I still struggle with this I'm afraid - despite the very interesting diagram. From what I can see from the above, we simply have two different points of convergence with this particular 109, one set for the MG 17s and one for the MG-FFs. The cannon are harmonized to converge at 200m and the MGs at 400m -or so. However, given the different trajectories of the two weapons the cannon convergence occurs well above the line of sight, so if you were aiming at something at 200m you would probably miss with your cannon and with your MGs. At 400m you would get quite a nice group with your MG 17s but your cannon would be way off. So, this brings me back to my original point about horizontal and vertical points of convergence. I don't really see why we would have the option to set both. If I was a WW2 fighter pilot I would expect my weapons to harmonized to climb through or fall through my line of sight at a particular known range, say 300m and in some cases I may set different points of convergence for my MGs and cannon (although I can't imagine why I would do that) - but why would I attempt to alter the vertical convergence? Each weapon can be set differently so presumably it would be possible to have each MG or cannon zeroed in on a different bit of sky, but what historical evidence is there that anyone did this, effectively the opposite approach to weapons harmonization?
|
09-04-2012, 12:25 AM
Threaded Mode