fighters guns, a must read.

All right Pikkot, I must have overlooked this fragment. I'm sorry Allsop.

 

that bike is a killer-men, director of a important spanish magazine about bikes died doing a test zx-10r vs Evo VIII

but i saw from close and it s a beauty

 

Edited: double post.

 

Nice

Hope you enjoy your time over here, and let me know if your ever going to venture up to Scotland.

-glas-

 

I'm pretty sure I'll visit Scotland too. My wife's best friend comes to Scotland in October this year so we are certainly going to travel up and down Great Britain to visit her from time to time

 

Actually heavy bullet with same starting velocity as smaller one will hold it's momentum better. Fast and small cartridge slows down fast. Where as fast and heavy catridge maintains it's velocity much better. For extreme example look at railway guns off ww2 with range of over 100km. Now how fast should .22 cartridge be to gain such distances?

 

But once again, your forgetting mass, that its upward distance is hindered by how gravity works on the mass of the object, and how fast a smaller object looses spead because with the smaller mass it has alot less potential energy. I know aircraft are fleshy beings, but I still think that the point remains firm that a slower shell "once again the fps difference is something like 1/8 faster or slower or a figure like that" will lead to more damage as when you refer to a "solid" object your are incorect, heres why. You are refering to the plane as a whole, and while the individual parts excluding petrol, hydrolic fluid, oil, ext, the plane only has layers of solid objects, its not like shooting a solid wall of metal, there is alot of things that can happen in that open space in the wings and fuselage.

 

While you're having your mind storm, allsop, explain me this. Why in the hell engineers ever invented bigger than .50 cal guns to the planes in the first place? Shouldn't they've invented a .22 cal bullet in one inch shell (giving the bullet muzzle velocity somewhere near the speed of light ) . That and give a exact range from where to shoot so that bullet looses it's energy just enough to penetrate wing but not to go through it? Could it be that bigger guns are more effective? Hell, maybe they even do more damage....

"I know aircraft are fleshy beings, but I still think that the point remains firm that a slower shell "once again the fps difference is something like 1/8 faster or slower or a figure like that" will lead to more damage as when you refer to a "solid" object your are incorect, heres why."

Could you pls clarify this to me since I don't have a slightest idea what you're talking about (fleshy? yeah,right)

Since we don't need to have any facts to prove our claims (well, maybe just a word from friend, cause he's always right or "gut" feeling) I can make mine...

Bigger bullet, that goes faster is more lethal than lighter slower one. Reason: It's not so shy where it hits. It can penetrate wing, engine block, wall of a house or 1,5 m of hardened snow. (at least 7,62mm russian catridge can, AFAIK Nato 5,56mm can't)

airfax

(I think this was the longest post I've ever done, but don't worry, I'll retard back to link exchange after this )

 

Well Allsop... Back in the "old days" most projectiles were made from steel, lead and/or tungsten-based alloys, the latter being used in small amounts in certain German AP bullets. Nowadays most projectiles fired from cannons are made of depleted uranium, pure tungsten or other highly refrative metals and usually in conjuction with so-called "sabots".

Put differently: a WWII-era projectile will penetrate, but disintegrate in the process. In fact, modern day AAA fires special "fragmentation" rounds which look a lot like higher-velocity WWII-rounds!

Here are two different "Chains of Events" which (I hope) will demonstrate the difference between a WWII fast and small round and a WWII slow and large round:

- The small round is fired at a high velocity. It impacts the plane's skin and penetrates. In most cases - due to the lower quality of the metal used in these projectiles, compared to modern-day projectiles - the projectile exits the plane's skin in pieces, tumbling or completely flattened. When the round (or its debris) impacts again - this time on internal structures as bulkheads, engines and gearboxes - the tilt or irregular shape of the fragment(s) ensure all kinetic energy is released upon the target. The round will NOT penetrate again, not even if it hits the plane's skin on the far end. It'll ricochet and break up, causing massive damage to sensetive targets.
- The large and fast round. Often, a round like this will fail to penetrate even a 2 mm layer of aluminium. Even IF it were to penetrate, the explosive charge (a large round is always almost HE) will detonate prior to penetration. As such, the round will cause a weak spot in the place it hits, then detonate and blow a hole. This is not as efficient as it sounds, as the Germans found out in the beginning of WWII. The low-velocity MG-FF was swiftly changed to the much faster (yet less potent in HE-content) MG151.

Does this make things a bit clearer, Allsop?

 

Potential energy has nothing to loosing speed as long at is not depends on speed. Kinetic energy depends on mass. Loosing of kinecit energy depends on loosing speed, loosing speed depend on relationship between drag(speed) and mass. Lighter fast bullet looses energy faster then big and slow. simple.

Could you please don't make mistakes when typing. It makes problems to read that. I know I make too but I'm not native speaker.

 

I read and article somewhere about UNS post war study which said that in .50cal the only actually effective ammo type was API and I.

I doubt anything else than cannon HE shell would do "massive damage" when puncturing the wing. Because expanding gasses causing overpressure would blow the skin away and wing would lose some of its lift + gain drag. MG rounds would just puch several holes without doing anything else unless hitting directly guns, ammunition, fuels, engine, radiator, oil lines, oil tank, oxygen tank or pilot. And thats why mgs were usually aimed at nose from slight angles. Or against zekes just sprayed and hoped hitting some in wingroots. Thats how USN WW2 guncams look like...lots of lead in air and then burst of flame from wingroot. I've seen atleast 10 zekes go down this way. ..but not yet one losing wing to machine gun fire.

So in wing unless hit to fuel tank - i dont believe even 50 direct 50cal hits would be enough to seriously hurt a fighter plane. Those holes just arent fatal and there isn't usually anything to effectively damage with kinetic energy inside the wings. Actually i've yet to see a guncam where wing would be ripped off by anything else than fuel tank fire.

Whatever..im just babbling something since nothing better to do.

here's fun pic. Sometimes even 40mm hit wasnt enough.

 

where is pic?

 

Here some other pictures of bombers which landed despite extreme heavy hits (including damage because of ramming fighters)

http://members.tripod.com/kg51edelweiss/id269.htm

 

The main reasion a bigger shell does more damage to aircraft is because the "cannon" usually was explosive, plus, as I mentioned earlier, you are now confusing the two topics. I was compairing velocity, but then I said velocity was almost irellevant as every country had a slightly differnent bullet calliber or MM. 7mm/7.62mm/.303 cal. And so each of the bullets "mass" would totally thow off any test results for velocity and damage. Plus, If you look to the charts, most cannons fire much slower in FPS and RPS but do the damage as a bigger hole has more effect on aerodynamics. But then the conversation turned twords internal damage. There are to many different topics going on to keep whats what strait.

So can we just agree that since no country was really using firearms that were identical in construction, or aircraft that combated each other, the conversation pretaining to WW2 aircraft is irelevent unless we get a few of each and shoot the all up and record data.

My main suport that drives me on with this conversation is my new weapon love. Ive always had a .22 riffle and a sport .22 handgun since I was 13. Well now a neighbor of mine has just lead me to find .22 hollow points! I dont think a melon will ever make it to the dinner table again. It is so cool to see a clean hole going in, then the entire back side of the thing missing!.......godbless god for making guns and the gun tree

 

Illo, I can get picture of p51 with hole in wing so big that if you look from above you can see pilot who is standing under wing, made by flak shrapnel.

ok, now we are circling like shit in a closet, could we finish this thread? The One has his opinion. All other have their.

 

If we talk about slow projectiles, here is an EasyJet B737 after having flown through a hail storm. This evening I'm flying to England and I chose EasyJet airlines as their pilots are famous for braving thunderstorms ;-). If I have relevant experience I won't hesitate to post the results of the RL tests ;-))

 

Well figure the hail isnt falling more than 150 fps downward....but a jet going something like say....atleast 500 m.p.h? say that? You get something traveling a speed not exceeding that of a high velocity bullet. Right...either way, thats some impressive damage.

 

terve illo, well usually american planes had a mix of rounds when fired to cover all practical possibilitys. ap, he, and incendary. also the high power of .50's perhaps going through a wing from say its top or bottom view may just make alot of holes, but enough with a good burst becomes a cheese grater therfore weakening it structurally. also if .50's from a head on or zero deflection dead 6 (or resonable rear quarter shot with the flat surface of the enemys wing) shot just may rip through entire skin surface length wise. this along and especially if the con receiving the fire pulls negative or positive g's could very well allow it to fail structurally. lets say snap or bend off completely.

bullet

P.S. great pic, now that is amazing <S>

 

Here a scaring picture of an iranian F-5E Tiger during Iran/Iraq war. It got a severe hit in rear part, but returned and landed somehow in homebase.

 

imho right part of vator is ok, so this is possible to return in f5. I'm courious what would do fly-by-vire system is such situation.