Pony talk

Originally Posted by Tempest123

I played with it some more and yeah, Sternjaeger you're right, I just set it up with the right aircraft and then the closest range and it works good, no fiddling required. It's a pretty neat piece of equipment, I'll have to look up how the real one works.

I have several brit and american gyro gunsights (both the war and postwar models), and the range adjustment could only be done on the postwar ones AFAIK.
In the end of the day the gunsight range had to be adjusted to match with the converging point of the machineguns, and that's something you can't adjust in flight. I am not sure whether it changes with the converging adjustments you can do before the mission, but it's worth a test methinks.

As for anything else I think they did an impressive job with it, the only side note being that they didn't simulate gyroscopic precession (which could happen at times).

And now for a shameless plug: if anyone's interested I have a couple of GGS gunsights to sell, they're postwar but just like the wartime ones. PM me if you're interested!

[Tempest123]

Yes, of course, I didn't think about that, the convergence can't change (slaps forehead), so set the wingspan and go. It would be neat to see this sight on the Spit or P-47, not sure if Hellcats or F4u's had them. There was a German model too but I remember something about a lack of information, so it didn't make it into Il2. Do you know what aircraft your sights came from?

Originally Posted by Tempest123

Yes, of course, I didn't think about that, the convergence can't change (slaps forehead), so set the wingspan and go. It would be neat to see this sight on the Spit or P-47, not sure if Hellcats or F4u's had them. There was a German model too but I remember something about a lack of information, so it didn't make it into Il2. Do you know what aircraft your sights came from?

I don't think the Navy used them for their prop fighters, the gyro components on these early gunsights were quite susceptible to elements and excessive vibrations, maybe that's why..

My gunsights were originally MkIID installed on Spits, converted afterwards to MkVIII to use on planes like the Vampire and ultimately the Hawker Hunter. They're lovely pieces of kit, and could be converted to their original ww2 spec at a fraction of the cost of a wartime model.

SJ

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger

I have several brit and american gyro gunsights (both the war and postwar models), and the range adjustment could only be done on the postwar ones AFAIK.
In the end of the day the gunsight range had to be adjusted to match with the converging point of the machineguns, and that's something you can't adjust in flight. I am not sure whether it changes with the converging adjustments you can do before the mission, but it's worth a test methinks.

As for anything else I think they did an impressive job with it, the only side note being that they didn't simulate gyroscopic precession (which could happen at times).

And now for a shameless plug: if anyone's interested I have a couple of GGS gunsights to sell, they're postwar but just like the wartime ones. PM me if you're interested!

Do you have the documentation to go along with them? It might be useful if a Spitfire XIV or late model XVI gets modeled as those should both have the Mark II GGS. If you do... hold on to that stuff

Originally Posted by IceFire

Do you have the documentation to go along with them? It might be useful if a Spitfire XIV or late model XVI gets modeled as those should both have the Mark II GGS. If you do... hold on to that stuff

got it all: manual, tags, airworthiness certificates..
The technology on the late GGS gunsights it's exactly the same as in the old ones, the only difference is the range adjustment (which was radar controlled) and on some models the radar lock light.

Gunsights are good stuff

[X32Wright]

Read this link and get the experience of flying the P-51 form somebody who has actually flown one in real life as well as flies the game actively. Miss Strega is active on HL so ask her if you need more information:

http://deltachevron.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=85

Everything and anything about flying the P-51 is on this thread. The mustang doesnt have the acceleration of a FW or 109 and you have to earn the speed and keep her fast. Also most people qouting that she is manueverable only does it above 320kph and never lower and you should engage the combat flaps anyway everytime you go below 280kph in the Mustang.

I use an all 100 INPUT for the mustang ans she flies like a dream specially in WarClouds fighting FW' and 109s. As Erkki's youtube post shows the .50 cals is far from porked and you just need to have SUSTAINED deflection shots and have the proper convergence. I use 300 yards (USAAF recommendation) or 274 meters.

interesting stuff, there's some of us here who have some experience on the real deal as well it's always interesting to compare different experiences!

SJ

[Tempest123]

Wow, that is an excellent read, ill have to try those tips, thnks! Its good to hear from someone who has experience in a real one.

yeah, it really is, although it's kinda hard to compare a "modern" Mustang with a wartime model.
Engine and structural exhaustion wasn't a concern back then, but nowadays we need to preserve these machines in the best possible way.

Unfortunately there isn't an universally recognised "school of warbirds" (or if there is, I've never heard of it), so often the pilots of these machines tend to fly them without much care or pro-active attitude.

Because of the solid engineering background of my friends, they tend to approach and fly their machines in an "intelligent" way: they do not overstress their engines or airframes beyond necessity (I think I mentioned before that we normally take off with just 75% throttle), nor put them through potentially dangerous or high stress envelopes (this doesn't mean they're not trained for it of course )

Engine management is quite straightforward and disciplined: WEP is available but never used (if you respect all the procedures there's really no need for it); we tend to set our engines to specific values according to the phases of flight(take-off; cruise; aerobatics etc..), but being an extremely energetic fighter, it's easy to use its aerodynamic features to make it a very efficient flyer.

weight distribution is the same, but the planes are a bit lighter than the originals: armour plating is not present unless structural, and the old battery and radios + central tank have been replaced with a jump seat. Wing armament is there, but obviously the ammunition belts are slightly lighter because they're inert.

Unfortunately there are several owners/operators that don't really pay much care to the engine managing (although there's an ever growing awareness in the field), and often these 60+ years old components get abused..

[ramstein]

the only thing that bothers me about these 'conversations' about aircraft its:

when I chat with WWII pilots about their aircraft in combat (I have talked with P40, Cosair, B24, and several other pilots that actually flew combat in WWII and Korea..) and they never once told me the History channel and military channels lie about anything. I specially asked them, just because people here always throw that argument oput saying they do. When I chatted with these WWII pilots, the chats were for a few hours and sometimes with fighter and bomber pilots together.. in very small groups of about 5 people..

yet when I come here every who never flew anything always lays down the law on how these aicraft flew..

I respect those who actually flew aicraft,, or at least builds them..

myself, I worked on aicraft, and flew on a few as I was in the USAF a few years. But I never flew in combat, only flew a piper cub, only sat in a Spitfire, F4, F15, B52's, and may, many others. I flew in tankers, C5's, military version of a lear jet (forgot the model..) and many, many other modern aircraft.. including helos.

I have worked in aerospace, but my only aicraft builds were the small scale flyable models that you fly by wires with a handle. I built combat and acrobatic models. That was when I was very young and you could build aicrat with 4 foot wingspans for $10 and the engine was $15.

oh well, I wish these conversations would help get the porked planes fixed.. I think the modders have the tools, they just don't have the knowledge or the will to fix the wrongs..

I give much credit for all the work done, as without the people that build these aicraft we would be playing some other game or sim..

10 years of IL-2 and it's going strong and there is always some war that hasn't been fought yet.. or some plane unexplored.