Sway while firing guns

Riceball · #1 09-19-2009, 03:18 PM

I posted this on the dev forum and thought it may be a good topic here:

Did the aircraft's attitude really change that much when firing the guns? If I was the designer of a fighter, that would be the #1 problem to solve. And if you watch enough gun camera footage they don't seem to sway side to side. If it looks that way, that's just the pilot working the rudder.

But, I've never spoken to a WW2 fighter pilot so I may be way off base.

Kamak86 · #2 09-19-2009, 03:38 PM

It varies from plane to plane...the 109G vs the 109K for example...the G is all over the place but the K does not....also it varies because of the weapons being used... .303(spit) will not kick as much as a 108 (109g)

FOZ_1983 · #3 09-19-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamak86

It varies from plane to plane...the 109G vs the 109K for example...the G is all over the place but the K does not....also it varies because of the weapons being used... .303(spit) will not kick as much as a 108 (109g)

and then you have the same weapons working differently, for example the .303

works better in the hurricane than the spit, due the thicker wing of the hurricane making it a better gun platform than the spit.

Voyager · #4 09-19-2009, 08:44 PM

There is also side area to consider. The Go-229, for example, has no vertial surface at all, and in the IL-2 1946 version, was fitted with MK103's (the 180's bigger brother). You start firing, and you're going everywhere.

Gun mounting is also a factor. The Fw-190A with the MK103 wing pods has some real issues with fire drift. Not only is it firing a big round at a high velocity, the pods are sort of flexible, and tended to wobble and flex when the gun is fired. Not only are you gettng asyncronous impulses, you're getting them from randomized vectors too! Those things were widely loathed.

Harry Voyager

Ancient Seraph · #5 09-19-2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riceball

If I was the designer of a fighter, that would be the #1 problem to solve.

I think my #1 would be out-manouvring every other plane out there. It would be more usefull to be able to get on someone's six and then have to burst carefully then to have no recoil at all, but the turning radius of a B17.
Problem with designing an aircraft is that there are a lot of factors involved, and I think I'd put recoil relatively low on the list.

Riceball · #6 09-20-2009, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancient Seraph

I think my #1 would be out-manouvring every other plane out there. It would be more usefull to be able to get on someone's six and then have to burst carefully then to have no recoil at all, but the turning radius of a B17.
Problem with designing an aircraft is that there are a lot of factors involved, and I think I'd put recoil relatively low on the list.

I think you took that sentence a little too literally.

mattd27 · #7 09-20-2009, 02:46 AM

IMO the Yak-9 has some of the worst recoil in BoP. You've got to be sure you have the perfect shot first, or you'll get your aim thrown way off.

PantherAttack2 · #8 09-20-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattd27

IMO the Yak-9 has some of the worst recoil in BoP. You've got to be sure you have the perfect shot first, or you'll get your aim thrown way off.

Yeah... I can't believe how horrible it's recoil is. It's practically useless unless you are a perfect shot.

Riceball · #9 09-20-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PantherAttack2

Yeah... I can't believe how horrible it's recoil is. It's practically useless unless you are a perfect shot.

That's what I mean. You would think there would be an easy way to solve that.

Say a plane has four MGs. You set guns 1$3 to fire at the same time. And 2&4 fire at the same time. Problem solved. No?