Gun convergence vs elevation

[Nuku]

I'm getting irritated at my 20mm rounds falling away from a target at 300 yards pulling no more than 3G.

I've upped my convergence from 250 to 375, and done better, but then it occurred to me:

If you can elevate the guns to allow the rounds to converge at 375, why not elevate them to hit well above waterline, but converge (horizontally) closer?  That'd make those in-close knifefights easier.  I'd be surprised if guys didn't do this in real life so the big nose didn't get in the way.  On the downside, it makes strafing a little more dangerous 8)

I've noticed in the modern flightsims (Falcon 4.0, Jane's F/A-18) that the gunsight is waaay above the waterline marker on the HUD.

Why must horizontal convergence and gun elevation be coupled together by distance to convergence point?

[Andy Bush]

It is done in real life. In the F-15, for example, the gun is canted up slightly.

In the 1940s and 50s, there were proposed designs that had the entire nose section gymballed to rotate up to permit elevated firing...none saw service.

Anytime you fire with G on your aircraft, you can anticipate a pronounced increase in lead angle...it's just a matter of physics.

If you have a sim that includes aircraft with lead computing gunsights, fly one around and watch the behavior of the sight as it responds to your stick and rudder inputs. You don't need a target. Just note the sight position at one G and then go into a turn and observe the resulting sight depession. The magnitude of the depression is a direct function of your G.

Andy