17.07.2008, 17:37
The EZ42 reticle behaves in a similar fashion to the K14. The reference wingspan is set by the pilot. A separate input is also made for altitude and TAS on a separate control boxes. The pilot then tracks the target whilst using the throttle twist grip to keep the targets wingspan inside the reticle circumference. The cross bars remain within the circumference of the reticle as its size changes.
The main difference in the EZ42 mechanisation is that the EZ42 uses 2 Gyros one in the Vertical axis one in the horizontal axis whereas the K14 uses a single Gyro.
In addition the EZ42 allowed direct calibration of ballistics by 2 separate control boxes each using 2 thumbwheels. This allowed easy optimisation for various weapons. In the K14 the ballistics used were an average of the 50call and Hispano 20mm.
The pilots input of Altitude and TAS to the second control box also provided improved Ballistic computation. In the case of the K14 no such compensation was made.
From a technical comparison point of view the EZ42 was a more sophisticated device and should have been more accurate than the K14. Whether it was or not depends on whose reports you read.
Both sights require accurate tracking for a small amount of time (typically 1.2 x the time of flight of the round) before an accurate solution is achieved. This is known as "Settling time "sight stability" and is a necessary evil in all Historic gyro sights. It adds Sight stability without it out the reticle would be uncontrollable.
As described in the document the reticle consisted of a complete Circle with Cross bars. It was not small diamonds as in the K14. The sight presentation as depicted in the Stock TA183 is correct. For air to ground use the entire reticle assembly was caged to the zero sight line. The pilot then sets the reticle size to its largest (minimum range). The vertical ref line was then provided with reference marks (like other Revis). These marks could then be used as straight depressed sight line references
In the Graphic drawing posted earlier the circular bit in the lower right corner is NOT a diagram of the reticle but a plan view of the exit lens. The full size diagram labels it "VIEW ON ARROW E Detail of lens"
The main difference in the EZ42 mechanisation is that the EZ42 uses 2 Gyros one in the Vertical axis one in the horizontal axis whereas the K14 uses a single Gyro.
In addition the EZ42 allowed direct calibration of ballistics by 2 separate control boxes each using 2 thumbwheels. This allowed easy optimisation for various weapons. In the K14 the ballistics used were an average of the 50call and Hispano 20mm.
The pilots input of Altitude and TAS to the second control box also provided improved Ballistic computation. In the case of the K14 no such compensation was made.
From a technical comparison point of view the EZ42 was a more sophisticated device and should have been more accurate than the K14. Whether it was or not depends on whose reports you read.
Both sights require accurate tracking for a small amount of time (typically 1.2 x the time of flight of the round) before an accurate solution is achieved. This is known as "Settling time "sight stability" and is a necessary evil in all Historic gyro sights. It adds Sight stability without it out the reticle would be uncontrollable.
As described in the document the reticle consisted of a complete Circle with Cross bars. It was not small diamonds as in the K14. The sight presentation as depicted in the Stock TA183 is correct. For air to ground use the entire reticle assembly was caged to the zero sight line. The pilot then sets the reticle size to its largest (minimum range). The vertical ref line was then provided with reference marks (like other Revis). These marks could then be used as straight depressed sight line references
In the Graphic drawing posted earlier the circular bit in the lower right corner is NOT a diagram of the reticle but a plan view of the exit lens. The full size diagram labels it "VIEW ON ARROW E Detail of lens"