"Scissoring" Convergance?

[StokesAk]

Today I had the idea of putting my convergance at a setting that i have heard to as scissoring.

For example, in the P51D:

Outer MGs: 375
Middle MGs: 400
Inner MGs: 425


I was just wondering if this in an effective method, i seemed to think so.
Also should i bring the distances in farther or closer to my plane?
Is the convergance effective at very close range (D100-D50)?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks!

[Lusche]

Today I had the idea of putting my convergance at a setting that i have heard to as scissoring.

For example, in the P51D:

Outer MGs: 375
Middle MGs: 400
Inner MGs: 425


I was just wondering if this in an effective method, i seemed to think so.
Also should i bring the distances in farther or closer to my plane?
Is the convergance effective at very close range (D100-D50)?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks!

At D100-D50 this convergence would basically not more or less effective than a pure "all 400" one. IF you do some trigonometry (or simply draw it on a sheet of paper), you will see it makes no big difference.

On a general note, sometimes players spend too much effort on fine tuning their convergences, when the overall effect during actual combat will be minimal, if there is one at all. All 400 or all 375 or staggered 375-425 doesn't matter much, as you will rarely ever be able to fire exactly at the optimum point. And deviations that small do not change things much.

[TequilaChaser]

Today I had the idea of putting my convergance at a setting that i have heard to as scissoring.

For example, in the P51D:

Outer MGs: 375
Middle MGs: 400
Inner MGs: 425


I was just wondering if this in an effective method, i seemed to think so.
Also should i bring the distances in farther or closer to my plane?
Is the convergance effective at very close range (D100-D50)?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks!

hmm... and for all this time I thought it was refered to as "Harmonization" or Harmonizing the individual sets of guns ( individual sets meaning: outer, middle and/or inner sets )

anyhows..... some here in AH do use this method, while others set theirs to "all fire on same convergence point".......

whatever you feel works best for you, trial & error with practice is the way to go..... everyone is different  

edit: using any gun calibers less than the .50s to me would be of no use, for they would not have the impact needed being of lighter ammo.....

a good plane type to practice with would be a "P47 series" since it has "4" sets of 50's ( 8 .50 cal guns )....... and I would think of pushing it to 50 ft increments rather than 25 ft.

if you go for this sort of thing, that is

hope this helps......

[TheRapier]

Since I fly a lot of US planes with 50 cals, I have them converge on one spot since they seem to really benefit from all hitting in one place. Without having that it seems to take a lot of hits to take down a plane but if you hit at the sweet spot you can saw off a wing quite nicely.

With cannon I think its a lesser consideration since the explosive power of the cannon shells are sufficient to take off plane parts if they hit in the right place.

Nose guns are another matter since convergence is really raising and lowering the trajectory and not concentrating fire. Then its really what feels right to you. I noticed that in the La7 it made a big difference to move convergence out for me, because I wasn't really properly figuring in the bullet drop.

Your results may vary

[Wiley]

I personally prefer having them all converge at one distance, particularly on the .50 equipped aircraft.  The 'scissoring' or 'harmonized' or what have you, I do not like as well.  Your fire is more dispersed, and you have no spot where it's really good, it's just this broad spread of weaker fire.

I realize it sounds simplistic, but your convergence should be set to where you do most of your shooting.  I do a lot of BnZ, my convergence on all the .50 equipped planes is 450.  This gives me a good 'zone' between 400 and 500 where my fire is quite concentrated, and allows me to put a lot of rounds on them, at those ranges because when I'm BnZing that's generally where I'm firing for effect.  At closer range, my bullets go into two groups that I can generally put onto the enemy's wing relatively easily.

The other reason I like the slightly longer convergence is because it allows me to reach further to get a guy to wiggle if he's running away at 600 yards or so but not maneuvering.  You can quite often get them to break if you hit them out that far, and a close convergence is much harder to aim out that far.

In a plane I tend to turnfight in a lot like a Spit 9 or something, I bring my convergence in around 250 or so because that's where I'm doing most of my shooting.

The main thing I find is, pick a convergence and stick with it for a while (a couple weeks anyway IMO) to see how it works for you.  If you're constantly changing it, you're not giving your brain a chance to adjust to your bullet trajectory and have it become second nature.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

Here is a quick table with some convergence examples.
I'm assuming 2 guns being 20 ft apart. Table shows the distance between the two bullet streams at various ranges:

[TonyJoey]

Like Wiley said, the main thing is to pick a convergance and stick with it for a while. Personally, since I fly almost all 50 cal planes, I set all my guns to 400.  One good burst takes them out almost everytime.

[MoJoRiZn]

Here is a quick table with some convergence examples.
I'm assuming 2 guns being 20 ft apart. Table shows the distance between the two bullet streams at various ranges:

how can the bullets curve out away from each other at 200 yards with the above graph on the convergences from 450 through 600? at minimum it would be 20 feet, because that is what they are apart at the wing

[Lusche]

(Image removed from quote.)

how can the bullets curve out away from each other at 200 yards with the above graph on the convergences from 450 through 600? at minimum it would be 20 feet, because that is what they are apart at the wing

You are reading it wrong. I have no covergence settings of 450 in this table at all. I have only 200, 375, 400, 425 and 600. See the arrow behind the label  "Conv setting"

[MoJoRiZn]

You are reading it wrong. I have no covergence settings of 450 in this table at all. I have only 200, 375, 400, 425 and 600. See the arrow behind the label  "Conv setting"

yes sir, I was reading it backwards my apologies. I went left to right instead of top to bottom

[Lusche]

yes sir, I was reading it backwards my apologies.

Nothing to apologize. 
Actually I'm waiting for someone proving that my math failed... you can't imagine how bad I'm at math... 

[shiv]

Back to the OP's question.  Is there any benefit in having a staggered convergence with the outer guns harmonized closer than the inner guns?   Theoretically, this would create a set of "mini-convergences" where the bullet streams from the same wing would be crossing each other.

[Lusche]

Back to the OP's question.  Is there any benefit in having a staggered convergence with the outer guns harmonized closer than the inner guns?   Theoretically, this would create a set of "mini-convergences" where the bullet streams from the same wing would be crossing each other.

Here's an example. 3 pairs of guns, each gun one foot away fron the next one in same wing. I gave outer guns the closest convergence:




Now if you give all 3 pairs the same convergence, you have to take into account (positively) that there will always be 3 guns with there patterns very close to each other (the ones coming from the same wing). 

[Lusche]

Made two graphics, showing the bullet streams on target. Plane has 6 guns (3 pairs of guns 20, 19, 18 ft apart).
Not factored in are the dispersion of individual guns or bullet drop.

First one shows all guns harmonized at 400 yds:




Second one shows a staggered harmonization at 350, 400, 450 yds:

[morfiend]

Nice graphs Lusche,I think you may have a mistake on the first 1 tho.

 You show the inner guns in green and I think at the 600 yard range you placed them in the wrong order!

 small mistake and I may be wrong but wouldnt the order be black red then green like you have in the 2nd graph or atleast have a reversed order?

 Also wouldnt the guns be the same distance as they are apart at 800 yds if they converged at 400,from the looks of the graph you have them same distance apart at 600 yds.

 Anyways the graph planely shows that a staggered convergence never acheives the bullet density that a single convergence point does. Your graphs definitely show that!