Friday 2010-04-09 Discussion Thread

[nearmiss]

Why don't you just send Oleg or Luthier a PM message. I don't think either of them will bite you.

[AndyJWest]

Germans actually knew what flush riveting meant...

Well, if I was being really picky (), I'd suggest that if a rivet was actually 'flush', ideally you wouldn't be able to see it. I suspect that most airframe rivets tend to become more prominent over time, but does it really matter? If you are close enough to the Dornier to see the rivets, you are probably about to collide with it anyway. I'd say that what a plane looked like from 300 yards was more important.

Eye candy is good, but not at the expense of realism in other things.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Well sorry, but that bump map is ridiculous. Germans actually knew what flush riveting meant and any odd real picture of a Dornier 17 or 215 will show you that.

oleg's rivets look perfectly fine

just look on the right hand side of the 1e picture you posted yourself, and you will observe the rivets in some sections of the plane really stand out. the parts of the plane where you cant see the rivets as obvious has mostly to do with the angle that section of the wing/fuselage is looked at (AND the fact you posted a scanned picture of a very low resolution aged photograph )

if you then look closely at oleg's plane, you will see the rivets in some part of the aircraft really seem to stand out, and in others they are almost invisible, it all has to do with the angle you look at the surfaces, how close you are, and the lighting (and image resolution of course)

i suspect are you one of those people who believes that 100 yrs ago the people in the early cinema reels actually walked in that funny accelerated matter in real life as well all the time

[zapatista]

on a more cheerful note, is anybody here keeping an eye on the russian forums that oleg posts updates in ? there might be some other pics/vids we havnt seen there

/says i hopefully

[BLR_Tonin_fr]

Nice one Foo'bar... Got me.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think the .303's are porked!

All the bullet holes in the 17 are round, which means the .303 rounds were all fired at 90 degrees, Now unless the Dornier was stationary the holes should be oval.

Now the 175 grain .303 round is 31mm in length and travels at about 2445 foot per second (at the muzzle) which works out at about 745725mm per second, so it takes about 0.000042 of a second to travel the 31mm from the tip of the bullet to its butt!

Now lets say the Dornier is traveling at 300km/h thats about 83333mm per second

So in the 0.000042 seconds it takes the bullet to travel the 31mm the plane will have traveled about 3.5mm, so the bullet hole from the .303 round should be an oval about 7.9mmx11.4mm.

The graphical representation of the said bullet holes is porked Q.E.D

Time for another beer!

Cheers!

{ All simple mathematical an logical (and spelling) errors a proudly of my own making! }

[Erkki]

Whats this then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfa578J4-Jk

[DK-nme]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I think the .303's are porked!

All the bullet holes in the 17 are round, which means the .303 rounds were all fired at 90 degrees, Now unless the Dornier was stationary the holes should be oval.

Now the 175 grain .303 round is 31mm in length and travels at about 2445 foot per second (at the muzzle) which works out at about 745725mm per second, so it takes about 0.000042 of a second to travel the 31mm from the tip of the bullet to its butt!

Now lets say the Dornier is traveling at 300km/h thats about 83333mm per second

So in the 0.000042 seconds it takes the bullet to travel the 31mm the plane will have traveled about 3.5mm, so the bullet hole from the .303 round should be an oval about 7.9mmx11.4mm.

Nonsens. The angle of attack is the only factor, that has anything to do with the form of a bullet hole - or did I just miss something (like this being for fun?)


DK-nme

[DK-nme]

Originally Posted by Erkki

Whats this then?

Is that from the movie "The german"?


DK-nme

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by DK-nme

Nonsens. The angle of attack is the only factor, that has anything to do with the form of a bullet hole - or did I just miss something (like this being for fun?)


DK-nme

Yes it is for fun but in some weird wisted way it makes sense.

The the aircraft and the bullet have different vectors. It takes time for the bullet to pass through the skin of the aircraft. During that time the aircraft moves (about 3.5mm from my rough calculations). Therefore due to the momentum of the bullet and its physical properties that make it want to continue on its path, the holes should not be round.

What I did not factor into my calculations were the acceleration imparted by the skin of the aircraft onto the bullet, nor the fact that the .303 bullet was designed deform and tumble after impact to impart it's energy to it's target, both of which goes towards my original statement.

It's times like these we need Raaid to explain things on this forum!!!!!

Cheers!