• Voroxpete
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    Nah, just do it like they did in WW1; synchronize the ejection to the rotor blades so you fly through the gap, clean as a whistle.

    (Please don’t ask about our experiments with the earlier WW1 method of “Fuck it, just shoot the propeller sometimes, it’ll be fine”. Turns out that doesn’t work so great when you replace bullets with people.)

    • _haha_oh_wow_
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Didn’t they also put some sort of armoring on the propellers back then?

      • Voroxpete
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Some planes did, but early on they mostly just freeballed it. Turns out propellers are really big and heavy, and they can take a few bullets without breaking. Armour actually makes it more likely that fragments of bullets will fly back at the pilot.

        • _haha_oh_wow_
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, spall was my first thought when I read they just shot the propellers.

          • Voroxpete
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s very rare that a bullet strikes the blade anyway. Bursts were short because ammo was very limited (twenty round strips were common in early biplanes), and the percentage of the space in front of the nose that is propeller is absolutely tiny compare to the percentage that is not propeller. To us its all a blur but to a bullet those blades are basically standing still.