On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 20:00:08 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:15:54 +0100, T i m wrote:

I would imagine a fighter to fighter dogfight to be fairly chaotic, no
matter how well they might have rehearsed in the training room or
practiced in the sky.

Having had a couple of fast jets practice a dogfight over us a year
so back it's mighty impressive and very noisy.

Wow, that must have been cool!

I like running and racing RC boats and cars and whilst I have run RC
planes, I find that compared with cars and boats, all you are
seemingly doing (especially with anything 'fast') is bringing it back.

An RC quadcopter is probably the most enjoyable because you can (and I
do) fly them indoors, so you can enjoy it in close-up-detail for the
entire flight.

So, with a fast jet (or even a Hawk trainer), I would imagine with a
true fixed machine gun type dogfight, most of the time would be taken
up getting back onto the opposition, rather than pulling the trigger?

In complete contrast to poking your target acquisition radar on top of
your helicopter over a ridge, pressing the button and being on your
way before the (multiple) targets are hit.

Cheers, T i m

In message , T i m
writes
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 17:20:15 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

300mph = 440 feet per second. 50 yds would be covered in approx 1/3
second. You'd hit the wreckage

not if you were so to speak raking...and machine guns don't leave
wreckage..,you should see the gun camera footage of V1s and cannon fire.

It depends if the hit the tank / munitions or not.

Nope you don't want to be right behind - remember he is doing 300 mph as
well. so the wreckage iff any has some momentum

But far worse aerodynamics than an aeroplane in one piece.

But yes, if you hit the pilot then the plane just changes shape on the
ground. ;-(

Various spent bullets and cartridge casings are in my collection of
*stuff found on the farm" by metal detectorists over the years.

What I take to be .303 rounds and casings are tiny compared to a 0.5"
bullet, sadly no case.

Musket balls a plenty! This must once have been a very dangerous place!

--
Tim Lamb

On 11/07/2020 08:02, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation needed
to prove that?

It seems the guns were aimed to coincide at a range of 250 yards. 250
yards seems awfully distant to me, what they show of the films of the
time, it seems much less than 250 yards, maybe as little as 50 yards,
unless the used telephoto lens?

Article was OK but finally watched the broadcast on iPlayer: don't
bother, no real information in it.

You get a glimpse of one plot with two curves on it (for different
"spreads", I think). No insight at all into the calculations.

A few standard bits of archive footage and girly presenter got a ride in
the two seater Spitfire.

They did suggest they were doing multiplications and divisions with a
hand-powered "Facit" type calculator which you still sometimes saw when
I first went into research labs in the late 60's.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
On 12 Jul 2020 at 21:31:29 BST, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 11/07/2020 10:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Arguments have raged, but in general the German pilots were better and
the ME109 had a cannon. BIG help. BUT UK had radar and home turf.
ME109 faster in a dive and had fuel injection so didn't cut under
negative G. Spitty could turn tighter. ME109 a bitch on the ground.
Spitty not great. Hurricane tough and forgiving and very stable gun wise
with a thicker stiffer wing and much easier to repair. And we had lots

But the spitty had the development potential - we had to wait for the
Hawker Tempest/Mustang really for a better day fighter than a spitfire
And that (Tempest) was a ******* engine - the Napier Sabre - and so much
CO on the cockpit they ran on oxygen all flight

The Tempest was flawed, but it really had what you needed in late war
years. Speed, firepower, tough, able to fight at altitude. The late
model spitfires no longer had Merlins and were almost new aircraft

The Mustang - once it had the Merlin - was probably a better aircraft
than the Spit. Of course it wasn't around for the Battle of Britain!

The Mustang has a laminar flow wing, which gives less drag. That's the
reason why Mustangs could act as cover on the US day raids over Germany.
There's also the clever design of the radiator - it doesn't just have
less drag than the Spit or Hurri, it actually gives thrust. Not a lot,
but every little helps.

The real reason why I think the Mustang was better is this: I was
watching a TV programme with my father one day comparing the 109 and the
Spit. The 109 has a _really_ cramped cockpit, the Spit has this great
wing that would let it outturn the 109, and suddenly he said "I always
preferred the Mustang".

He had flown them all. Probably Griffin Spits though, he was post war.
Interesting that he didn't mention the Fury. I can't ask him why.

What do we have for ground attack these days? Compared to today, those
planes
were simple and cheap. It's all very well having £100M jets that can do
everything, but you can't afford very many of those, or the pilots to fly
them. I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be
trained
relatively quickly.

Depends on what you are doing the ground attack for today.
In Vietnam there was a lot of use of quite simple aircraft with
lots of heavy machine guns used, but there hasnt been any
real need for much of that since then in Iraq or Afghanistan
or Syria etc.

Choppers are much more effective for that sort of thing against
personnel on the ground and for taking out armoured vehicles etc.

Can you imagine turning out 150 F35s a month + pilots?

Modern warfare isnt about large numbers of ground attack aircraft anymore.

On 12/07/2020 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:


What do we have for ground attack these days? Compared to today, those planes
were simple and cheap. It's all very well having £100M jets that can do
everything, but you can't afford very many of those, or the pilots to fly
them. I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be trained
relatively quickly.


Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands, even
though we had ground to air missiles.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:41:05 +1000, Joshua Snow, better known as
cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:53:44 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Various spent bullets and cartridge casings are in my collection of
*stuff found on the farm" by metal detectorists over the years.

Cool. Are you aware of any particular history of such activity on /
over the farm Tim or do you think it's just what you might find most
places?

What I take to be .303 rounds and casings are tiny compared to a 0.5"
bullet, sadly no case.

I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Musket balls a plenty! This must once have been a very dangerous place!

Or lots of duelling farmers? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 11/07/2020 08:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:02:32 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq.
wrote:

BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation needed
to prove that?

It seems the guns were aimed to coincide at a range of 250 yards. 250
yards seems awfully distant to me, what they show of the films of the
time, it seems much less than 250 yards, maybe as little as 50 yards,
unless the used telephoto lens?

I rather wondered the same. And FMI what's the difference between a
Browning machine gun and a cannon, that some Spitfires were apparently
equipped with? Better for bringing down German bombers, the chap said,
which were more heavily armored than their fighters. Do cannons fire
heavier bullets, or have higher muzzle velocities, or what?

Cannons fire explosive shells. Browning = 0.303 bullet,later MG=0.50
bullet or cannon = 0.8" explosive shell


My old dad was an armour at Duxford in the battle of Britain, uncle Sid
a mechanic. Now wish I'd listened to what they told me a lot more it
just didn't seem that interesting when i was a young child sad to say!.

Heard quite a bit later on re my aunt and the yank airmen having fights
as to who took her out! They often got ordered back to base by a senior
officer but any bloke who had a pack of Nylons was guaranteed a good
time that night!...

--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 11/07/2020 13:41, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/07/2020 12:57, Halmyre wrote:
On Saturday, July 11, 2020 at 9:21:37 AM UTC+1, nightjar wrote:
On 11/07/2020 08:15, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:02:32 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq.
wrote:

BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation needed
to prove that?

It seems the guns were aimed to coincide at a range of 250 yards. 250
yards seems awfully distant to me, what they show of the films of the
time, it seems much less than 250 yards, maybe as little as 50 yards,
unless the used telephoto lens?

The convergence 'point' was actually a 12' x 8'rectangle, known as the
Dowding spread, as he believed it gave even a mediocre pilot a fair
chance of hitting the enemy. With Spitfire guns so widely spaced on the
wings, there was also quite a wide area of less concentrated fire both
before and after the convergence point. Aces would normally have the
guns set to their own personal preferences, while some Spitfire
squadrons set different convergence distances for each wing, to give a
greater depth of concentrated fire.



ISTR Douglas Bader having his convergence close in. He claimed it was the only way to shoot down the target. He was opposed to cannon for the same reason, believing it encouraged pilots to fire from too far away.

Bader was a bit of a **** really. One cannon shell near the pilot will
disable the aircraft.

Agree if all you have is 8 machine guns, 50 yards is good

300mph = 440 feet per second. 50 yds would be covered in approx 1/3
second. You'd hit the wreckage

Only if it disregards the laws of physics and stops dead!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:07:28 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Agree if all you have is 8 machine guns, 50 yards is good

300mph = 440 feet per second. 50 yds would be covered in approx 1/3
second. You'd hit the wreckage

Only if it disregards the laws of physics and stops dead!

Lot's of it effectively will though won't it? Ok, not the heavy
compact stuff like an engine but large areas of fuselage and wing will
as good as if presented side on to the wind?

Like, I wonder how much forward motion a skydiver maintains when they
jump out of an aeroplane ... and how say an empty wooden crate might
act by comparison?

Even if something only shows to 50 mph by the time the other plane
gets's there, I'm not sure what chance the pilot would have of
avoiding it or how much less damage it would do if it wasn't moving at
all.

Hitting something at 250 or 300 mph etc?

And if something blows up in the air in front of you, some of it could
end up stationary if it's blown backwards at 300 mph?

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 22:42:28 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 12/07/2020 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:


What do we have for ground attack these days? Compared to today, those planes
were simple and cheap. It's all very well having £100M jets that can do
everything, but you can't afford very many of those, or the pilots to fly
them. I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be trained
relatively quickly.


Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands, even
though we had ground to air missiles.

There is some clever kit out there ... that we hope we never have to
rely on ... (to be in the position to need to), like the Phalanx
Close-In Weapons System (CIWS / 'sea-wiz'). It reminds me of something
off a Science Fiction show ... like an autonomous 'Laser Cannon'. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 12/07/2020 22:41, Joshua Snow wrote:


Modern warfare isnt about large numbers of ground attack aircraft anymore.


Relatively cheap drones and cruise missiles seem to be the way forward.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 12/07/2020 22:42, newshound wrote:


Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands, even
though we had ground to air missiles.

Wasn't that a problem with Argentinians not playing cricket and coming
in lower than the surrounding cliffs?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 12/07/2020 22:41, Joshua Snow wrote:


Modern warfare isnt about large numbers of ground attack aircraft
anymore.


Relatively cheap drones and cruise missiles seem to be the way forward.

There is still a need for sophisticated aircraft
to use to **** over the attacker's fancy aircraft.

Thats why the Gulf was was a pushover for the allies.

"alan_m" wrote in message
...
On 12/07/2020 22:42, newshound wrote:


Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands, even
though we had ground to air missiles.

Wasn't that a problem with Argentinians not playing cricket and coming in
lower than the surrounding cliffs?

Nope,. they didnt do any real damage except to a shed used as an
observation post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IA..._Falklands_war

Their only real value was that they could operate from the
short grass and gravel stops on the island where the other
stuff that the Agys had couldnt. They had to operate from
Argentina instead with the real downsides of that.

That sort of aircraft isnt much use in modern warfare anymore.

On 12/07/2020 20:00, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 12:15:54 +0100, T i m wrote:

I would imagine a fighter to fighter dogfight to be fairly chaotic, no
matter how well they might have rehearsed in the training room or
practiced in the sky.

Having had a couple of fast jets practice a dogfight over us a year
so back it's mighty impressive and very noisy.

I recall a quote that Dog-fighting in a 'Spitfire' was like having a
knife fight in a phonebox whilst modern dogfights were beyond visual
range affairs using long distance (30 miles or so) missiles .
ROE allowing non-visual ID of course. Which most don't hence
dog-fighting still being a thing but due to the speeds attained by
modern aircraft, manouveres have to be wide and sweeping (airframes can
'handle more G than pilots time to remove men(this includes Women
pilots) from the cockpit and institute more drones?)

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:33:44 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Richard about senile Rodent:
"Rod Speed, a bare faced pig and ignorant ****."
MID:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:39:53 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

On 12/07/2020 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be trained
relatively quickly.
called a 'drone'


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

On 12/07/2020 22:42, newshound wrote:
On 12/07/2020 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:


What do we have for ground attack these days? Compared to today, those
planes
were simple and cheap. It's all very well having £100M jets that can do
everything, but you can't afford very many of those, or the pilots to fly
them. I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we
can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be
trained
relatively quickly.


Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands, even
though we had ground to air missiles.

Exocets.


--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

ۥ Confucius

In message , T i m
writes
On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 21:53:44 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Various spent bullets and cartridge casings are in my collection of
*stuff found on the farm" by metal detectorists over the years.

Cool. Are you aware of any particular history of such activity on /
over the farm Tim or do you think it's just what you might find most
places?

Not really. I think tanks were being produced at Luton and there were a
few air raids here. Too far North to be involved in the battle of
Britain. My parents said that German bombers would climb for height here
and then dive for home, dropping bombs on London as they went.

What I take to be .303 rounds and casings are tiny compared to a 0.5"
bullet, sadly no case.

I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Pass.

Musket balls a plenty! This must once have been a very dangerous place!

Or lots of duelling farmers? ;-)

The farmhouse barn ridge was rolled lead sheet with shotgun pellet holes
where some previous occupant had shot at Pigeons or possibly Rats!

--
Tim Lamb

On 12/07/2020 21:59, T i m wrote:

I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Nope. The spent cartridge cases were ejected from the aircraft.

You're alluding to the pre-war drill of the Standard Attack No.1, which
was for a section of three fighters to fall in to line astern, and queue
up behind the enemy bomber to have a go in turn. This homely practice
came to an end very early on, especially where the bombers were escorted
by fighters, and it was replaced by the 'Tally Ho!' tactics of each man
to pick his own target in the bomber formation.

The next thing to go was the 'vic' formation, as three aircraft
manoeuvring together in combat was unwieldy. We copied the Germans
'finger four' formation, of two pairs of two fighters, each section
comprising a leader and a wingman. We didn't know at that time the
Germans had copied it in turn from the Polish formations they
encountered in 1939.

--
Spike

On 13/07/2020 09:32, Tim Streater wrote:
On 13 Jul 2020 at 09:07:56 BST, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 12/07/2020 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:
I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that we can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can be trained
relatively quickly.
called a 'drone'

Possibly requires too much infrastructure.

An FPV drone can be bought for under a grand. scaled up a bit and
mounting a lethal weapon, they need almost no infrastructure at all. A
charge point is all. Maybe satnav if flying out of sight



--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On 13/07/2020 09:31, Tim Lamb wrote:
I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Pass.

20mmm (not 30mm) cannon do not fire at 70 rounds a second., Only a
Gatling does that rate of fire. 70 a minutes is more like it.

I am not aware as to whether they eject spent casings. WWII aircraft
certainly did - you can see the shutes on a Camel...it would make sense
to do so, but of course you do not fly behind and underneath an enemy
fighter firing his gun


A Browning machine gun is .303 calibre - 0.303 inch or around 7.7mm. It
has a rate of fire around 20 rounds a second. 0.30 calibre is the
standard 7.62mm round.

So 8 of them would be dropping 160 casings a second.

a 20mm Cannon of that era is around 11-12 rounds per second.

I think no attack aircraft ever had more than four cannon.

Hawker Tempests and Typhoons featured four, as did some later Hurricanes
and Spitfires..

So 40 casings a second.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:31:05 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

snip

Musket balls a plenty! This must once have been a very dangerous place!

Or lots of duelling farmers? ;-)

The farmhouse barn ridge was rolled lead sheet with shotgun pellet holes
where some previous occupant had shot at Pigeons or possibly Rats!

It's like all the road signs you see in the rural areas of America,
most seem to have bullet holes in them. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:14:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/07/2020 09:31, Tim Lamb wrote:
I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Pass.

20mmm (not 30mm) cannon do not fire at 70 rounds a second., Only a
Gatling does that rate of fire. 70 a minutes is more like it.

I specifically said 30mm casings ... and A10.

"Although the A-10 can carry a considerable amount of munitions, its
primary built-in weapon is the 30×173 mm GAU-8/A Avenger autocannon.
One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, it fires large
depleted uranium armor-piercing shells. The GAU-8 is a hydraulically
driven seven-barrel rotary cannon designed specifically for the
anti-tank role with a high rate of fire. The cannon's original design
could be switched by the pilot to 2,100 or 4,200 rounds per minute;
this was later changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The
cannon takes about half a second to reach top speed, so 50 rounds are
fired during the first second, *65 or 70 rounds per second
thereafter*. "

You are welcome. ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairch...olt_II#Weapons

I am not aware as to whether they eject spent casings. WWII aircraft
certainly did - you can see the shutes on a Camel...it would make sense
to do so, but of course you do not fly behind and underneath an enemy
fighter firing his gun

Quite.


A Browning machine gun is .303 calibre - 0.303 inch or around 7.7mm. It
has a rate of fire around 20 rounds a second. 0.30 calibre is the
standard 7.62mm round.

So 8 of them would be dropping 160 casings a second.

a 20mm Cannon of that era is around 11-12 rounds per second.

I think no attack aircraft ever had more than four cannon.

Hawker Tempests and Typhoons featured four, as did some later Hurricanes
and Spitfires..

So 40 casings a second.

See above, keep up. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/07/2020 09:31, Tim Lamb wrote:
I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(
Pass.

20mmm (not 30mm) cannon do not fire at 70 rounds a second., Only a
Gatling does that rate of fire. 70 a minutes is more like it.

I am not aware as to whether they eject spent casings. WWII aircraft
certainly did - you can see the shutes on a Camel...it would make sense
to do so, but of course you do not fly behind and underneath an enemy
fighter firing his gun


A Browning machine gun is .303 calibre - 0.303 inch or around 7.7mm. It
has a rate of fire around 20 rounds a second. 0.30 calibre is the
standard 7.62mm round.

So 8 of them would be dropping 160 casings a second.

a 20mm Cannon of that era is around 11-12 rounds per second.

I think no attack aircraft ever had more than four cannon.

Hawker Tempests and Typhoons featured four, as did some later
Hurricanes and Spitfires..

So 40 casings a second.


There are some interesting snippets in Jonnie Johnson's book, Wing
Leader. Bader's hatred of the early cannon firing Spitfires, the change
to metal airlerons from fabric, variable pitch propellers, improved
superchargers and the later versions culminating in his preference for
the mark 9.



--
Tim Lamb

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 08:42:42 +0000, Spike
wrote:

On 12/07/2020 21:59, T i m wrote:

I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(

Nope. The spent cartridge cases were ejected from the aircraft.

Ok, thanks.

You're alluding to the pre-war drill of the Standard Attack No.1,

I wasn't actually alluding to anything specific, just wondering in
general.

which
was for a section of three fighters to fall in to line astern, and queue
up behind the enemy bomber to have a go in turn. This homely practice
came to an end very early on, especially where the bombers were escorted
by fighters, and it was replaced by the 'Tally Ho!' tactics of each man
to pick his own target in the bomber formation.

Ok.

The next thing to go was the 'vic' formation, as three aircraft
manoeuvring together in combat was unwieldy. We copied the Germans
'finger four' formation, of two pairs of two fighters, each section
comprising a leader and a wingman. We didn't know at that time the
Germans had copied it in turn from the Polish formations they
encountered in 1939.

I guess little is actually new in most things.

When I used to regularly play Pariah online (team games, FPS) we would
practice moves between matches and each rehearsed sequence would
typically work *once*. As soon as the opposition had seen it they
would come up with a counter move (of course).

One was me driving the buggy with a passenger. I would drive up onto
their base, the passenger jumps out and runs though their base,
capturing their flag as they did to exit the other side of the
building. As they were doing this I'd be driving round the back of
their base and meet up with them as they exited. The rest of our team
would keep the opposition distracted but try not to kill them (as they
would then re-spawn back at their base).

I guess one way of determining the effectiveness of any formation or
attack sequence is to note the losses. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 10:14:49 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 13/07/2020 09:31, Tim Lamb wrote:
I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(
Pass.
20mmm (not 30mm) cannon do not fire at 70 rounds a second., Only a
Gatling does that rate of fire. 70 a minutes is more like it.

I specifically said 30mm casings ... and A10.

"Although the A-10 can carry a considerable amount of munitions, its
primary built-in weapon is the 30×173 mm GAU-8/A Avenger autocannon.
One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, it fires large
depleted uranium armor-piercing shells. The GAU-8 is a hydraulically
driven seven-barrel rotary cannon designed specifically for the
anti-tank role with a high rate of fire. The cannon's original design
could be switched by the pilot to 2,100 or 4,200 rounds per minute;
this was later changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The
cannon takes about half a second to reach top speed, so 50 rounds are
fired during the first second, *65 or 70 rounds per second
thereafter*. "


At some point in its development, the "exhaust" from
the GAU was enough to cause an engine flameout in flight.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...e-from-its-gun

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ng-and-a-curse

Paul

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 06:25:05 -0400, Paul
wrote:

snip

"Although the A-10 can carry a considerable amount of munitions, its
primary built-in weapon is the 30×173 mm GAU-8/A Avenger autocannon.
One of the most powerful aircraft cannons ever flown, it fires large
depleted uranium armor-piercing shells. The GAU-8 is a hydraulically
driven seven-barrel rotary cannon designed specifically for the
anti-tank role with a high rate of fire. The cannon's original design
could be switched by the pilot to 2,100 or 4,200 rounds per minute;
this was later changed to a fixed rate of 3,900 rounds per minute. The
cannon takes about half a second to reach top speed, so 50 rounds are
fired during the first second, *65 or 70 rounds per second
thereafter*. "


At some point in its development, the "exhaust" from
the GAU was enough to cause an engine flameout in flight.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...e-from-its-gun

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ng-and-a-curse

It is a crazy bit of kit.

Was it also fact that the plane was actually slowed ('measurably', I
know 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction' so even a
single bullet fired forward would have an effect to a tiny degree))
when the gun was fired?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. We used to watch the A10's and others doing touch-n-goes at RAF
Lakenheath. ;-)

On 13/07/2020 10:55, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 13/07/2020 09:31, Tim Lamb wrote:
I assume the cases stayed in the aeroplane (or what would stop them
hitting your mate behind?) and they certainly do on the A10. You
wouldn't want to fly though a cloud of over a 1000 30mm shell casings
coming out at ~70 a second! ;-(
Â*Pass.

20mmm (not 30mm) cannon do not fire at 70 rounds a second., Only a
Gatling does that rate of fire. 70 a minutes is more like it.

I am not aware as to whether they eject spent casings. WWII aircraft
certainly did - you can see the shutes on a Camel...it would make
sense to do so, but of course you do not fly behind and underneath an
enemy fighterÂ* firing his gun


A Browning machine gun is .303 calibre - 0.303 inch or around 7.7mm.
It has a rate of fire around 20 rounds a second. 0.30 calibre is the
standard 7.62mm round.

So 8 of them would be dropping 160 casings a second.

a 20mm Cannon of that era is around 11-12 rounds per second.

I think no attack aircraft ever had more than four cannon.

Hawker Tempests and Typhoons featured four, as did some later
Hurricanes and Spitfires..

So 40 casings a second.


There are some interesting snippets in Jonnie Johnson's book, Wing
Leader. Bader's hatred of the early cannon firing Spitfires, the change
to metal airlerons from fabric, variable pitch propellers, improved
superchargers and the later versions culminating in his preference for
the mark 9.


Mark IX the best of the Merlins 2-4 cannon, pressurised cockpit,
40,000ft ceiling, fast with a two stage supercharger. Better vis. with
the bubble canopy and a gyro gun sight.






--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:02:32 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq.
wrote:

BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation needed
to prove that?

It seems the guns were aimed to coincide at a range of 250 yards. 250
yards seems awfully distant to me, what they show of the films of the
time, it seems much less than 250 yards, maybe as little as 50 yards,
unless the used telephoto lens?

I rather wondered the same. And FMI what's the difference between a
Browning machine gun and a cannon, that some Spitfires were apparently
equipped with? Better for bringing down German bombers, the chap said,
which were more heavily armored than their fighters. Do cannons fire
heavier bullets, or have higher muzzle velocities, or what?

Hurricanes had cannon and were better suited to attacking bombers, which
is how they were use. Me109s also had cannon.
--
bert

On 13/07/2020 00:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:07:28 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Agree if all you have is 8 machine guns, 50 yards is good

300mph = 440 feet per second. 50 yds would be covered in approx 1/3
second. You'd hit the wreckage

Only if it disregards the laws of physics and stops dead!

Lot's of it effectively will though won't it? Ok, not the heavy
compact stuff like an engine but large areas of fuselage and wing will
as good as if presented side on to the wind?

You are shooting holes in it, not blowing it up as a general rule though...

(and that assumes that you are directly behind it rather than slightly
above or below, or off axis etc)

And if something blows up in the air in front of you, some of it could
end up stationary if it's blown backwards at 300 mph?

Yup if it goes bang in close proximity, then that may well cause you
grief (after all that is the modus operandi of most anti aircraft shells!)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 15:44:55 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 13/07/2020 00:27, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 00:07:28 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

snip

Agree if all you have is 8 machine guns, 50 yards is good

300mph = 440 feet per second. 50 yds would be covered in approx 1/3
second. You'd hit the wreckage

Only if it disregards the laws of physics and stops dead!

Lot's of it effectively will though won't it? Ok, not the heavy
compact stuff like an engine but large areas of fuselage and wing will
as good as if presented side on to the wind?

You are shooting holes in it, not blowing it up as a general rule though..

Ok..

(and that assumes that you are directly behind it rather than slightly
above or below, or off axis etc)

Sure. However, the nearer you are the more 'directly behind' it you
would have to be to keep it in your sights. If you are strafing it
(from any direction) you have to hope you hit something important as
you pass (not wait till you know you have hit it).

Well, if any of my fighter pilot sims have taught me anything. ;-)

And if something blows up in the air in front of you, some of it could
end up stationary if it's blown backwards at 300 mph?

Yup if it goes bang in close proximity, then that may well cause you
grief (after all that is the modus operandi of most anti aircraft shells!)

Quite. ;-(

Don't they have some that are 'hoops' that when they blow the expand
out radially in many pieces?

Cheers, T i m

On 11/07/2020 08:02, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation needed
to prove that?

I have been looking into this and think there is a certain amount of
poetic licence in the claim. No doubt there was a Mr Hill who worked for
the Air Ministry, who thought that eight machine guns had to be better
than four and who recruited his daughter to do the maths that proved
just how much better they would be. However, there does not seem to be
any evidence that influenced the design of the Spitfire.

There was *a* Spitfire that had four machine guns, but it was not *the*
Spitfire. Supermarine first gave the name to an aircraft, the type 224,
that was built to Air Ministry Specification F7/30. Aircraft built to
that specification were the Blackburn F.3, Bristol Type 123, Bristol
Type 133, Gloster Gladiator, Gloster SS.19, Hawker P.V.3, Supermarine
Type 224 and Westland F.7/30.

However, the Type 224 was not a particularly successful aircraft and the
company set about designing a better fighter as a private venture, not
building to any AM Spec. That was the Type 300, which was also given the
name Spitfire and was the prototype of *the* Spitfire. According to all
the sources, AM Spec. F37/34 was built around the Spitfire, not the
other way around.

Thus it would appear that fitting eight guns to a fighter was a parallel
development at both the Air Ministry and at Supermarine.


--
Colin Bignell

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...

Bader's hatred of the early cannon firing Spitfires, the change to metal airlerons from
fabric, variable pitch propellers, improved superchargers and the later versions
culminating in his preference for the mark 9.

Such a pity then that it came too late for him (june 42); given he'd
been a POW since Aug 41.


michael adams

....








--
Tim Lamb

In message , michael adams
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
.. .

Bader's hatred of the early cannon firing Spitfires, the change to
metal airlerons from
fabric, variable pitch propellers, improved superchargers and the
later versions
culminating in his preference for the mark 9.

Such a pity then that it came too late for him (june 42); given he'd
been a POW since Aug 41.
Jonnie Johnson's preference. Sorry if unclear.



--
Tim Lamb

On 13/07/2020 15:14, bert wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
writes
On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 08:02:32 +0100, Harry Bloomfield, Esq.
wrote:

BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation needed
to prove that?

It seems the guns were aimed to coincide at a range of 250 yards. 250
yards seems awfully distant to me, what they show of the films of the
time, it seems much less than 250 yards, maybe as little as 50 yards,
unless the used telephoto lens?

I rather wondered the same. And FMI what's the difference between a
Browning machine gun and a cannon, that some Spitfires were apparently
equipped with? Better for bringing down German bombers, the chap said,
which were more heavily armored than their fighters. Do cannons fire
heavier bullets, or have higher muzzle velocities, or what?

Hurricanes had cannon

Not in the B of B they didn't

No cannon on Hurris until 1941 and the Mk IIC
Then 4 20mm cannon

and were better suited to attacking bombers, which
is how they were use.

Not with cannon. Hurris became increasingly used in ground attack roles
with the introduction of the 4 x 20mm cannon then the 2 x 50mm cannon
and bombs.

Me109s also had cannon.

They did.


--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , michael adams
writes

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
. ..

Bader's hatred of the early cannon firing Spitfires, the change to metal airlerons
from
fabric, variable pitch propellers, improved superchargers and the later versions
culminating in his preference for the mark 9.

Such a pity then that it came too late for him (june 42); given he'd
been a POW since Aug 41.
Jonnie Johnson's preference. Sorry if unclear.

Apologies. My mistake might have been more obvious had I quoted the
whole passage ...

" There are some interesting snippets in Jonnie Johnson's book, Wing
Leader. Bader's hatred of the early cannon firing Spitfires, the change
to metal airlerons from fabric, variable pitch propellers, improved
superchargers and the later versions culminating in his preference for
the mark 9."


michael adams

....

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 12/07/2020 22:42, newshound wrote:
On 12/07/2020 21:58, Tim Streater wrote:


What do we have for ground attack these days? Compared to today,
those planes
were simple and cheap. It's all very well having £100M jets that can do
everything, but you can't afford very many of those, or the pilots to fly
them. I keep thinking we need to have a cheap plane for today, that
we can
build lots of quickly, which could then be flown by people who can
be trained
relatively quickly.


Didn't we get a bit of a nasty shock from Pucaras in the Falklands,
even though we had ground to air missiles.

Exocets.


What about them?
--
bert