PDA

View Full Version : cockpit visbility > 109



yuuppers
11-09-2009, 09:52 PM
One hears about the 109 having better visibility for the pilot but......

Adolf Galland, who had the opportunity to fly BOTH the 109, and on several occasions postwar the Spitfire, commented that even the Spitfire, which had its own reputation for the straight-ahead line being obscured until the tail lifted...had better visibility than the Bf109! IIRC Gunter Rall made exactly the same comment.

Flugkäpitän Willy Ellenrieder who flew the DB 605 A-1 engined Spitfire Vb conversion attributed the Bf 109's bad visibility before the take-off to its nose pointing skywards on the ground. According to him the DB-engined Spit had a far better visibility because of the shorter legs of the front undercarriage; "Flying Review International, 9/1966".
Markus

Interesting.

TheGrunch
11-09-2009, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Flugkäpitän Willy Ellenrieder who flew the DB 605 A-1 engined Spitfire Vb conversion attributed the Bf 109's bad visibility before the take-off to its nose pointing skywards on the ground. According to him the DB-engined Spit had a far better visibility because of the shorter legs of the front undercarriage; "Flying Review International, 9/1966".
Markus
I don't think many people believe that the 109 had better visibility apart from below and in front. Besides, that's not the best quote to illustrate that considering that it refers to a DB605 conversion of the Spit. I don't think anyone's likely to be surprised that the inverted V engine is easier to see over than an upright V. How many operational British Spits used Daimler Benz engines? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

R_Target
11-09-2009, 10:06 PM
IBTK.

Waldo.Pepper
11-09-2009, 10:38 PM
I don't think anyone's likely to be surprised that the inverted V engine is easier to see over than an upright V.

Quite correct. Pilots who have flown the Buchon and a proper 109 have made this observation about the comparatively better view forward with the proper 109 (compared to the Buchon.)

yuuppers
11-09-2009, 10:50 PM
I see people have a hard time reading and comprehending what was said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Waldo.Pepper
11-09-2009, 11:07 PM
Not at all. My comment was extremely narrow. Much like those individuals who would even think that 109 visibility is (overall) better than in a Spitfire.

Daiichidoku
11-09-2009, 11:15 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/trawling.jpg

TheGrunch
11-10-2009, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
I see people have a hard time reading and comprehending what was said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I don't think so. I think that everyone just disagrees with this:

Originally posted by yuuppers:
One hears about the 109 having better visibility for the pilot...
I don't think anybody thinks that who isn't a frothing-at-the-mouth Luftwhiner, except like I said forward and below the nose, which could go either way, really. It doesn't really make much difference because they both required the pilot to weave while taxiing. Also, you chose the most vague quotes to post ever. One doesn't specify what marks of the aircraft are being compared and one refers specifically to a unique, modified aircraft.
Doesn't the forward view in the 109 vs. the Spitfire depend on whether you're talking Merlins or Griffons and indeed the 109E or F and later?
Talk about a weird thing to post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Feathered_IV
11-10-2009, 04:19 AM
You may find this video fascinating...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ext_from=PL&index=41 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k&feature=PlayList&p=C412124DFAA3F05C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=41)

And perhaps this one too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Zhlc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFj8NDqZhlc&feature=related)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kurfurst__
11-10-2009, 04:23 AM
Nice thread, luftluuver.... milo... whatever other logins may have http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-10-2009, 05:03 AM
http://www.gardening-tools.me.uk/acatalog/parasene_dustbin_16in_galvanized_metal_lid_931.jpg
109 cockpit



http://www.copenhagenliving.com/images/uploaded/148_HILK-SUNNY3MOT-sofa-400px.jpg
Spitfire cockpit

TheGrunch
11-10-2009, 05:27 AM
I thought it was 109 cockpit:
http://mauricemelchers.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/straitjacket_new1.jpg

Spit cockpit:
http://www.bucklesofestes.com/images/110.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

RegRag1977
11-10-2009, 05:37 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
http://www.gardening-tools.me.uk/acatalog/parasene_dustbin_16in_galvanized_metal_lid_931.jpg
109 cockpit



FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The dessiccant capsule is not even modeled on your 109 windshield http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...3110283/m/7401082108 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7401082108)

RegRag1977
11-10-2009, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
I thought it was 109 cockpit:
http://mauricemelchers.nl/blog/wp-content/uploads/straitjacket_new1.jpg



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif haha good one!

"This famous german ace pilot lost his two arms in a dive recovery attempt. This pic alone speaks volumes about heavy elevator control at high speed."

TheGrunch
11-10-2009, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
"This famous german ace pilot lost his two arms in a dive recovery attempt. This pic alone speaks volumes about heavy elevator control at high speed."
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-10-2009, 07:20 AM
I'm not looking to start a flame war, Mr RedRag, but the picture is based on very trustworthy evidence.

From "I Lost With The Lufties" by Nubert 'Noobs' Nooberman (Cherrypicker Press, 1972. ISBN X 366 3984556 008 00)

A rattling good read that dispels many of the partisan myths pertaining to the most advancednessed aeroplane and bestest pilots of WWII. It's hard to find, but well worth tracking a copy down.

The 'dessicant capsule' was, in fact, a tax disc, displayed to prove that the Luftwaffe pilot had paid local airport tax. Many pilots stuck beer bottle labels up hoping to fool local airport staff (a bugger to model in 1/72nd scale or smaller - but I digress). Many pilots were granted the honour of not having to bother with the disc, as a symbol of gratitude from local residents who appreciated the Lufties protecting them from those awful British and their tea-drinking ways.


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/davidstow.jpg

Lufty uberness confirmed, from the same book:-

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/Noobs.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-10-2009, 07:55 AM
Another fine subject that never gets old....


So put on your red rubber nose, big floppy shoes, and gather round yuppers.....

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/1696/clownf.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/clownf.jpg/)

yuuppers
11-10-2009, 04:20 PM
All you fanboiz are a ball of laughs. Continue one your merry way imitating that famous ostrich pose, or maybe the 3 monkeys, when it comes to your favourite airplane. No airplane is 100% perfect, though some surely do think so.

I give you this little tid-bit: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However, this had one major drawback — this landing gear arrangement ensured a narrow wheel track making the aircraft laterally unstable while on the ground. To increase stability the legs had to be splayed out, creating another problem in that loads imposed during take-off and landings were transferred at an angle up the legs. The small rudder of the 109 was relatively ineffective at controlling the strong swing created by the powerful slipstream of the propeller and this sideways drift created disproportionate loads on the wheel opposite the swing. If the forces imposed were large enough the pivot points often broke and the landing gear leg would be forced sideways into its bay. [17]

Because of the large ground angle caused by the long legs visibility for the pilot, especially straight ahead, was very poor, a problem exacerbated by the sideways opening canopy. This meant that the pilots often had to "snake" the aircraft during taxiing manoeuvres, which again imposed stresses on the splayed undercarriage legs.

Although it has been suggested that from 5–33% of all 109s were damaged or destroyed in this way, the Luftwaffe's loss records show that approximately 1% of the Bf 109s had suffered landing incidents or accidents at the beginning of its career, a figure comparable to the other monoplane fighters introduced at the time. Ground accidents were, however, more of a problem with rookie pilots, especially during the later stages of the war.[18] Even experienced pilots, especially those who were tired, were caught out. Most Finnish pilots report that the swing was easy to control, but some of the less experienced pilots lost fighters on startup.[18] As more powerful engines and larger propeller blades were used the swing became more pronounced, although the provision of a fixed "tall" tailwheel on some of the late G-10s and 14s and the K series helped alleviate the problem to a large extent.

TS_Sancho
11-10-2009, 06:58 PM
I've been enjoying Kettenhunde's recent clown themed posts. They keep the weekly Spit/109 whinefest Short and to the point.

TheGrunch
11-10-2009, 08:18 PM
All you fanboiz are a ball of laughs. Continue one your merry way imitating that famous ostrich pose, or maybe the 3 monkeys, when it comes to your favourite free-reed instrument. No free-reed instrument is 100% perfect, though some surely do think so.

I give you this little tid-bit: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Throughout the 19th century, the concertina was a popular instrument. The Salvation Army in England, America, Australia and New Zealand commonly used concertinas in their bands, and other concertina bands and musicians performed in all parts of the English speaking world. German emigrants carried their Chemnizter and Bandoneóns with them to the United States and Argentina, respectively, where they were regionally popular. In England, the United States and Australia the concertina became nearly ubiquitous.

In early 20th century, this popularity started to rapidly decline. Reasons included the growing relative popularity of the accordion, the mass production of other instruments such as the piano, increasingly chromatic and less tonal forms of music such as blues and jazz, and the overall decline of amateur musical performance due to radio and the phonograph. By the middle of the century, very few concertina makers remained, and most of those used accordion reeds and inexpensive, unreliable button mechanisms. Yet the various forms of concertina survived in some areas: Anglo concertinas in Irish traditional music, the English and the Anglo in English Morris dancing, the Anglo in Africa, among Afrikaaners (see Boer music) and Zulus (who call it a "squashbox"), the Chemnitzer in the United States as a polka instrument, and the Bandoneón in Argentina as a prominent part of the Tango tradition. During the period between World War I and World War II there were many Concertina and Bandonion bands in Germany; but with the rise of the Nazi regime these musical clubs disappeared.

The folk revival movements of the 1960s led to a modest resurgence in the popularity of the concertina particularly the Anglo. More recently the popularity of the Concertina again seems to be experiencing a resurgence, particularly the Anglo in the traditional music of Ireland. Renewed interest in Tango since the 1980s has also seen interest in the Bandoneón increase.

http://pirates.sakraft.com/uploaded_images/marcdavis_concertina.jpg

Shall we stop feeding the troll now? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This guy is producing such low-quality trolling. I mean, at least most trolls manage to say something controversial. Seriously, most trolls at least manage to give people some idea what the hell they're supposed to be saying.

Metatron_123
11-11-2009, 04:14 AM
Low Flyer can you confirm that the 109 canopy affected the psychology of the Luftwaffe in such uniformity that they even chose the same titles for their post war publications? Both Nubert 'Noobs' Nooberman and Heinz Soop went for 'I lost with the Lufties'?!

RegRag1977
11-11-2009, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
I'm not looking to start a flame war, Mr RedRag, but the picture is based on very trustworthy evidence.

From "I Lost With The Lufties" by Nubert 'Noobs' Nooberman (Cherrypicker Press, 1972. ISBN X 366 3984556 008 00)

A rattling good read that dispels many of the partisan myths pertaining to the most advancednessed aeroplane and bestest pilots of WWII. It's hard to find, but well worth tracking a copy down.

The 'dessicant capsule' was, in fact, a tax disc, displayed to prove that the Luftwaffe pilot had paid local airport tax. Many pilots stuck beer bottle labels up hoping to fool local airport staff (a bugger to model in 1/72nd scale or smaller - but I digress). Many pilots were granted the honour of not having to bother with the disc, as a symbol of gratitude from local residents who appreciated the Lufties protecting them from those awful British and their tea-drinking ways.


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/davidstow.jpg

Lufty uberness confirmed, from the same book:-

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n47/LFMkVb/Noobs.jpg

Haha Great post! Very fun, Woody Allen would be soooo proud!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Title of the book: I lost with the Lufties http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-11-2009, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Low Flyer can you confirm that the 109 canopy affected the psychology of the Luftwaffe in such uniformity that they even chose the same titles for their post war publications? Both Nubert 'Noobs' Nooberman and Heinz Soop went for 'I lost with the Lufties'?!

Indeed, Mr Metatron. The well-known regimentation that was rife in wartime German society seems to have continued to the memoir writing abilities of Lufty pilots. Coupled with the difficulties of translating German grammar it's no wonder that some book titles - even entire passages of some books - are translated into exactly the same words by English publishing houses. You can see the same lines again and again and again in certain allegedly unrelated accounts.

It's not ununsual to find the mundane made seemingly exciting by such practices. For example, the title of a rather boring account of how life on the Russian front affected the immune system of Lufty personnel has been mangled to the point where the new title elevated the author to cult status amongst Lufty fanboys in search of their jollies. I doubt whether the original and correct 'I Caught Flu For The Fuhrer' would have had the same effect.

yuuppers
11-11-2009, 05:44 AM
Grunch and one of his buddies.

http://www.wolaver.org/animals/ostrich.jpg

Trolling, not at all but I can see how LW fanatics taking the info as being so, pointing out their perfect airplane is not so perfect. Truly very http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif.

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 07:05 AM
I nominate this thread for Troll of the Weak.

I like the parting shot about the perfect airplane, start with BS -- end with BS and there is no middle!
It's almost 100% pure trolling, shame there had to be any factual content at all, judging points will no
doubt be tricky over the exact use. I wonder if we're seeing a one-day Troll Olympics Medalist?

TheGrunch
11-11-2009, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Grunch and one of his buddies.
Are you on drugs, or just terrible at reading comprehension? I never fly LW planes. In fact I hate them, but I can tell when you're spouting pure balls.
Maybe you should have read the bit where I said that I don't think that ANYONE believes the 109 had better visibility from the cockpit.
All I'm saying is that the way you're trying to argue it is so ******ed that it's harrowing.
God damn I love that word. Harrowing.
Anyway, can I have some of your ketamine now, I hear that the K-hole is good this time of thread?

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 04:28 PM
All I'm saying is that the way you're trying to argue it is so ******ed that it's harrowing.

Unless of course he's not arguing, just transparently trolling for reactions.

Oh, and IBTL.

stalkervision
11-11-2009, 04:32 PM
you work with the equipment your given. Since the 109 was the hottest thing in the sky at the time I don't believe the German pilots that flew her felt that deprived with the cockpit visibility.

M_Gunz
11-11-2009, 05:34 PM
All this huff and puff over cockpit visibility when the tail is on the ground?

HEL-LO?
IL2 without 6DoF has got to be worse than real where you can tilt your head, have two eyes, etc. Yes?
IL2 landing on grass field graphics harder than real to judge height. Yes?
It works well enough for me! That includes weaving along taxiways, I do about 40kph zigzag on the straights and
make the hard turns at about 20. I have more trouble with propwash than I do with view.

It's the daggone seat-back cutting rear-view.. almost makes me think of using mods.

doraemil
11-12-2009, 01:11 AM
lol@ the clowns ( pic not you guys)

I just max out my FOV (view) and I'm fine NY taxiing for 109.

And yes I do weave on the taxiway (I can't help it, I'm still learning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Oh now would be a good time to switch to how 0.50 calibers can cause the 109F thru K wings to explode due to the ammo inside of them

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-12-2009, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
you work with the equipment your given. Since the 109 was the hottest thing in the sky at the time I don't believe the German pilots that flew her felt that deprived with the cockpit visibility.

So you don't subscribe to the view that the Luftwaffe would have been just as effective if they used any one of a number of monoplane fighters available from any number of manufacturers from any number of countries? Was it not tactical doctrine that enabled early war victories rather than equipment? Would not the same results have been acheived had the Luftwaffe utilised P-40's, Hurricanes or Dewoitines? Of course, when tactital doctrine became tactical dogma the shortcomings of the 109 were shown up for what they were. I take it you would also not subscribe to the view that the 109 cost Germany dear when the Luftwaffe's over-reliance on it deprived them of the use of more advanced options vis the 190 for example?

BillSwagger
11-12-2009, 02:18 AM
As pilots, however, i think they learned to fly and develop SA with time. I'm certain many of these pilots were well aware of what was going on around them despite not always having a direct line of site to their objective or enemy.

I have often read that the 109 had much better visibility toward the six o'clock than any other allied plane prior to the use of bubble canopies. Just flying the 109 in game, this seems to be somewhat true.

major_setback
11-12-2009, 02:23 AM
You can tell this is a male dominated forum; you get discussions about who has the biggest cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

...But now I am left wondering which plane actually did have the biggest cockpit in WWII (BTW don't Google 'Big cockpit' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif).

Metatron_123
11-12-2009, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
So you don't subscribe to the view that the Luftwaffe would have been just as effective if they used any one of a number of monoplane fighters available from any number of manufacturers from any number of countries? Was it not tactical doctrine that enabled early war victories rather than equipment? Would not the same results have been acheived had the Luftwaffe utilised P-40's, Hurricanes or Dewoitines? Of course, when tactital doctrine became tactical dogma the shortcomings of the 109 were shown up for what they were. I take it you would also not subscribe to the view that the 109 cost Germany dear when the Luftwaffe's over-reliance on it deprived them of the use of more advanced options vis the 190 for example?

In 1944/45 the 109 wasn't particularly better at getting shot down than the 190... Other factors came into play. Logistics, whole units getting slaughtered and being replaced by inexperienced new pilots that faced ridiculous odds... Fuel shortages that compromised training... Mustangs roaming free, routinely shooting down trainers thinking they were 109s... In the east where the Russians despite their numerical superiority did not exploit it as well, the qualitative parity or superiority of the Luftwaffe was still in evidence...

I also think that the Me-109 is the superior machine of all the ones you mentioned in that time frame, supported by tactical doctrine or not.

muffinstomp
11-12-2009, 09:23 AM
To quote Frithz Arschkopf from JG54:
"...
LW pilots just loved teasing their captains by stepping out of a single 109 cockpit one by one until an entire squadron staff stood around the aircraft.
..."

Great thread just in time to stop Oleg modelling the 109 too comfortable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Greets,
muffinstomp

RegRag1977
11-12-2009, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by muffinstomp:
To quote Frithz Arschkopf from JG54:
"...
LW pilots just loved teasing their captains by stepping out of a single 109 cockpit one by one until an entire squadron staff stood around the aircraft.
..."

Great thread just in time to stop Oleg modelling the 109 too comfortable. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Greets,
muffinstomp

LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Arschkopf from JG54 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I love this thread soooo much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stalkervision
11-12-2009, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
you work with the equipment your given. Since the 109 was the hottest thing in the sky at the time I don't believe the German pilots that flew her felt that deprived with the cockpit visibility.

So you don't subscribe to the view that the Luftwaffe would have been just as effective if they used any one of a number of monoplane fighters available from any number of manufacturers from any number of countries? Was it not tactical doctrine that enabled early war victories rather than equipment? Would not the same results have been acheived had the Luftwaffe utilised P-40's, Hurricanes or Dewoitines? Of course, when tactital doctrine became tactical dogma the shortcomings of the 109 were shown up for what they were. I take it you would also not subscribe to the view that the 109 cost Germany dear when the Luftwaffe's over-reliance on it deprived them of the use of more advanced options vis the 190 for example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the 109 cockpit and seating position was designed like a Grand Prix racer. They also seem claustrophobic till you get use to sitting and driving one. Then they become an extension of yourself. Read how many pilots on testing the 109 felt the controls fell " very nicely to your hands"

i remember one quote from adolph galland remarking on a captured p-47 cockpit. He said he felt like he could run around inside of it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
11-12-2009, 12:59 PM
Arschkopf
See you can get away with it because the silly software is not bi-lingual...

*** HEAD

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 01:22 AM
Part of me also thinks that the visibility out of the front of the 109 and the Spitfire are comparable. Considering at the time these designs

were born that much of the air war was air to ground attacks or bomber interception. Many times the pilot was flying in the direction that

gunfire was coming from. Peeping over the panel through the windscreen would probably be the equivalent of peering through a slot in tank

armor. The idea being that a minimal FOV also provides a larger degree of protection.

What we perceive as horrible visibility or a design flaw, might've actually served a better purpose for protecting the pilot when strafing

ground targets or shooting at bombers that had viscous gunners shooting back at their faces.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-13-2009, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
you work with the equipment your given. Since the 109 was the hottest thing in the sky at the time I don't believe the German pilots that flew her felt that deprived with the cockpit visibility.


So you don't subscribe to the view that the Luftwaffe would have been just as effective if they used any one of a number of monoplane fighters available from any number of manufacturers from any number of countries? Was it not tactical doctrine that enabled early war victories rather than equipment? Would not the same results have been acheived had the Luftwaffe utilised P-40's, Hurricanes or Dewoitines? Of course, when tactital doctrine became tactical dogma the shortcomings of the 109 were shown up for what they were. I take it you would also not subscribe to the view that the 109 cost Germany dear when the Luftwaffe's over-reliance on it deprived them of the use of more advanced options vis the 190 for example? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nope... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the 109 cockpit and seating position was designed like a Grand Prix racer. They also seem claustrophobic till you get use to sitting and driving one. Then they become an extension of yourself. Read how many pilots on testing the 109 felt the controls fell " very nicely to your hands"

i remember one quote from adolph galland remarking on a captured p-47 cockpit. He said he felt like he could run around inside of it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


A classic self-agrandizing slant with the seat - do you see what's been done there? 'Grand Prix Racer' Why not a humble deck chair? Not macho enough, I guess.

I could draw your attention to point 5 of a long list of complaints about the 109 made by Kesselring to Messerschmitt in an official letter:-

"5. The pilot's seat is too far to the front. It must also be pointed out that, due to the present position of the seat, a pilot in full flying kit will be unable to move the control collumn fully backwards and one result of this is that only wheel landings are possible."


Why not actually read what a real test pilot who really tested the 109 said about the cockpit and controls instead of relying on the dubious ramblings and selective copy & paste of a frustrated burger flipper's propaganda site?

"The Seafire's cockpit was a fairly tight fit for anyone of above average size, but not claustrophobic like the Me 109."

"The Me 109 always looked sinister to me, and it felt sinister once I was seated in that small, narrow cockpit which made movement of the head difficult - hardly ideal for a combat fighter...control harmony was poor for a fighter..."


The book these quotes were taken from is 'Duels In The Sky' by Capt Eric Brown, RN - world record holder for types of aircraft flown (487, including the 109), and number of carrier landings (2400) - I think that qualifies him as something more of an expert than some here.

Interestingly, the book ends with a list of the top five fighters of WWII, arrived at after careful consideration as noted in passages by the author. And I quote:-

"Here then, is the final list of single-seat fighters of World War II.

1. Supermarine Spitfire and Fw190
3. Grumman Hellcat
4. North American Mustang IV.
5. Mitsubishi Zeke"

(Note absence of 109 on list)

If you're serious about being taken seriously as some sort of expert then I'd recommend you read 'Wings of the Luftwaffe' by the same author, which details his experiences and opinions formed while actually flying the aircraft used by the Lufties. That was his job, you see.

I would be delighted to cherry-pick desparaging remarks from this volume and post them here - but really feel it better that you seek out such truths for yourself and save my good reputaion from the possibility of being sullied, tarred with the same brush as the most reprehensible of the fanboys that post here. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BillSwagger
11-13-2009, 02:37 AM
To me it seems silly to boast one mans opinion over another. I'm sure there is some relavance, but hearing pilots describe cockpit feel and arrangement is no different than hearing a group of friends describe the cars they love or hate driving.

Your level of comfort in such a plane probably has lot to do with how big you are, or even how well your posture is. Some people are more comfortable sitting upright, which might present problems in a plane that was intended to have you lay flatter. Either way, i don't see how one man's opinion is any indication on how comfortable it was to fly one over the other.

Its a completely subjective opinion.

Bill

Bremspropeller
11-13-2009, 06:02 AM
"The Me 109 always looked sinister to me, and it felt sinister once I was seated in that small, narrow cockpit which made movement of the head difficult - hardly ideal for a combat fighter...control harmony was poor for a fighter..."

I wouldn't concentrate too much on personal tastes.
Some fighter-pilots loved the 109 for it's tight cockpit.

While control-harmony might have been poor, it has been stated a couple of times now that this was done on purpose.
Different philosphies on the same topic.

It's like an Airbus vs. Boeing thing.

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The Me 109 always looked sinister to me, and it felt sinister once I was seated in that small, narrow cockpit which made movement of the head difficult - hardly ideal for a combat fighter...control harmony was poor for a fighter..."

I wouldn't concentrate too much on personal tastes.
Some fighter-pilots loved the 109 for it's tight cockpit.

While control-harmony might have been poor, it has been stated a couple of times now that this was done on purpose.
Different philosphies on the same topic.

It's like an Airbus vs. Boeing thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exactly Brems. Look at the tops aces of ww 2. What were they flying? The 109 of course! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


seems the "control harmonization and cockpit view" were sufficient enough for them wasn't it?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and it's a indisputable fact no matter what Erich Brown says. Was he a fighter pilot that lived day to day in the 109? No.

Btw Brown's , major claim to fame isn't in air combat whatsoever. It's being a test pilot.

two different things entirely.

I guess you could count the TWO under armed Fw 200's he shot down thou. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kettenhunde
11-13-2009, 11:41 AM
control-harmony

I think it might be useful to discuss what control harmony actually means. Not really interested in getting into another Bf-109 vs. Spitfire thread with some trolls either. So don't be surprised if you fit that category and get ignored, yuppers, milo, or whatever name you have for yourself.


Good Control Harmony is not necessarily all the stick forces are equal. Generally the rule is 100%-50%-80% for your Longitudinal-lateral-directional control forces to have perfectly good control harmony.

Remember too, the forces are always loading only one axis at a time.

For example, When the pitch "(longitudinal) stick forces are at 50lbs, roll stick forces (lateral) at are 25lbs, and yaw-wise (directional) is at 40 lbs. An airplane with that displays such forces is considered to have good control harmony.

Where we get into trouble is when our forces are extreme.

To further illustrate control harmony, In the early Marque Spitfires a longitudinal instability combined with a poor stick force gradient to produce poor control harmony. In that case the elevator required only a small amount of pull force to begin recovery. Once recovery started, the accelerations would increase without any pilot input and a substantially more powerful push force was required to keep the airplane from within load factor limits. We are talking ~6lbs to recover and ~20lbs push to keep from exceeding the load factor limits depending on the CG location. At the same velocity, the aileron forces were excessively large in that full roll velocity could not be reach even with 50lbs of force applied. That is not good control harmony because the lateral exceeds the longitudinal and because the aircraft left to its own, would destroy itself; it is not good stability either. The control harmony is not a dangerous condition and is only an issue because the pilot can physically leverage less lateral force than the he can longitudinal force. We just are not getting the maximum performance out of airplane and pilot at the present gradient. The instability is a very dangerous condition and unfortunately caused the death of several pilots. Once again, nothing unusual there either. In aviation it is the death of the pilots that is often the first signal of trouble.

If ATC screws up, pilot dies…. mechanic screws up, pilot dies……. engineer screws up, pilot dies…. pilot screws up, pilot dies….see the common theme in flying?

This was quickly corrected with a simple bob-weight which is the most common remedy. It goes on in just a few minutes and is both effective as well as simple. The control harmony became excellent and the aircraft required a pull force to recover from a dive and no push force was needed to control accelerations.

Incidentally, many RAF complained that the bob weights reduced the pleasant stick forces of the Spitfire in turning flight. The bob weights change nothing physically with the amount of control surface deflected nor is there any reduction in the turn performance, only the pilots perception of the input forces has changed.


All the best,

Crumpp

DrHerb
11-13-2009, 12:52 PM
Kind of like a de-boost tab in the rudder of a P-51?

From what I recall, it would make it harder to push full deflection into the rudder because manouvers like the snaproll would tear the tail off of the airplane.

Bremspropeller
11-13-2009, 01:08 PM
There is only a flettner trim-tab in the 51's rudder AFAIK.

horseback
11-13-2009, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
and it's a indisputable fact no matter what Erich Brown says. Was he a fighter pilot that lived day to day in the 109? No.

Btw Brown's , major claim to fame isn't in air combat whatsoever. It's being a test pilot.

two different things entirely.

I guess you could count the TWO under armed Fw 200's he shot down thou. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Brown was flying VERY early model Martlets off of a crudely converted freighter (the first example of a CVE) in the North Atlantic when he got those victories... the skill required to take off, much less land that particular aircraft under those conditions speaks volumes about Brown's skillset at that very early point in his career.

By the way, besides being credited with flying more types of combat aircraft than anyone else, he is also credited with having made a world record number of carrier landings before he retired from the FAA.

And while he didn't spend all his war years flying combat, he did spend them flying unfamiliar enemy and Allied aircraft and interpreting their qualities in a context that others could understand. Naturally, in order to provide a point of reference, he would include standard Allied standards and practices as well as comparable Allied aircraft his intended audience were famiiar with.

Finally, he does have FAR more flight time in 109s (and pretty much every other major flyable aircraft in the game) than anyone on these forums. He understands quite well how they compare to each other, even if his opinion contradicts our own.

cheers

horseback

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
and it's a indisputable fact no matter what Erich Brown says. Was he a fighter pilot that lived day to day in the 109? No.

Btw Brown's , major claim to fame isn't in air combat whatsoever. It's being a test pilot.

two different things entirely.

I guess you could count the TWO under armed Fw 200's he shot down thou. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Brown was flying VERY early model Martlets off of a crudely converted freighter (the first example of a CVE) in the North Atlantic when he got those victories... the skill required to take off, much less land that particular aircraft under those conditions speaks volumes about Brown's skillset at that very early point in his career.

By the way, besides being credited with flying more types of combat aircraft than anyone else, he is also credited with having made a world record number of carrier landings before he retired from the FAA.

And while he didn't spend all his war years flying combat, he did spend them flying unfamiliar enemy and Allied aircraft and interpreting their qualities in a context that others could understand. Naturally, in order to provide a point of reference, he would include standard Allied standards and practices as well as comparable Allied aircraft his intended audience were famiiar with.

Finally, he does have FAR more flight time in 109s (and pretty much every other major flyable aircraft in the game) than anyone on these forums. He understands quite well how they compare to each other, even if his opinion contradicts our own.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nobody questions he's a skilled pilot,least of all me. I like the chap quite a lot. He has a engineering background to be a very good test pilot I believe also. The two things, fighter pilot and test pilot are not necessarily the same thing thou. I am sure you agree with me there.

Is the 109 the best 'low time" pilots plane. Certainly not. This is what test pilots really look for. A plane a average beginning F/P can handle pretty easily without killing themselves. Good fighter planes balance on that critical edge.

You know who was an excellent test pilot IMO over Brown, Jimmy Doolittle? Look at the air racers he piloted! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif He proved the B-26 wasn't "the widow maker" as much as pilots that flew it needed to give it the respect it needed to fly it well. It turned out to be one of the most excellent medium bombers of ww 2.

I wonder if brown ever flew it and what was his opinion of the plane?

TS_Sancho
11-13-2009, 01:44 PM
I doubt anyone on these boards can seriously question Eric Browns credintials to review the players in question.

I do doubt his impartiality on the matter.

As a side note, have any of you British types ever considered adding a spitfire silohuette to the Union Jack?

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 01:56 PM
Sorry brits but this is my test pilot of all time. Ever hear of the Doolittle raids? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Doolittle


http://www.doolittletokyoraiders.com/wallpaper1024_780.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-13-2009, 02:04 PM
Kind of like a de-boost tab in the rudder of a P-51?

Very similar in concept....It is a device to alter the perceived forces on the stick.

It just adds a specific amount of tension to the stick and control system to change the force gradient.

A bob weight is a hinged 6 1/2lb weight <on the Spitfire> on a fixed arm attached to the stick bell crank assembly. I can scan a picture of it if you like.

All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 02:11 PM
I am still amazed he flew this plane and flew it very successfully! Old "7/11" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Gee_Bee_R-1.jpg/800px-Gee_Bee_R-1.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gee_Bee_R-1

http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/4515/gee3.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-13-2009, 02:22 PM
IIRC,

Lindbergh liked the Bf-109 as well. It is a pilots airplane IMHO.

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
IIRC,

Lindbergh liked the Bf-109 as well. It is a pilots airplane IMHO.


Very true K/H and Lindbergh was no slouch in anything he attempted. Just judge what he did for the p-38 and operationally extending it range for U.S pilots. He also shot down a few Japanese aircraft while he was at it I believe.

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 02:28 PM
I respect and like brown a lot but I think he has a very "slight" biased against the 109.

just a little thou. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
11-13-2009, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
IIRC,

Lindbergh liked the Bf-109 as well. It is a pilots airplane IMHO.


Very true K/H and Lindbergh was no slouch in anything he attempted. Just judge what he did for the p-38 and operationally extending it range for U.S pilots. He also shot down a few Japanese aircraft while he was at it I believe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

with C.L. eng magt, the 38 would out-range the P51 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

he also did the same with a Corsair unit while he was in PTO

horseback
11-13-2009, 03:48 PM
nobody questions he's a skilled pilot,least of all me. I like the chap quite a lot. He has a engineering background to be a very good test pilot I believe also. The two things, fighter pilot and test pilot are not necessarily the same thing thou. I am sure you agree with me there. Three enemy contacts; two confirmed kills. He did make the most of his combat opportunities.

Brown became a test pilot because that was what his superiors deemed was the best use of his abilites, not because he sought the job. He did also spend a long and illustrious career as a Fleet Air Arm pilot and squadron commander as well, although Britain was not at war for much of it. You'd have a hard time convincing HIM that he wasn't 'really' a fighter pilot.

As for his appraisals of the Bf 109, OF COURSE he was prejudiced! He was an Englishman who was used to flying a different 'style' of fighter and his job was to describe the differences in enemy aircraft from Allied aircraft to his fellow Allied pilots.

Have you read Moelder's appraisals of the captured Spitfire Mk I and Hurricane just prior to the Battle of Britain? VERY patronizing and quite convinced that 'of course' they were both inherently inferior to the 109E series.

It's a very human thing to assume that 'different' is the same as 'not as good'. It's also a very human thing to look for the disadvantages to the enemy's tools and encourage their fellow warriors to think in terms of taking advantage of those perceived flaws.

Neither Brown nor Moelders particularly cared for the other side's primary aircraft; maybe that was because each had been brought up in a system that emphasized certain traits as desireable in a fighter, and the 'other side's' fighters emphasized certain other traits.

cheers

horseback

stalkervision
11-13-2009, 03:50 PM
Have you read Moelder's appraisals of the captured Spitfire Mk I and Hurricane just prior to the Battle of Britain? VERY patronizing and quite convinced that 'of course' they were both inherently inferior to the 109E series.

yes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

yuuppers
11-13-2009, 03:58 PM
My dearest Crumpp,


Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
"The Me 109 always looked sinister to me, and it felt sinister once I was seated in that small, narrow cockpit which made movement of the head difficult - hardly ideal for a combat fighter... <span class="ev_code_RED">control harmony</span> was poor for a fighter..."


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
While <span class="ev_code_RED">control harmony</span> might have been poor, it has been stated a couple of times now that this was done on purpose.

Please note the nicks of the posters.

Always knew you had a problem Gene, the Dancing Machine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Kettenhunde
11-13-2009, 04:44 PM
It's a very human thing to assume that 'different' is the same as 'not as good'. It's also a very human thing to look for the disadvantages to the enemy's tools and encourage their fellow warriors to think in terms of taking advantage of those perceived flaws.

Good post.


Very true K/H and Lindbergh was no slouch in anything he attempted. Just judge what he did for the p-38 and operationally extending it range for U.S pilots. He also shot down a few Japanese aircraft while he was at it I believe.

Lindbergh was a hell of a pilot. I didn't like his early politics.

M_Gunz
11-13-2009, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Please note the nicks of the posters.

What's your point? Neither Brems nor LF is Crumpp.
More to the point, what is your purpose and what names have you been at this forum under yourself?
It's for sure you are an old face wearing a new mask so how about taking the high ground before
asking another to do the same?
I changed my forum name once through the mods and Ms. Kleaneasy, I've never had another ID on this
forum so please don't play you can't till I do since I just did.

Yuppers and Uppyers and what others if you want to play spelling games about it?

It would be nice to know some day just how few multi-trolls have actually populated this forum. Is
it 1/4th the total or 1/10th I wonder? Is there only 2 or 3 or are there as many as 8 or 12?

Of course the more 'voices' that agree, the more 'right' they all are....

M_Gunz
11-13-2009, 06:25 PM
It's a very human thing to assume that 'different' is the same as 'not as good'. It's also a very human thing to look for the disadvantages to the enemy's tools and encourage their fellow warriors to think in terms of taking advantage of those perceived flaws.

The first thing you learn in human studies is to drop the egocentric ignorance of different being not good.
Using advantages and disadvantages is all part of tactics. Those are disproved or proved through combat.
Holding on to losing tactics is to keep the egocentric POV, and the mark of a Dweeb as defined by Bullethead,
"Dweebs don't learn, they just do the same thing over and over.".


Very true K/H and Lindbergh was no slouch in anything he attempted. Just judge what he did for the p-38 and operationally extending it range for U.S pilots. He also shot down a few Japanese aircraft while he was at it I believe.

What he showed them should work for most any plane, it's from techniques he used when flying mail delivery routes.
I never heard of the lessons being applied to any other plane but that doesn't mean they were not.


Lindbergh was a hell of a pilot. I didn't like his early politics.

He was just an early neocon when he attended the Nazi Party rallies and spoke admiringly about Hitler. Just a neocon.

Kettenhunde
11-13-2009, 06:53 PM
I never heard of the lessons being applied to any other plane but that doesn't mean they were not.

IIRC, With a carburetor engine it was hard to do what he was doing with them.

Essentially he was running LOP operations. It works with a carburetor but it is also much easier to experience detonation. I can do it in my airplane but only because I have an engine analyzer in the panel.

I don't ever do it though because frankly, I am scared of the $30,000 bill detonation brings on...

Kettenhunde
11-13-2009, 06:56 PM
Just a neocon.

LOL....

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-14-2009, 01:42 AM
Good info' Horseback - I would pick you up on just one point, Brown is a proud Scot - he probably won't thank you for calling him an Englishman. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of further relevance to points raised here:-

He also flew combat missions with Johnson's Canadian wing.

He likes Germany and the German people a lot - he was very involved with the setting up of the post-war Kreigsmarine's air arm (he is fluent in technical German - one of the reasons he got the test pilot gig). His writings are full of admiration for the advances in aeronautics by the Germans that he freely admits were utilised by the post war allies. Any issues he has with the 109 are certainly not the result of any anti-German bias, but the product of a professional and exeedingly well-qualified series of observations that can only be gained from first-hand experience.

When he flew the Fw190 he had to use a cushion as he is by his own admission "rather short in stature" - this makes his comments about the claustrophic cockpit and difficulty in moving his head all the more telling.


I don't get the Yuupster's point about Brems and my good self either.


Edit: Mistaken identity - must be contagious.

Bremspropeller
11-14-2009, 04:19 AM
I never said he rated it badly for the 109 being German.
Yet he put in his assessment of the 109 having a "claustrophobic" cockpit.
Well, the 109 does have a tight cockpit, but it's up to the pilot whether to like it or not.


BTW:
Kriegsmarine (-1945)
Bundesmarine (1955-1990)
Deutsche Marine (1990- present)

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-14-2009, 04:33 AM
My bad, Bundesmarine it is then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Is there a specific name for the air arm?

Bremspropeller
11-14-2009, 04:42 AM
Luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

You might put a "Bundes-" in front of it, but the official name hasn't changed.
Propably because there is no "Krieg" (= war) in it.

The Marine desn't have any fast jets anymore (we sacked both Tornado-wings).
Maritime warfare by jets is now the air-force's job.

Kettenhunde
11-14-2009, 06:30 AM
Well, the 109 does have a tight cockpit, but it's up to the pilot whether to like it or not.


Yes it is a personal preference but it also depends on what you are doing with the airplane. My new airplane is not very roomy at all. I thought my wife would hate it. Instead she likes because the seats are comfortable and the closer distances allows her to have a better view of exactly what I am doing as the pilot.

If I have to spend long hours in the cockpit, it is nice to be able to stretch out some. The roomy cockpit sitting in an upright condition is ideal for long periods of flight. It cuts down on the fatigue which means my flight safety has improved. If I had to fly long distances to reach my destination, that is what I am looking for as the pilot.

If I had to do aerobatics or maneuver at high load factors, I want to have to reach out the shortest distances possible to control the aircraft. It means I will be less tired and more alert at a given amount of time. That means my safety is improved. If I don't have to fly for long distances but plan on doing hard maneuvering, that is the what I am looking for as a pilot.

CUJO_1970
11-14-2009, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
Please note the nicks of the posters.



How 'bout instead we note one of the many different "nicks" you've had to register under in order to continue accessing the forums.

How many we up to now, Milo?

Kurfurst__
11-14-2009, 07:54 AM
Personally I had no problem in getting into the 109 cockpit, nor it seemed so tight shoulder-tight as all those people suggest, even though I am pretty sure I am bigger than typical pilot at 6 feet. I still had a couple of inches at shoulder height, though would probably make contact with the top of the walls if I would have wear a puffy flight suit. Actually by the most striking quality of the cocpit was how incredibly far away the foot pedals were... the whole seating is more akin to sitting on the ground with your legs streched out, and with your back slightly back.. very unusual at first, and very much unlike the Spitfire, which was probably built for amputees in mind, the legroom being so restricted. The second unusual thing is that there's a second stick between your legs - and your legs at first tended to get in the way when you push it sideways, but, having not flown aircraft I guess this is pretty normal, since all have the stick placed in that fashion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I cannot comment on the headroom since the pilots seat was very heavily cushioned for a much smaller pilot than myself, and my head would probably hit on the top of the canopy's plexi panel if I would have closed it. I reckon if I had an opportunity to remove the cushioning I would fit in nicely, but probably not have more than a couple of inches of headroom.

Overall it just struck me about how much breath is being wasted on the subject - sure the canopy was tight, but I didn't feel uncomfortable at all, I had all the space I really needed, everything was well in the reach of my hand (esp. the trim wheel and throttle were in a very 'natural' position).

In any case, another great realization was how incredibly good job Oleg and team did with the 109G canopy model (save the incredibly annoying Erla canopy bug..) - the first thing that struck me is the very familiar view and perspective I've got used to from Il-2!

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109_stuff/DSC_7180.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-14-2009, 08:17 AM
the whole seating is more akin to sitting on the ground with your legs streched out, and with your back slightly back.. very unusual at first

Mtt had a purpose in mind with the ergonomics of the design, Kurfurst.

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2810/gforces.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/i/gforces.jpg/)


All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
11-14-2009, 09:06 AM
I remember on the 'Spitfire Ace' program, the young guy who got the ride said the ''G' seems to last forever in this aircraft'

Probably due to the seating position compared to modern aircraft.

Or possibly cos he was in the back seat of a two seater? I'm not sure if this would make a difference?.

M_Gunz
11-14-2009, 11:24 AM
K, imagine getting in that seat all dressed up for -40F with headphones and oxy-mask helmet and parachute in place
of the seat cushion?

C, 109 wasn't designed for really long flights was it? 90 mins w/o external tanks added. But back to back sorties,
the veterans did write how exhausting that got didn't they?

Although Yuuppers is an obvious old face posing badly as new I did get a PM about how the point was that Yuuppers
hadn't posted about control-harmony and Crumpp addressed control-harmony at him! Yes Crumpp, you are a beast! If
you really cared then you would KNOW what the problem is! We're all just insensitive brutes! Oh, the shame!

Kettenhunde
11-14-2009, 12:44 PM
C, 109 wasn't designed for really long flights was it? 90 mins w/o external tanks added. But back to back sorties, the veterans did write how exhausting that got didn't they?

They sure did get exhausted. How much of that is airplane and how much is adrenaline is hard to say.

If I have to be in the airplane for a long time give me a roomy work environment. If I have maneuver under high load factors, I want the plane to fit like glove.

Kettenhunde
11-14-2009, 03:45 PM
Yes Crumpp, you are a beast! If
you really cared then you would KNOW what the problem is! We're all just insensitive brutes! Oh, the shame!

Sorry....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

M_Gunz
11-14-2009, 05:30 PM
Another old favorite: If you knew, you wouldn't have to ask! == guess who's sleeping on the couch!

horseback
11-15-2009, 01:04 AM
Personally I had no problem in getting into the 109 cockpit, nor it seemed so tight shoulder-tight as all those people suggest, even though I am pretty sure I am bigger than typical pilot at 6 feet. I still had a couple of inches at shoulder height, though would probably make contact with the top of the walls if I would have wear a puffy flight suit.
Puffy flight suit? How about layers of heavy clothing and black leather? But that's not why it seemed tight to Commonwealth and American pilots. I have always been struck by how narrow shouldered the German pilots looked...but then most of them were soccer players, and Americans favor sports that build the upper body more, like football and basketball. Canadians love their hockey, The Aussies play their Australian Rules football, Brits play rugby and those sports certainly favor the broadshouldered...

Of course. It was staring us in the face all along.

Seriously, it just comes down to what you're used to. The 109's cockpit would make someone used to a roomier pit feel claustrophobic the same way driving in a heavily forested two (or eight) lane road makes me (and a few million other US southwesterners) feel hemmed in. If you're used to being in a wider space, you miss it when it's gone.

If you never developed that expectation, you never miss the extra room. On the other hand, the extra space might make you feel insecure for other reasons...

As for visibility from the cockpit, all of the aircraft that were developed past the first couple of years of the war appear to me to have gradually developed better canopies and found ways to improve the pilot's field of view; the Spit went from a close canopy to a bulged hood to a teardrop canopy in the late MK XIV and XVI models.

Even the FW moved to a blown canopy that improved over its original narrow all-round view hood.

In-game, the cyclops-on-a-stick point of view penalizes all aircraft to some degree (some more than others); it may be hard to see how the pilots adjusted in real life without experiencing it with 6DOF. Hopefully, SOW will give us a better feel for the real thing.

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
11-15-2009, 06:39 AM
Even the FW moved to a blown canopy that improved over its original narrow all-round view hood.

One of the things that they found out after the war started and everyone got some practical experience, was getting the canopy away from the pilot was a good thing.

That is why you do not see armored glass on the sides of canopies. The British tested the Spitfires and found that a 2 1/2 inch piece of armored glass would basically stop German bullets. However, they could not mount the glass far enough on the sides of the canopy to keep the spall from killing or injuring the pilot. The Spitfire cockpit did not allow for the required 4 inches of clearance to safety the pilot from spall.

The technical problem with blown canopies is they are just tough to make if you want them optically correct. I would go so far as to say an optically correct one is rare, they are almost always show some distortion.

Xiolablu3
11-15-2009, 10:58 AM
Still, distortion is not a terrible thing at the sides. if that Me109 has a large nose, compared to real life, really doesnt matter that much. If those 20 enemy bombers seem a few more metres apart than they really are, isnt really a big deal.

Only on the front where the gunsight is, is it really important not to have distortion.

Better to have a blown all round canopy with slight distortion, than no vision at all. Almost all fighter aircraft designers through WW2 worked towards the 'bubble'.

Supermarine = Spitfire 1 to Spitfire XIV
Hawker = Hurriance to Tempest
Messerschmitt = 109 to Me262
Fw190 = Fw190A0 to Fw190D9
North American = P51A to P51D

etc

Kettenhunde
11-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Only on the front is it really important not to have distortion.

I will remember that the next time I am looking for traffic in the pattern...

Xiolablu3
11-15-2009, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only on the front is it really important not to have distortion.

I will remember that the next time I am looking for traffic in the pattern... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact is that a bit of distortion doesnt mean you CANT see any aircraft, just that they look a little different. (out of shape etc). You can still tell if you are going to collide etc. A blind spot is much more dangerous.

A bit of distortion from a blown canopy is not going to stop you from seeing traffic in the pattern.

You are twisting my words.

Kettenhunde
11-15-2009, 01:39 PM
You are twisting my words.

Nobody is twisting your words, Xio. Facts are the distortion makes a difference in your ability to spot other aircraft.


Structural parts, windshield/canopy distortion, poor cockpit lighting, dirty windshield, and instrument glare can limit a pilot’s vision even further.


9. Keep your windows and windscreen clean and clear. A bug on the windscreen can obstruct aircraft coming your way.

public.mcchord.amc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090710-054.doc



Mid-air collisions are overwhelmingly most likely to occur at low altitudes, in the vicinity of an airport, in good VFR weather.


Keep the aircraft windshield clean. A bug-corpse nearby looks like traffic far away.

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/ma...ml#sec-see-and-avoid (http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/maneuver.html#sec-see-and-avoid)

Bremspropeller
11-15-2009, 03:03 PM
The fact is that a bit of distortion doesnt mean you CANT see any aircraft, just that they look a little different.

That is only true VERY up close when the other aircraft manages to out-size the area of distortion on your canopy.
At "speck"-distance, distortion makes the difference between seeing the other guy first or not (or not at all, ending up in a mid-air).

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-15-2009, 03:51 PM
Makes you wonder why Willi went down the blown canopy road with his later designs, don't it?

stalkervision
11-15-2009, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Makes you wonder why Willi went down the blown canopy road with his later designs, don't it?

I believe it is the same type of reason Micheal Kalashnikov re-chambered his ak-47 later on to take a m-16 type round. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
11-15-2009, 05:16 PM
Neither being true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-15-2009, 05:25 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v735/KG26Oranje/Luftwaffe-Axis/02-309c.jpg

http://www.themotorpool.net/v/vspfiles/photos/VITL030-2T.jpg

Bremspropeller
11-15-2009, 05:29 PM
Bubble:
http://repairstemcell.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/soap-bubble.jpg

Greenhouse:
http://grandsolarpower.com/indoorgreenhouse/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/greenhouse_plans.jpg

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-15-2009, 05:35 PM
Whitehouse:
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/whitehouse.gif


Bungalow:
http://www.littlekings.co.uk/images/bungalow.jpg

BillSwagger
11-15-2009, 05:37 PM
you might've already seen this:

i thought it was cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiAIyX0l42M



there was a 109 view floating around too, but i haven't found it again.

It looked like the pilot sat a little lower in the 109, but it could've been that the canopy panel is proportionately higher.

In any account, visibility doesn't appear to be the awful nor distorted to the extent that it would make it difficult to see out of the front.



Bill

Bremspropeller
11-15-2009, 05:38 PM
That's the gheyest bungalow I've ever seen.

Kettenhunde
11-15-2009, 05:41 PM
visibility doesn't appear to be the awful nor distorted to the extent that it would make it difficult to see out of the front.


You better watch again....

That Buchon disappears at least twice in the Spitfire canopies distortion.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-15-2009, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
That's the gheyest bungalow I've ever seen.

It's true that some people find them claustrophobic and lacking in headroom, I find a reclining seat helps a little bit what with me being of above average stature. I was thinking of fitting bow windows to give it a bit more room, but if it's going to distort my view of the local hoodies I might have to reconsider. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AndyJWest
11-15-2009, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
That's the gheyest bungalow I've ever seen.

It's true that some people find them claustrophobic and lacking in headroom, I find a reclining seat helps a little bit what with me being of above average stature. I was thinking of fitting bow windows to give it a bit more room, but if it's going to distort my view of the local hoodies I might have to reconsider. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bremspropeller
11-15-2009, 05:52 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

A classic LF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Kettenhunde
11-15-2009, 05:56 PM
That's good...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Xiolablu3
11-16-2009, 01:30 AM
Just look at all those fighters that decided not to 'progress' to a bubble, blown canopy.

I mean they all have flat panel glass now dont they! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


Su27, Typhoon, F22, Spitfire, Tempest, Me262, Meteor, P80, just so many flat panels on the late war fighters and modern fighters.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Xiolablu3
11-16-2009, 01:53 AM
http://www.rlm.at/profil/03/fw190d9_rudel.jpg



http://www.hyperscale.com/features/2001/images/fw190d9bg_23.JPG

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 06:32 AM
I mean they all have flat panel glass now dont they!

And they are extremely expensive, Xio. Have you ever priced a modern fighters canopy?

Personally I have no vested interest in what your opinion is on the matter. If you are going to be rude then take a hike.

Just passing along the facts. It is not my opinion, just my experience from purchasing, installing, and looking through airplane canopies. Blown canopies are very quick and easy to make. Optically correct blown canopies are extremely difficult to make.

It is as much art as science in making an optically correct blown canopy. It is not something that is easy or practical to mass manufacture on an assembly line. Which is why the optically correct canopies are extremely expensive.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6153/canopies.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/canopies.jpg/)

Here is a comparison of an early style Focke Wulf canopy and the late war style "blown canopy".

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/Canopy2.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-16-2009, 06:35 AM
This thread is dying. It needs motivation.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/Spit_cocpit-1.png

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_xsection.png

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109e_Spit_cpit_malcolm.png

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 06:43 AM
That's actually quite an interesting point about manufacturing skills required. Spitfires were hand crafted compared to 109s, and lest we forget that s proportion of Messerschmitt's late war workforce weren't exactly doing it for love, were they?

Makes you wonder what late war Lufty planes would have looked like but for human and material resources being so affected by factors outside the designers' control. The Salamander was an interesting example of a potentially effective stop-gap though.

Same old tired and already discredited input from fanboy No1, I notice.

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 07:09 AM
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9647/canopydistortion2.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/i/canopydistortion2.jpg/)

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1263/canopydistortion1.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/canopydistortion1.jpg/)

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9980/canopydistortion3.jpg (http://img101.imageshack.us/i/canopydistortion3.jpg/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiAIyX0l42M

If you watch the runway as the Spitfire makes a low pass, you can really see the distortion.

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 07:58 AM
If you watch the runway as the Spitfire makes a low pass, you can really see the distortion.
Kettenhunde, I think the point is that any pilot who was going to survive for more than 20 minutes would be weaving to scan his blind-spot or flying with a wingman anyway. You're absolutely correct about the distortion, of course, imagine if you went to the optician and they just gave you whatever lenses they had that fitted the frame, it's the same principle. I just think that the size of the distorted area would be less of a factor for anyone who was acting with any regard for his own life anyway. It's still worth bearing in mind, though.
Kurf, you've pulled that picture out before, I've been lurking on these forums long enough to have seen it. But it looks fairly fabricated to me...watching the Paul Day videos from the previous thread on the subject, the only way those dimensions could be correct is if Paul Day gets bigger when he gets into the 109 cockpit. He has plenty of shoulder room in the Spit, and when he gets in the 109 cockpit you can really see the difference. Just give it up. Also, in answer to one of your previous comments, you realise that the rudder pedals in the Spit are adjustable for distance?
I don't really get your vendetta against any WWII aircraft or air force that isn't German, it's really quite embarrassing to watch.
Every aircraft and every air force had their flaws, just as they had their strengths, and it's really rather childish to be unable to recognise that with the benefit of 60+ years of research to draw on.

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 08:08 AM
Kettenhunde, I think the point is that any pilot who was going to survive for more than 20 minutes would be weaving to scan his blind-spot or flying with a wingman anyway. You're absolutely correct about the distortion, of course, imagine if you went to the optician and they just gave you whatever lenses they had that fitted the frame, it's the same principle. I just think that the size of the distorted area would be less of a factor for anyone who was acting with any regard for his own life anyway. It's still worth bearing in mind, though.

I think it highlights just how important tactics and wingman are to the success of a fight.

It makes a difference. None of the blown canopies are so distortive you cannot operate the aircraft. This is not limited to one side or another either, it is physical limitation of the designs, not a nationality. Remember too, these canopies have to be hand made and are all going to be just a little different.

Movement is the easiest to pick up for the human eye. Problem is other airplanes flying directly at you do not move. The speck just gets bigger. They grow from a tiny speck to an airplane in a surprisingly very short fraction of time.

Having an optically correct view is an advantage.

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I think it highlights just how important tactics and wingman are to the success of a fight.

It makes a difference. None of the blown canopies are so distortive you cannot operate the aircraft. This is not limited to one side or another either, it is physical limitation of the designs, not a nationality. Remember too, these canopies have to be hand made and are all going to be just a little different.

Movement is the easiest to pick up for the human eye. Problem is other airplanes flying directly at you do not move. The speck just gets bigger. They grow from a tiny speck to an airplane in a surprisingly very short fraction of time.

Having an optically correct view is an advantage.
Agreed on all counts. However I'd point out that the lack of such a large amount of canopy framing (especially compared to the particularly oppressive examples offered by the 109 and the Hurricane) and the mild benefits to rear view would likely make up for this to some degree.
I'd also point out that, crucially to a rookie pilot, there's likely an overlooked psychological benefit involved in not being surrounded by all that framing.

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 08:27 AM
However I'd point out that the lack of such a large amount of canopy framing (especially compared to the particularly oppressive examples offered by the 109 and the Hurricane) and the mild benefits to rear view would likely make up for this to some degree.

The framing physically blocks your ability to see without moving your head.


I'd also point out that, crucially to a rookie pilot, there's likely an overlooked psychological benefit involved in not being surrounded by all that framing.

Any pilot likes to see everything and not have their vision restricted. The blown canopies have the illusion of all around vision.

Both styles accomplish the same thing. One sacrifices optical clarity in order to remove framing while the other preserves optical clarity but requires framing.

My whole point in this thread is these canopy designs are tit for tat and a very silly thing to argue back and forth.

AndyJWest
11-16-2009, 08:42 AM
My whole point in this thread is these canopy designs are tit for tat and a very silly thing to argue back and forth.

Maybe silly for you, but entertaining (and sometimes educational) for the rest of us.

One observation on the Spitfire in-cockpit shots, though: it is filmed from behind the pilot in a two-seat plane, and the viewpoint is thus looking through the front of the bubble canopy at a very acute angle. I'm fairly certain you'd see less distortion from the pilots position.

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
My whole point in this thread is these canopy designs are tit for tat and a very silly thing to argue back and forth.
I disagree...as a percentage of the all-round view, the severely distorted area in the blown canopies is much smaller than the area of the canopy framing in some other designs, particularly the 109 and Hurricane. This is especially evident in the Biggin Hill dogfight video you posted. Apart from the area near the canopy frame, the distortion is really quite manageable.
On another note, I wish people wouldn't deface Spitfires by restoring them as two-seaters. I'm glad no one's done that to the 109 yet.
But then, they probably wouldn't have the room, would they? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

horseback
11-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Kurf, you've pulled that picture out before, I've been lurking on these forums long enough to have seen it. But it looks fairly fabricated to me...watching the Paul Day videos from the previous thread on the subject, the only way those dimensions could be correct is if Paul Day gets bigger when he gets into the 109 cockpit. He has plenty of shoulder room in the Spit, and when he gets in the 109 cockpit you can really see the difference. Just give it up. Also, in answer to one of your previous comments, you realise that the rudder pedals in the Spit are adjustable for distance? This is typical Kurfy; he's always been more about winning the argument than getting to the truth. He does stay within the bounds of the facts as he sees them though, so you just have to parse his words more carefully than a Bill Clinton press conference 'confession'...

To get a clear idea of the actual comparison, instead of superimposing the canopies at the sill line, you need a scaled drawing showing both whole cockpits at least from the bottom of the pilot's seat from sides, top and front, and indicating the amount of seat and rudder pedal adjustment as well (the Spit's seat adjusts up and down by a few inches; as I recall, the 109's seat is bolted to the cockpit floor).

The Spit has a deeper fuselage; it's appreciably bigger than the 109's, as anyone who can put two same scale models of them next to each other can tell you. The Spit gives the pilot just a couple of extra inches on each side, and you may actually have to sit in each cockpit completely 'buttoned up' to appreciate the difference.

Again though, it's largely a matter of what you're used to plus good ergonomics, and from a practical standpoint, it appears to have been a wash. From pilot field of view standpoint, neither was as good as say a Macchi MC 200 or F4F-3 Wildcat, but both were a hell of a lot faster and those 'base' designs were still frontline fighters at war's end while the Macchi and Grumman designs were replaced within a couple of years of their combat debuts.

cheers

horseback

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
This is typical Kurfy; he's always been more about winning the argument than getting to the truth.
This is exactly like that 100 octane thread on another forum (WWII Aviation or something) that was posted here, he's looking at documents from 4 years before the relevant date to find his 'truths'. His only quoted sources in that thread were a fairytale document that the archive it supposedly resided in had never heard of and a document from 1938 that was entirely reliant upon the Americans refusing to supply 100 octane to Britain after the outbreak of war, which of course they never did. Oh, yeah, and casting doubts as to one of the participants' identity.
I'm pretty sure that the canopy of the Spitfire was the subject of a lot of attention with the intention of improving its quality between September 1936 and June 1940.

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 09:17 AM
Apart from the area near the canopy frame, the distortion is really quite manageable.


Keep in mind, you only see one direction in that video.

Where ever you have a curve, you will generally have distortion.

You can easily see that in the Focke Wulf canopies I posted if you look.

As for percentage area, as all blown canopies are hand made, some are worse and some are better. On average they are about the same as a framed canopy.

As for time to manufacture a canopy, the blown with its optical quality reduction is much faster and cheaper than a framed canopy to produce.

On an unrelated note to all. Please stop the personal attacks on thread participants. It does not add to anyone's credibility. Take the high road please.

If we cannot address the facts and merits then let's not address the issue at all.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 09:32 AM
I'm fairly certain you'd see less distortion from the pilots position.



Ok, there is no way anyone can make any kind of declaration about any production Spitfire specifically based on a Youtube video.....

In fact, there is no such statement or claim being made about anything specific to the Spitfire. This is what I mean by "silly arguments", not that you are making a statement about the Spitfire but that people on these boards tend to view every statement as a declared position for or against a side.

The subject I addressed is that fact optically correct blown canopies are extremely difficult to manufacture. They are as much an art as a science. They almost always have distortions at the curves.

These distortions do effect the pilots ability to see, avoid, or engage other aircraft.

DrHerb
11-16-2009, 09:52 AM
A bubble canopy is convex in shape is it not? Therefore, common sense tells me, if youre looking outside of it, there will be some sort of distortion, its simple optics.

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
On an unrelated note to all. Please stop the personal attacks on thread participants. It does not add to anyone's credibility. Take the high road please.
A fair request.

On a more reassuring note, I'm fairly certain that the various kinds of distortion-based shaders developed over the last few years will be capable of replicating the optical effect of blown canopies, so that's something to hope for in SoW at some point if not right away.

yuuppers
11-16-2009, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
On an unrelated note to all. Please stop the personal attacks on thread participants. It does not add to anyone's credibility. Take the high road please.

If we cannot address the facts and merits then let's not address the issue at all.

All the best,

Crumpp

Your a real hoot Crumpp. Practice what you preach.

Who posted this?

http://img121.imageshack.us/i/clownf.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 12:29 PM
On a more reassuring note, I'm fairly certain that the various kinds of distortion-based shaders developed over the last few years will be capable of replicating the optical effect of blown canopies, so that's something to hope for in SoW at some point if not right away.


I hope it happens for you guys.

Metatron_123
11-16-2009, 12:30 PM
It's good to simplify sometimes. I regret that I don't come bearing charts and diagrams and bits of Messerschmitt canopies in my pockets, but what I value about myself is objectivity.

I am an Me-109 fan. HOWEVER, I accept the idea some design features of this machine were a compromise to make it easy to produce. And it wasn't a pile of crap either was it? It was always on a competitive level of performace, from the time when people thought biplanes were the best thing since sliced bread until the end of World War two.

The narrow track undercarriage was NOT a feature to make take offs and landings easy. And it didn't. It was so that the fuselage could easily be separated from the wings and transported.

The canopy was NOT the best thing about it. It was a design feature with production in mind.

Production of Me-109s was on the increase even in 1944, partly because it was easy to produce. And again, it's not the 109's fault that the Luftwaffe was getting slaughtered at that point. No Fw-190 Dora-9, no Fiat G-55, no Spitfire, no Mustang and no Tempest could save the Luftwaffe at that point. Only the Me-262 gave Luftwaffe pilots a chance at that point in the war. In other words, the only advantage that would make any sort of difference at that point, was the large performance leap offered by jets. Otherwise the performance gap is too small to matter, no matter what canopies, bells whistles and trumpets came with any of those uber piston engined planes.

What i'm trying to say with this endless rant, is that the points some people are trying to make like this new
'OMG, The bubble canopy won the war' are trivial. Canopies did not win the war. 13000 allied aircraft facing 300 Luftwaffe aircraft in Normandy however, might have won the war a bit. (Not forgetting or lowering the importance of the war in the East, just using an example).

So get over it, the 109 canopy wasn't the best thing in the world(the erla canopy being nice however) and the P-51 bubble definetely didn't win 'teh war'.

What's next, world war two was won because the Jeep had better headlights than the VW Kubelwagen?

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 12:38 PM
What's next, world war two was won because the Jeep had better headlights than the VW Kubelwagen?

Hobnail syndrome....I have actually heard the following applied to the US Civil War!

No, No, No,....It was hobnails!

See German pilots had 9 hobnails in each boot whereas the British only had 12 hobnails. This meant the German pilots boots were not as stiff. The pressure of pushing on the rudder pedals with a pliable boot caused them to be more fatigued.

Since the German pilots were more fatigued, they could not dogfight as long. Since they were more tired, they lost the fight.

Of course when the Americans came along with sewn boot soles, it was game over.

So it really was about the hobnails...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Metatron_123
11-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Lol definitely the hobnails...

Speaking of which, i've decided Germany won the war and that allied footage of bombed out Berlin was made in Hollywood.

Proof: [conclusive proof the kubelwagen won teh war]''In November 1943, the U.S. military conducted a series of tests as well on several Type 82s they had captured in North Africa; they concluded that the vehicle was simpler, easier to manufacture and maintain, faster, and more comfortable for four passengers than the U.S. Jeeps''[/conclusive proof the kubelwagen won teh war]

Wikipedia told me so. And it's the most reliable source there is. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 12:47 PM
Otherwise the performance gap is too small to matter, no matter what canopies, bells whistles and trumpets came with any of those uber piston engined planes.

Good post, btw.

The hobnail syndrome abounds when it comes to aircraft performance.

In Shaw's book it defines the gaps require for there to be any noticeable performance difference in the air. The vast majority of WWII fighters were similar to the contemporary counterparts.

Daiichidoku
11-16-2009, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Only the He-280 gave Luftwaffe pilots a chance at that point in the war.

fixed

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Metatron_123
11-16-2009, 12:56 PM
No one ever gave Heinkel a chance with it's fighters did they...

He-112 B - Great plane, crap engine, favoritism biased to Messerschmitt, He-100, He-280, He-162...

Ironically it was the He-162 that was produced the most and was planned to become fairly standard equipment in the Luftwaffe.

Daiichidoku
11-16-2009, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
No one ever gave Heinkel a chance with it's fighters did they...

He-112 B - Great plane, easy to build, crap engine, favoritism biased to Messerschmitt, He-100, He-280, He-162...

even YOU are neglecting poor Herr Hienkel!

you forgot the He-219 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Metatron_123
11-16-2009, 01:05 PM
Indeed! Looks like Heinkel had one of those forgettable generic faces.

'Mein Fuhrer, these charts conclusively prove the He-219 will win teh war'
'Who the hell are you?'

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 01:16 PM
Heinkel designed some nice looking airplanes.


http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8002/page1mf.jpg (http://img101.imageshack.us/i/page1mf.jpg/)

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/7573/page2sj.jpg (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/page2sj.jpg/)

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1294/page3y.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/page3y.jpg/)

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
What i'm trying to say with this endless rant, is that the points some people are trying to make like this new
'OMG, The bubble canopy won the war' are trivial.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Wait, what? We were discussing the differences between these two aircraft on their own merits. I don't recall anyone mentioning whether these differences 'won the war' apart from you.
If anything the wang-waving about these two aircraft is more about playing IL-2 online and people shouting 'porked' and 'UFO' than whether anyone thought that the differences 'won the war' or not. That happened on a strategic and political level as much as on a purely tactical or technical one.
I like that article, Kettenhunde, you've posted it before. It IS a hell of a pity it never saw service. Hell of an achievement to beat a dyed-in-the-wool racer with an aircraft intended for combat, even if the racer was a last-minute job.

Metatron_123
11-16-2009, 02:32 PM
Obviously no one claimed that a canopy won a war. It's kind of an il-2 forum in-joke for a topic people get obsessed about, like 50cals, the Mustang etc... as in '50 cals won the war after they bounced off a road and demolished the Reichstag.'

Edit: I also like the He-100, a potential winner for it's time.

stalkervision
11-16-2009, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
Obviously no one claimed that a canopy won a war. It's kind of an il-2 forum in-joke for a topic people get obsessed about, like 50cals, the Mustang etc... as in '50 cals won the war after they bounced off a road and demolished the Reichstag.'

Edit: I also like the He-100, a potential winner for it's time.


shuss, don't tell him that just yet. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

TheGrunch
11-16-2009, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Metatron_123:
It's kind of an il-2 forum in-joke for a topic people get obsessed about, like 50cals, the Mustang etc... as in '50 cals won the war after they bounced off a road and demolished the Reichstag.'
Isn't obsessing over minor details a major feature of EVERY topic on this forum? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

stalkervision
11-16-2009, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
It's kind of an il-2 forum in-joke for a topic people get obsessed about, like 50cals, the Mustang etc... as in '50 cals won the war after they bounced off a road and demolished the Reichstag.'
Isn't obsessing over minor details a major feature of EVERY topic on this forum? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You know what they say.."the devil is in the details" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

M_Gunz
11-16-2009, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
If we cannot address the facts and merits then let's not address the issue at all.

Here at The Zoo? Are you kidding? Lack of verifiable facts = feeding time fun!

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 05:44 PM
like that article, Kettenhunde, you've posted it before. It IS a hell of a pity it never saw service. Hell of an achievement to beat a dyed-in-the-wool racer with an aircraft intended for combat, even if the racer was a last-minute job.


Edit: I also like the He-100, a potential winner for it's time.


It is a good looking airplane IMHO. Nice clean lines that just begs to be put through the paces.


Here at The Zoo? Are you kidding?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-16-2009, 05:49 PM
Canapes won teh war:

http://www.kadiak.org/faw4/3/0236_.jpg

Kettenhunde
11-16-2009, 05:53 PM
We were discussing the differences between these two aircraft on their own merits.

You know the most significant feature I see in the Spitfires cockpit?

The articulated stick...that feature is just pure genius on Mitchel's part. Every Stick and Rudder airplane I have ever flown puts my legs in the way of full aileron throw. Every passenger I have ever flown in a stick and rudder gets the same speech, "Keep your legs free of the controls...".

I don't like the spade grip or handbrake. To me, taxi a taildragger with a handbrake is like trying to rub your stomach and pat your head at the same time. Lots of older taildraggers were that way so it is common control set up.

TheGrunch
11-17-2009, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The articulated stick...that feature is just pure genius on Mitchel's part. Every Stick and Rudder airplane I have ever flown puts my legs in the way of full aileron throw.
I'm not sure it was Mitchell's genius - the control column for the Hurricane was the same.


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I don't like the spade grip or handbrake. To me, taxi a taildragger with a handbrake is like trying to rub your stomach and pat your head at the same time. Lots of older taildraggers were that way so it is common control set up.
I quite like the idea of the spade grip, it allows you to use whatever sort of grip you want, really. Plus it allows you to use two hands a bit more easily than a stick.
I've always been quite good at rubbing my stomach and patting my head. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Kettenhunde
11-17-2009, 04:27 AM
'm not sure it was Mitchell's genius - the control column for the Hurricane was the same.


That's true. It is the best feature in the cockpit and Mitchell incorporated it.


I quite like the idea of the spade grip, it allows you to use whatever sort of grip you want, really. Plus it allows you to use two hands a bit more easily than a stick.

In my opinion, it is awkward and bulky. There is no difference in the ability to use more than one hand over a pistol grip that I can see.

I would leave it articulated and put a pistol grip on it. I would change out that pneumatic hand brake system, in fact just chuck all the pneumatics on the airplane. Pneumatics are a major pain the butt and generally have lots of issues. Differential hydraulic braking with toe brakes or heel brakes is the way to go.

My favorite is the toe brakes. You have be extra careful to keep your feet off the brakes on landing. I find it easy to do as you can just put your feet flat and use your toes on the bottom of the rudder pedals underneath the toe brake assembly. Taxing is very natural and you can concern yourself with keeping track of the airplanes orientation to the wind.

stalkervision
11-18-2009, 12:26 PM
The 109 cockpit sure wasn't a peach seeing out of but few pilots who flew her said it was that bad. The german record of 100 plus aces that flew her show that.

what many luft pilots DO complain about is jumping out of a 109 in a emergency. That was quite a trick! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif One had to literally STAND on the control column and push off it to get clear of the aircraft. Erich Hartman recounts just such a story.

Bremspropeller
11-18-2009, 03:49 PM
Sampe problem for the Spitfire or any aircraft lacking a completly jettisonable canopy.

Kettenhunde
11-18-2009, 03:52 PM
any aircraft lacking a completly jettisonable canopy.

Any aircraft with a sliding canopy too....

Damage can deform the rails locking the canopy closed and trapping the pilot.

M_Gunz
11-18-2009, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Metatron_123:
It's kind of an il-2 forum in-joke for a topic people get obsessed about, like 50cals, the Mustang etc... as in '50 cals won the war after they bounced off a road and demolished the Reichstag.'
Isn't obsessing over minor details a major feature of EVERY topic on this forum? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hijacking too... don't forget thread hijacking especially when things get dull, bogged down or just for laughs!

Gibbage1
11-18-2009, 05:15 PM
This is my take on it. With two aircraft that had such close performance (Spit vs 109) every little advantage given to the pilot will decide the fight. Pilot comfort and the ability to work freely in the cockpit is an advantage.

Kurfurst__
11-19-2009, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
Kurf, you've pulled that picture out before, I've been lurking on these forums long enough to have seen it. But it looks fairly fabricated to me...

Care to elaborate how it's 'fabricated'? Both drawings of the canopies came from wartime foreign evaluations (German and Russian), they are very accurate, and made by professional engineers. Both are scaled accurately, which means its very easy to overlay them in an accurate fashion.


watching the Paul Day videos from the previous thread on the subject, the only way those dimensions could be correct is if Paul Day gets bigger when he gets into the 109 cockpit. He has plenty of shoulder room in the Spit, and when he gets in the 109 cockpit you can really see the difference.

The only difference I can see is that when in the Spitfire, he doesn't close the side door, nor closes the canopy... it was already discussed a couple of times on this board already:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/paulday_in_spitand109.jpg

A probably better picture to get some idea about how 'roomy' is the Spit shoulder-wise is a pic of Ray Hanna in-flight... even with the fisheye and that he is looking to the side, there's isn't any room to speak of at shoulder height, not to say 'plenty'..

Anyway, its argueing nonsense - some people would certainly like to 'see' their favorite fighter bigger, better, roomier etc., even if it wasn't, but there are objective means of measuring cockpit dimensions, and those simply say the 109 is actually a tiny bit wider, but there's no denial that both are very narrow. That being said, I've already noted that I had no particular problem with the 109 at shoulder height when I sat in it. So allow me to judge this perhaps a bit better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Just give it up.

You are certainly entitled to be hold onto your opinion, even if its more based on emotions than the actual dimensions of the cocpits, or personal experience with it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Also, in answer to one of your previous comments, you realise that the rudder pedals in the Spit are adjustable for distance?

And then what...? On most planes they are, for obvious reasons.


Originally posted by horseback:
This is typical Kurfy; he's always been more about winning the argument than getting to the truth. He does stay within the bounds of the facts as he sees them though, so you just have to parse his words more carefully than a Bill Clinton press conference 'confession'...

Yada-yada-yada... finished..? Lets face it, you have no facts, no real arguements, so you go for the good ole' ad hominem... thats as much you can do, I've got used to that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by horseback:
To get a clear idea of the actual comparison, instead of superimposing the canopies at the sill line, you need a scaled drawing showing both whole cockpits at least from the bottom of the pilot's seat from sides, top and front, and indicating the amount of seat and rudder pedal adjustment as well

Yup, and can you provide accurate scale drawings?


Originally posted by horseback:
(the Spit's seat adjusts up and down by a few inches; as I recall, the 109's seat is bolted to the cockpit floor).

Also wrong - on the 109E at least, the seat was adjustable with a lever in four stops, in a range of 105 mm.


Originally posted by horseback:
The Spit has a deeper fuselage; it's appreciably bigger than the 109's, as anyone who can put two same scale models of them next to each other can tell you.

Yup, and can you provide accurate scale drawings? The Spits of course is a deeper canopy - little surprise since the pilot in the Spit sits in an upright position, with his feet well below his butt; on the 109 his legs are practically at the same height as his butt, and well forward, with his back inclined - of course he needs less vertical space..! As KH explained, this was done quite deliberately on the 109, as well as on the 190, because such seating position allowed the pilot to sustain higher g-loads than if he would sit in an upright position.


Originally posted by horseback:
The Spit gives the pilot just a couple of extra inches on each side, and you may actually have to sit in each cockpit completely 'buttoned up' to appreciate the difference.

Wishful, I am afraid. As the drawings show, the Spitfire canopy at its widest point is 590 mm wide; that of the 109 is 640 mm wide. The lower end of the Spit's canopy rests outside the fuselage on rails, the 109s on the top of the fuselage wall. The 109's is a bit wider, if only by a few centimeters, if you so much want to argue miniscule details...


Again though, it's largely a matter of what you're used to plus good ergonomics, and from a practical standpoint, it appears to have been a wash. From pilot field of view standpoint, neither was as good as say a Macchi MC 200 or F4F-3 Wildcat, but both were a hell of a lot faster and those 'base' designs were still frontline fighters at war's end while the Macchi and Grumman designs were replaced within a couple of years of their combat debuts.

Yup, agreed. Fighters were built for performance, not for comfort.

Xiolablu3
11-19-2009, 05:14 AM
There is another film around where an RAF pilot and Luftwaffe pilot both sit in each cockpit.

That film also shows the Spitfire cockpit to be bigger. Both pilots say how the Spit cockpit is more roomy.

The German pilot preffered the Spit cockpit, saying how he liked it very much.

The big RAF pilot in particluar found the Bf109 cockpit too small. Cant remember what the show was called. I seem to remember the German pilot being Franz Stigler, but I cant be sure.

Has anyone else seen this show?

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 05:57 AM
The German pilot preffered the Spit cockpit, saying how he liked it very much.

Franz Stigler was very much a Gentleman. I don't picture him being invited to a British show and saying one bad thing about his host's or entering a disagreement.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-19-2009, 06:02 AM
Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:

"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot.

Doe remarked on the cramped feeling and the poor visibilty. He was in Black 6 the 109G2 of the RAF Museum.
Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit. His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was. He then said he'd really like to fly the airplane.

They then went on to talk about hitting power, which went to the 109 20mms vs the Spit 303's.

The final result was they were both good airplanes and that it would fall to the pilot to make the difference.
An interesting sidebar was the discussion of turning circle. They believed that with average pilots the Spit would out turn the 109, but that if flown to the limit, the 109 could match the Spit. "

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 06:57 AM
It's Hans Ekkehard Bob. Never met him but know him through reputation and his reputation is one of a very straight shooter. IMHO, he won't be rude but he also could care less if he ruffled any of his British host's feathers with his opinion. In fact he would probably get a kick out of it.

Xiolablu3
11-19-2009, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:

"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot.

Doe remarked on the cramped feeling and the poor visibilty. He was in Black 6 the 109G2 of the RAF Museum.
Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit. His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was. He then said he'd really like to fly the airplane.

They then went on to talk about hitting power, which went to the 109 20mms vs the Spit 303's.

The final result was they were both good airplanes and that it would fall to the pilot to make the difference.
An interesting sidebar was the discussion of turning circle. They believed that with average pilots the Spit would out turn the 109, but that if flown to the limit, the 109 could match the Spit. "

Thats the one.

Bob Doe found the Me109 cockpit terribly small, but then again he is massive.

Doe is a perfect gentleman.

I think we can be quite sure that if a German pilot says how much more roomy the Spitfire cockpit was, then its pretty much a fact.

AndyJWest
11-19-2009, 07:20 AM
It seems to me that 'roominess' in a cockpit has more to do with width at elbow height than at the shoulder or the bottom edge of the canopy. I'm fairly certain a Spit is wider internally than a Bf-109 at that height.

bolox00
11-19-2009, 07:29 AM
somewhat reluctant to enter into these 'debates' but i have sat in a spit

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/duxford08/100_1476-1.jpg

http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff27/bolox00/duxford08/100_1479-1.jpg

for reference i'm 5'8" 12st and there was only a thin cushion on the seat - no parachute pack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
impressions were alot roomier than i'd expected- certainly alot more room at hips/shoulders than post war single seat jets such as Jaguar (imho) - felt quite similar in some respects to a dh chipmunk. spoke to crew about 109 and one of the had sat in one with canopy closed- he reckoned it felt a bit smaller- particularly with canopy shut. i take that to mean there would be adequate (but only just) room in a 109 (again imho- for a bloke of my size).
other impressions:-
that's alot of Merlin ahead of you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif- would definately like an openable hood on the ground
stick- it's long! about 1' longer than a kg13 (based on tarmac aces stick in my pit) and you could feel the counterbalance pulling the stick forward. the spade grip is unusual-to me- but allows easy operation by either/both hands- rather useful given the need to change hands to retract u/c- certainly easier/more comfortable than operating a kg13 left handed. spade grips were also quite common on other RAF planes .

i also think pilots tend to like what they are used to
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/?product_id=846
makes interesting reading in this regards.

TheGrunch
11-19-2009, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
It seems to me that 'roominess' in a cockpit has more to do with width at elbow height than at the shoulder or the bottom edge of the canopy. I'm fairly certain a Spit is wider internally than a Bf-109 at that height.
Exactly, the 109 may be approximately the same width at the bottom of the canopy frame, but the fuselage shape is almost straight-sided until the bottom of the instrument panel, whereas the spitfire cockpit is perched on top of a fuselage that is oval in section.
Why is it necessary for us to explain that the dimensions of the canopy alone are not the ONLY thing that affects the pilot's working room in the cockpit? Shoulder room may be about the same, but I bet you don't habitually sit with your arms pinned to your sides.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 08:44 AM
Good pictures of the canopy ejection system, btw. I think that debate has raged on these boards before!

Bremspropeller
11-19-2009, 10:42 AM
Pilot comfort and the ability to work freely in the cockpit is an advantage.

To what extent?
Good feelings don't win a fight.

And russian pilots in '41 and '42 gave a good fight, concerning their rather comfortless cockpits.

Kettenhunde
11-19-2009, 10:48 AM
Good feelings don't win a fight.

Very true.

In 2002-2003 everyone complained about wearing armor...

Funny thing though when the bullets started flying I never heard one person complain and never saw anyone take their armor off in a firefight.

If I had to maneuver under high load factors, I want to move the shortest distance possible to reach my controls. I want there to be as little excess room as possible because load factor will move your arms, head, and legs, around. You can brace the stick with your shoulders better as well. In the end, you will be less tired for the same amount of manuvering.

This point has been raised more than once. I don't think any new points exist to compare these two airplanes. I will leave the discussion to you guys!

Best of Luck!

Crumpp

Gibbage1
11-19-2009, 10:36 PM
Wow. Only a luftwhiner would have the stones to not only call an RAF pilot a lier, but also a Luftwaffe pilot.

Im speechless. Armchair pilots know better then the people who flew them it seems.

http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/joewilsonheckling.jpg

deepo_HP
11-20-2009, 02:27 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Wow. Only a luftwhiner would have the stones to not only call an RAF pilot a lier, but also a Luftwaffe pilot.

Im speechless. Armchair pilots know better then the people who flew them it seems. i hardly see anyone, who has called someone 'liar' - besides i don't know, why pilots should be generally free from that sin anyway.

i don't mind seeing numbers and diagrams, which support or don't support the impressions of the mentioned pilots. at least those pilots don't go further than telling how the one cockpit 'feels cramped' or how the 'like' the other. just by the subjectivity of those statements there can't be any lie not truth in them.

i honestly wonder what the problem here is?
quite opposite, it seems strange to just take someones notes on discomfort and not try to trace them back in the technical dimensions. it would be interesting to know if this was intended by design, or an unthoughtful layout. if it was some kind of real disadvantage, for example for the views, and which consequences did it have... or maybe if it was even advantageous.
i would think, that the lack of a comfy chair was the least to bother about for those who had to do their job in these machines. so why not discuss how the mentioning of cramped feelings is reasoned in a tv-show?

Kurfurst__
11-20-2009, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by TheGrunch:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
It seems to me that 'roominess' in a cockpit has more to do with width at elbow height than at the shoulder or the bottom edge of the canopy. I'm fairly certain a Spit is wider internally than a Bf-109 at that height.

Exactly, the 109 may be approximately the same width at the bottom of the canopy frame, but the fuselage shape is almost straight-sided until the bottom of the instrument panel, whereas the spitfire cockpit is perched on top of a fuselage that is oval in section. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice pictures and thank for sharing them! On the other hand, the assertion that Spit is wider at elbow height appears to be wrong, at least according to objective criteria (representative scaled cross sections).

The assumption that the 109 has straights sides and does not widen below the canopy also appears to be flawed looking and the sectional cross-section drawings.

Here's a scale comparison of the two (numbers for the 109 sections show exact location. 1 is the firewall, front of the canopy, 2 is at the instrument panel, 3 is at the back of the seat and 4 is a few cm further aft where the aft firewall slop starts).

As can be clearly seen, the 109 canopy section widens the most at Section 3, at around where the pilot stands. The Spits bulges out suddenly below the canopy (probably because its already narrower to start with), then its becomes practically vertical and actually starts to incline back towards the bottom.

For practical purposes, there is no difference in width between the two.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/CocpitCrossSection_109-Spit.jpg



Originally posted by TheGrunch:

Why is it necessary for us to explain that the dimensions of the canopy alone are not the ONLY thing that affects the pilot's working room in the cockpit? Shoulder room may be about the same, but I bet you don't habitually sit with your arms pinned to your sides.

I think about the same, since already in the first post the drawing of the two aircraft was presented showing that there was very little difference between the two. I guess solid facts do not need so much 'explanation'.

Anyway, this thread seem to died down, so here's another interestion cross sectional comparison I've just made with *another fighter aircraft of WW2*. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/CocpitCrossSection_109-Must.jpg

As you can see, there's again not much of a difference.

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 05:57 AM
Only a luftwhiner

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Maybe you should read more closely instead of pulling out the whining-bag yourself.


@Kurfy:

There's also a difference in "feeling" between slipping into the cockpit and lying rather flat and sitting upright, as it is with 109 vs. Spitfire.
While sitting upright may give you an impression of spacyness, it may offer just the same space as a slip-in position with your legs well "inside" the instrument-panel.

BaronUnderpants
11-20-2009, 06:23 AM
One can see why a pilot would need to chop his arms and head of to fit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PVXIly_AbE


Is the Spit roomier, yes it looks like it, but apparently on theese boards that automaticlly means the Bf is way to cramped.

Go figure.


I must have missed the part where the Spit cockpit was made the template wich to messure all others.

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 06:45 AM
Dave Southwood is a midget? They must have sewed his head and arms back on for the interview too!

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 06:55 AM
Well, looks like you actually have more room in it than flying a Cessna 150 with two people http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
11-20-2009, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
One can see why a pilot would need to chop his arms and head of to fit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PVXIly_AbE


Is the Spit roomier, yes it looks like it, but apparently on theese boards that automaticlly means the Bf is way to cramped.

Go figure.


I must have missed the part where the Spit cockpit was made the template wich to messure all others.

"The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20-mm cannon and four .303-in machine guns (sic; actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7-mm machine guns (i.e. .50-calibre), and the Messerschmitt [Avia S199, but the same cockpit as the Bf109] two 20-mm cannon and two 7.92-mm machine guns (sic; actually two 13.1-mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice. (Levett 1994)"

For those who dont know, a 'straight jacket' is a kind of jacket used to enclose mentally ill or dangerous persons limbs so that they cannot move.

'Fitting like glove' is an English saying for a 'perfect fit'.

People only repeat that the BF109 cockpit was cramped because real WW2 and Bf109 pilots say so in comparison to other planes.

http://101squadron.com/101/aircraft.html

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 07:04 AM
People only repeat that the BF109 cockpit was cramped because real WW2 pilots say so.

And people promote hand selected quotes that advance the perception they think should be reality.

There is actually a wide variety of opinion with most pilots who flew it liking it.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/fe...es/109myths/#cockpit (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#cockpit)

BaronUnderpants
11-20-2009, 07:06 AM
Ok, maby a glove 1 size to big then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiAIyX0l42M


Beeing thrown arround in the cockpit in hard manouvers isnt a good thing i would imagine. (not that im an expert or anything)

Xiolablu3
11-20-2009, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People only repeat that the BF109 cockpit was cramped because real WW2 pilots say so.

And people promote hand selected quotes that advance the perception they think should be reality.

There is actually a wide variety of opinion with most pilots who flew it liking it.

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/fe...es/109myths/#cockpit (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#cockpit) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


They ARENT selected quotes for gods sake, only in your mind. The 109 cockpit was smaller and more cramped than most other planes of the period, fact.

Also, did you actually listen to anything the Bf109 pilot said in the video?

A challenge to fly, Much more tricky than other WW2 fighters of the period, tough to control on landing and take off compared to other WW2 fighters. Doesnt want to carry on striaght down the runway, wants to ground loop more than any other fighters of the period. A lot of work to fly, etc.

I guess this guy doesnt know what hes talking about either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 07:16 AM
A challenge to fly, Much more tricky than other WW2 fighters of the period, tough to control on landing and take off compared to other WW2 fighters. Doesnt want to carry on striaght down the runway, wants to ground loop more than any other fighters of the period. A lot of work to fly, etc.

You might wanna add:
Much more successful than any contemporary fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

yuuppers
11-20-2009, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A challenge to fly, Much more tricky than other WW2 fighters of the period, tough to control on landing and take off compared to other WW2 fighters. Doesnt want to carry on striaght down the runway, wants to ground loop more than any other fighters of the period. A lot of work to fly, etc.

You might wanna add:
Much more successful than any contemporary fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And was shot down more than any other fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-20-2009, 07:27 AM
Well played sir! Right over the pavilion! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

BaronUnderpants
11-20-2009, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by yuuppers:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A challenge to fly, Much more tricky than other WW2 fighters of the period, tough to control on landing and take off compared to other WW2 fighters. Doesnt want to carry on striaght down the runway, wants to ground loop more than any other fighters of the period. A lot of work to fly, etc.

You might wanna add:
Much more successful than any contemporary fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And was shot down more than any other fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wrong, that was due to a high procentage of take off and landing accidents.


Fact.

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 07:35 AM
And was shot down more than any other fighter.

Wo gehobelt wird, da fallen Späne! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AndyJWest
11-20-2009, 07:38 AM
Wrong, that was due to a high procentage of take off and landing accidents

Here we go...

10 more pages on undercarriage track width, wheel castor angles, the state of Luftwaffe airfields, length of pilot training, statistical arguments about what constitutes an 'accident', phases of the moon, ersatz tyre rubber... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 07:40 AM
They ARENT selected quotes for gods sake,

Sure they are....

You don't have to look very hard to find good comments on the Bf-109's cockpit.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-20-2009, 07:43 AM
True, but most are from one source. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BaronUnderpants
11-20-2009, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Wrong, that was due to a high procentage of take off and landing accidents

Here we go...

10 more pages on undercarriage track width, wheel castor angles, the state of Luftwaffe airfields, length of pilot training, statistical arguments about what constitutes an 'accident', phases of the moon, ersatz tyre rubber... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Dont forget sun eclipses and the size of stocked canned meat.

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 07:50 AM
True, but most are from one source.

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

thefruitbat
11-20-2009, 07:52 AM
and to think i was contemplating changing my sig...

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 08:18 AM
True, but most are from one source.

So, we can say there is not a huge rush among Bf-109 veterans to justify the size of their cockpit??

Or has only one organization ever gathered information on it.

Why would that be? It just not that big of deal outside of gaming circles...

Oh, yeah

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-20-2009, 08:32 AM
Exactally!

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 10:58 AM
Exactly, It is another hobnail discussion that has no meaning beyond the confines of a game.

If the there was a problem with the cockpit dimensions of the Bf-109, I am sure the German veterans would be yelling as loudly about it as the only ones who ever seem concerned with it.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
11-20-2009, 11:20 AM
They propably just didn't give a sh1t about the size of their cockpit, not having seen any different design.

M_Gunz
11-20-2009, 12:46 PM
FW perhaps?

ADD: in that direction I have seen quote from Galland about the rudder force needed to fly 109 vs 190 but never
about cramped conditions. The rudder pressure quote was about Hartmann who would not change over walking in
circles since one leg was stronger than the other, LOL! But nothing about tight or unable to roll because a
leg in the way of the stick or the few other things that one set of revisionists would have me believe.

Kettenhunde
11-20-2009, 01:01 PM
leg in the way of the stick

Controls are actually set up to account for such things on a "standard" size pilot and you are not going to get anymore control surface deflection.

That does not prevent us as pilots from pushing against the stops in vain effort!

horseback
11-21-2009, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They propably just didn't give a sh1t about the size of their cockpit, not having seen any different design. Bingo!

Give this man a cigar.

Point of reference is everything. It's what you're used to. You can't miss what you never had. Average German pilot might well have felt almost naked if you put him in a P-47 cockpit...

cheers

horseback

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 10:43 AM
How about a Bf-108. Ar-81, or a FW 189?

I think German pilots were familiar with "roomy cockpits".

It is just made into a much bigger deal by some folks than it really is....

horseback
11-21-2009, 12:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
This is typical Kurfy; he's always been more about winning the argument than getting to the truth. He does stay within the bounds of the facts as he sees them though, so you just have to parse his words more carefully than a Bill Clinton press conference 'confession'...
Yada-yada-yada... finished..? Lets face it, you have no facts, no real arguements, so you go for the good ole' ad hominem... thats as much you can do, I've got used to that. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">No real arguments? You only respond like this when I’m too close to the mark—and I am, as we will see further on.</span>

quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
To get a clear idea of the actual comparison, instead of superimposing the canopies at the sill line, you need a scaled drawing showing both whole cockpits at least from the bottom of the pilot's seat from sides, top and front, and indicating the amount of seat and rudder pedal adjustment as well
Yup, and can you provide accurate scale drawings? <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Any scale drawings I posted would be disputed, just as I would dispute the accuracy of the full fuselage composite you posted (I note that you neglected to state that the aircraft other than the 109 was a Spitfire—it is definitely not; instead, I suggest that readers might want to look at a trusted common source from the same artist/publisher. The Osprey Aircraft of the Aces series, Volumes 11 and 12, Bf 109D/E Aces 1939-41, and Spitfire Mark I/II Aces 1939-41 both have 1/72nd scale drawings of the respective aircraft by Mark Styling. Another commonly available source would be the 1/48th scale drawings of the Squadron/Signal In Action series for the 109 (Volume I) and the Spitfire. These feature profile, overhead, and head on views that demonstrate clearly that the Spit’s cockpit bulges out appreciably below the cockpit sill and is at its widest point about even with where the pilot’s elbows would be.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I also have a copy of Aerodata International’s Fighters of World War II Volume I (published by Squadron/Signal in 1980), which has some superb scale drawings of both the Bf 109E and the Spitfire Mk I by Alfred Grainger, MISTC, which include some rather damning cockpit area detail drawings. It is unfortunately rather rarer than the other sources, but it can be had if one knows where to look.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The canopies are very close in width, but we’ve already established that both had viewing handicaps and that the pilot’s head and shoulders relative to the bottom edge of the canopy were in the same position. The ‘roominess’ of the cockpit is determined by what is below the canopy sill line, and the Spitfire’s advantage is found below that line.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">My handy-dandy scale ruler indicates that at its widest point, the Spit’s cockpit is approximately 2 feet seven inches wide (appr. 79cm). It also extends almost to the fuselage floor, or some 3-3/4 ft below the sill edge and below the line of the wings' top surface.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Conversely, the 109E’s fuselage has a more subtle bulge below the cockpit sill (which, like the Spit’s is about 2 ft or 61cm wide) and reaches its widest point at the cockpit floor two feet below the sill (and about at the wings' upper surfaces). The 109’s ‘pit floorline sits so much higher because it is partly on top of that L shaped fuel tank, and at the pilot’s ‘elbow line’ the pit is at most, 2 feet, 3 inches (69cm) wide.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Chances are very good that both pits are even narrower, given the amount of stuff that was attached to the cockpit walls, but the Spit pilot did have at least a crucial five centimeters more space on either side where he needed it most. Two inches or five centimeters may not sound like much. However, once you’ve tried to pull on a pair of old jeans that are two inches too small in the waist you will quickly change your mind.</span>

quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
(the Spit's seat adjusts up and down by a few inches; as I recall, the 109's seat is bolted to the cockpit floor).
Also wrong - on the 109E at least, the seat was adjustable with a lever in four stops, in a range of 105 mm.
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">4 inches? That seems rather a lot for a cockpit that has a seat bottom less than 2 feet below the sill/shoulder line. I would guess that the top setting was used to make getting in and out easier more often than it was used to fly at; given the tight quarters, any help in an emergency egress would be desirable, be it ever so cosmetic.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">My bad, though. I’d seen the lever on the Emil seats, but I couldn’t confirm whether it was an Up/Down adjust or a Forward/Back adjust.</span>
quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
The Spit has a deeper fuselage; it's appreciably bigger than the 109's, as anyone who can put two same scale models of them next to each other can tell you.
Yup, and can you provide accurate scale drawings? The Spits of course is a deeper canopy - little surprise since the pilot in the Spit sits in an upright position, with his feet well below his butt; on the 109 his legs are practically at the same height as his butt, and well forward, with his back inclined - of course he needs less vertical space..! As KH explained, this was done quite deliberately on the 109, as well as on the 190, because such seating position allowed the pilot to sustain higher g-loads than if he would sit in an upright position. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Time for Parsing!</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Two corrections: the canopy of the Spit is the same height as the 109E’s from the sill line—approximately 18 inches. The cockpit is deeper, although the pilot’s feet are NOT well below his butt because the rudder pedals are raised a few inches above the foot rails, and they have two bars, one a good 4-6 inches higher (or almost level with the seat bottom—not unlike the Emil’s) for high G situations. Let us remember that in both aircraft, the pilot sat on his parachute pack, which was fairly thick (if not particularly soft).</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I’d dispute Messerschmitt’s motivation for the seating as well; his motivation was probably more about minimizing the fuselage profile and maximizing the fuel tankage. The G-stress advantage was probably a happy accident as a result of that compromise that Tank may have recognized and added to his (and by the way, roomier) 190’s cockpit design.</span>
quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
The Spit gives the pilot just a couple of extra inches on each side, and you may actually have to sit in each cockpit completely 'buttoned up' to appreciate the difference.
Wishful, I am afraid. As the drawings show, the Spitfire canopy at its widest point is 590 mm wide; that of the 109 is 640 mm wide. The lower end of the Spit's canopy rests outside the fuselage on rails, the 109s on the top of the fuselage wall. The 109's is a bit wider, if only by a few centimeters, if you so much want to argue miniscule details... <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Time for more of that parsing; this is classic Kurfie misdirection. The canopies are not where the pilot needed extra space to move his arms. As long as he can turn his head without banging his nose against something, he’s good. The Spit’s fuselage bulges out more sharply below the cockpit sill and is wider at the critical point. Also, the 109’s canopy and its framing are considerably thicker than the Spitfire’s and there are plenty of photos which show that there is a distinctly wider ledge for it to rest upon which more than makes up for the external rail mounting of the Spit’s Perspex canopy and its correspondingly slimmer canopy sill edging.</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">cheers</span>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">horseback</span>

TheGrunch
11-21-2009, 05:29 PM
I'm not going to enter the world of dubious self-constructed blueprints, myself, except to comment that that is a very anorexic-looking Spit. Just watch these two videos again. I'm sure you have enough of a sense of spatial imagination to compensate for the difference in viewing angle. I certainly see a difference.

Spitfire in-cockpit Biggin Hill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiAIyX0l42M)

Bf 109 G2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PVXIly_AbE)
Beautiful 109 in the second video, BTW, thanks for posting it BaronUnderpants.
The one thing about Paul Day's account that I do think appears to be balls is the claim that there's interference with aileron control as you guys have pointed out. Especially interesting as he says it while pushing the column over to the stops as Kettenhunde says. Perhaps he feels bad about the Spit's high-speed aileron performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
11-21-2009, 07:13 PM
I certainly see a difference.

I can too.

It is blown out of proportion as to the importance of it.

Listen how smooth that DB engine is in that video.

TheGrunch
11-21-2009, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I certainly see a difference.
I can too.

It is blown out of proportion as to the importance of it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, I agree completely, it just baffles me that anyone would resort to obfustication and fabrication to argue to the contrary.
Besides, it doesn't do anything to satisfy any of the objectives of a Luftwaffe-oriented glorification spree anyway, much like the majority of these kinds of arguments.
If anything, the crampedness of the 109 cockpit makes the pilots who flew it look even better for achieving what they did.
I don't know why the Luftwhiners don't just say "Actually, you know what, the Allies had 150 octane fuel in 1940, and they had constant speed propellers in widespread use from 1937, and guess what, C3 fuel was just a lie, and the 109 really did have terrible elevator response, and a terrible fixed, two-blade wooden propeller, and none of their aircraft could actually turn a full circle in less than 30 seconds."
Then the Luftwaffe would look like the amazing Zeus-like air-gods that they want them to be, rather than being as they actually were, just men very similar to their opponents in every way, flying aircraft with certain advantages and certain disadvantages against their opponents that were largely irrelevant in comparison to pilot ability.

Low_Flyer_MkIX
11-22-2009, 03:08 AM
We're getting there, Mr Grunch. It's not about altering history so much as altering the means at their disposal to play out chest-beating fantasies in a computer game. By altering the capabilities and and availability of certain 'plane sets, they stack the odds in their favour, vainly hoping to prove their superiority by creating myths about the superiority of their chosen ride and deriding their opponents in the hope that it will all become accepted as historical fact, not hysterical wannabeism. Like the owners of soccer teams who try to buy success instead of earning it in fair competition, a sad reflection of their own insecurities and questionable agenda. The sort of people who begin their FIFA-whatever-year game career as Real Madrid or Brazil instead of Exeter City or Lichenstein.

Now, who'd like to see some nice illustrations of a 109E's seating arrangement from a technical manual?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Seat.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Seat2.jpg

More soap box derby than Le Mans of course, but functional nevertheless; it's somewhere to sit when driving an aeroplane. No more. No less.