From the pilots view of things.....

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow"

>>With regard to the visibility restrictions - well, I'm not aware of much in the way of negative comments from men who actually flew the Messerschmitt in combat.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Flyboyj,

>You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow"

>>With regard to the visibility restrictions - well, I'm not aware of much in the way of negative comments from men who actually flew the Messerschmitt in combat.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Ask your self why was the "Galland Hood" developed?

Here's more...

Spitfire vs Me 109 in general:
"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:"

"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."

- Bob Doe & Ekkehard Bob. Source: Military Channel program.

"I got about 150 hours and over 30 aerial combats on the Messerschmitt 109. It was a fine "pilot's airplane" and there was no big complaints about the technical side, as long as you operated it within envelope, inside the performance parameters. It is hard to find any negative things about the plane from pilot's perspective when taking the development of technology into account. But the heavy and visibility limiting hood of the G-2 should have been changed into the G-6 "Galland hood" earlier."

- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

"I noticed that people always kept warning about the swing at takeoff. I never let it do so, maybe I resisted it automatically. Visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach."
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

"You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here."

- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.

"The cockpit was cramped and the visibility wasn't good. This was evident when landing in bad conditions, especially with the G-2's cabin."

- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.

I know a few other of our members quoted from this site.

virtualpilots.fi: 109myths

As stated - I got to sit in a -109 at Mojave Airport when the museum was still operating there. The aircraft was "White 14," which is now in Canada. When the canopy was closed I felt like I had a 24 gallon rectangular fish tank over my head.

[GrauGeist]

Regarding the Bf109 cockpit:
From a British R.A.E. evaluation, Reports and Memoranda No. 2361:
Section 6.2 (iv) The cockpit is far too cramped for comfort.
Apendix I, Cockpit size. – The cockpit is unquestionably too cramped for comfort. It is too narrow, the headroom is insufficient, and the seating position is tiring. When wearing a seat-type parachute a pilot of normal size finds that his head touches the hood roof.

Captain Vitali I. Popkov, Soviet Union (41 victories) in LaGG-3s and La-5FNs, flew a Bf109 and was "amazed that its pilots had been able to perform as well as they did".

Captain Eric Brown, Great Britain, remarked "The windscreen supports were slender and did not produce serious blind spots, but space was so confined that movement of the head was difficult for even a pilot of my limited stature."

Also, a number of Allied pilots who had the opportunity to sit in a Bf109 cockpit claimed it was "so narrow that they could barely work the control column between their knees".

But to be fair on the cockpit issue:
Oblt. Franz Stigler, Luftwaffe (28 victories), test-flew a captured P-47 and P-51 said, "I didn't like the Thunderbolt. It was too big. The cockpit was immense and unfamiliar. After so many hours in the snug confines of the Bf109, everything felt out of reach and too far away from the pilot. Although the P-51 was a fine airplane to fly, it too was disconcerting. With all those levers, controls and switches in the cockpit, I'm surprised American pilots could find the time to fight."

As for myself, I have been in the cockpit of a Bf109E (owned by Gunther Pirner, Chino, Ca. - late 70's). I'm 6 foot 1 inches, and for me, it was uncomfortable!

[BombTaxi]

Henning,

I do not have the book sources from which I drew my bomber comments to hand, so I will have to admit that I can offer no more than unsourced opinion at this time. However, I had gained the general impression from my reading that the deliberate policy of cramming all the crew together in the nose of the aircraft did have an adverse effect all round, particularly by limiting the placement of defensive armament - to Do17 and Ju88 families are classic examples of this. I had also gained the impression that a single pass aimed at the nose of such an aircraft could cause more injuries than in an equivalent type with a more normal crew distribution. This would seem to be logical - if all the crew are in the nose, and a fighter pilot aims for the nose of a flak shell explodes near the nose, you get more casualties because everyone is crammed together. Anyhow, I will try to dig up some sources, (I'm moving in a few weeks and a lot of stuff is packed up or otherwise not available), as I'm fairly sure I haven't just made this up

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was.

A positive comment on the Spitfire is not automatically a negative comment on the Me 109.

>But the heavy and visibility limiting hood of the G-2 should have been changed into the G-6 "Galland hood" earlier."

Obviously glass gives better visibility than steel, but that doesn't mean that the visibility with the original hood was below average.

>Visibility forwards was minimal during landing approach."

In common with many other types of the era. I've seen a P-51, an F7F, and F8F and a Spitfire fly curved approaches as standard procedure.

>visibility to the back is poor

"Poor" - fine, but compared to what? The obvious reference for a WW2 Luftwaffe pilot would be the Fw 190, which undoubtly was better - but it was better than the Hurricane and Spitfire as well.

>... the visibility wasn't good. This was evident when landing in bad conditions ...

Landing again, and even limited to "bad conditions".

None of these comments actually claim any impact of visibillity on the combat effectiveness of the Messerschmitt, or even any restriction with regard to operational flying - like some other fighters of the era, it required a landing technique designed to give visibility laterally off the nose.

I'm not saying that the visibility out of the Messerschmitt did not leave to be desired, or that the other taildraggers relying on curved approaches did not in fact have better visibility over their nose, but the universal damnation the Me 109 visibility usually receives in popular publications in my opinion is based on prejudice, not on factual analysis.

The USAAF in WW2 showed angular fields of view (unfortunately, only for the forward view) in a simple diagram, comparing P-47, P-38, P-40 and P-51. I'd be quite interested in seeing such a diagram for the Me 109, Hurricane and Spitfire, and armed with such data, we could begin to make a useful comparison of the fields of view of the different types - though of course lateral and rearward view would have to be taken into account, too.

(Next time I'll better ask for "qualified comments" - single-adjective comments like "poor" are of very limited value, and in fact the problem with a fair assessment of the Me 109 probably is that too much has been read into general comments like this one.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Bombtaxi,

>I had also gained the impression that a single pass aimed at the nose of such an aircraft could cause more injuries than in an equivalent type with a more normal crew distribution.

You might be aware of the Luftwaffe tactics of attacking four-engined bombers head-on. The bullets and shells often went right through the entire fuselage in these attacks. Distributing the crew didn't help.

>I'm fairly sure I haven't just made this up :lol:

I never thought you had! :-) The problem is, there are many books around that actually print nonsense - writers are only human, too. Even today, we're dealing with 60 years of imperfect research ... hard to separate the chaff from the weed at times.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[pbfoot]

Whoever called the Spit cockpit roomy must have been a pygmy . Neither one of the forementioned aircraft was roomy with a very very slight edge to Spit

[Glider]

Henning
You seem to argue against yourself in some places.

For instance
visibility to the back is poor

"Poor" - fine, but compared to what? The obvious reference for a WW2 Luftwaffe pilot would be the Fw 190, which undoubtly was better - but it was better than the Hurricane and Spitfire as well.

But when you are talking about the visibility compared to the Spit V.

[I]"Ekkehard Bob was in a Spitfire Vb cockpit . His comment was on how roomy it was and how wonderful the visibilty was.

A positive comment on the Spitfire is not automatically a negative comment on the Me 109.[/I]

Surely if the natural reference of the WW2 German 109 pilot was the FW190 in the first case, the natural reference of the WW2 German 109 pilot in the second case, would be the 109.
Therefore the postive comment on the Spitfire is a negative comment on the 109.

[HoHun]

Hi Glider,

>You seem to argue against yourself in some places.

Well, in a way, I do. What I am doing is to point out that unqualified comments can only be translated into a conclusion by making implications.

In the Spitfire case, I point out that without an implication, there is no conclusion.

In the Focke-Wulf case, I make a different implication to demonstrate that merely a different (more probable) implication would immediately kill the original conclusion.

If you'd argue it would be more consistent not to imply any standard of reference, I'd say you have a point. This would make the original quote even less useful, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by HoHun

None of these comments actually claim any impact of visibillity on the combat effectiveness of the Messerschmitt, or even any restriction with regard to operational flying - like some other fighters of the era, it required a landing technique designed to give visibility laterally off the nose.

I'm not saying that the visibility out of the Messerschmitt did not leave to be desired, or that the other taildraggers relying on curved approaches did not in fact have better visibility over their nose, but the universal damnation the Me 109 visibility usually receives in popular publications in my opinion is based on prejudice, not on factual analysis.

The USAAF in WW2 showed angular fields of view (unfortunately, only for the forward view) in a simple diagram, comparing P-47, P-38, P-40 and P-51. I'd be quite interested in seeing such a diagram for the Me 109, Hurricane and Spitfire, and armed with such data, we could begin to make a useful comparison of the fields of view of the different types - though of course lateral and rearward view would have to be taken into account, too.

(Next time I'll better ask for "qualified comments" - single-adjective comments like "poor" are of very limited value, and in fact the problem with a fair assessment of the Me 109 probably is that too much has been read into general comments like this one.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Henning - bottom line - in comparison to other fighters of the day, the 109 had "poor" visibility. How ever you want to slice it, field of visibility, visibility around a specified axis, visibility based on canopy placement in the opened and closed position, diagrams showing the field of vision (something I doubt existed for the -109) the 109s visibility was poor, and that was said by the pilots who flew them and flew against them. Does the Galland Hood reveal any suspect that there might of been a visibility problem with earlier aircraft? Those Finnish pilots who flew them were probably the most unbiased operators you could turn to because of the situation in which they attained and operated the aircraft - during and after WW2. I could tell you by having sat in one, the visibility was "poor" and I don't know what else to say. You had no visibility to the rear, you had little peripheral vision (something needed during landing because the nose is obstructing the forward field of vision) and even straight forward the windscreen was like looking into a rectangular portable TV screen. The same day I sat in a P-38 and Zero and the topic at the forefront of the discussions of that day with the folks who were with me was the cramped tight cockpit and poor visibility of the -109. Maybe taken too much from a pilot's perspective rather than an engineering approach to prove the point.

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>How ever you want to slice it [...]

How about "facts"? We've had "opinion" for 60 years ...

"Poor" with no qualifiers, no reference for comparison, no mention of possible operational impact is not even one hair short of complete nonsense.

>diagrams showing the field of vision (something I doubt existed for the -109)

If they don't exist, they can be prepared ... with the help of a static aircraft, for example.

Your approach of noting the visibility while sitting in the cockpit of the various types is basically correct, what we need is a quantitative output instead of a gut feeling - and then we can go ahead and compare the various types on a rational basis.

That this has not been attempted for 60 years while a library of books has been written on the Me 109 is disgraceful.

However, the lack of proper data doesn't mean that one can use a handful of weak quotes to make up for a lack of facts.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Flyboyj,

>How ever you want to slice it [...]

How about "facts"? We've had "opinion" for 60 years ...

Well when you have a dozen or so sources quoted plus my personal account I think that might sway those opinions to the fact column.

Originally Posted by HoHun

"Poor" with no qualifiers, no reference for comparison, no mention of possible operational impact is not even one hair short of complete nonsense.

>diagrams showing the field of vision (something I doubt existed for the -109)

If they don't exist, they can be prepared ... with the help of a static aircraft, for example.

OK - White 14 is in Canada, maybe Neil (Pbfoot) can have access to it?

Originally Posted by HoHun

Your approach of noting the visibility while sitting in the cockpit of the various types is basically correct, what we need is a quantitative output instead of a gut feeling - and then we can go ahead and compare the various types on a rational basis.

And again fair enough, but again I think the majority of the opinions will back up this claim

Originally Posted by HoHun

That this has not been attempted for 60 years while a library of books has been written on the Me 109 is disgraceful.

I could agree to a point

Originally Posted by HoHun

However, the lack of proper data doesn't mean that one can use a handful of weak quotes to make up for a lack of facts.

I'd hardly call the statements by Rall, Brown or some of those Finnish pilots weak quotes.

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>I'd hardly call the statements by Rall, Brown or some of those Finnish pilots weak quotes.

So just exactly which conclusions do you draw from Rall's specific quote?

"[...] and visibility to the back is poor."

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[kool kitty89]

On the Fw 190's configuration, I agree on the organized layout, but the high instrument pannel relative to the pilot position limited forewar visibility. (while the clear view canopy offered excellent vey to the sides and rear and moderate foreward peripheral vision -limited by the large diameter radial engine)

I think the main areas this would lead to problems would be in ground handling and deflection shooting. (particularly in tight turns)

[pbfoot]

Having squeezed into both , the one thing that was apparent to me right off the bat is that the fighter pilots that flew either the 109 or the Spit had to be small folk. 5'8" or 1.7 m If I was to fly either in combat the visibility to either the side or rear sucked at least for me , my shoulders chafed at the edge of the cockpit and I was totally unable to turn my vision more then 110 degrees to either side . I still wonder what the point of the glass aft of the sliding canopy on the Spit was for because it sure wasn't for looking out of