Hawker Hurricane vs Me 323 Gigant

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

No Soren it does affect your aim greatly. The recoil is still eneogh to send a jolt up through your arm.

You fired the M60 correct ?

Trust me on this matter Soren, I have actual real world expierence in it...

Also good luck at 1000 yards!

I trust you Adler, 100%, but you're missunderstanding me.

Adler you and I can both send a stream of bullets within an aircraft sized target at 1,000 yards with the M60, which I'd compare to lobbing bullets into a 2 -3x football goal (15 x 10 m). However in flight it's another matter entirely!

I do not know what helicopters you are flying. Modern helicopters today are no bumpier than fixed wing aircraft.

I've flown with the Huey and Sikorsky's allot and I do feel they are more bumpy.

They are effected by turbulence no different than fixed wing aircraft. Advancement in vibration absorption is pretty much down to an art form now. A properly balanced helicopter feels almost the same as a fixed wing aircraft in flight.

I see, didn't know that they had come that far. Always felt the large prop created allot of vibrations.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

You fired the M60 correct ?

Among other machine guns as well.

Originally Posted by Soren

I trust you Adler, 100%, but you're missunderstanding me.

Adler you and I can both send a stream of bullets within an aircraft sized target at 1,000 yards with the M60, which I'd compare to lobbing bullets into a 2 -3x football goal (15 x 10 m). However in flight it's another matter entirely!

In flight it is much more difficult.

I am not missunderstanding you. You are saying that the recoil will not effect your aim. I am telling that it does.

Originally Posted by Soren

I've flown with the Huey and Sikorsky's allot and I do feel they are more bumpy.

I will agree with you on the Huey, but not on the Sikorsky. I have over 1500 hours in a Sikorsky...

Originally Posted by Soren

I see, didn't know that they had come that far. Always felt the large prop created allot of vibrations.

Nope.

Advancements in Transmission and drive shaft design, as well as vibration absorbers and ballancing of the main rotor blades, tail rotor and drive shafts as well as advancements in tracking the rotors have all lowered vibrations and any "bumpiness" down to a minimum and really no different from any other military aircraft.

For instance in the old Huey days the main rotor was tracked by taking a stick with a piece of chalk on it and holding it up to the turning blades. Now it is all done with computers and accelerameters (spelling is probably way off ) which get the track nearly perfect and the vibrations down to litterally in .01 to .05 within tolerance.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Among other machine guns as well.

Gatlings ??

In flight it is much more difficult.

Fully agreed, and esp. when trying to aim at another a/c maneuvering.

I am not missunderstanding you. You are saying that the recoil will not effect your aim. I am telling that it does.

Nope, you do missunderstand me, you just made that clear. Yes the recoil will affect your aim, but very little, esp. seeing that the gun fixed to the a/c itself. Also the recoil dampers mounted will reduce any recoil felt.

The mounts for the M60 on helicopters don't seem to absorb the recoil as much, and the jolts you're talking about are very apparent.

Furthermore, looking at the pictures of the MG151 inside the Me323 it looks as if the handles and trigger are not connected to the gun except by an electric wire. The MG131 is another matter.

I will agree with you on the Huey, but not on the Sikorsky. I have over 1500 hours in a Sikorsky...

The Sikorsky is definitely more bumpy than an airplane IMO.

Advancements in Transmission and drive shaft design, as well as vibration absorbers and ballancing of the main rotor blades, tail rotor and drive shafts as well as advancements in tracking the rotors have all lowered vibrations and any "bumpiness" down to a minimum and really no different from any other military aircraft.

For instance in the old Huey days the main rotor was tracked by taking a stick with a piece of chalk on it and holding it up to the turning blades. Now it is all done with computers and accelerameters (spelling is probably way off ) which get the track nearly perfect and the vibrations down to litterally in .01 to .05 within tolerance.

Good info. How about when hovering ?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Gatlings ??

Nope never got to play with those.

M60, 240G, and .50 Cal's...

Originally Posted by Soren

Nope, you do missunderstand me, you just made that clear. Yes the recoil will affect your aim, but very little, esp. seeing that the gun fixed to the a/c itself. Also the recoil dampers mounted will reduce any recoil felt.

It effects it a lot more than you think. I promise you. Just .01mm of a movement of the gun will effect where the round is going to hit. If you can feel the jolt of the weapon up your arm and it rattles your head, then the recoil is sufficient.

I am sure the recoil was no different in WW2 because the weapons and mounts have surely gotten better today.

Originally Posted by Soren

The mounts for the M60 on helicopters don't seem to absorb the recoil as much, and the jolts you're talking about are very apparent.

Soren I am sure they are no different. Airial gunnery has not changed over the years and if anything the equipment has gotten better.

Originally Posted by Soren

Furthermore, looking at the pictures of the MG151 inside the Me323 it looks as if the handles and trigger are not connected to the gun except by an electric wire. The MG131 is another matter.

How is that different from today. On the Aircraft mounted guns that we used the trigger/butterfly grip assy. was attached with a very small piece of metal that ran underneath the gun.

Originally Posted by Soren

The Sikorsky is definitely more bumpy than an airplane IMO.

Then the mechanics for the aircraft you flew in, did not know how to do there job. Either that or they did not care about the job they were doing.

Like I said I have over 1500 flight hours in a Hawk and a little over 100 in fixed wing aircraft and plenty of passenger time in military fixed wing aircraft.

The difference is negligable...

Originally Posted by Soren

Good info. How about when hovering ?

Still effected by rotorwash, and it still depends on the side.

In a fixed wing aircraft the side you are firing from still is effected by the slipstream (not sure if that is what you would want to call it though) of wind flowing past the fuselage of the aircraft. That effects the trajectory as to whether it goes high or low and left or right.

[Soren]

Ofcourse any movement of the gun will dictate where the rounds hit, even at .01mm, although .01mm will result in a very nice grouping if you ask me

My point however is that recoil wont be affecting your aim very much, but ofcourse this varies with different mounts, but it's not going to jerk the gun 10cm to the sides. You're basically making it sound like you can't hit anything while in the air.. you can.

Now that having been said your undoubtedly the one with the most experience shooting from the air, but I think you're underestimating what you're capable of. I'm sure you're quite capable of hitting a car 300 - 400 meters away while flying, correct ?

[kool kitty89]

And Soren that 18x guns thing (MG 81's) was from wikipedia, and I haven't seen it elsewhere, so it's probably mistaken.

The early versions were said to be armed only with 7.92 mm MG 15's though. (2-4x) Similar to the ones on the Me 321 gliders.

The most common armamament I've seen was 5x MG 131's and 2x MG 151/20's, which is pretty heavy. (2x 131's in nose, 2x in waist, 1 in center top turret I think; and 1x MG-151/20 turet on each wing) Haven't read about the 15 mm MG 151 mountings.

Any more info on the different armament configurations?

[kool kitty89]

OK, it seems that there were a range of armaments ranging from 5-9 mountings with MG 131's and sometimes MG 151's. (so the 18x MG 81's from Wiki, may have been some alternate armament with 9x twin MG-81's)

Heaviest production arangements with 11 mountings. (4x forewars fusalage, 1x nose turret, 4x top/wing turets, 2x waist mounts) On the E-2/WT

According to http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me323.html the heaviest was 11x MG 151/20, and 4x MG 131.


Me-323 Motorized Gigant



LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe


And on the first production model, only 2-4x MG 15's, and 5x MG 15's on the D-1.

The E model had much upgraded armaments.

[kool kitty89]

And on toughness, Luftwaffe Resource Page - Messerschmitt Me 323

In terms of aircraft design, the Me 323 was actually very resilient, and could absorb a huge amount of ene my fire, unless loaded with barrels with fuel - the Afrika Korps' nickname of Leukoplastbomber (Elastoplast Bomber) was somewhat unfair.

And with 12x .303's of the Hurricane IIB (or 8x of the IIA) it would be hard to bring down, and require sustained fire at weak points (or hitting the pilots) and the Hurricane would be very vulnerable to enemy fire (aganst the E models), particularly with the relatively short range and sustained fire necessary with the .303's.


With 4x 20mm (Mk.IIC) it's no contest though, long range and heavy hitting power.

Even with 6x .50's (of the P-40's) the 323 would be pretty vulnerable, although the P-40 would still have to put in a good burst, and would be fairly vulnerable to an 323E's guns.



And on the Gladiator comment, against the D model with only 2-4/5x MG 15 7.92mm's (plus ~6x army MG's could be fired from windows, albeit pretty inacurate) it would have a chance, but with 4x (or rarely, 6x) .303's it's going to take a lot of fire. A single Gladiator against an E model, way worse off than tha Hurricane IIB, or IIA (8x .303), with the exception of the tougher radial engine of the Gladiator.

[pbfoot]

Jeez you could get a shot at the cockpit at your leisure the thing isn't going anywhere fast

[kool kitty89]

What was the armor like though on the 323? And you wouldn't have a free shot with the 323E's armament. (granted the Hurricane could prabably take the 7.92 mm fire from the D)

And the only place a fighter wouldn't be vulnerable to defensive fire on the E model is if attacking from directly below.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

My point however is that recoil wont be affecting your aim very much, but ofcourse this varies with different mounts, but it's not going to jerk the gun 10cm to the sides.

It does effect your aim a lot. You have to learn how to compensate it. Of course it is not going to move it around 10cm or anything, but until you get used to the gun you will not hit anything.

I used to teach air gunnery to new crew chiefs....

Originally Posted by Soren

You're basically making it sound like you can't hit anything while in the air.. you can.

I dont believe I ever said that. I am saying though that recol does effect it quite a bit and you are not trained in the weapon, you will not hit anything.

Originally Posted by Soren

Now that having been said your undoubtedly the one with the most experience shooting from the air, but I think you're underestimating what you're capable of. I'm sure you're quite capable of hitting a car 300 - 400 meters away while flying, correct ?

I can hit a man at 300 meters while flying....

With the first few rounds? No, you have to walk it in.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Soren

Excellent pictures FLYBOYJ! You wouldn't happen to some of the entire interior of the Me-323 ?? If so could you PM them to me or post them here ??

Here's the site, you could alco find them if you google me 323 turret.

WIP: Messerschmitt Me 323 E-2/WT - Military-Meshes.com

[Soren]

Thanks FJ!

Now does anyone have pictures of the cockpit and entire interior. I'm esp. interested in how the pilots got to their cockpit. Was it by a retractable ladder, or perhaps some simple steps on the inside of the fuselage ??

Many thanks in advance

[FLYBOYJ]

Somewhere on that site is a cockpit shot and a shot of the instrument panel.