gunnie101

guys on the classic hornet the wow switch is only on the starboard landing gear, when doing end to end testing (firing pulses at the bomb racks) we needed to stick a screwdriver under the switch (wow wedge)- note that for our testing that we needed to make the aircraft think it was flying by moving the switch on the nose wheel DDI(digital display indicator)

Ok, I will keep trying. You can't use a hud tape - zoom in or what ever you do and count pixels??? and try to rewrite the laws of physics. Again, I am more than happy to give you more data about how the gattling system can result in uneven barrel wear and how the aircraft is effected during the firing of the gun. You can't just post into the "Bug and Problems" forum with a theory you have, and then ignore the reply of every person who is an expert on the subject replying that you are wrong - it works each way - ED is not going to rewrite their code based on a theory you have developed. I am happy for you to ask me detailed questions via PM but this thread needs to be closed - you are flogging a dead horse mate. I apologise to everyone for my abrupt reply to this thread. Gunnie

I don't follow what hud tapes will tell you - what I am talking about is what the scoring system see's and report back to the pilots. As stated barrel wear can be very uneven due to the nature of operation of the gun (this is a fact) All I am saying is what DSC has matches what is seen in real life (I have seen it myself as it was my job). You can't base comments on DCS having it wrong based on a 1962 document on a gun bolted firmly to a table - it is not like that in the hornet - i.e. the real world. Wags even posted that he raised this question to A-10 pilots and they stated it was correct, the F-18 pilot they referred to question to said it was correct and I am trying to help you to understand why it been implemented in DCS as I was a guy who actually repaired the hornet gun and worked at a bombing range that recorded dispersion using acoustic ears that detected the shock waves of the rounds. I wish you luck but I don't think you are going to get too much further on this one. Gunnie

Hey dude - thanks for the reply. Is there anything I can produce at my end that may give you a visual picture of whats happening on the ground (bombing range stuff) let me know. I am also more than happy to discuss uneven barrel wear with you (clearing sector and firing sector) I think that the thread has got confusing, you have 20 mm and 30 mm systems mixed together (different ballistics) and comments about A-10 pilots and Tornado pilots (that one has me really confused - they have canon). You also have CIWS into the mix - perhaps you need to separate the subjects out? - not you fault just where things have ended up. Not once have I read about range / convergence points, unlike what has been stated - yes they do have barrel clamps and yes they do help - there is a torque specification and that is lock wired. Mate respect you have formed a world view on this and respect all the trouble you have gone to but can you consider what F-18 pilots and armourers can report to you as facts. If there is any additional information I can provide (non classified) just let me know as obviously you are really interested and I would like to help. I hope you take this post in the best spirit that I intend it to be. There may even be many armament questions you may want to ask that I may be able to help with - cheers mate. Gunnie

Only just came across this thread - I might add some input. As a f-18 A/B armament fitter I have pulled the m61a1 apart and back together a dozens of times. I also worked at the Aussie bombing range (Saltash) and used to report the shots seen by the acoustic scoring system for the gunnery lanes - the shots go all over the place. There are so many factors involved, the gun is above the radar package and there was much development work on the hornet to ensure that vibration was not effecting the radar excessively. When the gun fires hydraulically you have ballistic gases coming out of the two holes in the blast defuser and engine bleed air going into the gun bay to purge all the gases via the scavange door (thats the loud sound you hear when the gun fires) - all this is happening at 6,000 shot per minute at high rate and with the tolerances on the driving bands on 20mm ammunition you can see that dispersion in real life on the ground. Even when the gun has a high speed stoppage you can physically see the aircraft roll. Further different aircraft were more accurate and tighter dispersion than others. Nighthawk - I enjoyed reading your posts and views, that said as an actual F-18 armourer who used to observe the shots, DCS has it ok. There may be something else to look at to help ED out with. Again only my view from working on the jolly thing............ Gunnie - sorry about my poor spelling.

Exactly what I was after for myself - I thank you for sharing & a job well done. Thanks Mate !!!

Good words Load Toad ! - I will expand a little the FZU-48 (so that we all know what we are talking about) is a device that operates after the bomb leaves the aircraft, it pops out and is a windmill that spins in the airflow to provide an electrical/mechanical signal to the FMU-139 fuse (in the rear of the weapon) that arms it. On some other aircraft like a F-18 (and not the A-10) there is a cable that plugs into the FMU-139 that can plug into a special orange connector in the BRU-32 bomb rack that allows programming by the pilot. There may be confusion to some as they google a topic and get the manufacturers page and think it applies to the A-10. Can we give WeaponZ248 a chance to explain how it works as we all will benefit from someone who does it for a living. Gunnie

Just thought I would add something in relation to the whole 1760 connection "thing". In the RAAF as armourers we were a fair bit different to other military forces as we maintained the weapons, did the prep, loaded and also tested the jet and were also cross trained as avionics and radar. As we maintained such interfaces I would that I would point out that the 1553 & 1760 stuff is not normally ever used for fuze delays and programming because you are referring to a digital interface as opposed to electrical mechanical (yes some smart weapons use it but not a FMU-139 fuze !). To explain for an example what that the 1760 bus stuff allows to do (and not used or modeled as such with the A-10 I beleive) would be is a AIM-9 on station 1 has acquired with its guidance head a target but you want to use the AIM-9 on station 9 but its head has the aircraft body blocking the weapons guidance head so the 1760 bus will allow the X/Y coordinates from station 1 to be applied to the station 9 weapon just before launch and when fired will acquire the target. This is the same example of how helmet mounted sights are used on high off boresight weapons release (a standard AIM-9M only has a field of view of 26 deg off missile boresight where say Python4 can get 90deg and ASRAAM pretty much the same). I would not want to talk for the A-10 avionics guys but its obviously the interface that allows the TGP to designate or lock to a target and then allow Mav's to slave to that point (the same principal as I explained with AIM-9 but I made the example so that all would understand). Remember that with 1760 we are talking about a new type of digital interface that is 1553 compliant and where it additionally allows some power to a weapon and pins for analog (eg open/closed circuits) and fibre optics for the future. Hope it helps & the offer is open to anyone who wants to read my poor spelling and rantings for me to write a burst on the interfaces that weapons use to interface to aircraft. Gunnie

WeaponZ248, I think the impression is that fuze settings can be done via the pit i.e. operation. What you and I see is the solenoids that hold the links and electrical arming off to the fuzzys. Perhaps you could explain the electrical mechanical interface if not let me know and I will give it a go. Gunnie (p.s. still no address for me to send some Australian Armourer stuff to you mate)

I had a similar issue - with Beta 1 run as admin always fixed the error. With Beta 2 I have found that it's not the full screen option (as well as run as admin) its actually getting the resolution correct (resolution to align with full screen). I have tested multiple times and can confirm that was how i resolved at my end (Win 7 32bit)