Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: Tr1gg22 on August 05, 2009, 11:49:05 AM
-
I was wondering if someone would give me a hand at learning the 109k and g6.... I would be grateful... I want to get better in these AC and I believe I have hit a wall :D TY :salute
-
The 109 Gs are probably the best for dogfighting, the k is good for attacking and dogfighting but doesn't excell in either, it is okay for what it does. The 109 isn't known for its diving ability, but does have front wing slats which increase surface area, causing increased maneuverability. With a top speed of around 320-350 mph you can't outrun your enemies, rolls, loops, immelmans, etc can be used. This is not a simple plane such as the spitfire and requires time and effort to be able to fly it very well. There isn't one specific way to fly the 109, everyone has their own style and I have learned that time is the best teacher.
-
Agent, maz and a few others are the guys to see. 109 is a tremendous aircraft and very well suited to the MA's. It's a predatory plane and has to be flown with aggression. As a general rule its got an outstanding power band and excels in the verticals. Personally I think the G2 is the best of the bunch with the F close behind...if you go back a page or two I reposted a 109G2 sortie that might give you a bit of an idea...but guys like agent can push the plane far beyond my capabilities...
-
Tr1gg, I prefer to fly the 109F, and also suggest it to people new to the 109's. Give it a try for a little bit if you want, and let me/us know what you think of it. I think you'll like it.
Also, feel free to pm me for some 109 films if you want. They might help give you a feel for the 109 before you start really getting into it.
donkey
-
Tr1gg, I prefer to fly the 109F, and also suggest it to people new to the 109's. Give it a try for a little bit if you want, and let me/us know what you think of it. I think you'll like it.
Also, feel free to pm me for some 109 films if you want. They might help give you a feel for the 109 before you start really getting into it.
donkey
109F? Oh the humanity! :)
And why didn't ya say something when I kept running into that low 109F too btw? Bastage! :)
-
I fine the earlier versions of the 109 dont have enough power over the planes they are flying against (spits) Thats why I like to stick with the K4 and the G14. K4 seems less stable at stall speeds then the G14 does but the G14 doesnt have as much power at the lower levels giving the K4 the ability to get out of hordes and gangs :salute
-
The E and F models are the super turny birds of the 109 series. I was in the Training Arena one time, and I was keeping with a Spit, all flaps out, stall horn screaming, yet I was able to pull lead on it and got off a good burst that would have taken off the wing. I augered after that shot however, as we were headed up hill a little bit, and I stalled. Don't get too slow in it, but the 109F is a great plane to learn in.
-
I like the K4 but it is a little more advanced bacause of the 30mm and the turn rate compared to the other 109's.
-
I like the K4 but it is a little more advanced bacause of the 30mm and the turn rate compared to the other 109's.
What you cant handle a big gun :D
-
I can, just until recently i couldnt.
-
I can, just until recently i couldnt.
no excuses, just Ranger on :rock
-
Agent, maz and a few others are the guys to see. 109 is a tremendous aircraft and very well suited to the MA's. It's a predatory plane and has to be flown with aggression. As a general rule its got an outstanding power band and excels in the verticals. Personally I think the G2 is the best of the bunch with the F close behind...if you go back a page or two I reposted a 109G2 sortie that might give you a bit of an idea...but guys like agent can push the plane far beyond my capabilities...
These two will get in there and mix it up. Both are good at showing you the "skinny" side of their plane so it's hard to get a good shot on them. They fly in the vertical and takes chances that pay off most of the time. They are a threat even when out numbered because they watch the whole fight (SA) unfolding.
Fly like these guys and you'll do just fine. :rock
-
thanks for the replies :salute Just had a minute to read these posts I will return later to read these more carefully ....ty
-
Tr1gg, I prefer to fly the 109F, and also suggest it to people new to the 109's. Give it a try for a little bit if you want, and let me/us know what you think of it. I think you'll like it.
Also, feel free to pm me for some 109 films if you want. They might help give you a feel for the 109 before you start really getting into it.
donkey
Donkey! You're back? how ya been?
-
the E and F are super fun to fly =)
-
I really love the K4 and you can muscle it around in a turn fight much better than most suspect if you use the huge torque that the engine produces to your advantage. Of course that huge torque can also work against you so throttle and rudder in particular are very important in the K4.
I've fought Agent a few times in various Spits vs his K4 and we've had some pretty long fights so I know what the K4 is capable of. In fact, I took a tip from Agent one day and entered a couple of turn fights in the K4 at 50% throttle (I actually fought one at 30-40%) and never touched the throttle again after setting it at the beginning of the fight. At those settings the K4 is still quite a capable killer and you have to turn because you can't run at those settings.
-
I think anyone for the Muppets can be considerd the best 109 sticks in the game. Got taught by Dutchie.
-
I think anyone for the Muppets can be considerd the best 109 sticks in the game. Got taught by Dutchie.
QFT Scotch is deadly when you see him.
-
I know any muppet would be glad to help you out. Most of us play in the evening time.
-
QFT Scotch is deadly when you see him.
Best I saw was Fester, but he dosn't play anymore :(
-
Fester was on last night
-
K4 all the way, you want to learn the 109's you might as well learn how to fly the "beast"!! K4 has been given a bad rap when it comes to maneuverability, though It's not the best it is good enough! and the extra speed, acceleration and climb rate make up for what it lacks in maneuverability. The 30mm is the big obstacle in this plane, but once you get use to it, the game is on!
Cajunn
-
Suns is the only other k4 stick that consistently gave me doubts at winning in a duel. We usually went 50/50...and sometimes our duels could last 10minutes. I have a good film of that.
There's a few others that are all right there though. Mostly squadies...But guys like Mondego should be a decent challenge too. He flew a lot last I was on.
I'll probably be back flying in two months or so once Albacore season slows down. We'll have to duel more.
I remember I do have a couple films of dueling you though Trig. When I get back to my desktop pc I'll try to post them. It might be another week or two though.
-
Suns is the only other k4 stick that consistently gave me doubts at winning in a duel. We usually went 50/50...and sometimes our duels could last 10minutes. I have a good film of that.
There's a few others that are all right there though. Mostly squadies...But guys like Mondego should be a decent challenge too. He flew a lot last I was on.
I'll probably be back flying in two months or so once Albacore season slows down. We'll have to duel more.
I remember I do have a couple films of dueling you though Trig. When I get back to my desktop pc I'll try to post them. It might be another week or two though.
that would be cool ty scotch.... I remember we dueled k-4's one time... Post them if u still have them... :salute
-
Back on the desktop. I had deleted a bunch of films but still had the one with our duels.
It's about 11minutes long, 3mb in size.
http://dasmuppets.com/public/Scotch/tr1gg.ahf
(Right click, Save As)
Make sure to check the box that lets you see my views. You'll be able to see how I'm setting up my shots. Hopefully you'll also be able to see why and when you ended up in my gunsights. :devil
I'm going to spend a little time reviewing some of the film I still have and probably post some more k4 flying.
-
Suns is the only other k4 stick that consistently gave me doubts at winning in a duel
:noid
-
but the G14 doesnt have as much power at the lower levels giving the K4 the ability to get out of hordes and gangs
IIRC they have near identical performance numbers below 10k...I prefer the G14 majority of the time. It will give a K4 all it can handle and then some. ;)
-
K-4 is faster at all altitudes. G-14 equals it in low altitude climb. Military power performance of K-4 is also much better than G-14.
-
The g14 has a little better natural turn ability than the k4 but its not as fast or as powerful.
The power to weight ratio of the k4 is higher than the g14 and the k4 is faster. The speed and climb charts make it look like they are very close. But in actual flying, the K4 will out perform all other 109's.
The main reason is the k4 is faster. This translates into ZOOM climb. The second reason is the power. At faster speed the k4 can escape up and control the seperation. At slow speeds the K4 can hang on the prop longer, stay in a controlled scissing stall and still go up and over.
I am more concerned with a 109G2 than the 109g14 when fighting them in a k4.
The G14 is a very good plane. The second fastest 109. But fellas it just aint no k4. Fly the g14 long enough and you will find your self thinking "If I was in a k4 I could have pulled that off"
The g14 offers 20mm and 30mm guns. If I had 20mm in the k4....ohhh the horrer..
-
I'm a fan of the g2 and the g14, I also like the K4 but its good to 'work your way up'. Each 109 version takes more attention to throttle management, flaps, etc... But rock on in the 109 :rock once you get it down, you'll own the skies.
-
The g14 has a little better natural turn ability than the k4 but its not as fast or as powerful.
The power to weight ratio of the k4 is higher than the g14 and the k4 is faster. The speed and climb charts make it look like they are very close. But in actual flying, the K4 will out perform all other 109's.
The main reason is the k4 is faster. This translates into ZOOM climb. The second reason is the power. At faster speed the k4 can escape up and control the seperation. At slow speeds the K4 can hang on the prop longer, stay in a controlled scissing stall and still go up and over.
I am more concerned with a 109G2 than the 109g14 when fighting them in a k4.
The G14 is a very good plane. The second fastest 109. But fellas it just aint no k4. Fly the g14 long enough and you will find your self thinking "If I was in a k4 I could have pulled that off"
The g14 offers 20mm and 30mm guns. If I had 20mm in the k4....ohhh the horrer..
You know when it comes to it, it's all about feel, kind of like the F4Us. Your choice which you like. I like the G14, can out turn a lot of things, even with gondies, and of course the gondies are amazing with the 30mm package :)
<S>
-
I'm not as good as some mentioned here,but look me up sometime,I'm ussually on after midnight CST time.
Have loads of films of me dueling many of the "best stiks",will try to gather them up and post em.
CRETON
-
I'm not as good as some mentioned here,but look me up sometime,I'm ussually on after midnight CST time.
Have loads of films of me dueling many of the "best stiks",will try to gather them up and post em.
CRETON
Where the heck have you been?
Flying as Creton these days? I will have to stay up late...
-
creton wooped my bellybutton this am. After i had a few lucky kills :D
will have to hit him up for some, same plane one on one :salute
-
I'm not as good as some mentioned here,but look me up sometime,I'm ussually on after midnight CST time.
Have loads of films of me dueling many of the "best stiks",will try to gather them up and post em.
CRETON
Some of the best duels i've had have been against you, and your 109K4 Creton... :aok
:salute
-
Say there Creton :) Can hardly wait for u to post ur films :aok
-
Yea,went on a couple year trip through Azeroth with my troll rogue,quit WOW last week and came back here.
Good fights this AM against Bruv.I've been flying the spits a lil bit,trying to get the feel back.
Yes indeed PDM,lots of good run ins
Yes,Vudak,I'm still flying under old cpid "CRETON".
I'm in Batfink DA squad,so look me up.I need someone to knock the rust off me,cant hit squat with a tater gun atm :D
<S> all
Creton
-
Can never throw out that Dedalos guy, saw him around a couple days ago. :)
-
I'm also interested in learning to fly the 109s better, specifically the K4.
What's the best way to learn? Films seem nice, but it's easy to miss a lot of details such as rudder, flaps, and throttle work. Are there some kind of general guidelines to learning?
-
I'm not as good as some mentioned here,but look me up sometime,I'm ussually on after midnight CST time.
Have loads of films of me dueling many of the "best stiks",will try to gather them up and post em.
CRETON
I thought u were not on anymore .... Also I always thought u were the best k-4 pilot... I have dueled u before although its been a couple.... Lets say the best k-4 pilot I dueled :salute
-
Some of the best duels i've had have been against you, and your 109K4 Creton... :aok
:salute
Never met him, already hate him:)
-
I'm by no means the best 109 pilot, but I will always dual you if you're interested. Oh yeah, don't worry, Creton, Sunsfan & Scotch kick my prettythang in the da, but that's how you learn.
-
But fellas it just aint no k4. Fly the g14 long enough and you will find your self thinking "If I was in a k4 I could have pulled that off"
I havent thought that yet. I know I have beaten several K4 sticks while in the G14...lost one or two as well...and I lost those due to my poor choices, not the plane.
-
I havent thought that yet. I know I have beaten several K4 sticks while in the G14...lost one or two as well...and I lost those due to my poor choices, not the plane.
Well then you haven't flown the k4 long enough. Or in the right situations....<agent slings beer around and acts tuff>
I like all the 109's. They are all good. But there is something special about the k4. I have tried to give the K4 up. I have tried to fly the F4 and the G2 and even did a tour in the G14. The first time I really started flying the g14 I remember thinking "why have I been flying that damed old k4...too much work"
Its just too much fun to give up the beast. Pulling the old stalling reversal out of the hat...that is what the K4 does.
-
Well then you haven't flown the k4 long enough. Or in the right situations...
Wrong on both accounts. I have plenty of time in the K4...more than I do the G14. I am not saying one is better than the other by any means...just that in my opinion, below 10k, they are more than comparable...given equal pilots, it will come down to their choices, not the performance of the plane because they that close in performance.
The one area I do like the speed of the K4 over the G14 is chasing down runners to force a fight.
-
So the G14's flight envelope isn't just a K4's with equal amounts of torque and power substracted?
-
Wrong on both accounts. I have plenty of time in the K4...more than I do the G14. I am not saying one is better than the other by any means...just that in my opinion, below 10k, they are more than comparable...given equal pilots, it will come down to their choices, not the performance of the plane because they that close in performance.
The one area I do like the speed of the K4 over the G14 is chasing down runners to force a fight.
LOL...just messing with you bud....hence the slinging beer around and acting tuff.
I hear ya about the g14. I suppose its preferance. But for me I can't get anywhere near the same performace out of a G14 at low and slow than I can in the K4
-
Just change tactics a bit...it works wonderfully low and slow as well.
I am not taking it serious by any means...
-
I take the G14 out more than the k4, as Im not to great with the 30mm. At first the G14 felt quite sluggish and unresponsive compared to the k4, but once I got use to it..I really enjoy it, But I find I go out with the gondalas quite alot, as they are fantastic for snapshots..that the single 20mm just dont seem to do the job.
-
xD i hate the 30mm so much, rather take a G14 w/ 20mm over 30mm any day =)
-
xD i hate the 30mm so much, rather take a G14 w/ 20mm over 30mm any day =)
Same, I really wish the K4 would have a 20mm option.
As it stands, I typically fly the G14 in an E-fighter role, staying fast, using the vertical a lot, and staying near corner velocity on my attack runs. The top end 109s are phenomenal at staying near corner velocity if you know how to handle them.
-
xD i hate the 30mm so much, rather take a G14 w/ 20mm over 30mm any day =)
Really? I had 510 kills in the k4 this tour. Don't think I can find a
reason to fly another plane. Just set the tater to 175 and you can't miss.
-
Really? I had 510 kills in the k4 this tour. Don't think I can find a
reason to fly another plane. Just set the tater to 175 and you can't miss.
I have my convergence set around there. The thing is, I take a lot of high deflection shots, whether they are tracking or snapshots. I rarely use the 30mm on these types of shots - feels like a waste of ammo with such a low probability of hit.
Perhaps I am being a bit gun shy with it? Then again, it's only 65 rounds...
-
Just use the force.. Don't consciously decide when to shoot. Just shoot when it feels right and move on to the next shot. Keep it an intuitive learning experience and you'll make progress, slowly but surely. You should only need to fire 1-3 rounds at a time.
-
Just use the force.. Don't consciously decide when to shoot. Just shoot when it feels right and move on to the next shot. Keep it an intuitive learning experience and you'll make progress, slowly but surely. You should only need to fire 1-3 rounds at a time.
Yes, that's good advice. You have to be in a non-reflective state of mind, yet maintaining complete awareness, to fire the 30mm effectively.
Still, even though I agree that the 30mm is an effective weapon, it is a far less flexible for engaging fighters than the 20mm.
-
You only need glancing snapshots with the 30mm... You can't do that with the 20mm. The 30mm allows you to keep your lines really smooth and E-efficient. You only need to intersect the target for long enough to shoot a couple of rounds. What you lose in flexibility of gunnery, you gain in ACM flexibility. I can easily say that flying the 152 has made my gunnery suffer.. What I've gotten used to is to let the ACM do all the work, and then just fire 2 rounds of 30 on an easy target (close and/or relatively still) for a kill.
-
You only need glancing snapshots with the 30mm... You can't do that with the 20mm. The 30mm allows you to keep your lines really smooth and E-efficient. You only need to intersect the target for long enough to shoot a couple of rounds. What you lose in flexibility of gunnery, you gain in ACM flexibility. I can easily say that flying the 152 has made my gunnery suffer.. What I've gotten used to is to let the ACM do all the work, and then just fire 2 rounds of 30 on an easy target (close and/or relatively still) for a kill.
Interesting. Yes, that is generally the type of shot I take with the 30mm - target is slow and I've got a 50-100 mph E advantage swooping down (or up - the climbing target is pretty easy too).
However, with this style, I feel like you get stuck either
1) Cherry picking
2) Waiting for your opponent to make a mistake like trying to climb Co-E with you
3) Flying a long ACM engagement waiting for your target to blow his E while you similarly get into a situation that's hard to fly away from. I've gotten into engagements where I get on my opponent's tail for 30+ seconds while he violently maneuvers and I follow him, but can't get the kill because taters aren't landing.
(Note: while I feel picking is certainly legitimate, I'd like to have a reasonable chance at ending a direct-confrontation quickly WITHOUT relying on my opponent doing something dumb)
Any advice given my concerns?
Separate question: would you advise taking medium or medium-high speed (speed referring to target speed) snapshots with the 30mm?
All in all, it's an interesting compromise - less flexibility in gunnery for better ACM. Seems great for 1v1, not so good for complex multi-plane engagements.
-
Just use the force.. Don't consciously decide when to shoot. Just shoot when it feels right and move on to the next shot. Keep it an intuitive learning experience and you'll make progress, slowly but surely. You should only need to fire 1-3 rounds at a time.
CC. That's why I fly tracers off. :aok
I find my firing instinct is far better than any attempt at "scientifically" determining where I should shoot by using tracers.
-
Well.. In my experience it's great for both 1v1 and multi engagements. Maybe better for the latter, because you just dispatch each one of em with one shot. And 1v1 suffers in the sense that the fight's over at first gun contact. YMMV
All speeds snapshots work with the 30mm. They're different animals (high speed is, mostly), but there's no reason I can think of to favor or disfavor any of them except for very high speed shots where the 30mm has a lot of trouble making its way thru the air, to the target.
What you want to do in 3) is relax and let the shot appear to you on its own. In any but the very best stick continuous evasive/stick stirring, there'll repeatedly be a moment where the target is at its maximum lateral movement across your windshield. Most of the time this means they're also showing their largest target profile. You want to sync yourself (ACM wise) to that rhythm (to varying degrees of commitment/risk of overshooting, depending on how soon you plan to connect the shot) and just let your hand pull the trigger at the right moment.
I have a couple of films illustrating a couple of different ways to do all the above in this thread..
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264033.0.html
It's not done with a 109, so the exact ACM doesn't perfectly apply, but the gunnery is pretty similar. The biggest difference is the 152's much more important rudder authority. If you have any other kinds of situations you'd like to see, just let me know.
-
Well.. In my experience it's great for both 1v1 and multi engagements. Maybe better for the latter, because you just dispatch each one of em with one shot. And 1v1 suffers in the sense that the fight's over at first gun contact. YMMV
Seems like I just need more work on my gunnery then. More practice with that instinctive feel on when to let a tater fly.
All speeds snapshots work with the 30mm. They're different animals (high speed is, mostly), but there's no reason I can think of to favor or disfavor any of them.
Limited ammo and reduced accuracy as compared to 20mms. I feel like I can ill afford to waste the rounds on a 1-2s second crossing shot. This is more specific to the 109, the 152 has about 50% more ammo and thus firing time with its tater.
What you want to do in 3) is relax and let the shot appear to you on its own. In any but the very best stick continuous evasive/stick stirring, there'll repeatedly be a moment where the target is at its maximum lateral movement across your windshield. Most of the time this means they're also showing their largest target profile. You want to sync yourself (ACM wise) to that rhythm (to varying degrees of commitment/risk of overshooting, depending on how soon you plan to connect the shot) and just let your hand pull the trigger at the right moment.
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about on this. For example, if the target starts a scissors, they will pass in front of your guns and with a well timed shot, you can end the fight right there. Of course, the risk of taking the shot is that you overshoot. I'm fairly good with these shots.
I have a couple of films illustrating a couple of different ways to do all the above in this thread..
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,264033.0.html
It's not done with a 109, so the exact ACM doesn't perfectly apply, but the gunnery is pretty similar. The biggest difference is the 152's much more important rudder authority. If you have any other kinds of situations you'd like to see, just let me know.
Wow you are a good shot. That typhie kill at the end ... I probably would not have even considered lobbing taters.
OK!! Kind of my question through all of this (though I didn't ask explicitly) really has been along the lines of:
The 30mm IS harder to use than 20s. Given that, can enough practice with the gunnery make up for the difference?
Subquestion: is there any "magic trick" that you use to get the rounds to land?
It seems like the answer to the first question is "YES most definitely" and the answer to the subquestion is "no", meaning I just need more practice. Ok... offline drone time.
-
Well, most of the time I RTB with ~20-30 30mm rounds in the 152. You can definitely use about as much/little ammo with the 109s as successively as in the 152. The difference in total kills when you RTB isn't that big, because the 109 can afford that much more knife fighting where the 152 just can't quite keep up. There's more films later in that thread.
Yes practice with the 30 can make up for the difference in ballistics, but like I said, you have to compensate for the 30's handicap with ACM. It's not a bad deal at all.
No, no magic trick.. Just find the convergence you're most comfortable with and practice till it's second nature.
-
I did some offline practice as well as flew against some computer opponents in the old 2.13 version (practice missions). I upped the ammo count so I would not be so gun shy - I wanted to really see the 30mm in action.
What I'm finding is that if I didn't take a shot with the 30mm, I probably would not have taken it with a 20mm either. I feel like I land less hits with the 30mm, but then again, it is also proportionally more lethal. So with practice, there is no real tradeoff except with very high closure/LOS rate shots (front quarter or beam snap shots) which are not the 109's strong suits anyways (unless you take the gondolas in a G model, which come with a hefty price in speed, acceleration, and maneuverability).
-
You can't learn from shots you don't take. Set the 30mm to 175 it helps a lot with snapshot because you don't have to lead as much. At 175 it shoots very flat. IMO you shouldn't be afraid to use all 65 rounds on one plane when your trying to learn. Dont spray and pray just shoot when you have a shot. Also record everything. This way you can see what worked and WHY. It's the best way to learn.
-
First I'd like to thank everybody for their input, even though this wasn't my thread to begin with :lol. It's helped me a lot in just a few days, I sometimes surprise myself with my 30mm gunnery.
Set the 30mm to 175 it helps a lot with snapshot because you don't have to lead as much. At 175 it shoots very flat.
Question: what about 150 or 200? I currently have it set to 150, does it make much difference?
-
Best way is to test it out yourself.. Use .target xxx, where xxx is the range in yards. The target will be north of you. You can reset or turn it off with .target 0
If you're shooting from very high speed on a slower target, your bullet drop will happen in slow motion. With regards to the target's range from you. This is only a problem if you start using longer convergence.
-
Best way is to test it out yourself.. Use .target xxx, where xxx is the range in yards. The target will be north of you. You can reset or turn it off with .target 0
If you're shooting from very high speed on a slower target, your bullet drop will happen in slow motion. With regards to the target's range from you. This is only a problem if you start using longer convergence.
I have tried a variety of convergence and target ranges. Interestingly enough, the convergence didn't seem to make that big of a difference (even from 150 to 600). Maybe my sense isn't fine tuned enough, that is why I'm asking you guys. Perhaps you see something or have experienced something that I'm missing.
Usually I would test this out by comparing the flight trajectories - but that's rather difficult given we don't have a very intuitive system to graph the trajectories. Yes tracers and yes film viewer, but the viewer is not easy to use.
On second thought I may try this when I have more time - using a plane relative view while autopilot's engaged and spraying 30mm rounds. As long as I can keep the views consistent, this may help visualize the bullet trajectory.
-
You could use the target to map bullet height thru a (e.g.) 500y trajectory. .target at 1, 100, 200, etc. Then graph it... If you really wanna be thorough about it :)
A plainly visible case is to take an Me262, set your convergence to the max, and shoot bursts while flying at 550+. You'll see the bullets strain to fly forward and stay (relatively) much longer in the climbing portion of their trajectory.
Like I said earlier though: It's a matter of preference. Do you want to have the 30mm shoot automatically higher so that it lands on the piper at range (mine is 375), or do you want to have the tater aimed manually (convergence set very short)? I prefer the former because it allows me to shoot all guns together on targets I absolutely need to kill in one burst with no hesitation/lead evaluation delay; and the only accomodation I need to take for the 375y tater convergence setting is to shoot slightly lower on short-range targets or high speed snapshots. With the taters set to very short convergence and aimed manually, you're pretty much removing the ability to shoot other guns together with the 30 (the 30 will always fall short at long range, or the other guns shoot a little too high at short range).
-
I have had my conv set at d200 for years. I have tried long D400+ and short D150. Several other threads have discussed trajectory of nose mounted cannon. All of it is true.
In the 109k4 and G14 firing 30mm rounds, there are two things that make your shot.
#1 - Your plane IS A GUN. Your not flying to lead and then tracking the rounds in like 50 cals. YOU ARE THE GUN. You must fly your plane into the gun solution. There is no saddling up for a tracking shot.
#2 - G LOAD, you must learn to fly to your target and prepare a low G loades shot. Any G's on the plane and you will miss. Hi G shots can be made but usually result in severe E loss or snap stalls and loss of position.
Use of rudder to sling the nose into the shot is useful but its not what makes the kill. It is the setup before that.
Moot said "let the ACM do the work". This is the essesance of 30mm gunnery. You must fly in a way that gives you INTERSECTING flight paths. If you do this correctly you get lots of shot and still maintain position.
Conv over D250 can result in actually firing ahead of the target. Its hard to believe but it is true. Counting on the high arc of the round to compensate for lack of lead is the wrong way to go about it.
-
Well.. when I say that there's convenience in 250y+ convergence on a nose 30mm, you gotta take it at face value. When you're shooting a target flying at an odd solution angle (e.g. that F6F fast snapshot film in the 152 thread), the vertical convergence on the 30mm (if you have it set to 375y like me) will do nothing but mess with your aim - you have to aim slightly lower in the vertical coordinate WRT to your gunsight which isn't intuitive at all WRT to everything else.
But IMO that's better than the tradeoff in trajectories that you pay for by having the 30 set to short range and (unless you have the other guns set to very short range too, for which I can't think of a good reason to) having to manually raise the aim as well as having the 30 not match the other gun's convergence.
Like I said.... It's really a matter of pilot preference. The tradeoffs on each of the two alternatives are just about equal.
-
Thanks guys, this was the type of insightful analysis I was looking for.
From what it sounds... I usually fly the type of ACM that you guys are talking about - intersecting flight path snapshots (usually at medium speed).
That said, I usually take my shots around 200 range (icon indication) and I would like to be able to shoot my guns in unison. In this case is it still useful to have 375 convergence, or would I be better served setting both the MGs and the 30 down to around 200 conv?
-
If you're shooting almost exclusively at 200y, the convergence doesn't make much difference except in small profile target, glancing shots. You'll have the tater flying a little high there, and that can make it fly right next (literally) to the edge of the target. The reason I have mine (all guns) set to 375 is so that I can most easily shoot the hardest shot (for me): dead six. I also like to have the reach on running targets with the 20mm, but the natural dispersion on the 20's makes it so that you're barely gaining anything from setting those further than 375-400 yards.
If you're flying a 109, then it's really not that hard to manage the slight upwards offset to nail a runner or long distance target (e.g. someone hanging at the top of his rope 500y away from you) with the 13mm set to 375. The lateral convergence is almost negligible too (cowl guns). And setting everything to 375 might not make much difference at all when shooting 200y targets. The best way to find out is to try it out youself :)
-
I have tried a variety of convergence and target ranges. Interestingly enough, the convergence didn't seem to make that big of a difference (even from 150 to 600). Maybe my sense isn't fine tuned enough, that is why I'm asking you guys. Perhaps you see something or have experienced something that I'm missing.
I think you need to realize that what doesn't look like much difference, or not enough difference to matter, may easily be due to the scale of the .target.
Hitting all of your shots in the "bullseye", or "10" ring isn't really good enough, because the center ring is 20ft in diameter, with each consecutive ring an additional 10ft on each side. So, the "9" ring is actually 40ft across. The back side of a typical fighter gets lost in a 40ft diameter circle, and doesn't even fill 1/2 of the center ring.
What looks like "a little low" in the center ring may actually mean shooting 4-5 feet under your target in the MA... Here's an F4U centered in the .target for size comparison. See how easy it would be to have what look like "good groups" completely miss the plane?
Almost all of these shots will miss!
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/ahss10.jpg)
Look, almost all are misses, again!
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/ahss9.jpg)
Size reference only, showing the full target.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/ahss7.jpg)
Finally! Lots of hits on this one!
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/ahss11.jpg)
-
That said, I usually take my shots around 200 range (icon indication) and I would like to be able to shoot my guns in unison. In this case is it still useful to have 375 convergence, or would I be better served setting both the MGs and the 30 down to around 200 conv?
What's the point of setting your convergence at all? Or knowing where it's set? If you set your convergence at 375, how do you know when you're 375yds from your target? The point of adjusting and/or knowing your convergence point is to give you a predictable firing distance to hit and do the most damage to your enemy.
It's not possible to know when you're 375 yards from your target in AH, unless you memorize the size of each of your opponents, and how they compare in size in your sights. The icons in the game won't tell you when you're 375 out.
The useful (IMO) enemy icons for gunnery in the game are D200, D400, and D600. Each icon range encompasses a span of 200yds, with the depicted distance being the CENTER of that span. So, D200 is the space between 100 and 299yds. D400 is anywhere between 300 and 499yds. D600 is anywhere between 500 and 699yds.
If you set your convergence at 375, how do you know you're 375yds from your target? You don't. You have to guess (and you may even get good at it), because 375 is "somewhere" around 1/2 way from when the icon distance switched from D400 and will switch to D200. It's not very predictable, since speed/closure rates will vary so much. 375 may be the perfect compromise in trajectory (I'm not saying that's true), but what good is it if you never know when your target is 375yds away?
So, how do you use the icons to give you a better reference of actual firing distance? There are a few "sweet-spot" distances that you can use, and actually know when you are very close to firing at your pre-set convergence distance. This maximizes the chances that you'll actually land a tight group on your target, or that you'll hit the target with one well-placed big-azz round. Using these sweet-spot convergence ranges, and firing at the correct time, takes the trajectory issue out of play for the most part, and let's you think more about properly timing the trigger-pull.
So, what are the sweet spots? They're the distance that one icon changes to the next icon distance. The icon will change from D400 to D200 (or vice versa) at 299 or 300yds. It will change from D600 to D400 at 499 or 500 yds. If you set your convergence to 300 or 500, and fire when the icon counter changes, it's ridiculous how easy it is to destroy a plane with a tiny burst. My normal is to set mine for 275, and while the icon says 400, I'm getting my aim fairly close. As soon as it switches to D200, I finalize my aim and fire, and I'll be firing at my opponent right around 250-275 yards. I don't use 500 for convergence, because from my testing I've found that the normal dispersal of the rounds at 600yds isn't really any worse with a 275 convergence setting than it is with a 600yd convergence setting, and for me, fighters out at D600 are too far away (and too small) for me to shoot at. 275 optimizes my effectiveness on fighters, but doesn't hurt my performance against bombers, which I'll fire at sooner (about D400 usually). In crossing shots (high deflection and speed), your chances of success are much higher against a closer, larger target with less required lead, which is another argument for a 275 setting vs a 475 or 500yd setting.
These guys have the "let the ACM do the work" idea just right. If you do that, and have your convergence set right, and learn to fire at convergence distances, then the actual firing part of the fight is quick, small, and over quickly. Winning the fight is more about winning the flight aspect, and it's just finalized with a brief shot.
-
I think you need to realize that what doesn't look like much difference, or not enough difference to matter, may easily be due to the scale of the .target.
True, and yes I'm misjudging the size of the target. However, I judge target groupings based on where I place my pipper versus where the round lands. In that sense, it doesn't look like much difference. In addition, there's the huge problem of the hit sprite size - the precision afforded by that is small.
Yes you can bring the target back up closer, but again what I really want to know isn't how good my gunnery was on the very center of the target, rather I'd like an idea of where my bullet landed wrt to my aim point.
Again why I asked for a second opinion instead of relying solely on my own.
-
The useful (IMO) enemy icons for gunnery in the game are D200, D400, and D600. Each icon range encompasses a span of 200yds, with the depicted distance being the CENTER of that span. So, D200 is the space between 100 and 299yds. D400 is anywhere between 300 and 499yds. D600 is anywhere between 500 and 699yds.
[...]
So, what are the sweet spots? They're the distance that one icon changes to the next icon distance. The icon will change from D400 to D200 (or vice versa) at 299 or 300yds. It will change from D600 to D400 at 499 or 500 yds. If you set your convergence to 300 or 500, and fire when the icon counter changes, it's ridiculous how easy it is to destroy a plane with a tiny burst. My normal is to set mine for 275, and while the icon says 400, I'm getting my aim fairly close.
I have always wondered about the distances. Now I know the switching points and that helps tremendously.
These guys have the "let the ACM do the work" idea just right. If you do that, and have your convergence set right, and learn to fire at convergence distances, then the actual firing part of the fight is quick, small, and over quickly. Winning the fight is more about winning the flight aspect, and it's just finalized with a brief shot.
This agrees with my experience thus far in the game. My best shots come from good setups. Usually my firing bursts are relatively short and they are usually lethal assuming they land. However, I've heard many times that the 30mm specifically was hard to aim and also lots of convergence advice without the detailed analysis which you guys have given me in this thread (and for that I greatly appreciate your help). Such a mindset and lack of sound information lead to a lot of frustration with the gun on my part.
Now I have something rather consistent to base my convergence and firing decisions off of. I can also now distinguish the component parts of any failures when I shoot. With all this, I have what I need to improve rapidly and somewhat scientifically.
Once again, I've much appreciated all the discussion. :salute
-
Edit-Never mind this post, I found the result I was looking for with my last test, and it was exagerated by being inverted, as it should be...
I was having trouble finding the "high" shot placement resulting from setting convergence very close.
Just because it helps display the scale of the .target, here's a B17 imposed on it. Look at all the room in the "10" ring for potential misses!
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/ahss1.jpg)
-
375 is my close guess to what 400 icon range translates to when you account for trigger delay on a closing target (most of my shots). :) And it's an old habit from years ago (~2000) when I'd tested MK108 and found that it wasn't worth setting convergence past 350-400 yards because of the MK108's terrible dispersion.
So like I was saying and Mtnman also said with a few differences, it's really something you have to fit to your flying, not the other way around. Especially when there's only one nose mounted gun that's paired with other guns whose ballistics are different. Over the years, there's two main categories that MK108 shooters fit in.. One will have the 108 set close and adjust for elevation manually, and the other sets it further out and manually lower their aim on close shots. Most of the ones I've talked to (never went out and surveyed, this is just from memory) who're in the second group are doing it so that all guns land together at that sweet spot range. The only significant disadvantage to this is that the MK108 will shoot measurably high (WRT your piper) on a target that's crossing you on your wings' plane while you're flying perpendicularily at the target at high speed.
edit - I've just tested offline on the .target, and there's no appreciable vertical offset at any shooting range from a 375y convergence setting on a 200y target. So either I've been doing it wrong all these years, or there really is a big difference between a relatively slow target and one that's flying at zero relative velocity.Such a mindset and lack of sound information lead to a lot of frustration with the gun on my part.
No amount of theory will replace practice.. You can have your piper perfectly on target, and have the 108 rounds fly around it because of dispersion.. Or have a very fast point blank snapshot on a target flying nose to tail across the exact center of your sight, and have the 108 fire just before and just after the target passes by. It's very frustrating, no doubt.
-
No amount of theory will replace practice..
How true!
The theory end of it is important too, though. Understanding the hows and whys of gunnery, and seeing concrete proof of that theory in practice is very helpful in formulating a logical plan of attack for "in the field" performance.
I spend a fair amount of time on the rifle range testing loads, sight-in distances, effect of wind, effect of sunlight on my sights, effect of different rest materials, etc, and couple that with knowledge from studying ballistic theory and the testing of others.
When it comes time for a shooting competition, or for hunting, my performance is better as a result of the combined practice, study of theory and test results, and an informed decision based on all that, as opposed to a "guess" when things aren't going the way I want them to go. It eliminates a lot of the "superstition" that can replace factual knowledge.
-
The back and forth between the two is what's vital. You can't load up with theory and expect to convert it into practical results right off the bat .. hehe :)
I'm trying to think of a way to conclusively determine if the vertical thing on the MK108 is really bogus or not. I can't believe I imagined it all this time..
-
Looks like I'm going to have a K-4 binge this month. Thanks guys. :aok
-
edit - I've just tested offline on the .target, and there's no appreciable vertical offset at any shooting range from a 375y convergence setting on a 200y target.
That "should" be a noticable advantage to nose-mounted guns vs wing-mounted guns, as well as the fact that in 175 yards you shouldn't be seeing "huge" trajectory issues, especially at reasonable range.
With a firearm, there are several advantages to getting the barrel as close to the line of sight as possible. With a centerfire rifle, having the scope mounted "high" and using rings that allow you to shoot using the open sights while looking under the scope isn't considered as desirable from a long-range accuracy view as mounting the scope as low/close to the barrel as possible.
The further from the line of sight, the more steep the bullet must rise to come through the target at the distance the weapon is sighted-in. The steeper angle exagerates the high/low aspect of shooting at a target that isn't at the sighted-in range. With a nose-mount, even if the round drops 4 feet in 400yds (which I doubt it does), that would mean that setting convergence at 400 would put the arc about 2 feet high at 200, which will still give a hit on a plane (it won't go so high as to go over the top of it, at any range). Shooting at longer range gives the intuitive result of a "low" hit.
The same gun, wing-mounted, will be set at a steeper angle to come through the pilots line of sight at 400 yards. The wing-mounts may be set as much as 5 feet below the pilots line-of-sight. That means at point-blank range, the bullets may be as much as 5 feet LOW, but at distances FURTHER than 400yds, the rounds will hit HIGH, because due to the exagerated angle, the rounds will still be coming UP through the line of sight! This is even more pronounced with flat-shooting MG rounds, like the .50's. Of course, eventually the rounds will fall back through the line-of sight, but that'll be quite a ways out there. This sets up a counter-intuitive issue where shooting close means shooting too low, and shooting too far may mean shooting too high. So, if the pilot compensates for a long-range target by aiming extra-high, where do his bullets go?
This is the effect I have trouble seeing in AH, but like I've already mentioned, the gunnery is hard enough as it is...
From an AH view, nose mounted guns put the barrel much closer to the line of sight than wing mounts do. Nose mounts have the barrel a few inches under the line of sight, while wing-mounts are several feet lower. Nose-mounted guns should be "more-forgiving" of firing at non-convergence distances. And we haven't even tossed in the side-crossing effect of wing-mounted guns...
-
The back and forth between the two is what's vital. You can't load up with theory and expect to convert it into practical results right off the bat .. hehe :)
I'm trying to think of a way to conclusively determine if the vertical thing on the MK108 is really bogus or not. I can't believe I imagined it all this time..
I agree. Theory gives your practice focus and something which you can measure your progress by. But as with anything where human judgment and motor skills come into play, practice is irreplaceable.
What's helped me the most here are the few pointers about the range transitions and the fact that I know my practice will pay off so I'm encouraged to stick with the gun. :salute
As far as the MK108 "no vertical offset" - that's what I was talking about when I said I didn't really see too much difference. Even at high range convergence settings, there wasn't much difference in bullet drop whether at close or long. It may just be psychological bias. There's a website with comparisons between the 20mms - the convergences seem more important in determining the horizontal crossing pattern than in setting bullet drop.
-
Yes, and that's a big problem for accurate shots with the tank turrets in the game..
I guess if we found the origin and final point of any AH bullet's curve, we could then calculate the exact ballistics of each gun and double-check them against the AH physics' .target at increments of 50 yards.. That'd be more reliable than the error margin from only practical tests inside the game (with joystck wobble, etc.). Then we could draw trajectory profiles for each convergence setting..
Boomerlu - The vertical thing... I know I saw it many times.. Maybe I'm only remembering vertical shots (where bullet drop from gravity doesn't happen). But I could swear I've had it happen on level targets too.
-
I've also seen situations where I have to aim below the target because the bullet is arcing up. That is why I was so confused about the ballistics :lol. Mostly this becomes an issue only for dead six shots.
Ironic that we find dead six shots more difficult than a deflection crossing shot. :salute
-
I've also seen situations where I have to aim below the target because the bullet is arcing up. That is why I was so confused about the ballistics :lol. Mostly this becomes an issue only for dead six shots.
Ironic that we find dead six shots more difficult than a deflection crossing shot. :salute
Are you sure you needed to aim low for that reason?
Being somewhat overly picky about my shooting, I've done a LOT of testing with the .target. I'll set convergence (for say 650, 300, or 150), and then fire at the target with it set at 50yd increments so I can see the 50yd incremental points of impact, and therefore have a decent idea of the trajectory of that bullet, with that round.
I take the "pilot" variable out of the picture by mapping the fire key to my keyboard, and then aiming at the target (fully zoomed in) using the auto-pilot. I aim at the target, and use slight taps of the rudder trim to move the sight L/R until centered, as well as regulate the throttle so the AoA (which differs depending on speed) moves the sight U/D, so I can center the sight in the target while flying "hands off" and also can fire "hands off".
Doing that, I'm convinced I should see times where it should definately be a requirement to aim low at certain distances, with certain guns, and with certain convergence settings. In practice, I have a very tough time correlating what I think I "should" find, with what I "do" find. From the aim-point and down, things seem fine. What I don't see is much aim-point and up difference. Certainly not enough to justify or require aiming low.
In-game, I see a scenario that does require aiming low, though, and it isn't due to the trajectory of the rounds. It's when you're "dead six" on a target, but slightly low (even if only 15 feet or so...). You now need to aim low to correctly lead your target, since from your low perspective his flight path appears to be slightly down (even if he's flying level). Aiming low here is actually aiming in front of him, it just appears to be aiming low... If you attribute this to bullet trajectory, it could be confusing.
This is like firing on a bird with a shotgun, that has flown directly overhead and is flying directly away. To hit it, I need to aim under it, which is actually in front of it... And, in this case as well, it's aiming low for proper lead, not due to the trajectory of the shot.
-
Mtnman - it COULD have been the flight path. For me these are vague memories. Most of my combat shots with the gun (the ones I remember) tend to be glancing snapshots from 30 degrees or so angle off.
Also, that sounds like very good methodology to plot bullet trajectory. You should publish a paper :aok. What you're saying with your experience is: the scientific methodology reveals trajectories where the bullet path does "arc up", but combat experience is saying that you rarely need to compensate for the arc via aim. Is that accurate?
After flying some practice scenarios with the 30mm, I'm becoming more convinced that there's less wrong with the gun than I originally thought. More a psychological thing on my part.
-
Maybe I'm only remembering vertical shots (where bullet drop from gravity doesn't happen). But I could swear I've had it happen on level targets too.
Other "scary" things should happen here, and maybe they do. It's very hard to test, since we can't put the .target above us... These drawings are of the effect of vertical shots with wing-mounted guns, but illustrate the point. On a pure vertical shot upward, percieved trajectory of the round should REVERSE! This is a case where aiming low should be a must! Firing straight down should also require aiming low, for the reason you mention.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Firingstraightup.jpg)
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Firingstraightdown.jpg)
Firing inverted? Another time where trajectory issues get magnified, to the point where with a 300yd convergence, hitting a target 300yds away should be practically impossible by aiming right at it... Another instance of "reversed" trajectory, and much more exagerated due to gravity.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/MGonlyInverted.jpg)
And what about firing while banked? This chart shows that pretty well, look at the BOTTOM row of pictures.
(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m309/Mtnman_03/Copyofp-51b-guns.jpg)
-
What you're saying with your experience is: the scientific methodology reveals trajectories where the bullet path does "arc up", but combat experience is saying that you rarely need to compensate for the arc via aim. Is that accurate?
Yup, for all practical purposes. I'd refine that to say you don't need to worry about the arc "above the line of sight (or aim)". You do, or course, need to think about aiming high for longer shots...
Edit- and I'm not saying thought and effort shouldn't go into the horizontal aspects of setting convergence, especially for wing-mounts.
-
Yup, for all practical purposes. I'd refine that to say you don't need to worry about the arc "above the line of sight (or aim)". You do, or course, need to think about aiming high for longer shots...
Right, I could have been more specific, but you caught my drift. :salute
-
Another test that may be eye-opening on the trajectory "non-issue" is to do this-
Turn on tracers, go into the TA, and engage auto-level. Use F3 or F5 (I don't remember which one) and zoom way out. Move your viewpoint to the side of your plane, and fire the guns. The tracers may/may not follow the exact path of the rest of the bullets, but should be pretty close... See how flat they shoot? Keep in mind, zoomed out, you won't see much drop, because a 5 foot drop may be only 1/32 of an inch or so from the zoomed-out perspective.
-
Another test that may be eye-opening on the trajectory "non-issue" is to do this-
Turn on tracers, go into the TA, and engage auto-level. Use F3 or F5 (I don't remember which one) and zoom way out. Move your viewpoint to the side of your plane, and fire the guns. The tracers may/may not follow the exact path of the rest of the bullets, but should be pretty close... See how flat they shoot?
Good tip - I just tried it (F5 is the right key). This was the kind of test I was going to try originally - might have fallen flat if I hadn't tried using the F5 view.
Doing this, I see the main difference in ballistics isn't so much bullet drop/arc as it is bullet speed. The MK108's bullet speed feels like around half that of the 13mm machine guns. The bullet arc issue once again seems most important for the dead six shot - where the small profile of the target requires higher accuracy. Otherwise, the arc seems like it's at most around 1.5x the height of the plane.
-
Good tip - I just tried it (F5 is the right key). This was the kind of test I was going to try originally - might have fallen flat if I hadn't tried using the F5 view.
Doing this, I see the main difference in ballistics isn't so much bullet drop/arc as it is bullet speed. The MK108's bullet speed feels like around half that of the 13mm machine guns. The bullet arc issue once again seems most important for the dead six shot - where the small profile of the target requires higher accuracy. Otherwise, the arc seems like it's at most around 1.5x the height of the plane.
Bullet speed is driving the bullet drop. Bullet drop is mostly about time. The quicker it gets to it's target, the less it drops. If it takes twice as long for the cannon round to get to the target, then it has twice as long to fall, so will fall further (but maybe not exactly twice as far- it'll be close, though).
For example, I can drop one of my .75 cal musket balls, and a .32 cal ball at the same time- they both hit the ground at the same time, too. But the .75 shoots lower at 100yds. Why? Because it flies slower, so has a longer time to fall before hitting the target. I can also drop one of my 325gr .54 balls at the same time as one of my 400gr .54 conical projectiles. Both hit the ground at the same time... But here's the kicker! The heavier conical flies "flatter" than the lighter ball! Why? The ball leaves the muzzle at a higher FPS, but slows quicker, due to drag. The heavier conical starts out slower, but retains speed better, so actually takes less time to reach the target, therefore has less time to fall! They both actually fall at about hte same speed- time is the deciding factor.
109 ballistics- The MG's differ significantly in velocity over the cannons (CR's). Therefore they take different times to reach a target. For ease of description, lets say the MG's fly twice as fast as the CR's. What does that mean on a dead six shot? Not much, if the convergence is "close enough", because the dead six shot appears almost stationary. Two rounds, one from the MG and one from the CR, will both hit it.
What about on crossing shots? Well, here it's a different story! If an MG and the cannon fire rounds at the same time, it's only possible for one of them to hit the target! Not both!
Why? Time again...
If the MG and CR hit the exact same spot, but do it at different times, on a crossing shot, only one of them can hit. If the aim/lead is correct for the MG, and it hits its target, the CR will be too late! The target will be gone! If the aim/lead is correct for the CR, the MG will pass through the air in front of the target, because it's too fast/early...
In reality, the speed on the CR probably isn't 1/2 the speed of the MG, but on a crossing shot on a plane flying 200mph (which is about 300 FPS), a difference of impact time of only 1/4 second is still a difference where the MG hits, and the CR passes 75 feet behind the target...
If you lead correctly for the MG, the CR's are wasted/useless. If you aim correctly for the CR, the MG's are useless (on crossing shots).
Now, if we add in the effects of banking your plane before you fire, and the fact that even pulling slight G's messes things up royally, and that you're probably firing on an upward or downward slant, is it any wonder the average hit% in AH is so low?
-
Bullet speed is driving the bullet drop. Bullet drop is mostly about time. The quicker it gets to it's target, the less it drops. If it takes twice as long for the cannon round to get to the target, then it has twice as long to fall, so will fall further (but maybe not exactly twice as far- it'll be close, though).
Actually, the bullet drop scales as 1/2 g t^2 if we are going to be technical here.
If you lead correctly for the MG, the CR's are wasted/useless. If you aim correctly for the CR, the MG's are useless (on crossing shots).
Then is there any point in firing the MG and CRs together on a 109 (besides in a situation where you must absolutely kill the target and don't care about wasting ammo)? If the MGs are to hit, the CR would be wasted. If the CR were to hit, the MG would be wasted. Seems the firing windows for each are entirely different on snapshots.
-
Actually, the bullet drop scales as 1/2 g t^2 if we are going to be technical here.
Then is there any point in firing the MG and CRs together on a 109 (besides in a situation where you must absolutely kill the target and don't care about wasting ammo)? If the MGs are to hit, the CR would be wasted. If the CR were to hit, the MG would be wasted. Seems the firing windows for each are entirely different on snapshots.
I'm just a long-haired hippy-type redneck, so try to avoid the formula's, if possible, hehe! I opted for taking French instead of math in school!
I think you've got the firing window on snapshots idea. What's the point of firing both? Maybe to maximize chances of any hit? Got me...
Of course, there are the differing rates of fire to contend with as well. Are the CR's and the MG's leaving the barrel at the same time? (Timed to fire through the prop). Maybe as the CR hits it's target, an MG round fired at a later time also hits the same target at the same basic time? We're looking at streams of bullets, rather than at single-fire weapons, after all.
Maybe the aspects of firing while in any but a level position, on a fairly stationary target are too hard to allow for, so they just go with a happy compromise?
-
The only time I fire the MG is when the target is 400 or more out and I need him to turn. People do stupid things when they are under fire. When it's time for a kill shot or deflection shot I only shot the 30mm.
-
I'm just a long-haired hippy-type redneck, so try to avoid the formula's, if possible, hehe! I opted for taking French instead of math in school!
Well met sir. I actually went to school with plenty of hippy-rednecks who were good at math :lol. You probably won't meet a stranger combination of characteristics than me though - Asian Physicist/Rockstar (got a ring in each ear) with a touch of country from growing up in TX. My parents said "son, you gotta learn an instrument" so I said "HEY! How about electric guitar?" :D
I joke with the AH folks that I turned to physics after I found out I couldn't fly jets because I'm nearsighted (funny thing - I don't fly AH unless I have my contacts on).
Anyways, on to business...
Maybe as the CR hits it's target, an MG round fired at a later time also hits the same target at the same basic time? We're looking at streams of bullets, rather than at single-fire weapons, after all.
True, but after thinking about it - I'd rather fire just one or the other (CR only or MG only) on those snapshots. MG bursts tend to be longer than MK108 bursts, so there's a lot of waste there.
I'm agreeing with Madkow here - MG for dead six chase shots to get him to turn (or if you get lucky the MG can do critical damage) and CR for the kill shot.
Still, as we're talking about 109s here, there isn't any reason NOT to set the convergences to the same value (between MG and CR). The MG has good enough ballistics that it's no hassle to manually adjust on those longer shots. And in case you actually DO want to fire the two guns together, you'll have everything set up to converge properly.
-
I think your right, there's probably no real need/benefit to set the guns for differing convergences.
But, I can speculate that setting the CR for a much further convergence may actually be beneficial. This would appear to be a way to increase the lead of the cannons over the MG's mechanically, for a banking snapshot. If this would work, I'd set my MG's for about 275, and the cannons for 650(?). From what I've seen with the .target testing, this still wouldn't result in the CR's going over closer targets. I could be wrong.
As far as practical experience, I have none to speak of with planes that use both MG and CR. All of the planes I fly regularly have 6x .50's. One of them has 4x20mm. Given the choice, I like the 6x .50 package best, because I like the high rate of fire.
-
But, I can speculate that setting the CR for a much further convergence may actually be beneficial. This would appear to be a way to increase the lead of the cannons over the MG's mechanically, for a banking snapshot. If this would work, I'd set my MG's for about 275, and the cannons for 650(?). From what I've seen with the .target testing, this still wouldn't result in the CR's going over closer targets. I could be wrong.
I've played with this idea in my head. If the gun fires higher, then I get more lead! However, with the style I fly and the guns solutions I typically get, I predetermine lead before I fire the shot so this wouldn't be that much of an advantage. This would probably be better for turn-fighters who could use that extra few angles.
As far as practical experience, I have none to speak of with planes that use both MG and CR. All of the planes I fly regularly have 6x .50's. One of them has 4x20mm. Given the choice, I like the 6x .50 package best, because I like the high rate of fire.
Dedicated to American birds I see? I tend not to find too much ballistics difference between 20mm and MGs, the big difference and hassle comes with the 30mm. Again with everything we've discussed so far, it appears that it's not really best to fire 30mm and MG together anyways so we don't have to deal with competing ballistics. Rather we just have two different set of ballistics, each for a different role.
-
I agree!
American birds? Yup, but actually I don't really have any interest in any of the the planes in AH other than the F4U, the B17, and the B25. I find the rest to be too goofy-lookin' to interest me, although the P51 isn't terrible.
-
Just observing: I've only seen the 6x50 cal package on American planes and going off that I guessed that the 4x20mm was the C Hog. To each his own. I've tried out a lot of the planes in AH, but I keep coming back to the 109s.
-
See if this helps at all Boomerlu.. Its about 10 or so kills. You can see how I only fire the MG to get them to turn and then kill them with the 30mm..
http://www.mediafire.com/file/zzmjyzmwjkz/K4.ahf
-
See if this helps at all Boomerlu.. Its about 10 or so kills. You can see how I only fire the MG to get them to turn and then kill them with the 30mm..
http://www.mediafire.com/file/zzmjyzmwjkz/K4.ahf
I get the first few kills, then AHFV crashes afterwards :(. Oh well, I get your point, I'm starting to use my guns in a similar fashion now. Taters are starting to land :D.