[rzwan2007]

Hay i dont understand to adjust the Gun range settings in aircraft customization.

how can i choose what is the settings i will need before i takeoff ?and what is the best settings?and what is the best range to open fire to a plane.?

and finally if i reduce the fuel quantity i take. will it increase the amount of ammo i take ? if not why such a option is available in il-2

[KG64_Cnopicilin]

with Gun range=200 the bullets will consentrate in one point 200 meters in front of the plane, and then they will start going further from each other.

\

[JG3_VonHahn]

less fuel makes your plane more agile because its less heavy, nothing to do with ammo.

[Oscarito]

Well, I would say this is a matter of personal choice. It depends on your skill and style. Mission profile is also important. As someone already told you, fly and try! :wink:

S!

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

Gun convergence will also depend on where your guns are mounted on the plane.

ie.
An FW 190 with a MG convergence of 800m keeps a much tighter grouping because the guns are located only 12in apart in the cowling (Top of the Nose) of the plane.
If you use that same convergence for a spitfire, you're going to be firing like a shotgun blast at anything that comes near you and won't do much damage. This is because the MG's are located in the wings appx 15ft apart.

Do your own testing in the plane/s you like to fly and find the convergence that works best for you.

[HH_Cipher]

Try researching "Gun Convergences" on Google.

[agracier]

less fuel makes your plane more agile because its less heavy, nothing to do with ammo.

Now that is a revelation. I've been flying about a year and half and have read about everything I could, but this never seems to have been mentioned anywhere. I thought that less fuel simply allowed for a heavier bomb/ammo load and only affected the flying time. And since most missions I fly are of the short and furious off-line dogfights that end with me getting shot down anyway, having a more agile plane can be a plus point.

This is a very useful tidbit of basic info for which I am very grateful.

[Cuccos19]

Good for Lightning Guys, not much to worry about the gun range settings, they are bunched together in the nose almost within a meter, so the bullets will fly together into the target. :twisted:

[Murilo Specht]

Dude,
I don't mind helping people who need it but please try to find the answers to your questions yourself before asking someone to take the time to be your personal librarian.Some may say that you are becoming a pest.

rzwan, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you will never become anything in life if you can't learn things by yourself, you are being a parasite trying to use others, how the hell will you learn to use a bank account? How will you learn to pay the taxes when you start working?

Try learning by yourself, trial and error, and also, there's google out there, that is really useful.

[Fisneaky]

(1)

It had eight machine guns of .303 calibre each, mounted four in each wing. The guns were spaced one close to the fuselage, two mid-wing, one further out. The eight guns were normally synchronized to 250 yards. In other words the four in each wing were sighted so that the bullets from all eight converged at that distance, in front of the Spitfire. Experienced fighter pilots used to close the pattern to 200 yards. The successful pilots succeeded because they did not open fire until they were close to the target.

You see - it's easy with google.

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

less fuel makes your plane more agile because its less heavy, nothing to do with ammo.

Now that is a revelation. I've been flying about a year and half and have read about everything I could, but this never seems to have been mentioned anywhere. I thought that less fuel simply allowed for a heavier bomb/ammo load and only affected the flying time. And since most missions I fly are of the short and furious off-line dogfights that end with me getting shot down anyway, having a more agile plane can be a plus point.

This is a very useful tidbit of basic info for which I am very grateful.

This is true only for the game. In real life, fuel was reduced to allow for more ammo/bombs.

ie.
B17's would at times take as much fuel as they could carry and reduce the amount of bombs so they could get off the ground and still make it to targets deep within Germany.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hay i dont understand to adjust the Gun range settings in aircraft customization.

how can i choose what is the settings i will need before i takeoff ?and what is the best settings?and what is the best range to open fire to a plane.?

and finally if i reduce the fuel quantity i take. will it increase the amount of ammo i take ? if not why such a option is available in il-2

Reading this, and your other asorted post, gives me -Owl- flashbacks

[Guest]

less fuel makes your plane more agile because its less heavy, nothing to do with ammo.

Now that is a revelation. I've been flying about a year and half and have read about everything I could, but this never seems to have been mentioned anywhere. I thought that less fuel simply allowed for a heavier bomb/ammo load and only affected the flying time. And since most missions I fly are of the short and furious off-line dogfights that end with me getting shot down anyway, having a more agile plane can be a plus point.

This is a very useful tidbit of basic info for which I am very grateful.

This is true only for the game. In real life, fuel was reduced to allow for more ammo/bombs.

This is a very simplistic approach to a very complicated problem. Yes in basic terms the less fuel you carry the greater bombload you can carry. This all comes down to how much lift can an aircraft produce to overcome weight.

Now for the manouevrability part. Weight very much effects it, though in a well-designed aircraft where fuel is close to the center of gravity it may not be noticable. I take an example from cars for now. In an ideal setup, a car should have 50:50 weight distribution in which weight is equally split between the wheels. I used to drive a car that had an auxillary LPG tank in the boot. When it was full the weight distribution was roughly 50:50 and the car held well to the road but when empty I would encounter oversteer (that is the rear end swinging out). The same weight distribution scenario can apply to aircraft.

The best example I can think of is a P-51D Mustang which had a large tank behind the centre of gravity. When full the CoG would be shift behind the pilot making it very difficult to dogfight well as the aircraft responded sluggishly and had a tendancy to spin when pushed too hard. By the time they were deep into Germany and encountered the heaviest fighter resistance the tank was sufficient low that the CoG shifted forward and balanced the aircraft. Another example is aircraft that use wingtanks. Whilst the CoG may be in a favourable spot, the distribution of weight and the force it exerts on the wings may hamper roll rate (and say if the fuel is low and slushing around, definately so). Also you can't forget that the lighter the aircraft is, the less power that is needed to generate lift, therefore more power goes into thrust resulting in increased speed and change in manouevrability.

Now for the game, from what I understand it is fully capable of modelling the effect of fuel distribution on aircraft performance. It does adjust weight as fuel is burnt (therefore you will see some change in responsiveness and speed), but only a select amount of aircraft (modded ones from knowledge) are effected by CoG changes due to fuel. All the modded slot P-51s have this feature and I'm sure many future machine will too.