Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: VansCrew1 on February 26, 2008, 02:58:48 PM
-
Since the engine is mounted behind the pilot who would a old leak affect the cockpit? would you be able to see oil on the back of the windscreen? Also would the shaft running from the engine to the prop be sustainable to damage?
-
NOOOOO!!! VC is right on this one.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
Since the engine is mounted behind the pilot who would a old leak affect the cockpit? would you be able to see oil on the back of the windscreen? Also would the shaft running from the engine to the prop be sustainable to damage?
Well i think that you wont be able to see your six if its oil damage and with the engine shaft, well It would have to be one lucky shot...but then again, when hundreds of bullets are flying at you (unless they 20mm), if they hit you, one is bound to hit it i guess.
-
I'm just wondering if they modeled it like that or they did something different. And another thing i found the P39 used a battery that was used to put the gears up and down. Also it helped with other things. Would the battery be a damage option? if the battery was hit, would you have to belly land your P39.
I'm not saying that these are damage option's I'm just wondering if they were, how would it effect the plane's performance. The battery would not be a big thing i believe they placed it into an heavily armored area but you never know.
The Drive shaft is a main thing tho. If that was hit would it be like a radiator hit where if you use the engine would over hear and freeze up or the shaft just break. The good thing about having the engine behind you Pilot wounds would be less but i would assume that oil hit and radiator hits would increass.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
I'm just wondering if they modeled it like that or they did something different. And another thing i found the P39 used a battery that was used to put the gears up and down. Also it helped with other things. Would the battery be a damage option? if the battery was hit, would you have to belly land your P39.
.
Hydrolic lines are not damage options. So I thoroughly doubt it.
-
What did they use the battery for then? though i read they use it to raise and lower the gears...or was it flaps. I cant remember and i cant fine the web page where i seen it :furious :furious.
-
Well the thing is, you would only get oil on the window if..
1:the top of the engine took enough hits to *blow up* and thus enough oil would get thrown in all directions.
2:If its just hole, its highly doubtful it would spurt against the wind just to it could ruin the pilots rear view.
The shaft will most likely not be a singled out damage component, i can instead however see its as being a *part* of the engines damage system. Same with the transfer case up in the nose, im willing to bet if this is the case, the p39 will be a very easy aircraft to take down, simply because if you are to strike from nose to rudder, you would hit transfer case,cannon, machine guns,pilot,engine,fuel,rudder.
Thats alot of damage options for one pass on a plane.
lets hope her armor stands stuff.
:Edit:Vans, the batt was probably in case the engine died on takeoff/landing or due to combat damage, the pilot could still operate,safely land the plane.
it would have sucked badly to take off, engine stall, and not be able to put your gear down "or flaps" because they have no power from engines.
-
Since the engine is behind the cockpit (my understanding) then the only way oil would get on the rear part of the cockpit glass would be if it was hit just as the plane entered a stall going vertical and fell straight down before it started to spin/roll over.
donkey
-
Hit the prop reduction gear housing or prop dome and you could have an oil leak over the wind screen.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
What did they use the battery for then? though i read they use it to raise and lower the gears...or was it flaps. I cant remember and i cant fine the web page where i seen it :furious :furious.
It probably was used to raise/lower gear/flaps, but it wont be damageable in AH, since you cant damage the hydrolic lines that are used on most planes. Sorry if I confused you.
-
Bodhi, im not sure if it used oil up in the transfer case, or just heavy duty grease.
-
Might it be worth waiting to at least have the 39 and finding out what we've got before we worry too much about what they might or might not have done with it?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Might it be worth waiting to at least have the 39 and finding out what we've got before we worry too much about what they might or might not have done with it?
Come on Dan you know we have to jump the gun on these types of things ;)
Remember the Ki84 threads???
:noid
-
Well, since the P-39 was supposed to protect the pilot, i bet you cant see ANYTHING behind you.
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Come on Dan you know we have to jump the gun on these types of things ;)
Remember the Ki84 threads???
:noid
My dream is that some of these folks might do a little research just once in a while before posting :) Plenty of info out there beyond the web regarding the 39
I might suggest "Cobra!-Bell Aircraft Corporation 1934-1946" by Birch Matthews as a starting point but if you are serious about the 39 and 63 design and development it's worth the money at least in my opinion.
Certainly a number of good books are out there about Groups that flew the 39 and even books by folks who flew it in combat.
They didn't put the engine behind the cockpit to protect the pilot for example. And if you did a bit of digging you might see how it was set up for the pilot to see behind.
But that's just me dreaming :)
-
"Hit the prop reduction gear housing or prop dome and you could have an oil leak over the wind screen."
IIRC P39s sometimes suffered from oil leaking from the gearbox and smearing the windshield.
"Bodhi, im not sure if it used oil up in the transfer case, or just heavy duty grease."
I don't think that is possible in that kind of application. It needs transmission oil as any heavy duty transmission gearbox.
It would be interesting to know if the gearbox was in oil circulation with the engine. That would mean tubes running to and from engine to gearbox.
-C+
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Well, since the P-39 was supposed to protect the pilot, i bet you cant see ANYTHING behind you.
Actually, it was the design of the P-39 cockpit that lead to the development of the full fledged bubble canopy in other fighters.
Pilots of the P39 disagreed on many accounts (the more experienced being more positive, the less experienced more severe) about the flying characteristics (such as the tumble that the test pilots couldn't replicate), but they all agreed on one major point- it had "Fantastic visibility".
-
It'll be interesting to see the PW model on the P39. If the pilot gets hit as easily on the 38s (because theres no engine up front), then we know, that the 38 model is correct. If not, then I guess its the prop that saves him.:eek: :lol
-
Looked around.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a107/BaDkaRmA158Th/p39Qinternals.jpg)
Ignorance is bliss, now im not so bliss full anymore.
Kinda a laugh how the first thing noted, is the gear box oil tank. :cry
This logic if implemented is sure to make people say WTF!? for years to come when the nose gets hit, they get blinded by oil, the engine keeps runing on flawless untill the transfer case lock's up, spining the aircraft to the ground.
Other pictures and info found here.
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/P-39.html
*This ones best*
http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=us10&page=p39_01
:aok
-
"when the nose gets hit, they get blinded by oil"
I have a feeling that it's not going to be modelled but only the rear engine oil tank effects.
Good find BTW. :aok
-C+
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
Since the engine is mounted behind the pilot who would a old leak affect the cockpit? would you be able to see oil on the back of the windscreen? Also would the shaft running from the engine to the prop be sustainable to damage?
This question, about oil, was already answered in one of the original P-39 threads.
The answer was "NO"
wrngway
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Bodhi, im not sure if it used oil up in the transfer case, or just heavy duty grease.
The prop pitch on the P-39 is controlled by oil pressure. As far as I can recall, the oil pressure for the prop pitch on the P-39 was provided by the engine like a P-51, B-25, F6F, or F4u. Lose oil pressure, and you lose the propellor pitch (RPM) control.
-
Look at the thick frames around the car doors, the top-side frames, and then look at the very narrow rear view almost entirely blocked by the air intake scoop.
Ain't nobody seeing nothin' out the back o' that thing!
I think visibility will be the worst of any plane we've had since the 190s were redone, but that's just a guess based on the thickness and placement of the framing.
-
Why would the P-39 get a new and complex damage model when no other model does? I'm not thinking this is likely.
-
And given its a mid engined plane a P39 should it react differently when shot down.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Look at the thick frames around the car doors, the top-side frames, and then look at the very narrow rear view almost entirely blocked by the air intake scoop.
Ain't nobody seeing nothin' out the back o' that thing!
I think visibility will be the worst of any plane we've had since the 190s were redone, but that's just a guess based on the thickness and placement of the framing.
I think you're in for a surprise.
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
Well, since the P-39 was supposed to protect the pilot, i bet you cant see ANYTHING behind you.
The P39Q was overhauled by the russians to make it better. They took most of the armament out.
-
With regard to vulnerability of the engine to enemy fire from behind, I would guess that the P-39 would be similar to the P-38, since both have engines that are not in front of pilot-protecting armor plate.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
The P39Q was overhauled by the russians to make it better. They took most of the armament out.
Are we getting the Q? I thought we were getting the N?
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Are we getting the Q? I thought we were getting the N?
January 25, 2008
Aces High II: P-39Q Development Screenshots
From
http://www.flyaceshigh.com/frindex.html
-
Keep in context the time the P39 was designed. At that point in the late 30s the bomber was king. The world was watching places like Guernica in Spain where the bombers rained down destruction. Japanese bombers were doing the same in the newsreels from China. Rotterdam wasn't that far off.
The Germans were developing the 109, a small, short range, liquid cooled engined fighter on a narrow undercarriage. The RAF had the Hurricane, which was really a combo of bi-plane thick wing technology and the inline Merlin engine. And the RAF had the Spitfire, thin wing, narrow gear, inline Merlin. The race for speed was built around small, streamlined, liquid cooled engined fighters
For the USAAF the P35 and P36 were giving way to the Allison engined P40, the twin Allison P38 and the Allison P-39.
Everything was geared towards intercepting bombers, not looking behind, or dogfighting. Much like jet design of the late 50s, early 60s, the vision was of going fast, looking forward and shooting down bombers as that was the threat. Look at any of the fighters and they have narrow canopies with the fuselage built up behind the pilot. The 39 at least pretended to think the pilot might look behind. Compare it to the 109E or the Spitfire I with the slabsided, flat canopy it went into service with. Mirrors were an afterthought once they figured out they were going to have to fight other fighters.
So the 39 was really ahead of the game for that time in design, much like the 38. Tricycle gear, to help the pilot and cannons and MG loaded in the nose to shoot those bombers down. It was not designed for what it ended up doing. As it was adapted to the needs of wartime it found it's niche doing something completely different.
As for the guy asking if it should react different if shot down. The center of gravity in a plane is what it is. Wherever the engine is, the plane needs to be balanced for flight.
Just keep in mind the time it was designed and what it was meant to do. It was never a 1944 design so it's not going to compare to those birds as they were designed for different roles. That it did what it did through the war is some credit to the design.
I'm sure Widewing can expand on this a lot more as he's more versed in it, but I hope you get the idea and don't make the 39 what it's not. You'll be sorely disappointed in it otherwise.
-
Great read.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Rebel
Actually, it was the design of the P-39 cockpit that lead to the development of the full fledged bubble canopy in other fighters.
Pilots of the P39 disagreed on many accounts (the more experienced being more positive, the less experienced more severe) about the flying characteristics (such as the tumble that the test pilots couldn't replicate), but they all agreed on one major point- it had "Fantastic visibility".
oooooooo! sweet, i like to see around my flying tank.
-
"I think you're in for a surprise."
I think so too.
Compare:
http://www1.hitechcreations.com/news/images/p39/p39q1.jpg
With:
http://ambiorix.spymac.com/Images/BellP39Q6/index.html
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-39/P39Cockpitfrnt.pdf
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/sheppard/p39/p39b.jpg
You m a y notice that the horizontal bar is much too thin. The vertical bars supporting the windscreen are as thin as they should be but the horizontal part which is part of the supporting structure is as thin in those pictures where as it should be as thick as the side framing (without the door frame).
AFAIK the P39 had a good or even excellent rear visibility despite the intake scoop.
Even the LA7 cockpit has too thin upper part of armoured glass just where it should be thickest, pretty much like in Spit and it is not, nor will be probably.
-C+
PS. http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165351&pagenumber=2
-
I hear someplace the default fov for the cockpits is not 90.
hit x and zoom in a little bit more, note sure how much it changes perspective, but its worth the note.
well...when we get it.
:)
-
Hmph speaking of p-39 damage....gun damage that is.
This shell uses the point detonating fuze, M56. The complete round weighs 1.99 pounds (900 g); as fired, the projectile weighs 1.34 pounds (1,050 g). The 0.16-pound (70 g) charge of M2 powder is a Hercules NG formula of single perforated grains with 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) web and gives the projectile the prescribed muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second (600 m/s).
The M54 features the shell-destroying tracer in addition to the point-detonating fuze. The tracer, which has a burning time of three seconds, sets off an igniting relay charge of 1.68 grains (0.109 g) of Grade A-5 Army Black Powder which ignites a relay pellet to detonate the charge and destroy the shell before ground impact.
The bursting charge of tetryl weighs 0.10 pound (45 g), and the alternate Composition “A” charge weighs 0.105 pound (48 g). The tetryl loading consists of a 200 grain (13 g) tetryl pellet pressed into the shell cavity under 9,000 to 10,000 psi (60 to 70 MPa pressure and the remainder of the charge of two equal increments pressed under approximately 9,000 psi (60 MPa) pressure. The Composition “A” bursting charge is loaded in the same manner as the tetryl charge, except that the relay pellet with the Composition “A” weighs 36 grains (2.3 g) as against 23 grains (1.5 g) for the pellet used with the tetryl load.
Aparently the 37mm M54 round (HE) has a timed fuse set for 3 seconds.
That makes me wounder if the m4 37mm cannon we have on our pt's uses the HE or Ap rounds, if it is He it should blow up after 3 seconds.
oh my god its gonna be a mobile flak cannon! (39 & Pt)
:aok
-
The German 20mm HE's had a self detonating option too. Not sure what the timer setting was for them. I think it was when the rotation speed decreased certain amount the fuze exploded and destroyed the grenade. It would be interesting to have it in game but on the other hand it might be quite an FPS hog.
-C+
-
In-game, rounds just disappear after a certain range (fire a cannon round at 10k and it will never impact the ground) so that's already modeled, sort of.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
Since the engine is mounted behind the pilot who would a old leak affect the cockpit? would you be able to see oil on the back of the windscreen? Also would the shaft running from the engine to the prop be sustainable to damage?
Vans, maybe after lack of oil craters the engine, how the drive shaft doing some wild things?
-
Look at the pilot head positions. Look at the gunsight position.
(http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/Hamilton_CA_P-39_43.jpg)
(http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/p39_russian_550.jpg)
(http://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/P39_cockpit.jpg)
The head is very high and the car door is INCHES from your face. Forward and up views should be decent, but if they don't model the side views with heavy impairment they're just not doing it right.
Rebel might be right about the intake, though. It's a tall intake, but narrow. Seeing around either side should still be good, as long as they model in a giant 6+ inch frame between the car door and rear window.
-
I'm wondering if we will get the M80 AP rounds as an optional loadout. The Soviets didn't use them (we didn't send them any), but they were an option for the M4 cannon.
-
Were they:
- an option for the m4 cannon mounted in army planes? Or just for ground guns?
- ever used anywhere, ever, in an p-39?
- used regularly, or just once, or just in tests?
- distributed via supply chains to units using the P-39? (you mention we never sent any to Russia)
-
Krusty,
the side view out of a P-39 is not all that bad. Sure there is the side bar of the door, but it is all a matter of head perspective, and if you give it a second it almost seems as though it does not exist.
-
Bodhi: It looks to be just about eye level (from various pictures) and with the forward curve would be a real hassle to move your head around all the time to look around it.
My car's a little the same, the left-front windshield frame is right in my view if I want to look forward/left.
I just look at that head position and that glass, and can't help but wonder (even with the nice fwd and fwd-upper views) how HTC can justify such a wide open feeling the screenshot of the cocpit portrays.
I could be wrong, but it just doesn't fit. Kind of like how the P-51 cockpit looks like it's a loft apartment compared to the Fw190, but they're not that far off regarding head-to-frame spacing.
On the new planes, some cockpits I think they finish very well. Some others look like they're ... I don't want to say biased.. just far far too forgiving.
EDIT: P.S. How much distance from forhead to fwd glass? How much distance from temple (above ear) to door frame?
-
Krusty, it has been a while since I last sat in a P-39 so I can not tell you specifics on distances. I just remember the side bar not being too big of an issue.
As for frame spacing on the 51 and 190 being close, I have to disagree. The 190's front view is just so much smaller than the 51's as is the overall canopy. I have a picture of me inside of a 190 somewhere that I will have to find to show you what I am talking about.
-
Krusty how many P-39s have you sat in?
Never mind I'll just go with Bodhi on this one, K.
-
Bronk's trolling aside, THIS:
(http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/p39paint.JPG)
Doesn't look very spacious. Almost all the photos I've seen with pilots flying the real plane have had the door at eyeball or forhead level. More commonly at eyeball level. This pilot is actually dipping his head forward to look sideways. Upright heads (not dipped) have very little room between them and the upper canopy, similar to P-38 pilots from photos I've seen.
And here HTC gives it almost non-existent frames in the screenshot.
(http://www1.hitechcreations.com/news/images/p39/p39q1.jpg)
It just doesn't look right.
-
Your opinion aside Krusty, that is almost exactly what the interior view looks like.
I am sorry you do not feel that way, but it is what it is.
-
Crusty, im sorry man, but i make 3d models, you also have to keep in mind this is a forward shot. Fov "Field of view" also takes effect in this screen shot, your point is valid, but also remember that when we do look to the left and right, that bar will be blocking the eye area.
Thats no doubt, a simple delete, f10 on the 4/6 numpad will fix all that instantly.
Just sayin' it probably wont be a problem.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a107/BaDkaRmA158Th/possible.jpg)
This view is from a left/front standpoint(7) , not even the direct 4 or 6 viewpoint's. one would think because the bar is even closer to your eyes, it should thus also fill more of your view.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The prop pitch on the P-39 is controlled by oil pressure. As far as I can recall, the oil pressure for the prop pitch on the P-39 was provided by the engine like a P-51, B-25, F6F, or F4u. Lose oil pressure, and you lose the propellor pitch (RPM) control.
P-39s had one of two types. Early P-39s used Curtiss Electric props. No oil issues there. Most versions used an Aeroproducts hydraulic prop that was self-contained with its own oil tank which was located behind the reduction gearbox armor. Some using the Aeroproducts prop had their designation changed. For example, a P-39K was was a P-39D with the Aeroproducts propeller.
P-39F used the Aeroproducts prop.
All P-39Ks used the Aeroproducts prop.
All P-39Ms used the Aeroproducts prop.
When we get to the P-39N, we find that they used one of two versions of the Aeroproducts prop.
The largest production version was the P-39Q. All blocks had one of several Aeroproducts props (the P-39N-21 and -25 used a 4-blade prop).
All P-39s had a small 2 gal. oil tank for the reduction gearbox. This tank was located behind the 5/8" gearbox armor. Engine oil tanks were also protected by 1/4" face hardened armor from the P-39M on thru the Qs.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Kharma, I get what you're saying, but AH uses a -- what? -- 90-degree FOV default? Even taking into consideration this is just the fwd view (not the fdw/left or fwd/right), from head position and camera angle I'd think it would be more like stretching the arches forward more (not just filling more screen, but moving them further into the middle as well, like the difference between our P-38 default and our P-38 with head moved all the way back.
If you understand how I'm describing it?
-
its k a r m a
yes i did not make the bar thick enough as it would lead over the pilots left sholder, and yes i understand you perfectly.
by what others have said the default fov is something around 100-110, maby more.
:aok
-
Widewing,
Regardless of whether the Curtiss Electric is used or not, there is still going to be a reduction gear set up from the engine to the propellor. That system will have oil in it. That oil will be vulnerable to leak.
1/4 inch face hardened armour will not stop a .30 api rnd at 500 yds. 12.7 mm will just laugh as it passes through.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
its k a r m a
Sorry!
P.S. I think Skuzzy's said you can't exceed 90 degrees in DirectX without getting horrible fisheye warping.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Widewing,
Regardless of whether the Curtiss Electric is used or not, there is still going to be a reduction gear set up from the engine to the propellor. That system will have oil in it. That oil will be vulnerable to leak.
1/4 inch face hardened armour will not stop a .30 api rnd at 500 yds. 12.7 mm will just laugh as it passes through.
As I stated, the reduction gear has a 2 gallon tank, behind 5/8" (.625 in) thick armor. These tanks did occasionally leak and the oil drained down and out through the nose gear doors on the underside of the aircraft. There could be some seepage up and out to the windscreen, but I haven't seen a single instance of this occurring that made it into print.
According to the US Army penetration table, .30 cal API will probably not penetrate .25" face hardened steel at ranges greater than 300 yards.
Penetration, fired at 7/8-inch thick homogeneous armor plate (not face hardened) at 100 yards, will be not less than 0.42 inch. Penetration, fired at 500 yards, will not be less than .23 inch. This test is based upon an angle of 0 degrees. Any relative angle will degrade penetration. 1/4" face hardened armor is roughly equal to 3/8" homogeneous armor.
Of course, .50 cal API will penetrate .25" at ranges out to at least 1,000 yards. Penetration tables show that the .50 API will penetrate .7" of homogeneous armor at 600 yards, and .5" of face hardened armor at 600 yards.
My regards,
Widewing
-
WW,
I do not know much about US Army Penetration Tables, but I do know what we have done to 1/4 inch face hardened steel.
For giggles one day in NC, we took some 1/4 inch face hardened armour (left over Halftrack Armour) down to the range and decided to see what could and could not penetrate the armour.
Using Mil surplus 30-06 API, we routinely blasted holes through at a variety of different ranges (including what I listed), or if they did not go all the way through, the back side spalled horribly.
Shooting it with standard ball ammunition with the .50 just shattered the armour.
Kind of neat all the way around to see what the effects of the rounds were.
-
You will not get a clean shot at an armour plate through aircraft structure.
It is highly probable that the round is already out of balance or tumbled so its armour piercing capability is significantly reduced.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Were they:
- an option for the m4 cannon mounted in army planes? Or just for ground guns?
- ever used anywhere, ever, in an p-39?
- used regularly, or just once, or just in tests?
- distributed via supply chains to units using the P-39? (you mention we never sent any to Russia)
The M80 37mm AP round was not designed for, nor ever used in ground guns. It was developed specifically for the M4 cannon in a P-39. The 37mm M4 cannon used 37x145mm ammo vs the 37x223mm ammo used by M3/M6 37mm cannons mounted on the US ground vehicles and ATGs. The only ground use of the M4 that I've read about was when M4 cannons stripped from wrecked P-39s were mounted on PT boats in the Philippines.
The M80 was "standard" round for the M4, but as to who got supplied how many and where, that would have to be researched. I know the Russians didn't get any because I just got done reading the "Soviet Aces, American P-39s" book, and the guy tells how they ripped up german bombers with the HE ammo, and how the tank busting role on the eastern front was a myth because they didn't have the M80 AP ammo.
Given that HTC seems to model an "average" damage per aircraft cannon round instead of modeling the effects of each individual round (like the mine rounds on the MG-151s), it might not make much difference.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon
This shell uses the point detonating fuze, M56. The complete round weighs 1.99 pounds (900 g); as fired, the projectile weighs 1.34 pounds (1,050 g). The 0.16-pound (70 g) charge of M2 powder is a Hercules NG formula of single perforated grains with 0.030 inch (0.76 mm) web and gives the projectile the prescribed muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second (600 m/s).
The M54 features the shell-destroying tracer in addition to the point-detonating fuze. The tracer, which has a burning time of three seconds, sets off an igniting relay charge of 1.68 grains (0.109 g) of Grade A-5 Army Black Powder which ignites a relay pellet to detonate the charge and destroy the shell before ground impact.
The bursting charge of tetryl weighs 0.10 pound (45 g), and the alternate Composition “A” charge weighs 0.105 pound (48 g). The tetryl loading consists of a 200 grain (13 g) tetryl pellet pressed into the shell cavity under 9,000 to 10,000 psi (60 to 70 MPa pressure and the remainder of the charge of two equal increments pressed under approximately 9,000 psi (60 MPa) pressure. The Composition “A” bursting charge is loaded in the same manner as the tetryl charge, except that the relay pellet with the Composition “A” weighs 36 grains (2.3 g) as against 23 grains (1.5 g) for the pellet used with the tetryl load.
The round
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/M54_round_drawing.jpg
This would also mean if modeled correctly, the rounds would travel for three seconds, they blow up mid flight. Could also make contact and still detonate beforhand, making this weapon a two-fer.
If we could get the "mini flak burst" at the end for the p39's m4 cannon, that would make me smile for a long long long time to come.
-
the 190s also had batterys
-
i would have to agree with angeland air that would be a luky shot