PK of Igla vs. airliner?

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

If the target is an airplane, it would be more a matter of skill than
luck.

Even with a lot of skill, you aren't going to hit a flying 747 engine
with a
50 cal, except by luck.

Here we go again... Tarver realizes his previous statements are pure BS,
but
instead of retracting them or admitting his error, he simply changes the
topic
and/or parameters in mid stream...

No John Weiss, it is you that changed the subject, one having to do with the
striking the engine compressor with a sholder fired 50 cal. I do wish you
would work on your reading and comprehenbsion, Weiss.

Initially, the target was an airplane, the weapon was a high-power rifle,
and
the range was a few hundred yards. Now, according to Tarver, we're
reduced to a
747 engine, a "50 cal," and 1000 yards...

Nope, the discussion is tied to a URL for a specific exploding ammunition in
50 calibre. The fact that you can't read is not a reason for you to become
insulting, Weiss.

Still, I contend that a skilled marksman or sniper, after a reasonable
amount of
specific training and practice, could consistently hit an engine on a 747
flying
at 120 knots, on a stable path perpendicular to the bullet path, from a
range of
1,000'.

LOL

First you can't read and then you have a brain fart.

At 120 knots, an object is moving about 200 feet per second. At a
range of "a
few hundred yards" (1,000', for a round number),

1000 yards is about the effective range of the weapon, on a stationary
target.

So, the stated range is well inside the effective range -- not a problem!

Big problem, as the flying airplane is well outside the parameters of
"stationary".

the time of flight for a round
from any modern, high-power rifle would be much less than a second.

With the target moving at 200 feet a second there is little chance of
hitting an engine.

When the target is at a nominal range of 1000 feet, the crossing angle
rate is
just over 11 degrees per second, well within the capability of a marksman
to
follow a target in stable flight and hold aim on a target several feet
high and
several feet wide.

Lead becomes the problem and I think you know I lowballed the airspeed.

What is the crossing rate of the clay pigeons on a trap or skeet range,
just for
comparison purposes?

Our skeet expert is Art, so you'll have to ask him.

You don't gat a couple of bracketing shots, by then the target is gone.
What are you dreaming of Weiss, a 50 cal mounted on a Humvee?

For an engineer, you sure demonstrate a significant lack of capability for
simple analysis!

I have a real problem with the idea of bracketing shots from a sholder fired
50 caliber at a target traveling at 3 miles a minute. Perhaps you could
head for a shooting range and acquire some knowledge, Weiss.

The weapon could be "a 50 cal mounted on a Humvee," an M-60 on a bipod, or
a
shoulder-mounted rifle of almost any description.

No, the thread is specificly about a sholder fired 50 calibre, of which a
single shot and a semi automatic are available to the public, using specific
ammunition and striking the compressor face.

Of course, if we change the subject to some completely different set of
parameters, Weiss might be correct. A tripod mounted 50 calibre machine gun
could do the job.

Assume a conservative field of fire -- 30 degrees either side of a line
perpendicular to the flight path. At a perpendicular range of 1000' the
length
of the flight path within the field of fire is 1154', placing any point on
the
airplane within the field of fire for 5.77 seconds. That gives the
marksman
more than sufficient time to accurately place shots.

That should get you all of one shot with a sholder fired 50 calibre, no
bracketing shots there, Weiss.

A sniper can consistently place shots within a minute of arc. With a
nominal 2'
cross-section, an aircraft engine subtends almost 7 minutes of arc at
1000'.
The probability of a skilled marksman hitting a 747 engine with multiple
shots
from a 10-round clip under the stated conditions is very high. If the
target is
the airplane instead of just the engine, the probability of multiple hits
approaches 1.

I think Weiss has us back to a Humvee mounted machine gun.

Of course, Weiss has a habbit of changing the subject such that what he
wrote previously isn't as luney as when it was penned. Educational though.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
"B2431" wrote in message
...
Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

Tarver has obviously never heard of an airplane being brought down by
small
arms. Should we tell him?

Sure Dan, list all the airliners you know of that were brought down by
small
arms fire.

Did I say "airliner?"

Read the title of the thread, Dan.

"Arie Kazachin" wrote in message
...

Snip

Or LOTS of practice. There was a Russian sniper in WWII whose name
eludes me at this moment (and it's too late to phone a friend of mine,
shooting instructior who told me the name) who downed a German plane with
a
rifle by hitting the canopy and killing the pilot. Of corse, such people
are
very rare but with hundreds of millions of muslims avaliable you might
find and train few good snipers. Let's hope that after 9/11/2001 FBI
monitors
not only people participating in flight lessons but also people training
in sharp-shooting...

So far the terrorists have been upper middle class goofs, so I can't see
them doing this kind of blue collar labor.

Either way, your story is interesting and educational.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote...

No John Weiss, it is you that changed the subject, one having to do with the
striking the engine compressor with a sholder fired 50 cal. I do wish you
would work on your reading and comprehenbsion, Weiss.

Hmmm... Let's look up the thread...

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 6:28 PM
Even with a lot of skill, you aren't going to hit a flying 747 engine with a
50 cal, except by luck.

From: "John R Weiss"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 3:14 PM
If the target is an airplane, it would be more a matter of skill than luck.

From: "Tarver Engineering"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 12:15 PM
Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.

From: "Jim Yanik"
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 11:24 AM
But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.

From: "John Keeney"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:47 PM
Aim for the cockpit from along the flight path: high probability of
escape if the plane doesn't fall on you and if it does, well, a plane
load of tourist seems worth dyeing for to a lot of jihadist.

From: "Jim Yanik"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 8:30 PM
Hitting a passenger jet with a .50BMG (single shot or semi-auto,10 round
magazine)will not be easy,and will have little effect,as hitting something
critical is unlikely.Probably go in one side and out the other,very little
damage.

From: "Peter Glasø"
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 11:00 AM
Or a few men armed with 0.50 cal. sniper rifles -
readily available in the US.


The top of this thread, where the "Igla" discussion switched to rifles, said
absolutely nothing about engine compressors. As a matter of fact, your message
of 10:42 AM today is the FIRST that mentions an engine compressor at all!

My reading and comprehension are fine. I doubt yours, though.


Nope, the discussion is tied to a URL for a specific exploding ammunition in
50 calibre. The fact that you can't read is not a reason for you to become
insulting, Weiss.

I don't know where you got this "URL for a specific exploding ammunition" stuff!
Peter Glaso's Aug 15, 11:00 AM message was the first that mentioned rifles at
all. Nowhere in the thread is there any mention of exploding ammunition or a
URL reference to it.

Again, I can read just fine. If you want to be insulted, I can't stop you.


First you can't read and then you have a brain fart.

1000 yards is about the effective range of the weapon, on a stationary
target.

So, the stated range is well inside the effective range -- not a problem!

Big problem, as the flying airplane is well outside the parameters of
"stationary".

I have not found a definition of "effective range" for rifle ammunition that is
limited to stationary targets:

What is the definition of Maximum Effective Range?
The greatest distance at which the weapon may be expected to inflict
casualties
http://www.armystudyguide.com/m16/studyguide.htm

MAXIMUM EFFECTIVE RANGE- The greatest distance at which a weapon may be
expected to fire accurately to inflict damage or casualties.
http://www.tpub.com/maa/85.htm

EFFECTIVE RANGE
THAT RANGE AT WHICH A WEAPON OR WEAPONS SYSTEM HAS A FIFTY PERCENT
PROBABILITY OF HITTING A TARGET
http://members.aol.com/usmilbrats/glossary/e.htm

effective range means the greatest distance a projectile will travel with
accuracy
http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/n...y/termsk_r.pdf and

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/scr...ess/rgrisk.htm

However, a comprehensive discussion of calculating lead for moving targets can
be found at http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/mildot.htm. According to the
writer, a .308 is an "effective" sniper round against moving targets at 600-800
yards (listed effective range is 800-1000 yards, according to
http://www.snipercentral.com/308.htm). This translates to an effective range
for moving targets that is 75-80% that for stationary targets, and is consistent
with the effective ranges of the Chieftain's 120mm gun against moving and
stationary targets (2000 m vs 3000 m, or 66%;
http://call.army.mil/products/newsltrs/90-8/90-8ch9.htm); an M72 antitank rocket
(165 meters vs 200 meters, or 82%;
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/rockets/law/law.htm); or an RPG-7 (300 m vs 500
m, or 60%; http://www.sof-land.net/index.php?bo...wpguide&page=3). It makes
complete sense that the .50 BMG should easily be "effective" against a moving
target at 300 yards -- only 16% of its listed effective range (1800 meters
against equipment size targets;
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m82.htm).

FWIW, "The M82A2 was obviously designed as a cheap anti-helicopter weapon,
suitable for use against highly mobile targets when fired from the shoulder."
(http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn02-e.htm), so the suitability of .50 BMG weapons
in their current form, against moving targets, has been explored in their
development history.

Lead becomes the problem and I think you know I lowballed the airspeed.

The lead-computation formulae in the alpharubicon discussion above (as well as
others) shows us that lead can be computed in advance for known or expected
targets. Besides, the airspeed is not too low for a small airliner. Further
the airspeed of a 747 on final approach (130-160 knots) or just after takeoff
(140-185 knots) is in the same order of magnitude. At the outside limit (185
knots instead of 120), the time in view for any point of the airplane (using
previously presented parameters) is still 3.65 seconds. A single sniper could
still easily place 4 rounds of a 5-round magazine into the center fuselage or
wing section in that time.


I have a real problem with the idea of bracketing shots from a sholder fired
50 caliber at a target traveling at 3 miles a minute.

I don't doubt that for a second!


No, the thread is specificly about a sholder fired 50 calibre, of which a
single shot and a semi automatic are available to the public, using specific
ammunition and striking the compressor face.

Hardly! None of the initiators of the ".50 cal./.50BMG thread limited the
discussion to "shoulder fired" or "specific ammunition"; a compressor face never
entered the discussion until your mention immediately above.


Of course, if we change the subject to some completely different set of
parameters, Weiss might be correct. A tripod mounted 50 calibre machine gun
could do the job.

No specific parameters were presented other than round, range to target and
airspeed. I merely selected a representative set of parameters as an example
exercise for analysis. The parameters are suitable to a bipod-mounted .50 BMG
"sniper rifle" such as:

Barrett M82A1A equipped with bipod
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m82.htm

Barrett M95
http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/

EDM Windrunner XM107 with M14 bipod
1/2 MOA accuracy
http://www.50-bmg.com/50.htm


I think Weiss has us back to a Humvee mounted machine gun.

Not yet, though that would substantially increase the number of hits...


Of course, Weiss has a habbit of changing the subject such that what he
wrote previously isn't as luney as when it was penned. Educational though.

No change in subject here!

I am more than happy to provide you with the education you must have previously
missed.

In article ,
writes
You absolutely do not need .50 to penetrate an aircraft skin. A
regular 7.62 NATO, not even AP, should do nicely.
Frontal aspect might be a bit tougher. ISTR reading about a hijack
situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
penetrate the cockpit window.



Cheers,


--
Moramarth

In message - "Tarver Engineering"
writes:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .

snip
Gators was an attempt at humor,but even normally brave people shy away at
the thought of being a gator's dinner.

I was out in Florida retrofitting some old 727s in '92 and I found fried
gator tail to be delicious.

But the chance of hitting something critical still is very small,and the
frontal area of an airplane is still pretty small and a moving target.
Still not an easy task.

Hitting a target moving at 120 kts with a bullet would be pure luck.



Or LOTS of practice. There was a Russian sniper in WWII whose name
eludes me at this moment (and it's too late to phone a friend of mine,
shooting instructior who told me the name) who downed a German plane with a
rifle by hitting the canopy and killing the pilot. Of corse, such people are
very rare but with hundreds of millions of muslims avaliable you might
find and train few good snipers. Let's hope that after 9/11/2001 FBI monitors
not only people participating in flight lessons but also people training
in sharp-shooting...



************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

ISTR reading about a hijack
situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
penetrate the cockpit window

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been tested
for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if they
still do that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
ISTR reading about a hijack
situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
penetrate the cockpit window

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been
tested
for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if
they
still do that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

The frozen part was inadvertent, thawed birds more closely resembled the
actual live items.

Tex

"B2431" wrote in message
...
ISTR reading about a hijack
situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
penetrate the cockpit window

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been
tested
for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if
they
still do that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Actually when they launched a frozen chicken that was in error.
The birds are suppsoed to be thawed first, frozen chickens
have absolutely no problem penetrating screens, they are
in effect large balls of ice after all.

Keith

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:58:33 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On 17 Aug 2003 23:10:59 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

ISTR reading about a hijack
situation where the boss bad guy was visible in the cockpit (aircraft on
the ground) so it was decided to snipe him, but the bullet didn't
penetrate the cockpit window

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Windscreens for airliners have been tested
for years by launching frozen chickens at them from cannon. I wonder if they
still do that.

Actually, they _thaw_ the chickens first. The story you heard is a
joke, not an accurate description.

It takes eight hours to change out a 747 windscreen and clean out the
cockpit after hitting a snow goose, by the way.

Does that include the time to clean the pilots trousers?

Peter Kemp