Gunsight 109 propositions

I do understand how a revi works. But I think you did not understand what I was trying to say.

If the revi as seen by the pilot when aiming would be offset - that's what you suggest - the gun convergence would need to be offset too. All that I have seen in terms of how gun convergence was set for the 109 suggest that the gun convergence was on the centre line and not offset. This is a strong indication that for the pilot the revi sight was in the centre and not offset.

Please see here:





(link to the post indicating the source of these two images: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=12 )

The gun pattern is absolutely symmetrical to the central symmetrical plane of the 109. I do not see one sensible reason why one should have an aim that is deviated from the point where the highest effectivity is obtained (at the point where the bullets converge). This would defy any logic.

Conclusion: The pilot aimed with a circle in the centre (where the bullets would meet).

EDIT: The triangle for Revi in the second image is just a measurement reference. It does say nothing of how the pilot perceived it.

[swiss]

You can't really tell from the pic.

But basically you got two options:

A) Keep the line-of-sight parallel to axis of symmetry , you'll end up with an error but at least it stays the same over all distances.

B) they intersect at a given distance: Deviation decreases to the point of intersection(?), from there on increases again, plus it shifts to the other side.

I would say B is worse.

So why did they not have option C: put the revi in the centre line? It disturbed neither the Spit, the Hurri or the Stuka pilot to have the revi in the centre. Why satisfy with a second best solution (assuming that the circle as seen by the pilot was offset)?

For me the answer is clear: because there was no need for option A, B or C as the pilot saw it in the centre and therefore where the most appropriate gun convergence was.

[swiss]

If that was such super solution, why are all the huds mounted in the center nowadays?

Fear of patent lawsuit?


edit
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2573
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/i...?topic=26241.0
?

[TomcatViP]

A wild guess : they were concerned with glass front panel drag. They were looking on a way to minimize its size. By relocating the visor close to where it was needed (the leading pilot eye) they could reduce the size of the visor hence the size of the front glass panel.

Moreover, the right handed pilot could use his shoulder blocked on the cockpit wall to maintain his head position during a dogfight. Relocating the visor on one side would hence become natural in a cramped cockpit.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

A wild guess : they were concerned with glass front panel drag. They were looking on a way to minimize its size. By relocating the visor close to where it was needed (the leading pilot eye) they could reduce the size of the visor hence the size of the front glass panel.

Moreover, the right handed pilot could use his shoulder blocked on the cockpit wall to maintain his head position during a dogfight. Relocating the visor on one side would hence become natural in a cramped cockpit.

That would also be a strong point for favoring cramped cockpits, always being able to stabilize your body during hard maneuvring.

And afaik the revi was offset to give as much unobstructed view as possible.

[fiendlittlewing]

The TIR and the German sight force one to have posture discipline. I find it an enjoyable challenge.

I agree that gunsight view is crap; I don't use it. Improvement could be made either by causing the gunsight view transition to be nearly instant, or by ditching the animation and keeping TIR functional during the transition. I would prefer the later option.

I don't know if I'd use the gunsight view even if it were improved. I prefer to lean forward. Even if I must also lean to the side a little. I would also point out that the revi pipper is a fairly predictable geometric shape. You only need to observe small parts of it to get a sense of where to aim. During deflection shooting the gun-sight is a mere suggestion anyway.

My motto is 'fly hard; shoot easy'.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I do understand how a revi works. But I think you did not understand what I was trying to say.

If the revi as seen by the pilot when aiming would be offset - that's what you suggest - the gun convergence would need to be offset too. All that I have seen in terms of how gun convergence was set for the 109 suggest that the gun convergence was on the centre line and not offset. This is a strong indication that for the pilot the revi sight was in the centre and not offset.

Please see here:

Does anyone have a similar chart for Spitfire or Hurri by chance?