1/24 typhoon gunsight

[Kevi52]

Hi all,

Could anyone point me in the right direction of obtaining a scale 1/24 English gunsight for the typhoon,

I have been looking and looking at the cock pit detail and have just realised that airfix have only supplied half of the gunsight assy, what seems to be missing is the top half, the reflector glass and its frame, supplied is the support frame, pad and gunsight projector, been perusing the Internet but not found anything yet.

Any help appreciated.

Kev

[Edgar]

The Typhoon and Tempest did away with the reflector glass, and had a single spot reflecting off the front windshield. Beamont came up with the modification, and, after a fierce fight with the know-alls at the Air Ministry, he got it accepted.

This is taken from early trials at the beginning of 1944; the final result differed because they also found that the sight was too near the pilot's face, so the overall layout was changed:-

Edited November 22, 2014 by Edgar

[ben_m]

I don't think the rocket-firing Typhoons could have been effective at aiming if they didn't have the vertical lines of the sight (because of the drop of the rockets in flight, they needed the lower line to line up with the target).

And I don't think Tempests would have been very good fighters if they lost the range indicators, and deflection shots particularly would have been very tricky.

Beamont described masking the ring and range indicators for his specialist early night operations on a car-door hooded Typhoon, he also had a screening hood attached to the inside of the glass so there were no other reflections, and removed the inner de-mister. He didn't mention having the sight modified to reflect off the glass instead of a separate glass piece of the sight. (edit: just to clarify; his sight did reflect straight off the windscreen; he just doesn't mention that he had this done as a mod)

I have seen car-doors with both separate reflectors in frames, and without, but with are more common.

Most bubble tops are without, but there are some exceptions.

The car-door had a steeper windscreen, and smaller cut-out area of fuselage because of this, so had a different sight mount from the bubbletop, but I don't see the sight being closer to the pilot in the reflector-less configuration; and I haven't seen a sight mount different from that in your photo (the two preserved cockpits that are well photographed are the same as that).

The configuration where the sight does look very close to the pilot is when a bubbletop has a reflector sight with frame and separate glass, as the sight has to be placed in front of the main tube of the support structure (I guess it is so far forward because the bubbletop support was designed for the sight to be behind the main bar)


Kk jumbo majumdar [Public domain], by RAF/RIAF Employee. Sumanch at en.wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons

[Edgar]

There may well come a time when "I don't believe," becomes acceptable in aviation research, but, in the meantime, I'll stick with looking at the physical evidence (from various sources.) This illustration comes from the Air Publication for the Tempest V, and, as you can see, the reflector glass is missing. In the list of modifications, for the Tempest V, 36 is for a "windscreen reflection gunsight," and it applied only to the Series 2 Tempest, not the Series 1, so early aircraft didn't have them.

This comes from a report by the AFDU; note how it instructs the removal of the glass, and fitting of the sight on the other side of the mounting bracket from where your Indian pilot has it mounted, and where it is in the photo which came with the report (which I supplied before.)

Missing from the part of the report I've supplied is the date, 28-2-44, long after the car-door Typhoon came into service, so it's hardly surprising there are photos of early Typhoons without the modified sight. And, incidentally, Typhoon pilots found the single red dot was far easier for aiming rockets, since there were fewer distractions.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Edgar

[ben_m]

"I don't believe" is good enough for me- I build model aeroplanes, no one's life is in danger if I get it wrong.

Do you have any documentation that the single dot sight was used in any other Typhoons than the half a dozen 609 Sqn ones used in Beamont's time?

I never said the Tempest didn't lack the sight's reflective panel and frame.

I was highlighting car-doors having the reflection straight onto the windscreen in some cases precisely because it conflicts with your 1944 date.

This is taken from early trials at the beginning of 1944; the final result differed because they also found that the sight was too near the pilot's face, so the overall layout was changed:-

This confusing statement led me to believe you thought the the arrangement in the photo was not the final arrangement; which puzzled me as I had never seen a sight reflecting off the screen in any other position.

[ben_m]

OK, I concede that the single dot version of the sight was indeed used widely, especially late in the war, for a fuller account, see this link which quotes "British Aircraft Armament Vol.2: Guns and Gunsights", by R Wallace Clarke.

There may well come a time when "I don't believe," becomes acceptable in aviation research, but, in the meantime, I'll stick with looking at the physical evidence (from various sources.) This illustration comes from the Air Publication for the Tempest V, and, as you can see, the reflector glass is missing. In the list of modifications, for the Tempest V, 36 is for a "windscreen reflection gunsight," and it applied only to the Series 2 Tempest, not the Series 1, so early aircraft didn't have them.

Can you produce a photo of a Tempest series 1 without the direct reflection off the windscreen? The most readily available images of a series 1 Tempest are of RB, JN751, and they clearly show the configuration without the secondary reflector part. See here (although not the biggest photo in the world)

See this photo of another series 1.

[Edgar]

Can you produce a photo of a Tempest series 1 without the direct reflection off the windscreen?

Why is it my job to provide all the evidence? You said that you didn't believe that the Tempest used the reflection-off-the-windscreen gunsight, and, now that you know that they did, you want evidence that early Tempests were as stated in the A.P.

A.P.2458C states that the Series 1 airframes were not supplied with the modified sight; if you read the test report from the AFDU, the change was done by a simple repositioning of the sight's bracket, so could be done by any pilot or Squadron wishing to make the change.

"I don't believe" is good enough for me- I build model aeroplanes, no one's life is in danger if I get it wrong.

Very true, but I am trying to earn a reputation for digging out, and passing on, accurate information to modellers who have an interest in such things; that reputation goes out the window if I write a load of garbage.

[ben_m]

You said that you didn't believe that the Tempest used the reflection-off-the-windscreen gunsight, and, now that you know that they did, you want evidence that early Tempests were as stated in the A.P.

A.P.2458C states that the Series 1 airframes were not supplied with the modified sight; if you read the test report from the AFDU, the change was done by a simple repositioning of the sight's bracket, so could be done by any pilot or Squadron wishing to make the change.

I said that I believed that a fighter such as the Tempest wouldn't have been very good fighters without range indicators in their gun sights: I was wrong. Please find where I state that they didn't reflect directly off the screen? Maybe you were confused by my incredible eloquent (inadvertent) triple negative:

I never said the Tempest didn't lack the sight's reflective panel and frame.

This was a communication error: let me be clear, I have only seen photos of Tempests with sights reflecting directly off the screen; contrary to your opinion that series 1 aircraft weren't so fitted.

Why is it my job to provide all the evidence?

You answer your own question a few lines later:

I am trying to earn a reputation for digging out, and passing on, accurate information to modellers who have an interest in such things

I have seen photos of series 1 Tempests with gunsights on the same side has the series 2, and I would aspire to your stated methodology:

There may well come a time when "I don't believe," becomes acceptable in aviation research, but, in the meantime, I'll stick with looking at the physical evidence (from various sources.)

But you seem happy to use a single written source and from that state series 1 didn't have the windscreen reflective sights. I note you have edited your post to say "on early aircraft" at the end of your statement. I am happy to admit I am wrong- most my of the first post was incorrect, but I happily admit the surprising facts are different to what I thought. Maybe I should have preserved my reputation and editted my posts instead?

No more posts from me in this thread now, I have helped guide it off course.