improving the 109?? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Not quite true. Gun cameras in WW2 were normally fitted in a location, and aligned, to allow the lens to 'see' the target, and could be set at a different angle to the gun sight, allowing for paralax.
For example, the Hurricane Mk1 had the camera in the starboard wing leading edge, outboard of the prop arc, the Spitfire had the camera in the port or starboard wing root, depending on Marque, with the Mustang having a similar mount, whilst the Typhoon had the camera in the lower engine nacelle on the starboard side.
Regardless of the mounting position, the camera and lens were aligned to converge on the line of the center line axis of the aircraft concerned, at a given distance, perhaps 200 or 300 yards.
Later in the war, some German fighters had the camera 'shooting' through the gun sight, via a prism arrangement.
 
GrauGeist said:
Well, ALEX Hogarth, would you like to explain to me why my comment regarding the Me262's gun camera is considered "dumb" to you?
Click to expand...
Maybe he did what I did, scrolling on a kindle I accidentally disagreed with three of Wurgers posts, some of which you couldnt possibly disagree with.
 
pbehn said:
Maybe he did what I did, scrolling on a kindle I accidentally disagreed with three of Wurgers posts, some of which you couldnt possibly disagree with.
Click to expand...
There is that, indeed!

I've tried to "Like" several posts in the past with my ipad, and ended up "Disliking" by mistake!
Of course, there was the mad-dash to fix that before anyone noticed!

And just to clarify the Me262's gun-camera location:
 
Graugeist may have been a lot of things, but dumb has never been one of them.

Probably a mistake, as surmised, since a camera location isn't all that damned debatable. It's there or it isn't. In this case, it is. So, I'd bet Alex made a mistake and just didn't sign back in out of embarrassment.

Reset and continue, like the continuous "continue" in here ... listen for bitchin' Betty and the copilot pressing reset and saying "continue."

 
How does bitching Betty know when to bitch ? Does it go by airspeed , angle of attack, bank angle, etc ? Does it compensate for higher or lighter gross weights ? It sounds like she's a cautious mother-in-law.
 
tyrodtom said:
How does bitching Betty know when to bitch ? Does it go by airspeed , angle of attack, bank angle, etc ? Does it compensate for higher or lighter gross weights ? It sounds like she's a cautious mother-in-law.
Click to expand...

Tyrodtom,

On the Eagle "Betty" has sensors all over the aircraft, and along with weight your knows when you exceed certain limits. She then yells, "OVER G, OVER G", or whatever. It's nicely recorded on your tapes to be played back in the debrief for everyone's entertainment! And oh by the way it's a bottle of booze to the bar or greater depending on the severity...

Cheers,
Biff

PS: I have relatives from Coeburn.
 
No kidding, I worked at Morgan McClure in Coeburn for many years, raced at LPR just outside of Coeburn hundreds of times. Lonesome Pine airport just a few miles away is where I took my first flight in 1963.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
4K
SaparotRob
Bf-109 vs Bf-109 23 December 1944 [SOLVED]
Replies
1
Views
2K
CHen10
Regarding the true combat performance of the P-38 (and other advanced US fighters) in the PTO from 1942-44
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
12K
beers
A
Would any other designs like the Arado E.583, the Blohm & Voss P 215 or the Lippisch P.13a have been better than the Horten Ho 229?
Replies
1
Views
1K
bada
B
M
Alternate Approach to the P-38 Compressibility Problem
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register