PDA

View Full Version : Into Oleg`s attention : EZ 42 Adlergerat, the German gyrogunsight!



Kurfurst__
04-11-2005, 09:25 AM
I have just looked up german gyro sights from Hahn`s book. I took a few quick notes, here are the facts :

Germany was developing the 'EZ' gyro sights for aircraft as early as 1935 onwards, mainly by the optical firms Askania and Zeiss. Quite a few types were tried up to the summer 1942, when the first EZ 42 'Adlergearat', or Eagle-device had appeared. It was designed by Askania. The sight weighted a total of 13.6kg, out of which the reflector sight itself was 3.2 kg.

The sight was put into production in July 1944, and up to March 1945, 803 examples were produced, each sight taking an avarage 130 labour hours to be finished.

If I understood the text right in the haste, the sight was stabilised by two gyroscopes. A postwar Allied report compared it to their gyroscopic sights, and found it favourable, the Adlergearat being 20% less prone to range errors or something like that (don`t have to book in front of me).

Hahn further states that some 200 FW-190s and ME-262s were equipped with these gyrosights.


Any chance seeing them in Il-2 addons?

Vipez-
04-11-2005, 09:32 AM
http://www.bankofchina.de/gallery/pics/phantom/thanks-for-the-info.JPG

I would love to see it in action..

faustnik
04-11-2005, 09:51 AM
I found some references to the EZ 42 being used in action but, it was only in Spring 1945. The were used on three operational Fw 190D-11s. Where did you find evidence of the 803 being produces and how many of these were actually mounted in aircraft?

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 11:26 AM
be nice to have. presume it works similer to k14 in terms of how we would use it ingame?
be most useful on me262 imo

p1ngu666
04-11-2005, 11:31 AM
ps kurfy
check ur pm\pt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
04-11-2005, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I found some references to the EZ 42 being used in action but, it was only in Spring 1945. The were used on three operational Fw 190D-11s. Where did you find evidence of the 803 being produces and how many of these were actually mounted in aircraft? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what we really want from Oleg is a D-11 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

faustnik
04-11-2005, 01:30 PM
Well, I'm all for late LW stuff right after we get Spit XIV, Tempest, Pe-2, P-47M, all that stuff they made more than a dozen of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

pourshot
04-11-2005, 05:42 PM
I have a video were Adolph Galland mentions the EZ he said it did not work well at all, as it was very unreliable

MEGILE
04-11-2005, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, I'm all for late LW stuff right after we get Spit XIV, Tempest, Pe-2, P-47M, all that stuff they made more than a dozen of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif You have an adimirable interest in all of WW2 avation.

BUMP. If the Gerries used them, get it in!

RedNeckerson
04-11-2005, 09:34 PM
Gyro gunsites were offered to JG/26 in 1942/43.

Pips Priller made a mistake (IMO) when he turned them down.

Look at the many things not added even after some years in the sim and you have a good indication of whether or not gyro sites will be added http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
04-11-2005, 10:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:

Look at the many things not added even after some years in the sim and you have a good indication of whether or not gyro sites will be added http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, good point! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif If 1C is going to add something to the Fw190, start with a fighter version with no outer guns and no ETC rack and panzerblitz rockets for the F8 please.

quiet_man
04-12-2005, 05:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedNeckerson:

Look at the many things not added even after some years in the sim and you have a good indication of whether or not gyro sites will be added http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, good point! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif If 1C is going to add something to the Fw190, start with a fighter version with no outer guns and no ETC rack and panzerblitz rockets for the F8 please. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

right
add bombers and ground attack planes and I would love to fly Lancaster and Me200/400 series

want late war american/german/russian stuff?
ask Oleg for Korea sim :P

quiet_man

carguy_
04-12-2005, 05:39 AM
It is not needed.

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-12-2005, 06:03 AM
I would like to know, how many Mustang pilots are actually using the gyro mode of the gunsight. Experiences from P-51 lovers are welcome.
Every addition to the game that was in use in reality is welcome. But for judging how necessary it is, I would like to know, how much it really changes the gameplay. I usually fly for LW but not exclusively. When I once flew P-51 (on WC Western front, if I remember correctly) and asked around, whether the other Mustang pilots were really using the gyro mode, everyone answered me: "We don't use it!"

Greetings
Chamel

p1ngu666
04-12-2005, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EJGr.Ost_chamel:
I would like to know, how many Mustang pilots are actually using the gyro mode of the gunsight. Experiences from P-51 lovers are welcome.
Every addition to the game that was in use in reality is welcome. But for judging how necessary it is, I would like to know, how much it really changes the gameplay. I usually fly for LW but not exclusively. When I once flew P-51 (on WC Western front, if I remember correctly) and asked around, whether the other Mustang pilots were really using the gyro mode, everyone answered me: "We don't use it!"

Greetings
Chamel <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u need to set bombsight keys, hence internet dogfighters arent interested http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

personnaly i love it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
btw, i set the keys up to bomb, rather than for the gyro sight, but im a mudmoover http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

quiet_man
04-12-2005, 08:07 AM
@EJGr.Ost_chamel
how was your gunnery the first time you shoot enemy plane?

I expect all of them, no simulators or remote drones for training that time, only theory

given the dropping number of targets mid/late war, many "late" alied WWII pilots never shoot a single bullet at air targets, so if they had a chance they needed all help they could get to hit

with "IL2 rookies" jumping into QMP shooting down hundreds of planes before learning to land, the effect of gyro sigths is very limited

for IL2 "aces" the joystick settings are much more important for targeting

quiet_man

geetarman
04-12-2005, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet_man:
@EJGr.Ost_chamel
how was your gunnery the first time you shoot enemy plane?

I expect all of them, no simulators or remote drones for training that time, only theory

given the dropping number of targets mid/late war, many "late" alied WWII pilots never shoot a single bullet at air targets, so if they had a chance they needed all help they could get to hit

with "IL2 rookies" jumping into QMP shooting down hundreds of planes before learning to land, the effect of gyro sigths is very limited

for IL2 "aces" the joystick settings are much more important for targeting

quiet_man <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I don't quite follow you here. As a dedicated Pony pilot, I use the K-14 all the time. I rarely switch to the fixed sight. If you learn to use it, you really can't miss. Usually the first pass disables the e/a somewhat and then later passes are easier because he is hurt. The K-14 allows "can't miss" shots of up to about 30 degree deflections.

Furthermore, US pilots did not NEED the sight to shoot down planes. That's a bit low brow. Once they got comfortable with it, however, they loved it! Not a lot of training occurred when they were first rolled out, hence, the long initiation period.

F-86 pilots commented on the sight very favorably in dealing with the mostly superior Mig-15 in KOrea.

p1ngu666
04-12-2005, 11:47 AM
gyro gunsite is a aid, a very good aid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i want gryo gunsight in my turrets on b29 and lancaster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

first allied pilots had very little gun practise... went off to fire a few rounds at the north sea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
which ofcourse, u cant really miss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

quiet_man
04-12-2005, 11:55 AM
@geetarman:
Fanboy? If yes ignore my post, if not please read again or here the short version if your in a hurry:

1. I expect all pilots used them
2. K14 heavily improved aim for unexperienced pilots
Anything to disagree?
How was your aim the first time?

3. in IL2 joystick is more important
Do you hit anything without K14?

Show me one quote from real Mustang pilot telling that K14 is more important than the stick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

4. Take it from fun side, I think we totally agree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

quiet_man

geetarman
04-12-2005, 01:20 PM
quietman - "Fanboy?" If you mean of the K-14 sight, well I guess I am, for whatever it adds to the discussion.

Most IL2 "aces" (whatever that means) know how to set-up their joystick, I presume, so the point is moot. The K-14 is a measurable, tangible additional aid to those P-51 "aces" if used properly.

I guess I did not understand the meaning behind your post other than that a gyro gunsight doesn't add much to your ability to shoot down planes. If I interpret you correctly, we'll have to agree to disagree.

F16_Sulan
04-13-2005, 10:07 PM
I think the K-14 gunsight is fun to play around with during all the idle flying...
And I use it some, but I don´t fly latewar american planes very often so I hav´nt gotten much effect out of it...

AlmightyTallest
04-14-2005, 07:32 AM
My brother swears by it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

His favorite is the P-51D NA-25, once he discovered the K-14 he was hooked. I noticed that it helps in deflection shooting up to around 40 degrees. Once you have your convergence set, and the size of the target selected in the K-14 you definately hit what you see in the pipper.

It's pretty good as a general guide in dive bombing as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I like it, wish they made them for the Corsair, but I still like my F4U better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-15-2005, 12:36 AM
803 production sights made and 200 fitted into FW 190's and Me 262's....

Yes, no problems with them mentioned so there must have been none.
After all, a postwar Allied report found them superior to 'their'
gyroscopic sights.

No mention of production revisions or improvements so the EZ 42's
must have all been the same excellent devices and fittable to both
FW 190's and Me 262's.

So why wasn't over 3/4's of those produced used?

Is it just me or does it seem that;
A) Not all the sights produced were the same?
B) The report referred to only evaluated the ones that worked best?

Gee... there were 13 pre-production 262's finished in April 1943.
And in April 1944 there was an operational group using them for tests.
But they were made in 1943.
Let's not mention what work was done in that one years' time and just
say there should have been 262's in combat in 1943. Just being reasonable,
it could have happened, right? They were the same planes, they must have
been ready. And one variant could do 1005 kph. So we must have it.

Kurfurst__
04-15-2005, 03:14 AM
Yep, I think it`s just you, as usually objecting any axis feature to be correctly implemented.

Ratsack
04-15-2005, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, I'm all for late LW stuff right after we get Spit XIV, Tempest, Pe-2, P-47M, all that stuff they made more than a dozen of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are sooooo right.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

Ratsack
04-15-2005, 06:51 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... A postwar Allied report compared it to their gyroscopic sights, and found it favourable, the Adlergearat being 20% less prone to range errors or something like that (don`t have to book in front of me)...QUOTE]

Kurfust,

Here€s what Johannes Steinhoff thought of the German gyro gun sight:

€˜I unfastened the reflex sight €" a luminous area on the windshield in front of me €" and it promptly began to wander all over the place. We were trying for the first time to fire with a gyroscopic sight that allowed for lead and obliged the pilot to line the sight up with the target (the system was a failure because the technology of it was still imperfect).€

Steinhoff was flying an Me262 when this incident happened. He€s not precise about the date, but it was late 1944 or early 1945.

I don€t know about €˜a post war Allied report€¦found it favourable€, but Steinhoff isn€t very flattering, is he?

(For those Il-2 players who don€t know him, Steinhoff was one of the Experten -with 160odd kills by the time of the incident described above €" and was the officer initially commissioned with establishing JG7, the first €˜official€ Schwalbe fighter wing. He survived the war and subsequently rose to high rank in the West German air force.) The quote above can be found in:

Johannes Steinhoff, The Last Chance, (Arrow Books, London, 1979), p. 163.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

geetarman
04-15-2005, 10:20 AM
Not making a value judgment here on either sight (and I have not seen the report claiming the German sight was better as well), but the German ace's first impression when turning on his gyro was probably similar to the impression a US pilot had the first time he turned on his K-14!

p1ngu666
04-15-2005, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yep, I think it`s just you, as usually objecting any axis feature to be correctly implemented. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

check your pms dude http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-15-2005, 02:07 PM
Correctly implemented?

You mean in the most optimistic fashion based only on a positive report you report as
remembered with no regard of anything else?

As yes, the Kurfurst correct. And anything else is anti-LW. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I like your sig quote, not. It states a relative situational value as if an absolute. So You.

Ratsack
04-15-2005, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Not making a value judgment here on either sight (and I have not seen the report claiming the German sight was better as well), but the German ace's first impression when turning on his gyro was probably similar to the impression a US pilot had the first time he turned on his K-14! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, but have a look again at his comment at the end of that sentence; the one in parenthesis. Steinhoff says the instrument was a failure, and he's not talking about one incident only but making a general comment. He specifically says the technology wasn't up to it. If it's a fact that only about 200 of the things were produced, this would tend to support Steinhoff's assessment, too.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
04-16-2005, 02:44 AM
By Kurfurst, 803 produced and of those, 200 actually installed.

Which makes sense if they finally got the bugs out in time to get 200 fixed and into planes
(including the ones already used for trials and errors and pilots cursing the makers... back
to the drawing board for another dash number, Hans, we'll get it right one of these times,
that is how complex development works everywhere btw... just ask BMW and Jumo about jets)
before the end of making and refitting the planes.
And of course the Allies would see the best, the Germans were proud of what they had.
NP there. It's when someone wants to set the start date back an extra year or two there is
a problem. But, sigh, without a firm start date you take the first production date and just
say that is when it was right, huh? Yes... that would be correct... if you are ignorant of
engineering and development.

There was a 262 prototype flown with jets and prop for backup in... was it April 1941?
If there was not so much other data then imagine the claims possible to make. I bring the
jet programs up because there is another complex development that was done but well documented
by comparison and so easy to see that even when it hit production, it was not trouble free at
all and took more time than a few scraps of good news reports would indicate before it was
suitable for even specialized use. Not as specialized as 163's but not like dependable prop
technology either. When Galland flew the Glostar, it was the reliability of the engines
that impressed him the most because compared to the 262 they were very reliable.

262 went into production even with bugs but we are now to think that EZ42 was good from when?
Why? Because it went into production and after the war, an example (or did they check how
many?) was found that worked well? Oh joy! What date were they actually working and used?
How many?

BBB_Hyperion
04-16-2005, 06:05 AM
Hmmm WWMaxGunz is partly right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

On the other hand there exists hardly any equipment part that is not continously improved over time when its extensively used cause of things that may not be seen in the developement process might come up thats nothing unusual. Fieldmodding is common use for smaller problems. Setting up a plane production line even when smaller problems still exist is nothing uncommon in wartimes cause a line setup may take 6 or more months depending on the project.

Even airbus sells first serial build planes cheaper than later ones cause of problems that may be appear in first batches and will be corrected on later ones.

For the jumo reliability it would surely been much more reliable when someone would send some good heat resisting raw materials what didnt happen and limited lifetime of a engine to 20 hours. But we can hardly blame developer for that. Neither can we compare that to engines that had this materials used.

The Gyro gunsight is nowhere near the complexity of a 262 plane nor a jet engine . So figuring out which problems to correct and how should be depending on active usage. There surely would be experimental versions from time to time maybe the gyrosight wasnt intended for jet speeds what doesnt exclude that it could be reliable at lower speeds.

I wonder if the K14 was reliable at higher speeds ?

Without scientific comparison of the abilitys of the gunsight we can only conclude following.

-It existed.
-200 were Installed
-Some didnt work correct or Pilots that were used to fixed sight didnt like it and didnt have time to get used too.

Kurfurst__
04-16-2005, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
By Kurfurst, 803 produced and of those, 200 actually installed.

Which makes sense if they finally got the bugs out in time to get 200 fixed and into planes
(including the ones already used for trials and errors and pilots cursing the makers... back
to the drawing board for another dash number, Hans, we'll get it right one of these times,
that is how complex development works everywhere btw... just ask BMW and Jumo about jets)
before the end of making and refitting the planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhum, let`s apply that to the Spit XIV, 900+ were produced, number in service a full 1.5 years after production started? 120! Me 262, 1400+ produced, greatest number in service at a time? 150-200. Bf 109K-4, 1700 produced 200-400 in service at a time. etc.

And it`s Mr. MaxGlunz speaking of ignorance in engineering and development...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And of course the Allies would see the best, the Germans were proud of what they had.
NP there. It's when someone wants to set the start date back an extra year or two there is
a problem. But, sigh, without a firm start date you take the first production date and just
say that is when it was right, huh? Yes... that would be correct... if you are ignorant of
engineering and development. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF are you talking about ? Who said that? The stuff was in development from 1935!!, OH JESUS CHRIST, IT CAN`T BE THEY MANAGED TO MASS PRODUCE IT BY 1944!!!!

And you are speaking of ignorance and engineering and development? Isn`t that you who comes up with his own-developed BS and take it instead of what probably the most respected author on German special weapons says?

And which part you cannot understand? _MASS PRODUCTION_ started in mid-1944. PERIOD. A whole NINE years after development started.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>262 went into production even with bugs but we are now to think that EZ42 was good from when?
Why? Because it went into production and after the war, an example (or did they check how
many?) was found that worked well? Oh joy! What date were they actually working and used?
How many? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

803 of them from mid-1944 Mr. Glunz.

I wonder if any of us had noticed that Mr. MaxGlunz was so fervently opposing the introduction of ALLIED gyrogunsight... I doubt he had this *attitude* when it came to that, nor that he`d been so busy of developing and assuming loads of *problems* in regards of the K-14.

p1ngu666
04-16-2005, 07:07 AM
kurfy, u got any 109t info?
as u dont check pm's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

ive seen a jumo cut up, fairly simple actully. probably getting it to work well was hard.

even if we had gryo sight it would go on 262, be less use on 190 cos of bar.

might help LW fliers more than k14 does, because mk108 and mg151 drop more than 50cal
would also make it harder for oleg to put it in?

Kurfurst__
04-16-2005, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
kurfy, u got any 109t info?
as u dont check pm's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can`t, the f. board goes mad when I try... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Don`t have much on the 109T, sorry, the best I can do is looking in my books to see if they have any info on it and send the scans. No primary info, srry.

p1ngu666
04-16-2005, 08:17 AM
ah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

if u could, that would be great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-17-2005, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
By Kurfurst, 803 produced and of those, 200 actually installed.

Which makes sense if they finally got the bugs out in time to get 200 fixed and into planes
(including the ones already used for trials and errors and pilots cursing the makers... back
to the drawing board for another dash number, Hans, we'll get it right one of these times,
that is how complex development works everywhere btw... just ask BMW and Jumo about jets)
before the end of making and refitting the planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhum, let`s apply that to the Spit XIV, 900+ were produced, number in service a full 1.5 years after production started? 120! Me 262, 1400+ produced, greatest number in service at a time? 150-200. Bf 109K-4, 1700 produced 200-400 in service at a time. etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit XIV; were they all the same? Was there any holdup getting engines?

Me 262; not all the same, great difficulties getting engines, engines going through
improvements and very unreliable if I am to believe Adolph Galland. Yes 150-200 in service
at a time for multiple reasons of getting them made at a rate to cover those shot down or
just lost for other reasons and keeping the ones they had *working*, that was all they could
field.

Bf 109K-4; not enough fuel and pilots for those, also difficulties making them fast enough.
My Aunt Irmgard worked at the Regensburg plant until it was destroyed. Production of ALL
late war planes was slowed down and experienced starts and stops as did the parts for them
as you well know.

Here, I'll add another in the line; Bf 109, how many made and how many at one time used?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And it`s Mr. MaxGlunz speaking of ignorance in engineering and development... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Down to name calling Kurstfirst? Some little smear in German perhaps? Sni-cker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And of course the Allies would see the best, the Germans were proud of what they had.
NP there. It's when someone wants to set the start date back an extra year or two there is
a problem. But, sigh, without a firm start date you take the first production date and just
say that is when it was right, huh? Yes... that would be correct... if you are ignorant of
engineering and development. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WTF are you talking about ? Who said that? The stuff was in development from 1935!!, OH JESUS CHRIST, IT CAN`T BE THEY MANAGED TO MASS PRODUCE IT BY 1944!!!! [/QUOTE]

Continual development from 1935? Stroke me. Someone first looked into it in 1935. Go fish.
Jet engine was "worked on" for that long. But really the first developing in Germany was 1938.
British started sooner but couldn't get backing. Turbine jets were "in production" and still
being perfected throughout the war... could I take an end of the war Jumo jet engine and hold
it up as an example of what they had in 1944, for example? No way. But a gunsight.......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And you are speaking of ignorance and engineering and development? Isn`t that you who comes up with his own-developed BS and take it instead of what probably the most respected author on German special weapons says? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does he say that the sight as it was in 1944 did not see changes? Did he say they all worked
the same? YOU PRESENT SO LITTLE, ONLY THE BEST, THEN PLAY AT CONCLUSIONS.

Have you EVER worked in any place that made anything real, that was part of development?
Yes smarta$$, I had worked in a few over a period of years and I've seen things change
while being produced. I've dealt with engineering drawings from over 100 different companies
and followed "revisions" in parts for machines that the names didn't change. Things get
made to work better even while they are being turned out. Why do you think that planes
were field-modified? Do you think they hadn't been produced before then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And which part you cannot understand? _MASS PRODUCTION_ started in mid-1944. PERIOD. A whole NINE years after development started. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which goes to show how little you know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>262 went into production even with bugs but we are now to think that EZ42 was good from when?
Why? Because it went into production and after the war, an example (or did they check how
many?) was found that worked well? Oh joy! What date were they actually working and used?
How many? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

803 of them from mid-1944 Mr. Glunz. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back to your cheap insults. Okay turkey, what does the word glunz mean?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I wonder if any of us had noticed that Mr. MaxGlunz was so fervently opposing the introduction of ALLIED gyrogunsight... I doubt he had this *attitude* when it came to that, nor that he`d been so busy of developing and assuming loads of *problems* in regards of the K-14. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

K-hole. I am not opposing the EZ42 gunsight itself. But you come up with something that
AFTER THE WAR a report was made on the basis of some unknown number of examples tested and
the report is good -- but I ain't buying that all 803 were that good or that any made in
1944 were that good on the BASIS OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED. And I give reasons, and so does
Johannes Steinhoff who seemed to have actually gotten at least one that didn't work so well.
Gee, was that a representative sample? Were they all the same and what he saw was the norm?
Or did they keep on revising and improving? That was either late 44 or early 45. If it was
a single bad sight then wouldn't they fix or replace it and send him back up with the new?

803 produced between mid 1944 and March 1945 -- and only 200 made it into planes. And
Seinhoff got one with problems. Kurfy, that is every sign they were HAVING PROBLEMS. Just
like the engines with the jets, just like strategic materials, just like fuel shortages.

Do the math. How many FW 190's did the make from mid 1944 on? No, lets say fall of 1944 on.
IF the sights were working and available and checked out before then, then why didn't get put
in as many of those planes as possible with some going to 262's IF THEY WERE SO GREAT?

Last bit which BTW has nothing to do with YOUR CLAIMS OF THIS SIGHT: I don't know about the
Allied sight. I have trusted that Oleg has the documents showing dates and numbers which I
do not. Somehow I bet there is much more definite material on those including problems, what
was done about them and when than the sketchy report you present. Just somehow. How good
do you think the Allied sight is, anyway?

p1ngu666
04-17-2005, 08:22 PM
allies produced lots of gyro sights
b29 had them for turrets, and some lancs got them for rear turret aswell

ill see if i can dig up how many 262's at any one time.

opperationaly in stats, it wasnt that good btw. tons of potentional ofcourse and performance..

p1ngu666
04-17-2005, 09:20 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG6787.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//SIMG6788.JPG

WWMaxGunz
04-18-2005, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
allies produced lots of gyro sights
b29 had them for turrets, and some lancs got them for rear turret aswell

ill see if i can dig up how many 262's at any one time.

opperationaly in stats, it wasnt that good btw. tons of potentional ofcourse and performance.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much what I understood was that real lead computing sights weren't near perfection
even in the 70's, and that is with people having examples of the WWII sights.

I don't recall Chuck Yeager writing about them as great news, but that may be my memory.
More like most Allied pilots just turned that part off. Give me something I can adjust
the range on (elevation) and maybe change the ring size and I'd be happy to do the lead
myself. Once the tracers are flowing, why use the sight at all anyway unless you can't
figure just where the tracers *are* going. It's much easier with ground fire.

Ratsack
04-18-2005, 01:26 AM
British studies with the MkII gyro gunsight (on which the K-14 was based) showed a very significant improvement in gunnery performance. I don€t have the stats in front of me (at work), but they€re in Alfred Price€s book on the Spitfire. The study looked at the outcomes of combats, with one group of MkIX squadrons using the gyro sight, and a control group using normal reflector sights. The improvement in shooting was on the order of 30-40%.

My gripe with this thing that Kurfussed has raised is that €" unlike the British and American instruments €" the German one was not perfected before the end of the war, and was used in such small numbers that it is irrelevant to this sim. It€s just a distraction, like his endless cr@pping on about elevators and turn rates. Rubbish.

Energy wasted on this would be better spent on more important aircraft or bugs.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ratsack

p1ngu666
04-18-2005, 09:58 AM
i think the gryo sights helped alot for bomber crews
on lanc it could be hooked up to a radar thing too for the rear turret, worked very well aprently http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

its better than the normal sights, simply because there is option to have lead calculated for u, u dont haveto use it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GreyBeast
04-18-2005, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
http://www.bankofchina.de/gallery/pics/phantom/thanks-for-the-info.JPG
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Laughing On The Floor Laughing My *** Off

(it deserves to be spelled out, each and every letter of it)

THAT is the funniest pic I've seen in a loooooooooooooong time, good one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

EJGr.Ost_chamel
04-19-2005, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i think the gryo sights helped alot for bomber crews <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, that a gyro sight should be much more useful for a bomber gunner than for a fighter pilot, as the gunner has the additional problem of firing a gun which is not parallel to the flight vector. Just look at the strange trajectories you see when firing perpendicular to the flight vector - very hard to estimate the correct lead to hit a plane flying parallel to your own bomber http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif .

Greetings
Chamel

PraetorHonoris
04-19-2005, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Down to name calling Kurstfirst? Some little smear in German perhaps? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the word 'Glunz' does not exist in German, nor in any other language I know.
Btw, you should be more careful, WWMaxGunz, don't call everybody German, who disagrees with you.
Btw2: In German it is 'Kurfürst' or 'Kurfuerst' (if 'ü' can't be displayed)

p1ngu666
04-19-2005, 07:11 PM
think he means in german the language, rather than nation.

kurfy's from eastern europe, cant remmber where
croatia possibly

WWMaxGunz
04-19-2005, 08:50 PM
Yes, a word in the language, which at least some people speak just about everywhere.
My class in school, we learned French, the year ahead, German, the year behind Spanish,
and it was possible to learn some Russian -- wish I had taken the classes. That was
in Jr. High.

I am sure glunz is some stupid cut just from the use. Gee, it just makes me bleed. Ouch.