Caging unreliable for bombing

Not to take anything away from the video. Was cool. But as is the case that is being discussed here. That first bomb was dropped a little further out than the second that hit. Not only that....you were bombing a building. And the rocket attack was close enough that you could have easily done it with a caged site. All of the vehicles were also shot from very close range. And while it's all good shooting. I get bored with it. No one is shooting back at me. But....even with the BTR80, I cannot make effective kills without sustaining a lot of damage much of the time because the F86 is so inaccurate at any distances further away than the targets you are shooting at. Also in the P-51 I can easily rip a BTR80 apart because it's systems seem superior to the F86.

It's fun shooting up trucks and buildings, but it gets old and a challenge would be nice. And when I say challenge, I don't mean that I want to walk away only 25% of the time. With it's weapons systems, the DCS F86 just cannot do that consistently.

Again....this is my personal experience and opinion. Whether the actual F86 was this ineffective or just the DCS version is, I could not say. What I do know for a fact is that the P-51 and Dora both outshoot this plane.

I used this particular video to show what will happen without a perfect steady aim, as in the 1st shot.

It's really only meant to help people by showing the procedure to get the bomb to come off, it's up to the individual to practice and get that all important smooth approach. A gyro sight should be very accurate when used correctly. Personally I prefer to charge in like Arnie, chucking in everything manually, it's more fun.

The rocket attack was with a fixed sight depressed 30 deg.

I prefer not to be shot at on a target range whilst honing a technique and then go elsewhere to fight the war.

I also prefer the P-51 excellent solid handling.

Regards.

.

Not to take anything away from the video. Was cool. But as is the case that is being discussed here. That first bomb was dropped a little further out than the second that hit. Not only that....you were bombing a building. And the rocket attack was close enough that you could have easily done it with a caged site. All of the vehicles were also shot from very close range. And while it's all good shooting. I get bored with it. No one is shooting back at me. But....even with the BTR80, I cannot make effective kills without sustaining a lot of damage much of the time because the F86 is so inaccurate at any distances further away than the targets you are shooting at. Also in the P-51 I can easily rip a BTR80 apart because it's systems seem superior to the F86.

It's fun shooting up trucks and buildings, but it gets old and a challenge would be nice. And when I say challenge, I don't mean that I want to walk away only 25% of the time. With it's weapons systems, the DCS F86 just cannot do that consistently.

Again....this is my personal experience and opinion. Whether the actual F86 was this ineffective or just the DCS version is, I could not say. What I do know for a fact is that the P-51 and Dora both outshoot this plane.

Erm, the case discussed here is just the procedure of how to reliably use the auto release of bombs. That is challenge enough for the people in this thread. :o)

Yeah. Procedures and reliability. Procedures are well memorized and works well with rockets, manual pip diving, pop ups, loft, labs but NOT with auto and manual dive bombing. In auto the bombs NEVER drops, in manual they do but the pipper wont disapper so I can only guess when it is time to drop with poor accuracy of course.

After hundreds of attempts, I got the impression that the electr.caging is not working at all and that, for me at least, it always remains caged even if I stop keeping it pressed.

In the manual it is written : ...press and hold TAB (in reality in my keyboard is [\] whereas in Options/Controls it is [,]!!!). Make sure that the reticle is FIXED on the reflector (gunsight is caged) ...

Now, the reticle is never FIXED and there is no appreciable difference between caged and uncaged. Is that an error in the manual or something they still have to work on to make it works?

All that said, it is difficult not to agree with Tuco. The F86 seems to be unreasonably inaccurate and unreliable. It maybe really was like that, who knows, but to play with it it's a bit too much of a pain.

I wonder if there could be a turn around solution by attempting a change in some configuration files? But where and how?

Happy new year to all of you.

@PVIBert: I believe, it DOES work. The thing is just, that we - seemingly - are unable to follow the right procedure up to the point ... as the procedure is not (sufficient) documented anywhere. And/or we just suck. :o)

If you bomb manually, using your "gut feeling" when you release the weapon while the pipper did not disappear ... have you ever hit something then? Probably not, right? The problem is not, that the pipper does not disappear, the problem is that it CAN NOT disappear because the aircraft attitude does not meet the release parameters.

Its really difficult to destroy object by bomb with F86f, its bombing sight is very inaccurate especially under windy condition. I bet it is a huge matter of luck to destroy thing on the ground with wind speed above 2m/s.

Back in the 70' before laser bomb was invented, it took a hundred sorties to take down a bridge. Im refering to Ham Rong bridge in Vietnam war (and ThunderChief, Phantom, Skyhawk were far more advanced than the Sabre). So dont get mad if you cant destroy ground object by bomb.

Caging unreliable for bombing

....and there in lays the reasin why so many resources where used on developing laser guided bombs and also why clusterbimbs has been so popular.

Delivering dumb bombs accurately has always benen an issue.

With modern fighterbombrrs and rheir inertial navigation systems, accelerometers and weapondelivery computers this has been improved greatly, but it is still not very accurate.

The problem I see in DCS is that normal highexplosive bombs and rockets do not cause enough damage. A near miss shiuld still cause damage on soft vehicles.

Finnj

Re. the guns - I don't think ballistics of 0.50s in Sabre is different compared to Mustang. Actually, with rate of fire being the same (which it shouldn't), I'd hazard a guess that this part of the code has been copy-pasted from the P-51 without any changes. I agree, however, that less then stellar stability of the Sabre, coupled with much faster closure rate, makes strafing runs on single vehicles somewhat more difficult than in the 'Stang. Corrected rate of fire alone would probably make things easier.

I have had all the problems described in this thread, too, with bomb AUTO release.

I can confirm that rolling in and diving on a target will result in a failed run. Nosing down will result in 100% success. My bet is we still have bugs with the "gyros" in the sight.

 

Tested 5 times, alternating between rolling in and pushing the nose down.

Nosing down rather than rolling in works, and is in fact what the real world F-86 manual says (page 4-35);

"14. Depress electrical caging button on throttle to stabilize reticle image before pushing over into dive".

However, the reticule image does not really "stabilize", and the caging has to be taken as working on faith. Rolling in does not work at all, I get no release. Ever.

But accuracy of the hit is still an issue. I am just wondering how important the angle of eye-to-sight reticule image is. I do not use the auto-seat adjustment option anymore (it is a bit annoying for me), but the seat adjustment to get the bomb reticule in the "right place" - wherever that is - seems to be key for a good hit.

It did not seem to be exactly right in the auto-adjusted position, either, when I was using it, though that could probably have been as a result of my - ahem - "technique error" (ie; I suck at dive bombing?)

From the T.O. 1F-86F-1:

If I interprete that right, then this would explain to some extend, why nosing down is more often successfull than rolling in, right? If you nose down, you will eventually intercept the calculated bomb trajectory in the right angle. But if you roll in and have to pull up to correct, you are already below the bomb trajectory and if you pull up, you cross the bomb trajectory probably only momentarily - and then probably also in the wrong angle.

... does that make at least remotely sense? *unsure*

edit:

and while thinking about it, isn't all this then not the reason why a steady aim is so important? If you pull up to correct after your roll in and you are about to cross the desired bomb trajectory in the wrong angle ... that means that your pipper is moving and not steady. But if you keep the pipper _exactly_ where you released the electr. caging, your aircraft attitude is the whole time exactly right in repect to the bomb trajectory.

Maybe our - well, at least my own - error might be, that I aim not 100% where I released the electr. caging button. Instead I usually try to correct the impact point further the closer I get to the target. But that means, my attitude does not match the intended bomb trajectory (i.e. impact point where electr. caging was released).

edit2:

That could also explain, why I had more luck when the radar ranging was active - because then I was already much closer and thus had not to "correct" my attitude that much.

Hrm. Instead of theoretizising I should probably just test this, eh? :o)

From the T.O. 1F-86F-1:

If I interprete that right, then this would explain to some extend, why nosing down is more often successfull than rolling in, right? If you nose down, you will eventually intercept the calculated bomb trajectory in the right angle. But if you roll in and have to pull up to correct, you are already below the bomb trajectory and if you pull up, you cross the bomb trajectory probably only momentarily - and then probably also in the wrong angle.

 

... does that make at least remotely sense? *unsure*

Makes sense to me, at least.

edit:

and while thinking about it, isn't all this then not the reason why a steady aim is so important? If you pull up to correct after your roll in and you are about to cross the desired bomb trajectory in the wrong angle ... that means that your pipper is moving and not steady. But if you keep the pipper _exactly_ where you released the electr. caging, your aircraft attitude is the whole time exactly right in repect to the bomb trajectory.

 

Maybe our - well, at least my own - error might be, that I aim not 100% where I released the electr. caging button. Instead I usually try to correct the impact point further the closer I get to the target. But that means, my attitude does not match the intended bomb trajectory (i.e. impact point where electr. caging was released).

 

edit2:

That could also explain, why I had more luck when the radar ranging was active - because then I was already much closer and thus had not to "correct" my attitude that much.

 

Hrm. Instead of theoretizising I should probably just test this, eh? :o)

Regarding radar ranging, it seems that it is required, as far as I can gather. The reticule flashes (pulsates briefly is a better description) when radar ranging becomes active through about 9,000 ft on the dive, if all is well.

Also, that the main radar inverter is working is a requirement of the first item of the procedure (again, page 4-35 of the F-86 manual), which would indicate that radar ranging should be active for this method. I would assume it is needed for the sight calculations for bombing targets that are at elevations other than sea level?

Therefore, the MPC bombing method would appear to be the provision for the alternate bombing method if the radar ranging is inoperative.

All this, of course, as far as I can see.

Nah, I wouldn't quite agree. During my tests dives from about 10 000 ft. the only pulling up after rolling in (with bank angles of 60-90 degrees) is in the first phase, when I put the pipper on the target (or at least try to do so ;) ). From then on the plane always moves along slightly curved down path (obviously, as the pipper points below the fuselage centerline) and I drop quite a few thousand feet before typical release altitude is reached.

At that point it shouldn't matter, whether I started at 10k by rolling in or nosing over, because 6000 ft or so lower, the flight path is the same anyway. It is more difficult, however, to establish a steady aim and "calm down the gyros" when I start the dive by rolling in. The nose is jumpin' in all directions, and sticking it on the target for good definitely takes longer. Maybe a bit too long for A4 sight? I seem to have more successful auto drops when not banking beyond 60 and doing rather shallow dives.

The radar plays no part in the bombing sequence, it is a gun ranger. turn it off and you will still drop the bomb on the target.

Imagine you are manually attacking the target with a fixed sight. If you put the pip on the target, it will fall short unless you bomb at 90 deg. So you put the lower part of the reticule on the target as your aiming point and hold it there. This is what the gyro does. As you close the target, you give an estimated guess at the bomb trajectory and when this coincides with the target (the tangent) you press the release. This is what the sight does with its pre computed trajectory installed and when it reaches that same conclusion it releases the bomb because you have told it to do so. If you don't hold it steady, the trajectory will alter and the points won't coincide and the bomb won't come off.

.

The radar plays no part in the bombing sequence, it is a gun ranger. turn it off and you will still drop the bomb on the target.

 

Imagine you are manually attacking the target with a fixed sight. If you put the pip on the target, it will fall short unless you bomb at 90 deg. So you put the lower part of the reticule on the target as your aiming point and hold it there. This is what the gyro does. As you close the target, you give an estimated guess at the bomb trajectory and when this coincides with the target (the tangent) you press the release. This is what the sight does with its pre computed trajectory installed and when it reaches that same conclusion it releases the bomb because you have told it to do so. If you don't hold it steady, the trajectory will alter and the points won't coincide and the bomb won't come off.

 

.

OK, I believe you. :) I tested this with the main radar inverter failed - which is the item required by the procedure - just to be sure, and it works fine as you well say. My bad and good explanation!

Altitude seems also to be a big player.

Depending on dive angle, You MUST have a steady aim, sight uncaged electrically and pressing the release button before reaching an altitude which is dependent on dive angle.

Here are very rough estimates:

70° => 7500 ft

50° => 5000 ft

30° => 3500 ft

To be safe, better be established 500-1000 ft before reaching those altitudes.

Releasing the elec. uncage button after passing through those altitudes and the release parameters does not fit.

But also airspeed is a big player.

Not 100% sure about this, but I guess the airspeeds noted for manual pip divebombing are valid i.e:

Dives from 10.000 ft => entry= 305 knots

Dives from 15.000 ft => entry= 288 knots

Dives from 20.000 ft => entry= 270 knots

I also tested having radar ranging active or not - as told by Holbeach, this is no requirement. Bombs will drop if starting altitude, Entry airspeed and dive angle is right and when Your fully established before reaching those altitudes.

This said, accuracy is not high.

I have a document from some reallife bomb test runs (Posted somewhere for some time ago in these forums), and accuracy was really not great, regardless if a Fixed sight, Manual pip or Auto release was used the average result was that only 50% of the bombs dropped hit within 200 feet from the mean impact point, which again where at best 150 ft short and 50 ft lateral displaced from the target, with the worst results up to 1000 ft short and lateral 200 ft displaced.

So if You consider being a bad shot, this is not just the man, but also the machine.

In one of the test runs where 47 bombs where dropped, only one bomb would have been considered close enough to have been able to hit and destroy a Tank sized target.

What we really need is a more comprehensive manual with tables showing diveangles, airspeed and altitudes.

The Mi-8 Manual (still WIP) actually do a good job for the weapons used for the Mi-8, like weapon type, airspeed, launch distance and sight depression angle.

FinnJ

The radar plays no part in the bombing sequence, it is a gun ranger. turn it off and you will still drop the bomb on the target.

Hmm. Now I don't know about this, yet again. Are you absolutely sure?

With the utmost respect to you and all, but I did an experiment based on a previous "doubt" I had manifested in a previous post on this thread.

It is with regard to the radar ranging being used by the A4 sight to guage the height AGL of the aircraft in order to compute the release point on the dive, as there is no other input of target elevation for the straightforward A4 AUTO or MANUAL bomb method, like there is for MPC. Obviously, it will work with the radar ranging rheostat OFF while all your targets are at sea level, and therefore your absolute altitude above target being equal to your altitude AMSL. But what happens when the target elevation is significantly above MSL?

So;

I put a warehouse on top of the mountain in the eastern sector of MN34, south of Alagir. I made several dives at it from 30,000 ft with the radar ranging rheostat turned all the way to OFF. On none of these dives did the bombs release (I made four attempts). On the fifth attempt I turned ON the radar ranging and obtained a good release some 5,000 ft above the mountain top, and only narrowly missed the warehouse with the bombs, which of course was result of my poor aiming! :).

The point is I got a release where I should, in respect to the height above target, with the ranging ON, and none at all with it OFF. Please note again, the MPC method does require you to input a target elevation and does not require the radar, and the A4 method does not require input of a target elevation but does require the radar, by procedures in the manual.

I would greatly appreciate if you - or anyone else proficient at dive bombing in the F-86 - try it out under the described conditions, as there is always the possibility that on four attempts without the ranging I was not on profile, while by chance on the fifth, I was! :smilewink:

* Thought I might add; as far as I can ascertain, all the five dives were identical; I used the same visual cues, the same start altitude (30,000 ft) and entry airspeed (200 KIAS).

Hmm. Now I don't know about this, yet again. Are you absolutely sure?

 

With the utmost respect to you and all, but I did an experiment based on a previous "doubt" I had manifested in a previous post on this thread.

 

It is with regard to the radar ranging being used by the A4 sight to guage the height AGL of the aircraft in order to compute the release point on the dive, as there is no other input of target elevation for the straightforward A4 AUTO or MANUAL bomb method, like there is for MPC. Obviously, it will work with the radar ranging rheostat OFF while all your targets are at sea level, and therefore your absolute altitude above target being equal to your altitude AMSL. But what happens when the target elevation is significantly above MSL?

 

So;

 

I put a warehouse on top of the mountain in the eastern sector of MN34, south of Alagir. I made several dives at it from 30,000 ft with the radar ranging rheostat turned all the way to OFF. On none of these dives did the bombs release (I made four attempts). On the fifth attempt I turned ON the radar ranging and obtained a good release some 5,000 ft above the mountain top, and only narrowly missed the warehouse with the bombs, which of course was result of my poor aiming! :).

 

The point is I got a release where I should, in respect to the height above target, with the ranging ON, and none at all with it OFF. Please note again, the MPC method does require you to input a target elevation and does not require the radar, and the A4 method does not require input of a target elevation but does require the radar, by procedures in the manual.

 

I would greatly appreciate if you - or anyone else proficient at dive bombing in the F-86 - try it out under the described conditions, as there is always the possibility that on four attempts without the ranging I was not on profile, while by chance on the fifth, I was! :smilewink:

 

* Thought I might add; as far as I can ascertain, all the five dives were identical; I used the same visual cues, the same start altitude (30,000 ft) and entry airspeed (200 KIAS).

This video is for OneFatBird, to clear his doubts about the use of radar ranging.

Radar turned off.

Roll in (nose over), 300 KIAS 10,000 ft above target.

Initial dive at 40 deg .increasing to 50 and bomb release.

Radar is not required for auto bombing.

Note that target altitude is not known by the A-4 sight.

When pointing the pipper on the target it´s actually not pointed at the target, but at the point where the bomb theoretically would hit at sealevel.

The target is simply inbetween the point in the air and the theoritical pojnt where the bomb hits at sealevel.

With a dive angle of 30° (as used in the video shown above by Holbeach) the error between the bomb flightpath towards this theoretical point at selavel and the target on top of that mountain/hill is minor and appr. off by maybe 200 ft max.

Maybe this PDF tells more about the sight:

http://afhistoricalfoundation.org/images/awards/The_A-1C%28M%29_Gunsight_Air-Power-History_Best-Article-2009.pdf

And here even more technical stuff: http://www.google.dk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DAD0492300&ei=ySqoVJObEIKrOpSxgJgD&usg=AFQjCNF4VgIM_JqknNj6iPGLo__7xjl0gw&sig2=0uregPuXMUWl9KWZqrBn6Q

Look at chapter 6.

Basicly both documents tell about the difficulties of proper dive bombing with the Gyro sight(s).

I think the F-86F went into a hole between WW2 like fixed sights, where bombing targets was a matter of pilot experience guessing the proper tie of release and the pray for a good hit, and later more modern fighters with alot more computing power and sensors to calculate bomb impact point, like used for CCIP and CCRP bombing.

Maybe one can even say that bombing accuracy dropped when faster jetfighters arrived after WW2 and until more advanced firecontrol systems where developed, and that is exactly what we experience here with the DCS F-86F.

FinnJ

I don't buy the theory above. First of all, the shallower the dive, the more curved bomb trajectory is, so with Holbeach's shallow dives the difference You mentioned should be bigger, not the other way around, and he wouldn't hit the building so precisely. Out of curiosity, I just did a test auto-drop on the top of the Elbrus mountain, didn't check the dive angle, but it certainly was not more than 40 degrees, radar rheostat to off. The system released the bomb perfectly, at a comparable altitude to "target", as seen on clips by Holbeach, and it didn't mind the fact that target altitude was about 4.7 km ASL and the radar was not operating ;).

Based on it, I presume the model of air-to-ground ranging by A-4 sight in DCS is just somewhat simplified. We had a similar discussion in MiG-21 section about PFD sight, which can always calculate impact point correctly no matter what target altitude is and whether radar and both altimeters work or not. Reply from the devs indicated, that this is the simplification caused by imperfections of current DCS code. "Realism fanatics" might feel offended, but oh well, they gotta live with it.

Wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case with our F-86, so let's not put too much emphasis on operation details from real life manual, because we don't know how far the DCS module is from it at the moment and whether it can be made closer at all.

I don't buy the theory above. First of all, the shallower the dive, the more curved bomb trajectory is, so with Holbeach's shallow dives the difference You mentioned should be bigger, not the other way around, and he wouldn't hit the building so precisely. Out of curiosity, I just did a test auto-drop on the top of the Elbrus mountain, didn't check the dive angle, but it certainly was not more than 40 degrees, radar rheostat to off. The system released the bomb perfectly, at a comparable altitude to "target", as seen on clips by Holbeach, and it didn't mind the fact that target altitude was about 4.7 km ASL and the radar was not operating ;).

 

Based on it, I presume the model of air-to-ground ranging by A-4 sight in DCS is just somewhat simplified. We had a similar discussion in MiG-21 section about PFD sight, which can always calculate impact point correctly no matter what target altitude is and whether radar and both altimeters work or not. Reply from the devs indicated, that this is the simplification caused by imperfections of current DCS code. "Realism fanatics" might feel offended, but oh well, they gotta live with it.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case with our F-86, so let's not put too much emphasis on operation details from real life manual, because we don't know how far the DCS module is from it at the moment and whether it can be made closer at all.

While You perfectly might be right, even with a dive angle of 30° the error between the depressed sight towards sealevel and the target ontop of a mountain is not that great and with a building as big as the one used as target, it´s hard to gauge.

Note that on the A-10C target altitude related to CCIP or CCRP, as well as measuring slantrange without the use of the laser ranging do matter.

But maybe a somewhat simpler approach has been mad for the F-86F and Mig-21.

FinnJ

@ Holbeach; Thank you for the demo. After a couple more attempts I have indeed been able to obtain the release on my target with the radar off. I am familiar with ballistics (why or how I don't really need to say as it could get long winded, but absolutely nothing fishy, I promise), which is not a hundred miles away from bomb trajectory theory. It was this that had me wondering about the elevation detection problem in the high elevation targets issue.

This explanation aptly describes what is probably my hang up perfectly well!

Based on it, I presume the model of air-to-ground ranging by A-4 sight in DCS is just somewhat simplified. We had a similar discussion in MiG-21 section about PFD sight, which can always calculate impact point correctly no matter what target altitude is and whether radar and both altimeters work or not. Reply from the devs indicated, that this is the simplification caused by imperfections of current DCS code. "Realism fanatics" might feel offended, but oh well, they gotta live with it.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case with our F-86, so let's not put too much emphasis on operation details from real life manual, because we don't know how far the DCS module is from it at the moment and whether it can be made closer at all.

Thanks FinnJ, for adding to my reading list!

Now, one last question - that may have been addressed on another thread, I don't know;

I do not fully understand how to apply the wind drift bombing control correction. I do know why, but how does it work in the sim?

Found this interesting piece on the russian side o the forums where they were discussing the same topic:

(This seems to hint what is meant when elswhere "pushing into the dive" is mentioned?)

Does anyone know where this excerpt is from? Is it the T.O. 1F-86-1A?

Found this interesting piece on the russian side o the forums where they were discussing the same topic:

 

(This seems to hint what is meant when elswhere "pushing into the dive" is mentioned?)

 

Does anyone know where this excerpt is from? Is it the T.O. 1F-86-1A?

The full text can be found here:

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=15729

Look on page 635-670 (Actual page numbers in the lower right corner) for more indepth description of the A-4 sight.

On page 640 there is a schematic that explains which inputs are used for the various sight modes.

The above text can be found on page 664.

For auto bomb release, the following can be read:

Used inputs:

• Airspeed
  
• Bomb target windscale
  

These two are fed into the:

• Bombing accelerometer
  

Which again feds into the:

• Elevation gyro
  

Which again feds it´s signal into the:

• Elevation amplifier
  

The elevation amplifier controls the sight reticles up/down movement as well as sending a signal to the differential relay, which again triggers bomb release and switches of the reticle.

But I still find it hard to gather how these parameters interact inorder to give a bomb release signal.

FinnJ

The full text can be found here:

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=15729

 

Look on page 635-670 (Actual page numbers in the lower right corner) for more indepth description of the A-4 sight.

 

 

FinnJ

Thanks! I would have never found it in those 1000 pages which support no full text search... :o)

But can now anyone tell me/us what that might mean in practice? I have a rough idea of what is described there (at least about the correlation between aim off point and the reticle with a fixed depression and the resulting "spiral" flight path when keeping the pipper onto the target). But why or how does this help to determine the release point? The description explains the electrics and mechanics that do something ... but I fail to understand the "why" (and admittetly also to some extend the "how").

My current mental picture is: the angle between the aircraft's center line and the pipper, the pipper depression, is fixed. As we move forward towards the target, we must increase the dive angle (dive getting continually steeper) in order to keep the pipper on the target. This results in negative G.

And then? The amount of neg. G allows to determine the correct release point?

The amount of neg. G allows to determine the correct release point?

Thanks! I would have never found it in those 1000 pages which support no full text search... :o)

 

But can now anyone tell me/us what that might mean in practice? I have a rough idea of what is described there (at least about the correlation between aim off point and the reticle with a fixed depression and the resulting "spiral" flight path when keeping the pipper onto the target). But why or how does this help to determine the release point? The description explains the electrics and mechanics that do something ... but I fail to understand the "why" (and admittetly also to some extend the "how").

 

My current mental picture is: the angle between the aircraft's center line and the pipper, the pipper depression, is fixed. As we move forward towards the target, we must increase the dive angle (dive getting continually steeper) in order to keep the pipper on the target. This results in negative G.

 

And then? The amount of neg. G allows to determine the correct release point?

I very much think Your right in Your theory.

I think the amount of negative G's depend on diveangle and airspeed.

When the mode selector is set to "Bomb" the sight is depressed and restricted to 10° down.

During the dive gravity will cause the sight to stay and 10° depression angle, but at the instant when the decreasing gravity overcomes the 10° depression due to the spiraling diver (slowly constant increase in negative G's due to "bunching") the bomb(s) will be released. Thats then the point where the reticle will start to move from 10° towards 0°.

Not in the text that there are both an airspeed below and a static (Altitude) below. So if the altitude isn´t right, then the solution might also not be right to trigger the bomb release.

It´s still a somewhat vague theory until someone can explain it deeper or better simpler.

FinnJ