC's modeling!
-Sik
-
Originally posted by SKurj
why should they jam? when should they jam?
They should jam when you fire them under a hi G load.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
as long as the jamming is not randomal.
-
B-17 defensive guns jammed alot too
-
Guns should only jam when they are being fired at me!! End of story.. 8)
dude
-
Above 10,000 meters, the moisture on a cold machine gun would turn to ice or frost in the high altitudes, so they would sometimes jam.
-
also if one gun jams on one wing, will firing the guns result in the aircraft swinging due to the recoil.. this is whatg happened on real aircraft..
-
Originally posted by SELECTOR
also if one gun jams on one wing, will firing the guns result in the aircraft swinging due to the recoil.. this is whatg happened on real aircraft..
AH already models this as evident when you fire the 40mm of the Hurricane that has them. Currently they fire seqentually (a mistake corrected in AH2) and they indeed yaw the plane greatly.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
They should jam when you fire them under a hi G load.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
All cannon should Swoop? and lets not forget MG's...
See this is not a simple task to make "guns jam"
I'd hazard a guess its definitely not worth the hassle.
One big reason why.... there likely isn't any real concrete data on when, why, and how often a certain gun type jammed... so how can it be modelled accurately? When no measure of "accurately" exists...
Opps lets not forget concrete data would have to exist for all guns before it could even be considered..
SKurj
-
Originally posted by SKurj
All cannon should Swoop? and lets not forget MG's...
No.
The problem is you have to take into account anecdotal information. Which is what we in Britain call 'well dodgy'.
The only thing I can think of off hand is P51B MGs were supposed to have been famous for jamming when fired under a G load. The MGs in the 51D weren't. Don't ask me why, I'm no expert.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Im not sure i want my guns jamming after i have fought myself to a killing position...
I have to vote no on this one...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Im not sure i want my guns jamming after i have fought myself to a killing position...
Depends. If you wuz flying an aircraft known to have mildly dodgy guns and you fired a 30 second burst while pulling a constant 5 Gs......then you'd damn well expect one or more to jam. If however, you being aware of the issue with P51B guns, you fired in short bursts, always being careful to unload G before pulling the trigger......then you could be sure your guns won't jam.
Nothing random about it.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
no for gun jams.
no for faulty spark plugs.
no for faulty oxygen systems.
no for random system failures.
no for motion sickness that makes you barf all over the windshield.
no for any loose debris in the cockpit that gets in your eyes when doing neg G maneuvers.
no for popping your eardrums when diving from 25k to 5k trying to escape the con on your tail.
how bored are you really ??????
players should not be penalised for just flying.
-
Originally posted by Swoop
No.
The problem is you have to take into account anecdotal information. Which is what we in Britain call 'well dodgy'.
The only thing I can think of off hand is P51B MGs were supposed to have been famous for jamming when fired under a G load. The MGs in the 51D weren't. Don't ask me why, I'm no expert.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
It was something to do with the way the guns were mounted, i think they were on a 45° angle....or something
-
Depends on point of view.
While some may see such things as being "penalized", others quite contrarily view them as one of those many factors which make the game all so more interesting.
Not sure if it would be practical in the MA, but it would be a viable feature in the ToD mode, since HT already mentioned a possibilty of implementing "ground service" issues in ToD.
..
One thing for certain is people sure will hesitate the good ol' "risk a blackout, yank the stick and blast away into the black monitor hoping that you get a good deflection hit" if jams are ever, modelled.
-
Has Viff actually read any of this ya reckon?
We're not talking about random failures for no reason, we're talking about a failure that you, the pilot, cause by your actions.
I'd also like to see engines overheating and dying from the result of full power and wep for too long. Flaps that actually become damaged and inoperable if deployed at high speeds instead of autoretracting as we have now.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
I'd also like to see engines overheating and dying from the result of full power and wep for too long.
Pyro answered that, search for Vulcan's thread on Engine Management.
-
Yeah, he said he was against it and never replied to the EAW example. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop wanting to see it......
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
recall reading a bio on a wwII pilot who said, he would push (neg Gs) when he saw enemy tracers, knowing they would stop cause the guns would jam in a neg G.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Don't forget:
The Hispano NEVER JAMS! and my ShVAK ALWAYS JAMS! It just more evidence of the OBVIOUS bias in HTC's modeling!
-Sik
Actually whilst many cannon could jam when fired under high G the nose mounted Svaks on the la7 and la5 could be cleared from within the cockpit.........
now if we modelled that!
-
:D
get's complicated doesn't it.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Yeah, he said he was against it and never replied to the EAW example. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop wanting to see it......
No, he explained why it wasn't realistic. He didn't simply say he was against it. EAW and IL2 have engine heat systems that are just as gamey as AH's. The fact is that most WWII aircraft could run at WEP (assuming no NO2, MW50 or other such additives) until they ran out of fuel. It simply required the engine's maintainance schedule to have shorter periods between overhauls.
As to cannon jamming, why impliment a gamey concept? Not all cannons jammed under G load at a significantly greater rate than under normal firing condidtions. Arbitrarily setting it up so that your cannons (not machineguns?) jam if you are pulling over, say, 4 Gs is no more realistic than them never jamming.
-
Karnak,
No-one's saying that all cannons jam if fired at 4G. Where has anyone said that? .......Um......appart from the thread starter who I'm choosing the ignore for the purposes of this response.
What's been said is that certain types of gun are known to have had problems with jamming. It's also been suggested that any kind of random fault is a bad idea (and I agree), so what's been suggested in response is faults caused only by pilot action in weapons that would have suffered by said fault historically.
However, it's also been suggested, by me, that it's all far to complicated anyway what with there being no hard and fast data on every aircraft weapon and it's proneness to jamming under whatever conditions you can think of.
And as for the engine thingy, I'm just looking for a way to prevent people from flying around at full power all the time.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
what about manual radiator flaps or crowl flaps?
-
I know some few problems for Vought F4U-1C in before War ended and some pilots of VF-85 and VMF-311 complaining about Why their guns jammed?
The answer? The answer is because their gun froze up over 10,000 or 15,000 Alt feet and the US Government told them to stay off 10k or higher. The government told them that the Gun Heater will be added for 1C. but it was little too late and war was ended. Vought promise that Future Corsair will added Gun Heater and it work well in Cold Korean War.
Rafe
-
Naw, Karnak, Pyro said most planes can run at military power ad infinitum, not emergency power.
-
Here's that thread
Feature Request please HT - engine management by Vulcan (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107449)
Some Snippets....
So what is the real purpose of engine management in real life? It primarily breaks down to two reasons. Fuel efficiency and maintenance considerations. Fuel efficiency should be obvious. You will get a lot more range at a more efficient setting. Maintenance considerations are there to extend engine life and time between overhauls. People see a time limit on military power for a plane and assume that that means the engine will overheat or blow up if you run it longer than that and that’s not the case. Is modeling it that way really more accurate? We don’t model the maintenance considerations, you get a fresh plane each time out. Hopefully, we’ll at least be able to take some stabs in that direction with ToD, but that’s not exactly something you can replicate to great effect.
USE OF TAKE-OFF (MILITARY) POWER
It is often asked what the consequences will be if the 5-minute limit at Take-off Power is exceeded. Another frequent inquiry is how long a period must be allowed after the specified time limit has elapsed until Take-off Power can be used. These questions are difficult to answer, since the time limit specified does not mean that engine damage will occur if the limit is exceeded. Instead, the limit means that the total operating time at high power should be kept to a reasonable minimum in the interest of prolonging engine life.
It is generally accepted that high-power operation of an engine results in increased wear and necessitates more frequent overhaul than low-power operation. However, it is apparent that a certain percentage of operating time must be at full power. The engine manufacturer allows for this in qualification tests in which much of the running is done at Take-off Power to prove ability to withstand the resulting loads. It is established in these runs that the engine will handle sustained high power without damage. Nevertheless, it is still the aim of the manufacturer and to the best interest of the pilot to keep within reasonable values the amount of high-power time accumulated in the field. The most satisfactory method for accomplishing this is to establish time limits that will keep pilots constantly aware of the desire to hold high-power periods to the shortest period that the flight plan will allow, so that the total accumulated time and resulting wear can be kept to a minimum. How the time at high power is accumulated is of secondary importance; i.e., it is no worse from the standpoint of engine wear to operate at Take-off Power for one hour straight than it is to operate in twelve 5-minute stretches, provided engine temperatures and pressures are within limits. In fact, the former procedure may even be preferable, as it eliminates temperature cycles which also promote engine wear. Thus if flight conditions occasionally require exceeding time limits, this should not cause concern so long as constant effort is made to keep the over-all time at Take-off Power to the minimum practicable.
Another factor to be remembered in operating engines at high power is that full Take-off Power (3000 rpm and 61 in. Hg) is to be preferred over take-off rpm with reduced manifold pressure. This procedure results in less engine wear for two reasons. First, the higher resulting brake horsepower decreases the time required to obtain the objective of such high-power operation. At take-off, for example, the use of full power decreases the time required to reach an altitude and airspeed where it is safe to reduce power and shortens the time required to reach the airspeed that will provide more favorable cooling. Second, high rpm results in high loads on the reciprocating parts because of inertia forces. As these loads are partially offset by the gas pressure in the cylinder, the higher cylinder pressures resulting from use of take-off manifold pressure gives lower net loads and less wear. Sustained high rpm is a major cause of engine wear. It requires more "rpm minutes" and "piston-ring miles" to take off with reduced manifold pressure. In addition to the engine wear factor, taking off at reduced power is comparable to starting with approximately one-third of the runway behind the plane. Therefore, full power should always be used on take-offs.
Contrary to what a lot of people think, we actually would like to see people use engine management. But not in some contrived only-in-the-sim-world setup. One of the main considerations for any WWII pilot was his fuel and we’ve always wanted that to be central in the game as well. I just haven’t done a good job with that. With the latest beta release, we’re really looking to get that where we’ve always wanted it to be.