another irrelevent observation..

[WhiteHawk]

The tracers look great, but why does the tail climb up and over the coanopy?  Sjouldnt they stay on the same plane as the wings?
I guess if the bullets were angled upward with respect to the wings the plane would fly under neath them, but, if anything, the plane should fly OVER the tracer tails due to the drop in trajectory.

[mos]

Because they are angled up, in order to compensate for the drop in trajectory you mentioned.

Check out this image of the P-38 bore sighting chart, the imaginary P-38 would be on the right, shooting to the left.  As you can see, the guns are firing from below the pilot's sight line, and then arcing up, passing it between 200 and 250 yards.

[WhiteHawk]

not disagreeing with you , but i always thought it was up to the pilot to account for lead and drop:confused:

I dont see anything in the chart that says that the guns are angled upwards with respect to the plane of the wings.  i do see the rainbow arc of the trajectory maps, but that could be assumed that the plane is climbing slightly.

Anybody got a decisive vote here?

[fats]

The guns are located below the sight line. Which is why in order to meet the sight line at convergence range, say 400 yards, they must be mounted in a slight upward angle.


And before anyone points it out, also drop due gravity needs to be compensated for by mounting the guns in an upward angle.



// fats

[hitech]

Plus do to the aoa of the plane when you shoot the bullets are
acctulay shooting up from your velocity vector, and hence you travel under the trail. If you pulling g's while shoting they will first move up, then back down as you travel about the circle.

HiTech

[WhiteHawk]

This is interesting.  When we set our convergence, do we also set the up axis of the guns to drop into target at xxx yds?  Or just the horizontal axis?  If the verticle isnt adjustable what is the set angle with respect to the plane of the wings?

[hitech]

Vertical also changes with convergance setting.

HiTech