Big guns. Little planes.

[WacoFan]

You've never heard of "fly what they put in front of you", yes?

At this point in my life, at my age, I am picky. Life is too short to fly nosewheel airplanes.

 

[Hacker15e]

What would the difficulty be in this scenario? If you can, be the Tucano pilot and walk us through the shootdown - it would be neat to hear how you'd do it.

In order to simply achieve a position where you can take a shot that will actually hit the other aircraft, just from a basic geometric standpoint, the shooter has to be in range, in the same plane of motion, and with the appropriate amount of lead.

Add into that inherent inaccuracies in gun aiming (how closely the aim of the gun matches the sight -- you'd say POA vs POI in the regular firearms world) and the harmonization of the guns (guns that are mounted off the centerline have to be aimed such that at some point out in front of the aircraft the bullets actually cross the centerline of the aircraft). Add in bullet dispersion due to the vibration of the airplane.

Plus, little bullets are incredibly ineffective means of inflicting fatal damage to other aircraft. Current fighters solve this by using multi-barrel guns that shoot lots of bullets at a very high rate of fire (4,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) to put a lot of iron on the target, as well as high explosive incendiary rounds.

What all of this means is, it is difficult to gun another aircraft. Next time you think you've got it licked, go try and shoot something out the window of a moving car and see how accurate you can be.

 

[Hacker15e]

If you read the post I was responding to (and quoted), the only criticism I can possibly read in to it is criticism of the Tucano.

What would the root of that criticism be? In other words, you think the performance that you see on that tape is substandard based on what? How many passes should it have taken?

If that is your assessment, then I'd say you are wrong.

 

[MikeD]

Add into that inherent inaccuracies in gun aiming (how closely the aim of the gun matches the sight -- .

41 mils cranked into the hard sight, baby. No pansy funnel here! (even though the HUD had one).

 

[WacoFan]

In order to simply achieve a position where you can take a shot that will actually hit the other aircraft, just from a basic geometric standpoint, the shooter has to be in range, in the same plane of motion, and with the appropriate amount of lead.

Add into that inherent inaccuracies in gun aiming (how closely the aim of the gun matches the sight -- you'd say POA vs POI in the regular firearms world) and the harmonization of the guns (guns that are mounted off the centerline have to be aimed such that at some point out in front of the aircraft the bullets actually cross the centerline of the aircraft). Add in bullet dispersion due to the vibration of the airplane.

Plus, little bullets are incredibly ineffective means of inflicting fatal damage to other aircraft. Current fighters solve this by using multi-barrel guns that shoot lots of bullets at a very high rate of fire (4,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) to put a lot of iron on the target, as well as high explosive incendiary rounds.

What all of this means is, it is difficult to gun another aircraft. Next time you think you've got it licked, go try and shoot something out the window of a moving car and see how accurate you can be.

Which makes Richtofen, Rickenbacker, Eric Hartmann, Dick Bong and the others particularly impressive. For my money, WW1 would be my preferred "fighter pilot" war - I'm just amazed at that whole era. WW2 comes a close second for me. But all those guys - wow - they must have been pretty good.

 

[Hacker15e]

Which makes Richtofen, Rickenbacker, Eric Hartmann, Dick Bong and the others particularly impressive. For my money, WW1 would be my preferred "fighter pilot" war - I'm just amazed at that whole era. WW2 comes a close second for me. But all those guys - wow - they must have been pretty good.

And not even discussing the "dogfighting problems" of range, aspect, and closure control between two fighting airplanes....

As an IFF IP, I used to teach guys basic aerial gunnery and give them their first opportunity to aim at even a simple, co-airspeed, non-maneuvering target. Very, very rarely were they able to get a "kill shot" after quite a bit of practice.

Once you start adding in having to solve BFM problems (in the Tucano scenario, the issue would primarily be range and closure), then it is an even more difficult task that it was still challenging for guys who had practice and instruction in it.

Yes, the "old school" guys were definitely good...but there were also other factors involved, like being able to get kills on guys who were not aware that someone was even behind them. Many of the fundamental axioms of fighting airplanes weren't understood then -- they were making it up as they went along. The guys who lived were the ones who, probably accidentally, used the tactics that worked.

 

[Hacker15e]

41 mils cranked into the hard sight, baby. No pansy funnel here! (even though the HUD had one).

But, to be fair, sporting a gun that shot a huge bullet at a relatively long range and at a high rate. Excepting the down-cant to the gun, the Hog has to have the ultimate aerial gunnery weapon known to man.

 

[killbilly]

killbilly from what you've learned how easy is it to mess up the SFRA procedures? I mean, it seems like we hear about guys busting it fairly frequently...are they just numbskulls like that senator that landed on the closed runway, or is it pretty easy to miss a step while trying to do your due diligence in the SFRA?

It's not a difficult set of rules to follow. Rule number 1 is never squawk 1200. Rule 2 is always talk to Potomac Approach. Rule 3, monitor Guard.

The flight plan process for the SFRA is pretty simple - if you're IFR, it's almost transparent. VFR simply depends on what you're doing - the procedures for transiting vs. entry and exit are only slightly different. There are 1 or 2 exceptions if you're in the JYO maneuvering area, but that's really it. You can learn the whole thing in a 20 minute presentation on the FAA website.

I've been told that most of the busts are people who don't check NOTAMS. The DC SFRA is technically a TFR which has been long-standing. Also, from what I've been told, the Potomac controllers are really good to work with, although I've not had to because I usually exit the SFRA via the JYO procedures (no flight plan necessary unless you're doing pattern work, but inbound/outbound VFR just require specific squawk codes.)

Pay attention to what you're doing, stay outside the FRZ and you're fine. It's intimidating at first, but it's not that big a deal.

That being said - there are additional special procedures if you're flying in and out of the Maryland 3 airports - you need a TSA-issued PIN and a background check.

But to answer your question - no, it's not a big deal if you just pay attention.

 

[MikeD]

But, to be fair, sporting a gun that shot a huge bullet at a relatively long range and at a high rate. Excepting the down-cant to the gun, the Hog has to have the ultimate aerial gunnery weapon known to man.

15K shots at low angle strafe weren't uncommon. Low altitude used to be everything, with the old battle books not having deliveries above a 30DB. Later on, 45 and 60 HADB/HARBs came along. But in the Fulda Gap days, it was all 10 and 20 LAHD/LALD.....doing CAS or BAI, along with a survival rate of 2 sorties or so; as anything above 100 AGL for more than 30 secs would likely be fatal for you.

 

[WacoFan]

15K shots at low angle strafe weren't uncommon. Low altitude used to be everything, with the old battle books not having deliveries above a 30DB. Later on, 45 and 60 HADB/HARBs came along. But in the Fulda Gap days, it was all 10 and 20 LAHD/LALD.....doing CAS or BAI, along with a survival rate of 2 sorties or so; as anything above 100 AGL for more than 30 secs would likely be fatal for you.

I don't understand what a word of this means, but I'm going to memorize it and repeat it - preferably in a bar around hot chicks - just because it sounds cool.

 

[MikeD]

They're types of bomb deliveries.......Low Angle and High Angle. High Drag and Low Drag, and combos therein; along with the dive angle associated with each.

 

[WacoFan]

They're types of bomb deliveries.......Low Angle and High Angle. High Drag and Low Drag, and combos therein; along with the dive angle associated with each.

Still sounds cool. Still going to whip out my cool new lingo to try and get some skanky on my hangdown.

 

[smack300]

WacoFan You stole my idea..

 

[TurdBird]

Still turns my stomach. Gotta hand it to the poor bastard, though, he played every card he was dealt.

Hey darrenf, remember that discussion?

 

[///AMG]

Well it gives the fighter jocks a live target to practice on... so really the pilot should get to charge the US government for the training exercise.

That "practice" is about as useful as locking up airliners transiting around the whiskey areas. Which is like sticking your head out the window of your car at night to help keep awake

as an aside, @ Killbilly's post, I would doubt that you will see flares being dropped. Maybe one of the AF/guard dudes can tighten me up on this (if it is a common practice), but generally we can't use expendables (chaff/flares) outside of R or W ranges (or sometimes MOA's with certain alt restrictions).

 

[///AMG]

What about something like an Extra or Pitts, that was all out maneuvering down on the deck... I assume you'd just circle them slowly, but how hard would it be to engage something slow and highly maneuverable?

You just wouldn't get close, except to grab their attention. A fighter could just fly slow circles around them all day, never being outside of a shot opportunity (if it were to actually come to that). Or he could do a mach run right over their heads and probably scare them out of the air

 

[MikeD]

That "practice" is about as useful as locking up airliners transiting around the whiskey areas. Which is like sticking your head out the window of your car at night to help keep awake

as an aside, @ Killbilly's post, I would doubt that you will see flares being dropped. Maybe one of the AF/guard dudes can tighten me up on this (if it is a common practice), but generally we can't use expendables (chaff/flares) outside of R or W ranges (or sometimes MOA's with certain alt restrictions).

You can expend flares outside R or W areas for an actual intercept mission, as it's a method of air-to-air signaling to get attention of an intercepted aircraft, if other methods haven't worked.

 

[MikeD]

You just wouldn't get close, except to grab their attention. A fighter could just fly slow circles around them all day, never being outside of a shot opportunity (if it were to actually come to that). Or he could do a mach run right over their heads and probably scare them out of the air

So many people think that a fighter is going to slow down and try to fly wing of a slow-mover. They may make a slow ID pass to get an N-number, but for the most part, they're going to hawk from altitude, which you well know.

 

[///AMG]

So many people think that a fighter is going to slow down and try to fly wing of a slow-mover. They may make a slow ID pass to get an N-number, but for the most part, they're going to hawk from altitude, which you well know.

Agreed. There would be no purpose to joining up and maintaining a close formation with an airplane like this.

 

[///AMG]

You can expend flares outside R or W areas for an actual intercept mission, as it's a method of air-to-air signaling to get attention of an intercepted aircraft, if other methods haven't worked.

Fair enough. I guess their RWR gear wouldn't be going off