Gun sight image size analysis

[BulletVI]

they shouldnt be - the mgs are on the engine cowling just under the sight line, the cannon are in the wing root way below that.

but that shouldnt make a difference, at convergence distance all of the rounds should hit the sight line (or disperse around it)

yeh but we dont know how they modeled it do we if it was modeled with the cannons elevated slightly up to meet the Machine guns on their convergence then it is possible that is what is creating the clear sign of hit's well bellow the gun sight whitch we can all agree these shots would never go anywhere near the target plane .

[RTHolmes]

turn your tracers on, you can see where the rounds are coming from.

[BulletVI]

turn your tracers on, you can see where the rounds are coming from.

My Tracers where on

[TequilaChaser]

maybe this has already been mentioned....

.30 cal , .50 cal, even 20 mm hspanos have a flater trajectory and more "umphh" meaning they have less drop

the heavier the cannon the more the pronounced drop the further out...... even if convergence is set say all to 350, 400, 500 or 600 etc... on a P-38 one will notice the 20 mm willl hit the target slightly lower than the .50  cals do......  at least this has been my experience when testing

I also used to use Auto angle instead of auto level when testing ( Ren taught me this like 8 years ago or 7 I forget???? ) that with his theory of using the Auto angle  ( Shift X ) instead of auto level ( X ), while holding the bore site center directly on the bullseye of the target and engaging the auto feature, showed a truer test.... I forget now though if that was true to fact or not but just a myth, I only remember the conversation/discussion over the matter someodd 7 or 8 years ago........

I do know back in AH1 and at the beginning of AH2 ( during AH 2 Beta ) that HTC introduced the spiraling/swuirlling gun dispersion <----> bullet leaving the end of the barrel and this in itself played an important effect/or part on where a bullets trajectory went....... I may be wrong though..... it has been a long while since I have run any convergence/trajectory tests in the different planes or gun packages...

if anything, I do not want to mislead anyone...... just trying to recall from memory here...

[BulletVI]

maybe this has already been mentioned....

.30 cal , .50 cal, even 20 mm hspanos have a flater trajectory and more "umphh" meaning they have less drop

the heavier the cannon the more the pronounced drop the further out...... even if convergence is set say all to 350, 400, 500 or 600 etc... on a P-38 one will notice the 20 mm willl hit the target slightly lower than the .50  cals do......  at least this has been my experience when testing

I also used to use Auto angle instead of auto level when testing ( Ren taught me this like 8 years ago or 7 I forget???? ) that with his theory of using the Auto angle  ( Shift X ) instead of auto level ( X ), while holding the bore site center directly on the bullseye of the target and engaging the auto feature, showed a truer test.... I forget now though if that was true to fact or not but just a myth, I only remember the conversation/discussion over the matter someodd 7 or 8 years ago........

I do know back in AH1 and at the beginning of AH2 ( during AH 2 Beta ) that HTC introduced the spiraling/swuirlling gun dispersion <----> bullet leaving the end of the barrel and this in itself played an important effect/or part on where a bullets trajectory went....... I may be wrong though..... it has been a long while since I have run any convergence/trajectory tests in the different planes or gun packages...

if anything, I do not want to mislead anyone...... just trying to recall from memory here...

it sounds astho you may have something there TequilaChaser we do have to remember that even in a straight line what with Gravity at 1.5 G's ( i think it is ) a heavy caliber and its weight would drop over a certain distance.
as the force and weight of gravity would couse the bullet to travel downwards after it looses it's terminal velosity speed ( i think thats the right word ) We have to remember that even in straight and level flight with a target at say 300 yards ( perfect convergence point ) we still have to have our sight's about 1-2 mil's above our intended target.
A nice example below but a glider is used as the example sorry. ( oh and some people will also say the curviture of the earth has to be taken in to affect but i say WHAT  )

I.e Altho its totaly different but a good example a Glider flying at a speed of 65 knots and for every 1 km traveled it will loose 150 feet in height  say for example.

[RTHolmes]

so much wrong there I dont know where to start.

with Gravity at 1.5 G's ( i think it is )

 

[BulletVI]

so much wrong there I dont know where to start.

 

Yes rtholmes we all live with a certain amount of gforce due to the earth's rotation it stops us all floating off the earth and in to space. you never feel it as your body is used to it from Day 1   Don't ask me how much it is tho i cant remember.

[gyrene81]

so much wrong there I dont know where to start.

 

No doubt...    It's astounding how much he gets wrong in a single post.

[BulletVI]

See Rule #4

[RTHolmes]

once again all wrong. how about you piss off to wikipedia and look up Isaac Newton. then read the stuff about gravitation. then check out his laws of motion. and FYI gravity is ... 1G.

on a P-38 one will notice the 20 mm willl hit the target slightly lower than the .50  cals do

ok I'm confused again - does hangar convergence setting harmonise in the vertical plane , or only in the horizontal? I always assumed that its both. baumers 190 screenies and TC's experience suggest it doesnt, at least consistently. or is this just testing errors?

[Motherland]

Yes rtholmes we all live with a certain amount of gforce due to the earth's rotation it stops us all floating off the earth and in to space. you never feel it as your body is used to it from Day 1  Don't ask me how much it is tho i cant remember.

'G's measure the acceleration forces on objects relative to earths gravitational force... So the earths gravitational force is... 1G

[Baumer]

Well it would be 1g standing on the ground, it would also be 1g in straight and level flight (with zero acceleration) so that's not it.

As for TC's point about auto-angle vs. auto-speed I'll have to think about that one. There are a few other aspects I want to mull over and research as they relate to ballistics and convergence settings as well. So there will be more to discuss.

[BulletVI]

once again all wrong. how about you piss off to wikipedia and look up Isaac Newton. then read the stuff about gravitation. then check out his laws of motion. and FYI gravity is ... 1G.


ok I'm confused again - does hangar convergence setting harmonise in the vertical plane , or only in the horizontal? I always assumed that its both. baumers 190 screenies and TC's experience suggest it doesnt, at least consistently. or is this just testing errors?

Ahem you will notice that after i said 1.5g in brackets i said i think it is so i wasnt totaly sure and it was gyrene81 i told to piss off he has followed me through the forums saying im wrong and never proved it as he dosn't know him self.

[RTHolmes]

bullet if you think that gravity is 1.5G, then the problems here are going to go waaaay over your head. you need to understand the basics before applying those to more complex problems. take my advice and check out Newton

As for TC's point about auto-angle vs. auto-speed I'll have to think about that one.

auto angle level, then elevator trim to put the pipper in the centre of the target might be best. then you got the problem that you're in a slow descent so the target will be lower when the rounds hit it than when they leave the barrel.

basically this is going to be almost impossible to test accurately because the motion vector isnt the same as the sight line. the answers in the coad (hint hint )

[gyrene81]

Ahem you will notice that after i said 1.5g in brackets i said i think it is so i wasnt totaly sure and it was gyrene81 i told to piss off he has followed me through the forums saying im wrong and never proved it as he dosn't know him self.

LMAO...I haven't followed you through anything. I'm just astounded at how absolutely without a clue an "air frames engineer" can be about so much.

You should really take the advice RTHolmes gave you about Newton, make it easy on yourself and just google earth gravity. Then take the information myself and others posted in the 30mm cannon discussion and look up the bullet trajectory calculator. All you need to do it plug in the correct numbers and you will find out how much a cannon or machine gun round will drop along the horizontal plane within whatever ranges you want to calculate. Very easy and you will look much less foolish.