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.
Bingo!Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
They propably just didn't give a sh1t about the size of their cockpit, not having seen any different design.
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
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'...<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>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.
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<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>Yup, and can you provide accurate scale drawings?
<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).<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>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">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.<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Time for Parsing!</span>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">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.<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>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">cheers</span>
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">horseback</span>
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
Bf 109 G2
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.![]()
I can too.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.
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.
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?
![]()
![]()
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.