P-51 gun spread

[HeadHunter52]

Not to derail things but, my pop was a radar/gunsight tech on F-86s just a few years after WWII. Some guys in his shop were WWII vets with euro theater experience. He told me that these guys were all about tuning and tweaking and twisting things and working with their pilots to achieve specific goals. Every gunfighter likes his 6-shooter to work like he prefers. I can't imagine Korea was any different than Europe just because a plane had a candle up its ass.

 

Boiled down it's like this: crews were tied to their officers and tossing the manual aside in preference for their pilots was common place. I don't think we'd a won the damned war if the manuals were treated like God's holy Word.

 

Anecdotes get a bad rap, maybe because what a lot of guys were able to do with their brains and wrenches and some cans of glue just went beyond the experience of engineers and historians alike. Ingenuity. We used to have it in spades.

Edited April 20, 2015 by HeadHunter52

[OutOnTheOP]

Your are right that the sight itself has nothing to do with it, funny how your brought that up in your first post against solty....

 

Your point about veteran anecdotes is quite silly. It is one thing to mis-remember the exact caliber of a gun, and another thing entirely to mis-remember that your aircraft gun convergence was adjustable. People forget numbers and dates etc. It is extremely unlikely that he described IN DETAIL the procedure for doing the adjustments, and that he was able to have them done custom.

 

 

Look at just before 25 seconds, you can see the adjustments in the mount.......

 

Wow, perhaps you have missed the part where I, before you and Solty said anything, pointed out that just because the guns *could* be adjusted (and in fact *must* be, to get them onto the correct point on the harmonization target), does not mean that they were "custom converged"?

 

And your point about the K14 is frankly stupid: the reason that the K14 is even cogent to the discussion is because with the introduction of the K14, a different harmonization pattern, optimized for greater ranges due to the K14's accuracy, was implemented. Therefore, the harmonization routine used for aircraft WITH a K14 is not the same as used on an aircraft WITHOUT a K14.

 

None of this means that a quote referencing "calibrating the sights" has anything to do with custom convergence. Even if it *did* have anything to do with boresighting, you can boresight for 50 yards or 500 yards, either is boresighting, so saying that it was done proves nothing whatsoever about the ranges that were set.

 

*edit* oh, and at no point in that video does it show them ever adjusting the convergence settings. It shows them MOUNTING the guns (wiggling them back and forth without having them even in the mount pins), and it shows them mounting (or more likely checking for proper fit of) the firing solenoids. No adjustment of zeroing. Particularly obvious considering that the pattern on their target does not correspond even vaguely to a harmonization pattern, and one wing's guns appear to be hitting visibly higher than the others

Edited April 20, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[ArkRoyal]

Wow, perhaps you have missed the part where I, before you and Solty said anything, pointed out that just because the guns *could* be adjusted (and in fact *must* be, to get them onto the correct point on the harmonization target), does not mean that they were "custom converged"?

 

*edit* oh, and at no point in that video does it show them ever adjusting the convergence settings. It shows them MOUNTING the guns (wiggling them back and forth without having them even in the mount pins), and it shows them mounting (or more likely checking for proper fit of) the firing solenoids. No adjustment of zeroing.

 

And your point about the K14 is frankly stupid: the reason that the K14 is even cogent to the discussion is because with the introduction of the K14, a different harmonization pattern, optimized for greater ranges due to the increase in effective range by using the K14, was implemented. Therefore, the harmonization routine used for aircraft WITH a K14 is not the same as used on an aircraft WITHOUT a K14.

 

None of this means that a quote referencing "calibrating the sights" has anything to do with custom convergence. Even if it *did* have anything to do with boresighting, you can boresight for 50 yards or 500 yards, either is boresighting, so saying that it was done proves nothing whatsoever about the ranges that were set.

 

Im sorry but your whole point here is ludicrous. Really? You think that they were never adjusted outside manual parameters? That makes absolutely no sense. Its like saying that because the standard battle sight range on a M4 is 300m, that no soldier has ever sighted his rifle so some other range......

 

We have given you evidence showing that people did adjust these guns to suit their needs. However it is just plane crazy that any sort of positive proof be required to demonstrate that. They were adjustable.....end of story. You cannot argue that it wasnt done just because its not in the manual as the recommended usage......the military doesn't work that way.

 

How many pilot examples and technical demonstrations are needed in your estimation to prove this point? Do I need 500 pilot examples? Where is your information declaring that they were ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADJUSTED outside parameters?

[OutOnTheOP]

Im sorry but your whole point here is ludicrous. Really? You think that they were never adjusted outside manual parameters? That makes absolutely no sense. Its like saying that because the standard battle sight range on a M4 is 300m, that no soldier has ever sighted his rifle so some other range......

 

We have given you evidence showing that people did adjust these guns to suit their needs. However it is just plane crazy that any sort of positive proof be required to demonstrate that. They were adjustable.....end of story. You cannot argue that it wasnt done just because its not in the manual as the recommended usage......the military doesn't work that way.

 

How many pilot examples and technical demonstrations are needed in your estimation to prove this point? Do I need 500 pilot examples? Where is your information declaring that they were ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADJUSTED outside parameters?

 

I call bullsh*t. There is a difference between, say, changing the sight setting on an M4 to 800- which is a DESIGN FUNCTION OF THE SIGHT, versus, oh, I dunno, taking a barrel nut wrench to your M4, pulling off the barrel, and putting on a longer one (which is quite easily done, but is most emphatically NOT operator-level maintenance).

 

Changing the sight settings on the M4 is akin to the twist grip on the Mustang, used to set the sight range setting. NOT to custom convergence.

 

I never claimed they were ABSOLUTELY never adjusted. I claimed it was not operator-level maintenance, and was not authorized. Putting M1A1 bazookas under the wings of L4 grasshoppers sure as hell wasn't authorized either, but I know of one example where it happened. That does NOT mean that I think bazookas should be a loadout option for Piper Cubs in DCS, though.

 

The onus isn't on me to prove it NEVER happened, it's on YOU to prove that it happened SO frequently that it should be allowed in DCS.

 

If you so desperately want to change your convergence, get on the LUA scripting, and experiment around with it. Personally, I echo Yo-yo's thoughts in the other threat (I think it was Yo-yo, anyhow): there's not much point wasting time on convergence settings just to find that the optimal arrangement was already discovered 70 years ago.

[ArkRoyal]

I call bullsh*t. There is a difference between, say, changing the sight setting on an M4 to 800- which is a DESIGN FUNCTION OF THE SIGHT, versus, oh, I dunno, taking a barrel nut wrench to your M4, pulling off the barrel, and putting on a longer one (which is quite easily done, but is most emphatically NOT operator-level maintenance).

 

Changing the sight settings on the M4 is akin to the twist grip on the Mustang, used to set the sight range setting. NOT to custom convergence.

 

I never claimed they were ABSOLUTELY never adjusted. I claimed it was not operator-level maintenance, and was not authorized. Putting M1A1 bazookas under the wings of L4 grasshoppers sure as hell wasn't authorized either, but I know of one example where it happened. That does NOT mean that I think bazookas should be a loadout option for Piper Cubs in DCS, though.

 

The onus isn't on me to prove it NEVER happened, it's on YOU to prove that it happened SO frequently that it should be allowed in DCS.

 

If you so desperately want to change your convergence, get on the LUA scripting, and experiment around with it. Personally, I echo Yo-yo's thoughts in the other threat (I think it was Yo-yo, anyhow): there's not much point wasting time on convergence settings just to find that the optimal arrangement was already discovered 70 years ago.

 

Im sorry but the Idea that I have to prove its frequency is inane. All I have to do is prove that it was designed to be adjusted: which it was. All a pilot had to do it tell his crew chief that he wanted a different convergence said. There is nothing anywhere that says alternatives to the standard configuration were banned----And that is what matters here. It wasnt forbidden, and it was designed so that it could be done = therefore I should be able to do it.

 

The idea that we shouldnt be able to adjust things simply because it is outside the standard configuration is utterly asinine. Aside from standard gun settings, there were standard bomb loadouts, fuel loadouts, mission profiles etc. You want to make it so I can only take certain combinations of bombs or fuel? I like to fly with a drop tank and 20% fuel....and I seriously doubt that would be allowed since I cant find 300 or so examples of pilots doing this.......

 

Also your counter analogy is quite silly. Changing the barrel on a M4 is THE COMPLETE CHANGE OF A PART---A PART THAT IS NOT ISSUED. It is not akin what-so-ever to simply moving a gun fitting a few degrees to the left or right. Operator maintenance? No. But then again, neither is refueling your plane. :music_whistling:

[Solty]

I call bullsh*t. There is a difference between, say, changing the sight setting on an M4 to 800- which is a DESIGN FUNCTION OF THE SIGHT, versus, oh, I dunno, taking a barrel nut wrench to your M4, pulling off the barrel, and putting on a longer one (which is quite easily done, but is most emphatically NOT operator-level maintenance).

 

Changing the sight settings on the M4 is akin to the twist grip on the Mustang, used to set the sight range setting. NOT to custom convergence.

 

I never claimed they were ABSOLUTELY never adjusted. I claimed it was not operator-level maintenance, and was not authorized. Putting M1A1 bazookas under the wings of L4 grasshoppers sure as hell wasn't authorized either, but I know of one example where it happened. That does NOT mean that I think bazookas should be a loadout option for Piper Cubs in DCS, though.

 

The onus isn't on me to prove it NEVER happened, it's on YOU to prove that it happened SO frequently that it should be allowed in DCS.

 

If you so desperately want to change your convergence, get on the LUA scripting, and experiment around with it. Personally, I echo Yo-yo's thoughts in the other threat (I think it was Yo-yo, anyhow): there's not much point wasting time on convergence settings just to find that the optimal arrangement was already discovered 70 years ago.

We wouldn't have this heated discussion if you took a minute to read few things on the interent about gun convergence and why every simulator of WW2 airplanes (except DCS) has ability to change it.:book:

[312_Lobo]

I'm really not sure that "other sims have this feature" is a proof of validity and correctness of whole "convergence" concept.

 

As mentioned before on this forum, P-51s used two harmonization patterns. What we have in game is historical patten for K-14 gun sight optimized for longer ranges. There was another pattern optimized for a somewhat shorter range and older gun sights. Having an option to switch between these two standard harmonization patterns and gun sights would be nice though rather cosmetic feature.

 

I seriously doubt that ordinary air force pilot flew each mission on the same plane. E.g. in case his (customized) plane was grounded due to maintenance, would that pilot stay on ground as well? I don't think so. This is the reason why things are usually not customized but standardized in the army, so that everyone can use them with expected results. Yes, there were exceptions. But is it realistic to expect that every exception will be modeled in DCS? :)

 

By the way, where on the internet or in the books I can find some examples/stories about P-51 pilots that used custom convergence with K-14 gun sight? Or maybe some technical orders how to set up custom convergence?

 

Custom convergence is possible in DCS. If someone needs it so desperately, it's easy -- tell ground crew to adjust your LUA :). I believe this LUA adjustment is as simple in DCS as was the setting of non standard "convergence" IRL without having proper alignment figures for these non standard settings.

[Solty]

I'm really not sure that "other sims have this feature" is a proof of validity and correctness of whole "convergence" concept.

 

As mentioned before on this forum, P-51s used two harmonization patterns. What we have in game is historical patten for K-14 gun sight optimized for longer ranges. There was another pattern optimized for a somewhat shorter range and older gun sights. Having an option to switch between these two standard harmonization patterns and gun sights would be nice though rather cosmetic feature.

 

I seriously doubt that ordinary air force pilot flew each mission on the same plane. E.g. in case his (customized) plane was grounded due to maintenance, would that pilot stay on ground as well? I don't think so. This is the reason why things are usually not customized but standardized in the army, so that everyone can use them with expected results. Yes, there were exceptions. But is it realistic to expect that every exception will be modeled in DCS? :)

 

By the way, where on the internet or in the books I can find some examples/stories about P-51 pilots that used custom convergence with K-14 gun sight? Or maybe some technical orders how to set up custom convergence?

 

Custom convergence is possible in DCS. If someone needs it so desperately, it's easy -- tell ground crew to adjust your LUA :). I believe this LUA adjustment is as simple in DCS as was the setting of non standard "convergence" IRL without having proper alignment figures for these non standard settings.

 

I just gave the link to the book. Check previous posts.

 

Its not a hard operation.

 

Before the mission each plane had to go through maintenance. They had to recalibrate guns due to vibration and all the maneuvering, that's the time when pilot talks to his crew chief. 'hey tom, get my convergence changed to 250 yards, we are going for escort.'

 

This was normal to do part of the maintenance. Its not purely cosmetic. It is a change that can decide about your life or death.

Also K14 is capable of tracking targets at 600 ft, so why would it be only good at 1100ft? That's a distance that most inexperienced pilots would fly with.

 

Gunsight has nothing to do with convergence. K14 had also standard mode for a reason.

 

 

Also, you think that is extreme? Bud Anderson 3tripple ace had his WHOLE plane repainted from green to clean aluminum within ONE night!

 

 

EDIT:

 

Do you want to tell me that I can change my convergence in DCS and still be able to fly in multiplayer? I'd love that! Please tell me .how

Edited April 20, 2015 by Solty

[Nirvi]

EDIT:

 

Do you want to tell me that I can change my convergence in DCS and still be able to fly in multiplayer? I'd love that! Please tell me .how

 

Yo-Yo gave some hints about gun harmonization in .lua files, but it's not exactly a "how to" manual:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586658&postcount=26

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586506&postcount=16

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586655&postcount=25

[OutOnTheOP]

Before the mission each plane had to go through maintenance. They had to recalibrate guns due to vibration and all the maneuvering, that's the time when pilot talks to his crew chief. 'hey tom, get my convergence changed to 250 yards, we are going for escort.'

 

Hardly. Tanks require re-boresighting more often than aircraft, and I can tell you with certainty that is not done anywhere near daily. It's an even easier task than setting convergence, too. Even assuming you had a convergence target to work with, which, if you were setting custom convergence, you would not.

 

Also K14 is capable of tracking targets at 600 ft, so why would it be only good at 1100ft? That's a distance that most inexperienced pilots would fly with.

 

Glad you think I'm "inexperienced", but I still have fantastic results with tracking shots in the 1000 foot range. The .50s really slay 'em at that distance.

 

Gunsight has nothing to do with convergence. K14 had also standard mode for a reason.

But the gunsight has *everything* to do with what distance you can effectively engage at, and *that* has lots to do with the choice of convergence settings.

 

Also, you think that is extreme? Bud Anderson 3tripple ace had his WHOLE plane repainted from green to clean aluminum within ONE night!

Wow, do you think maybe that had something to do with being one of the leading aces in the entire air force, and a ranking officer, to boot?

 

There was lots of hinky sh*t pulled, but that doesn't mean we should have the option to do whatever silliness we want with the aircraft in DCS.

[Solty]

Hardly. Tanks require re-boresighting more often than aircraft, and I can tell you with certainty that is not done anywhere near daily. It's an even easier task than setting convergence, too. Even assuming you had a convergence target to work with, which, if you were setting custom convergence, you would not.

 

 

 

Glad you think I'm "inexperienced", but I still have fantastic results with tracking shots in the 1000 foot range. The .50s really slay 'em at that distance.

 

 

But the gunsight has *everything* to do with what distance you can effectively engage at, and *that* has lots to do with the choice of convergence settings.

 

 

Wow, do you think maybe that had something to do with being one of the leading aces in the entire air force, and a ranking officer, to boot?

 

There was lots of hinky sh*t pulled, but that doesn't mean we should have the option to do whatever silliness we want with the aircraft in DCS.

You are pushing it into personal quarrel which I don't even want to start, so stop.

 

I have proof in form of pilot's confessions and many sites confirm them. Not only that, but also the fact that different convergence patterns exist for short and long range shooting depending on mission objective is a proof on its own.

 

I am glad you can shoot at 1000ft. Good for you. I trained myself since I was 16 to shoot at 250m, so it is going to take time till I am used to it.

 

As I said, nothing speaks against personalised convergence configuration, except for your stubborn attitude.

 

 

 

Yo-Yo gave some hints about gun harmonization in .lua files, but it's not exactly a "how to" manual:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586658&postcount=26

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586506&postcount=16

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586655&postcount=25

Thank you Nirvi.

[msalama]

This bears repeating:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586655&postcount=25

 

Pay close attention to what Yo-Yo says about the single-slider convergence setting many previous sims had. No gamey convergence slider nonsense for DCS please, this is supposed to be a simulator fergadssakes ;)

[Solty]

This bears repeating:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586655&postcount=25

 

Pay close attention to what Yo-Yo says about the single-slider convergence setting many previous sims had. No gamey convergence slider nonsense for DCS please, this is supposed to be a simulator fergadssakes ;)

And because YoYo says thats how he thinks it should be, I should accept it? I respect it, but I do not agree. Read what real pilots said about their own experience during WW2. I foremost listen to the men who realy flew those planes. From 1939-1945.

 

I know that Polish pilots in RAF had their convergence on very close range, because they were moving in very closely for a kill which was also standarised, as I remember, during BoB. Because earlier settings were fixed for 350yards and later on they were much closer.

 

USAAF pilots also asked their chief mechanics to adjust that. Slider or number box is a nice and quick way to change it before you respawn. Simulation doesn't mean that we should have less than real life pilots had.

An option that actually is realistic as it was performed in real life during 1940's period!

 

There were standard convergence settings, those were guidelines that many pilots followed but many didn't.

 

Again, read what I have posted, read what those men that actually fought during that war, say about it.

 

EDIT:

Yes, I am aware that they probably were not capable of seting convergence at 57,5m. That doesn't mean that we should be unable to switch to 250 or 300 yards which was typical at that time.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Solty

[ZaltysZ]

This bears repeating:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586655&postcount=25

 

Pay close attention to what Yo-Yo says about the single-slider convergence setting many previous sims had. No gamey convergence slider nonsense for DCS please, this is supposed to be a simulator fergadssakes ;)

 

CloD should not be included in his post, as it allows 2 axis adjustment for each gun separately allowing not only single point harmonization, but custom patterns too.

[Yo-Yo]

And because YoYo says thats how he thinks it should be, I should accept it? I respect it, but I do not agree. Read what real pilots said about their own experience during WW2. I foremost listen to the men who realy flew those planes. From 1939-1945.

 

I know that Polish pilots in RAF had their convergence on very close range, because they were moving in very closely for a kill which was also standarised, as I remember, during BoB. Because earlier settings were fixed for 350yards and later on they were much closer.

 

USAAF pilots also asked their chief mechanics to adjust that. Slider or number box is a nice and quick way to change it before you respawn. Simulation doesn't mean that we should have less than real life pilots had.

An option that actually is realistic as it was performed in real life during 1940's period!

 

There were standard convergence settings, those were guidelines that many pilots followed but many didn't.

 

Again, read what I have posted, read what those men that actually fought during that war, say about it.

 

EDIT:

Yes, I am aware that they probably were not capable of seting convergence at 57,5m. That doesn't mean that we should be unable to switch to 250 or 300 yards which was typical at that time.

 

Please do not emit so much emotions - just calculate and adjust your own convergence, as it is so easy that any pilot or grownd crew member could do it in 5 minutes. And you have no necessity to tow the plane to the special shootingrange, use jacks, level the plane... just calculate your own angles and DO IT. You have all necessary screws for it.

By the way, some people did it some times ago. I did not hear that they recommend it.

[Solty]

Please do not emit so much emotions - just calculate and adjust your own convergence, as it is so easy that any pilot or grownd crew member could do it in 5 minutes. And you have no necessity to tow the plane to the special shootingrange, use jacks, level the plane... just calculate your own angles and DO IT. You have all necessary screws for it.

By the way, some people did it some times ago. I did not hear that they recommend it.

I am not at all emotional. It is just not natural for me and I am sharing my opinion. There are others in thist thread that have thrown insults at me. I have not. What I did was provide actual references and proofs for different convergence customisation settings.

 

YoYo. Please tell me, will I be able to play in Multiplayer with this custom convergence?

 

Also, if anyone has done it please contact me via PM. I would love to see their results :) Or if you want to work on it with me...

Edited April 20, 2015 by Solty

[Yo-Yo]

I am not at all emotional. It is just not natural for me and I am sharing my opinion. There are others in thist thread that have thrown insults at me. I have not. What I did was provide actual references and proofs for different convergence customisation settings.

 

YoYo. Please tell me, will I be able to play in Multiplayer with this custom convergence?

 

Also, if anyone has done it please contact me via PM. I would love to see their results :) Or if you want to work on it with me...

 

But before making this option for MP we must be sure that at least a lot of people like their own settings in SP or in MP with allowed mods (am I right - it is possible now?).

 

You must agree that it is not manpower effective for us to make a feature for a couple of players.

[Stealth_Eagle]

But before making this option for MP we must be sure that at least a lot of people like their own settings in SP or in MP with allowed mods (am I right - it is possible now?).

 

You must agree that it is not manpower effective for us to make a feature for a couple of players.

 

Well, I'm just going to get on my soapbox and say that this is something that I would use if implemented based off of historical evidence and other factors. (/Gets off soapbox).

 

I don't post much but custom convergence is something that would make me really happy and I don't really know how to use the lua files. :thumbup:

 

Cheers,

Eagle

[[DBS]TH0R]

Well, I'm just going to get on my soapbox and say that this is something that I would use if implemented based off of historical evidence and other factors. (/Gets off soapbox).

 

I don't post much but custom convergence is something that would make me really happy and I don't really know how to use the lua files. :thumbup:

 

Cheers,

Eagle

 

+1

[sgtmike74]

Well, I'm just going to get on my soapbox and say that this is something that I would use if implemented based off of historical evidence and other factors. (/Gets off soapbox).

 

I don't post much but custom convergence is something that would make me really happy and I don't really know how to use the lua files. :thumbup:

 

Cheers,

Eagle

 

+1

 

Same here, it would add just another level of customization to an already stellar sim.

[SharpeXB]

It's not just a matter of changing the guns aim point, it's changing the K-14 which is a calculating gunsight. I'm sure the sights parameters are the product of rooms full of human computers with slide rules. Isn't that why the guns are preset to harmonization? Because of the sight?

The harmonization isn't done to achieve a pinpoint shot, like a sniper rifle. It's done to achieve a pattern spread like a shotgun being aimed at a moving target. All the guns are not just simply aimed at the same point.

Edited April 21, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Wolf Rider]

This bears repeating:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1586655&postcount=25

 

Pay close attention to what Yo-Yo says about the single-slider convergence setting many previous sims had. No gamey convergence slider nonsense for DCS please, this is supposed to be a simulator fergadssakes ;)

 

 

that is exactly right.... the "umbrella" sukk'd

 

A series of Fixed Presets, however, could be acceptable... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_harmonisation for both pattern and point harmonisation

 

keep it realistic

 

 

 

1,000ft = 333 yards/ 304 meters

Edited April 21, 2015 by Wolf Rider

[[DBS]TH0R]

It's not just a matter of changing the guns aim point, it's changing the K-14 which is a calculating gunsight. I'm sure the sights parameters are the product of rooms full of human computers with slide rules. Isn't that why the guns are preset to harmonization? Because of the sight?

The harmonization isn't done to achieve a pinpoint shot, like a sniper rifle. It's done to achieve a pattern spread like a shotgun being aimed at a moving target. All the guns are not just simply aimed at the same point.

 

As it has been said, the sight enabled higher precision at a greater range. Presumeably that is the reason behind the 335m harmonization / convergence.

 

Note that according to the instructions on the gun-bay doors, the P-51D's guns were sighted in for 250 or 300 yards (228.6 or 274.3 m); these seem to be the normal harmonisation distances, while 335 metres (366.3 yards) doesn't seem to have been standard. I can't see where the latter figure came from, because all of the P-51 manuals I have show 250 or 300 yards, even with the K-14 gyro sight.

 

Interesting. I would like to see the document for 335m figure. Personally, harmonization between 250-300 yards as stated in the manuals I would be most comfortable with.

 

 

A series of Fixed Presets, however, could be acceptable...

 

Definitely fixed & historical. No 'gamey' slider options.

Edited April 21, 2015 by T}{OR

[Zunzun]

A little bit more of information (proving both points I think). from Bob Beamont "my part of the sky":

 

"......We found that opening for at 200 yards was the best range for effectiveness especially when combined with harmonizing guns specifically for this range, an activity strongly deprecated by No 11 group headquarters armament branch whose rigid attitude had to be ignored by Newchurch in the immediate urgency of getting the job done....."

 

It is related to the V1 campaign and the author was a WC. But the point is that in occasions they did ignore the white coat guys.

I think the option was there but probably not open to the average enlisted pilot and likely only to commanders or very experienced pilot (normally those with higher ranks, several kills in their bags and who would fly their "own plane").

[arglmauf]

As someone who also is used to shooting closer than the current convergence setting given for the P51D, I can only second Solty's experience.

 

It feels really awkward to adjust for the different convergence. In my head, there are certain sizes of enemy planes that I react to. This size, this angle means I need to shoot at this spot in front of him. That all doesn't work in the P51D or at least, doesn't work well. You have to fight your own trained reflexes.

 

Yes, if I concentrate, I can adjust but it requires active concentration to do (and I'm not a big fan of the K-14 so far). If there is a case for a closer convergence that was historical, I would gladly take it. I personally wouldn't even request the ability to adjust every gun, 2-3 presets for varying ranges/roles would probably already do the trick so long as there's a convergence setting around 250 yard.