PDA

View Full Version : G-pullout vs seating position in P-47 and Mustang/109



stalkervision
09-24-2009, 02:08 PM
Anyone got a good side by side chart of seating positions in these aircraft compared to the Me-109 seating?

Just curious because the 109 seating is always mentioned as a particular benefit in high g maneuvers.

any pilot g pull out info on these aircraft will be appreciated.

Bremspropeller
09-24-2009, 03:13 PM
any pilot g pull out info on these aircraft will be appreciated.

Wut? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

stalkervision
09-24-2009, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">any pilot g pull out info on these aircraft will be appreciated.

Wut? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah you wouldn't understand it even if I "splained" it to you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Freiwillige
09-24-2009, 05:18 PM
I had heard that the 109's reclined seating is similar to an F-16 pit seating position and due to that the blood flow from pulling positive G's is slowed and blackout is held off longer than in normal seating position.

Also Americans had the first G suites during WWII and there effect was similar to the 109 seat position in holding off blackouts.

stalkervision
09-24-2009, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:
I had heard that the 109's reclined seating is similar to an F-16 pit seating position and due to that the blood flow from pulling positive G's is slowed and blackout is held off longer than in normal seating position.

Also Americans had the first G suites during WWII and there effect was similar to the 109 seat position in holding off blackouts.

thanks f/w I didn't know that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tully__
09-25-2009, 03:22 AM
In the game it's not relevant, the blackout threshold is somewhere around 5G for all aircraft, even AI. It seems like the AI are immune, but that's because they never pull more than 4.99999999..... G http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Sometime over the last 8 years the comparisons of the US to German pilot positions have been posted a couple of times. The 109 did have a semi reclining seat position, similar to a sports car with the seat laid part way back. The US aircraft were more like the driver's position in a truck or chauffeur driven limousine, almost fully upright with the rudder pedals set comparatively low in relation to the seat.

K_Freddie
09-25-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm not sure about the Me having an angled seat, but AFAIK the FW190's seat was reclined at 20 degrees, which I think is similar to the F16.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2009, 12:35 PM
I provided data and links to information on both the G-suit and tail warning radar in 2004. The 8th AF had issued G-suits to all of it's fighter pilots starting in June and finishing by fall of 1944. We also had a friendly debate on which held more merit seat position or G-suit. The best would be both used in combination at the same time. Both the RAF and USAAF used G-suits.

A mechnical device that is basically like a big blood pressure cuff will win out every time vs just seat position alone. Case in point is the Korean War. F-86 Sabre pilots reported being able to pull more G's than Mig15's and watched as many spun out of control or simply departed the flight course they were on due to pilot blackout.

Great artical on the inventors of the G-suit:
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng..._aviation.asp#anti-g (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/astronauts/osm_aviation.asp#anti-g)
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVI_gsuit.jpg
http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/img/MkVII_gsuit.jpg

MIGHTY EIGHTH WAR MANUAL, by Ron Freeman

Heres the relevant text regarding G-suits from MIGHT EIGHTH WAR MANUAL:

QUOTE-

G-SUITS
Pre-war work had been carried out in the US to perfect some form of pressure suit that would prevent pilot 'blackout' in aircraft performaing sharp manoeuvres at speed. The benefit in fighter combat was clear, for the prevention of blackout would allow a pliot to make tighter turns. The Eight Air Force became interested in the American Berger anti-G suits in September 1943 and in early 1944 acquired sufficient to conduct tests. Comparative tests were run with the RAF water pressure anti-G device, the Frank suit. The results showed both equally effective, and as 9th Air Force had a priority on the Berger suit, VIII FC decided for the time being to use the Frank suit as this was more readily available. During April 1944 the 4th Group gace the suit an extended trial but pilots took a dislike to it because of bulk, weight, heat and discomfort, to say nothin of the difficulties if it sprang a leak. Faced with this disapproval, VIII FC decided to abandon the Frank and wait for the Berger. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">By 3 June sufficient Berger G-3 suits had been obtained from 9th Air Force to equip the 339th Group, who quickly appreciated the benefits and wore the suits on every mission. A larger supply of G-3s was not available until October, but all groups were equipped by November.</span>
____

Here is the scan of the Anti G-Suit the US was using in 1944. This G-suit was rated very high by the 75 pilots (including British pilots) who tried it out at the Joint Fighter Confrence 16-23 October 1944, Pg 314. The G-suit was rated excellent for pulling short high G rated turns. Pulling as much as 7 G's without graying out were noted while utilizing this G-suit, some pilots were able to pull 7.9 G's. A 4-g turn was held for 720degrees with no sign of fade or blackout.

I researched dates and times the G-suit was implemented into service. I attended a WW2 Fighter Pilot Symposium last year where many of the pilots wore this G-suit.
_______________


This email is from Col. Bud Anderson:

Dear Keith, We had g-suits in the later part of WW II. The first type suit used was a water suit that was quickly discarded for then the chaps type suit that was pressurized with air. They were much the same as the air force used for years after WW II. I am not sure where you could get much information on them. I wrote about them in my book. I leave tomorrow for a few days. If you have some specific question I could try to anser them maybe next week Mar 10-12 Bye (bud anderson)

From Bud's Anderson's book :
-"To Fly & Fight"-pg161
Col. Anderson-"With g-suits, we could fly a little harder, turn a little bit tighter. We could pull maybe 1 extra G now which gave us an edge. There was no resistance to wearing them. Not at all. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">We understood what they meant right away. Wearing the G suit was the same as making the airplane better."</span>


G-suit vs seat position debate:
The G-suit vs seat position was interesting. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The RCAF medical flight studies showed the G-suit more effective than just seat position by itself.</span> There was a disagreement on this, so who knows how the G-suit and seat position would have been modeled. If the seat position alone had been given a slight edge in delayed grayout/blackout over the G-suit, that would have gone against all RCAF, RAF & USAAF medical flight tests. It would of also gone against combat reports from Korea. The F-86 Sabre pilots wore G-suits, the Mig 15 drivers did not. The F-86 pilots wearing g-suits had an obvious advantage during turns against the Mig pilots.



P38L Airborne Radar

Duxford Radio Society

Imperial War Museum, Duxford, England

In fact most all late model USAAF aircraft recieved this radar device including the P51 and P47.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety...uip/aps13/aps13.html (http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps13.html)

RT-34/APS-13 Tail Warning Radar (USA)

The RT-34/APS-13 is a low power UHF tail warning radar transmitter/receiver which was used in Allied aeroplanes such as the P51 Mustang and also the P-38L, P-47D, P-61, P-63, P-82D in the later stages of the war.

Tail warning radar was also fitted to some RAF bombers (Lancaster, Mosquito, not sure about Halifax) although I am not sure how regularly it was fitted or what the model numbers were.

http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps-13-cockpit1-600p.jpg

The equipment operates at 420 MHz with a receiver IF of 30 MHz and is powered by an internal rotary generator which is supplied from the aircraft 27V dc system.

The electro-mechanical construction is all aluminium, and the equipment uses all miniature glass valves except for the voltage stabiliser which is a VR105V (0C3). The PA is two 6J6s.

A modified APS-13 was employed as a radar fuse for the €˜LittleBoy€ atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.
This APS-13 equipment was manufactured by RCA, Camden, New Jersey, USA under a 1944 contract number 13711:CRV 458-DAY-44.

This equipment example is in excellent condition and appears to be complete mechanically and almost complete electrically except for one component. This equipment has been cleaned and repaired and is now functioning, except that it is missing one large wire-wound resistor.

It is expected that with time, this equipment will be returned to complete working order.

http://nj7p.org/millist/sch/aps-13.gif

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13(XA-1)
JAN Type: AN/APS-13(XA-1)
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13(XA-2)
JAN Type: AN/APS-13(XA-2)
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000

Airborne Tail-warning RADAR, AN/APS-13
JAN Type: AN/APS-13
Nomenclature: Airborne Tail-warning RADAR
Components: RT-34/APS-13 Receiver-Transmitter, AS-62/APS-13 Antenna System
Weight: 20
Mode: Pulse PRF:300-450, PW: 0.4-0.5
Frequency Range: 415 MHz
Power Input: 27 VDC @ 3.25 A
Power Output: 450 W Peak
Description: Airborne RADAR system for use in day fighters to warn the
pilot of the approach of an enemy aircraft from the rear. 3 element Yagi
on vertical fin of plane. Indication: red light and bell when another
aircraft enters coverage zone.
Source: US RADAR Survey, 1 Nov 44
Manufacturer: General Electric/RCA
Created: Wed Jul 12 19:24:04 2000
Last Modified: Fri Jul 21 19:27:46 2000

This is the entry from the old database:

AN/APS-13
Radar set, Tail warning, 450 MHz, 0.5 W, Pulse, 27 VDC, Major component:
RT-34/APS-13.

If I had to guess, I would suspect these units would have been used on
long-range fighters that operated alone or in pairs. P-38 in the
pacific would have been a good candidate. Night fighters would be, too.
I don't recal seeing any pictures of fighters with a 3 element 400 MHz
yagi on the vertical stabilizer.



From Oleg

---------------------------------
Subject: P38 Tail Radar

S! Oleg,

Will the tail radar on the P38L be operational and if so how will it work in the game ?

Radar ranges, sounds ect.

Thanks

______________


Oleg reply,


I need the full description about how it was indicated for a pilot. Was there some light or sound? where was light?, on which distance, etc. I hvae no info and had not it for modeling. The same system was on some of P-63s.
The diagram of radio waves distributions behind the plane - I have.
Other than that is not a great problem, except time of development.

________________________

US A/C with Tail Warning Rada (http://www.duxfordradiosociety.org/restoration/conservedequip/aps13/aps13.html)

Bremspropeller
09-25-2009, 02:16 PM
A mechnical device that is basically like a big blood pressure cuff will win out every time vs just seat position alone.

Not neccesarily true - at least in prop-fighter fights.
Declined seats lower the req'd blood-pressure in order to stay consious as they reduce the pressure-head (distance between lower extremities and head).

Suits will induce more blood-pressure as they provide a resistance for the pilot to "press against".

"Speed Jeans" will only improve your blackout-margin by 1 to 1.5G
The ability to perform high Gs for long times is somewhat limited in prop-fighters.

What they improve, though, is the ability to perform multiple of tight turn in rather quick succession.
There's slightly less fatigue as the pilot doesn't have to work QUITE as hard as if just working his muscles alone.

It's highly doubtful if that will ever be modelled - "balancing" comes to mind.


F-86 Sabre pilots reported being able to pull more G's than Mig15's and watched as many spun out of control or simply departed the flight course they were on due to pilot blackout.

It's highly unlikely, the MiGs did that.
They'd rather just ease off or maybe enter a "terminal" dive where the aircraft hits the ground before the pilot re-gains consciousness or situational awareness.


A 4-g turn was held for 720degrees with no sign of fade or blackout.

That doesn't tell anything without giving the time used for those two full-circles.


BTW: The F-16's seat is reclined by 30 degrees.
It wasn't put in that way because they wanted more g-tolerance, but because there wasn't enough space for them to fit the seat in an upright position.

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2009, 02:43 PM
Bremspropeller-Not neccesarily true - at least in prop-fighter fights.
Declined seats lower the req'd blood-pressure in order to stay consious as they reduce the pressure-head (distance between lower extremities and head).


Hya Brem,

Go to the website and read the article. The RCAF, USAAF, RAF all tested the G-suit vs seat position. The G-Suit won. That is their opinon from direct testing with WW2 era aircraft.

The F-86 statemants are refrenced from after action reports. Their opinon (F-86 pilots) was that they could pull more G's wearing a g-suit vs seat position alone in a Mig-15 (as Mig-15 pilots did not wear G-suits). Once again not my opinon but the F-86 drivers.

I got into an email discussion with 1C about this and he said that the North Korean pilots had a poor diet and could not sustain pulling G's very well. The soviets started increasing the protien
in the North Korean pilots diet which supposedly helped. Once again not my opinon.

It would be hard to tell which pilots (soviet or NK) were at the stick when these Mig-15s went out of control during heavy G manuevers.


.

Bremspropeller
09-25-2009, 03:25 PM
Well, pilot-fitness is a crucial factor in the ability of pulling Gs.

It's propably more important than the issue of wearing a suit or not.
If you ask fighter-pilots how many hours they're spending in the gym in order to stay in the game, you might be interested in going deeper into the issue.
They also "warm up" before flying ACM-missions by slightly increasing the amount of Gs pulled for each turn.
You also lose your G-margin VERY quickly when not staying in training for a short period.

Maybe Huggy or our two alumnus Viper drivers (sadly, haven't seen them for quite a while) could shed a bit more light onto that.

G-tolerance is an issue of great importance.
It changes from day to day and is influenced by a whole lot of matters.

You can't just break down G-tolerance quite that simply between suit-wearers and those that don't.
Sure, the same pilot will win another G in the turn, but then again, the other guy might have a good day and be able to pull just as much.

There is just too much inconsistency between different pilots and single-day-performance in order to make an issue out of it.

I've personally seen the difference of being somewhat "fit", but pulling some Gs after a party-night with some alcohol, and doing it without working out the weeks before and a good sleep/ no alcohol.
I could take less on the latter occasion.


I'm not trying to discredit the impact of g-pants, but I think that putting that in a flight-sim ain't gonna work for balancing-reasons.

virgule88
09-25-2009, 09:36 PM
G-suit or not, I'd still want a reclined seat simply because I'd be pushed down the seat more evenly along my back compared to being crushed down my spine with a straight seat.

That is all I have to say about that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

K_Freddie
09-26-2009, 07:03 AM
I went to a Vets meeting where there were 3 'old men' who flew SAAF P51s in Korea. I'm not sure whether they had G suits then (most probably), but they talked of pulling 9Gs regularly, and on a few occasions the one guy did 12Gs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif.
The P51s had G-meters in the pit.

R_Target
09-26-2009, 07:27 AM
I'd prefer the reclined seat just for general pimpin'.

stathem
09-27-2009, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Freiwillige:


Also Americans had the first G suites during WWII and there effect was similar to the 109 seat position in holding off blackouts.

Jut wanted to point out for the sake of truth and clarity that the Royal Navy were the first to use Anti-G suit in combat, several FAA squadrons being equipped with Franks suits during Operation Torch (1942) and from then onwards.

The Berger suit was the better device when it arrived but required a good supply of compressed air.

M_Gunz
09-27-2009, 11:46 AM
What you ate for breakfast makes a difference but seat angle/g-suit is another difference added to, not in place of
personal condition.

Reading Yeager's bio, the times when they were running missions was the workout. Pressing barbells was out of the
question when you got back. You do PT in peacetime to build and tone, in the field you work hard enough to stay
in tone and generally enough to lose weight. He and others wrote about losing pounds during weeks of steady missions.
When he got back from Spain he had gained quite a bit over before he was shot down, it surprised him.

When we used to go on maneuvers in the military it was much like that. You worked hard near every day most of the
day in rough conditions (for us, often at 6,500ft) and we didn't do morning calisthenics or run PT yet that was where
we put on the extra pound of muscle and hardened up. The work is the workout.