Macchi C202/C205 auxiliary gunsight

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

buitre

Airman
10
2
Jan 11, 2024
Both the Macchi C202 and C205 had reflector gunsights, but just in case, they also had an auxiliary 2-element "ring-and-bead" gunsight system. The proximal element was in some cases a tiny ring on top of a short vertical bar (image "a"). However, in other cases it was a simple bead on top of the vertical bar (image "b"). (Those two pictures are from the excellent book Aero Detail 15 Macchi C.200/202/205.) I have noticed these two variants both in the C202 and in the C205. Does anyone know which planes carried one or the other? (In all cases, the element was slightly offset left-of-center.)



The distal element is more problematic. I would expect it to be perfectly aligned in the forward direction with the proximal element, offset toward the left by the same amount as the proximal element. However, the technical diagrams of Aero Detail 15 Macchi C.200/202/205 show the distal element about half-way toward the fuselage centerline relative to the proximal element. That makes no sense to me. Does anyone know what is going on?
 

Attachments

  • C205-auxiliary-gunsight-proximal.jpg
    C205-auxiliary-gunsight-proximal.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 2
  • C205-auxiliary-gunsight-diagrams.jpg
    C205-auxiliary-gunsight-diagrams.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 3
IMHO it is a mistake mede by the author of the drawings. In the pics below you may notice the both the distal and proximal parts of the gunsight were in one line.

mc202.jpg


mc202_a.jpg

the pic source: the net.
 
You're welcome. Here is a larger image I found via the net. Also I have added one more shot to my post above. These also show the one line for both parts.

mc202_b1.jpg

the source: the net.
 
Yes, totally confirmed! I have managed to make the two elements from scratch. I don't know if the distal element actually had a bead on top or not. Maybe you can see it in that 2nd photo? (The red circle obscures it.)
 

Attachments

  • plastic.jpg
    plastic.jpg
    404.7 KB · Views: 1
IMHO it is a mistake mede by the author of the drawings. In the pics below you may notice the both the distal and proximal parts of the gunsight were in one line.

View attachment 789882

View attachment 789883
the pic source: the net.
Somehow I had not noticed the photo taken from the front. It seems to show no bead in the distal element, although in this photo the proximal element seems to have no ring. I wonder if there was some sort of association between the kind of rear element and the kind of forward element.
 
Somehow I had not noticed the photo taken from the front. It seems to show no bead in the distal element, although in this photo the proximal element seems to have no ring. I wonder if there was some sort of association between the kind of rear element and the kind of forward element.

The proximal part has the ring for sure and the distal element has the bead. Just a matter of the quality of the image. Regarding the association between the two parts ... the kind of the gunsight works like the rifle foresight and backsight. So the bead isn't needed. The needle is just enough. However in the enlarged shot you may notice the bead was there on the tip of the distal element.

mc202_c1.jpg
 
The proximal part has the ring for sure and the distal element has the bead. Just a matter of the quality of the image. Regarding the association between the two parts ... the kind of the gunsight works like the rifle foresight and backsight. So the bead isn't needed. The needle is just enough. However in the enlarged shot you may notice the bead was there on the tip of the distal element.

View attachment 789893
Yes, I see the tiny bead! Thank you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back