Remove the fantasy - Ar-234

[chris3]

moin

this picture shows you the bombervariant with rearfiring canons.


cu christian

[Tank-Ace]

Wait, so let me get this strait (haven't been following the topic that closely for a while). Theres no solid evidence to support the Mg 151/20's on the Ar 234B?

[Babalonian]

moin

this picture shows you the bombervariant with rearfiring canons.
(Image removed from quote.)

cu christian

It does?

[FLS]

moin

this picture shows you the bombervariant with rearfiring canons.
(Image removed from quote.)

cu christian

That's the aircraft at NASM. It doesn't have guns mounted.

Nice Grunau Baby hanging behind it.

[chris3]

moin

maybe the museum bird do not have the guns any more, but if you see the periscope on the pilot cupola you see that these bird originaly should have the guns.

cu christian

[FLS]

Several different books state that only some of the bombers had the guns mounted, most of the bombers with the periscope did not have the guns mounted. 

[lyric1]

The F3 view is NOT like the periscope view.  It shows you way to much.  Do you really think the Luft Pilot staring through a reverse image periscope would be able to then deftly maneuver his aircraft to a gun solution.  Hardly, at best it would have given him a hint on when to fire.

Absurd.

You maybe on to something here?

Actual rear view photo through an AR-234B periscope (minus the aircraft).

[chris3]

Several different books state that only some of the bombers had the guns mounted, most of the bombers with the periscope did not have the guns mounted. 

moin

jes thats true, but the reson for that was that the the squadrouns were not able to get much of these rüstsätze as thay need, keep in mind it was the end of war and all the spezial equipment was hard to get. its was just a logistical problem.

in that case you can say the 262 should carry less 30mm rounds because in reality it happens often that thay were not able to put in the full amount of amunition. its just logistical problems.

cu christian

[Denniss]

The periscope is not an indicator for installed rear guns, that's something required to have a minimal rear view in the Ar 234.

[FLS]

You maybe on to something here?

Actual rear view photo through an AR-234B periscope (minus the aircraft).

It would be interesting to know the field of view and if the picture shows the proper eye relief.

[lyric1]

It would be interesting to know the field of view and if the picture shows the proper eye relief.

Can't find that specific info however looking at the the padded eye piece I would say the pilot would have had his eye pressed hard up against it.

If he didn't with the vibration & movement of the aircraft he would have a hard time bombing accurately IMHO?



Interestingly this padded eye piece & lens is missing on the periscope at the Smithsonian? Or maybe just painted in the above picture?

[FLS]

I was asking if the photo showed the proper eye relief. Normally you would see a sharp edge instead of the blurred circle in the photo so the field of view may be wider than it appears in the photo. The description I've read of the periscope use for the rear guns stated that the pilot could steer the guns normally towards the aircraft in the scope because the image was reversed as if in a mirror. This would not be desirable when pointing forward so the image must have reversed when the scope was rotated forward to back.

It seems obvious to me that the guns had to point back along the flight path in order for the periscope to target the bandit instead of being angled down where the bandit is masked by the fuselage.

[lyric1]

I was asking if the photo showed the proper eye relief. Normally you would see a sharp edge instead of the blurred circle in the photo so the field of view may be wider than it appears in the photo. The description I've read of the periscope use for the rear guns stated that the pilot could steer the guns normally towards the aircraft in the scope because the image was reversed as if in a mirror. This would not be desirable when pointing forward so the image must have reversed when the scope was rotated forward to back.

It seems obvious to me that the guns had to point back along the flight path in order for the periscope to target the bandit instead of being angled down where the bandit is masked by the fuselage.

The image may or may not apply to the PV1B head.

For a fact it was for the RF2C forward & rear view but no PV1B rear view is shown in any of the documents I have.

As far as guns pointing directions are concerned only documents I have all say downwards pointing.

With all the information I now have on the PV1B head they do mention it was designed for rear facing guns.

Yet with all that is there with how to bomb on the forward view there is no mention at all how to sight guns with the rear views.

Even the pilots hand book that I now have makes no mention of rear guns & how to use the PV1B head for shooting.
It only talks about the forward view & the BZA & how to bomb with it.

[lyric1]

I was asking if the photo showed the proper eye relief. Normally you would see a sharp edge instead of the blurred circle in the photo so the field of view may be wider than it appears in the photo.

May not have been focused at all when the photo was taken & that may explain the blurry image?

There is a collar for adjustment as seen in this drawing I think #62?

[Chalenge]

The reason the view is blurry is because the focal length of the camera lens could not adjust down to the distance required to take the image with proper focus.

EDIT: The reason this is impractical for gunnery is that the scope itself needs to one type (magnifying) for bombing and another type (collimator) for gunning.