From the pilots view of things..... - Page 3 - Aircraft of World War II

FLYBOYJ · 11-30-2008, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoHun

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

The visibility in the -109 was poor...

He also made other comments to the same effect in other interviews.

FLYBOYJ · 11-30-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 don't think this was no different from any other recip of the period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

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

The 190 was easily taxied on the ground and had an opposite reputation of the 109 as far as ground operations. As far as deflection shooting, I don't see how that comes into play here.

Lucky13 · 11-30-2008, 09:21 PM

Then you'll have the same problem with the "birdcage" Mustang and Corsair, not to mention the -B and -C Thunderbolt with the steelframe right infront of you....THAT must have been a royal pain in the imperial @ss....
Who's bl**dy bright idea was that?

FLYBOYJ · 11-30-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Then you'll have the same problem with the "birdcage" Mustang and Corsair, not to mention the Thunderbolt with the steelframe right infront of you....
Who's bl**dy bright idea was that?

Not really lucky - although there was a lot of metal in fron of them there was still shoulder room. You could turn your head and torso around.

Lucky13 · 11-30-2008, 09:35 PM

Sorry Joe, was thinking more about the vision thing....

I've heard that they were, well, roomy....

FLYBOYJ · 11-30-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Sorry Joe, was thinking more about the vision thing....

I've heard that they were, well, roomy....

No worries, but even the three mentioned had a larger forward viewing area than the -109

Lucky13 · 11-30-2008, 09:45 PM

Thinking that an enemy fighter could "hide" for quite some time and distance before you saw it.... Those frames must have had blocked a fare angle out of your visibilty....

pbfoot · 11-30-2008, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky13

Thinking that an enemy fighter could "hide" for quite some time and distance before you saw it.... Those frames must have had blocked a fare angle out of your visibilty....

my personal thought is if I'm flying combat in anything like a fighter those wings and rudders will be pretty active because your vision in all directions sucks ,

The 3 fighters I've sat in are all very constrictive to a point thats hard to describe
I'm definately looking at a billet in Joes Caribean PBY sqn

FLYBOYJ · 11-30-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

I'm definately looking at a billet in Joes Caribean PBY sqn

Njaco · 11-30-2008, 10:23 PM

The ONLY positive I've ever read or heard about the 109 was that the pilot sat in such a way as to reduce 'g' effects - something about restricting the blood loss because the pilot was more of a laying/sitting position.

Now we could talk about the Hs 129 cockpit.......

davparlr · 12-01-2008, 12:42 AM

The aircraft getting the most "good" rating in the Fighter Conference Report was the P-51. The F6F got good reviews also. This evaluation consisted of mostly American fighters but included the Seafire and Zeke.

GrauGeist · 12-01-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Njaco

...Now we could talk about the Hs 129 cockpit.......

Hs129, ok...why not?

Looks a little cramped, but the visability seems decent enough...

Soren · 12-01-2008, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Sorry Soren, but to say the -109's instrument panel was excellent would be like saying the air in the Alps smells better than the air in the Rockies. For the most part most WW2 fighters, especially those developed by Germany, the UK or the US all employed industry standard layouts for "most" of their aircraft, and I emphasize most because some of the more radical designs did displace some basic instruments.

Flight instruments (Artificial Horizon, turn and bank indicator, VSI were all centrally located. Engine instruments were either on the right or on the lower portion of the front panel. Throttle, mixture controls were on the left, electrical and environmental controls on the right - pretty standard.

The BF-109 cockpit as a whole sucked - PERIOD. I've been in one (also sat in a zero, P-51, P-38 and Bearcat) and I give credit for all the Luftwaffe aces (some who also stated how cramped the -109 cockpit was) who performed so well while in this sardine can. Out of the aircraft listed the -109's over all cockpit was the most uncomfortable and this has been well documented.

From left to right - Bf 109, Spitfire, P-51, Fw 190

Sorry Soren ??

Err, FLYBOYJ, when I say the Bf-109's cockpit layout is excellent IMO then it is because it IS excellent IMO. Why does that nessicate a "I'm sorry Soren" ??

There's nothing wrong with what I said FLYBOYJ, I've sat in a Bf-109 as-well, otherwise I wouldn't be able to comment on it. And like I said it's tight, but the cockpit layout is excellent (Yes it is) and the seating position is reclined, which helps against G's. Visibility to the front & sides is better or the same as on other a/c IMO, while rear visibility isn't very good. However the Erla hood is MUCH better, and rear visibility is actually pretty good, but not the best at all.

FLYBOYJ · 12-01-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

Sorry Soren ??

Err, FLYBOYJ, when I say the Bf-109's cockpit layout is excellent IMO then it is because it IS excellent IMO. Why does that nessicate a "I'm sorry Soren" ??

There's nothing wrong with what I said FLYBOYJ, I've sat in a Bf-109 as-well, otherwise I wouldn't be able to comment on it. And like I said it's tight, but the cockpit layout is excellent (Yes it is) and the seating position is reclined, which helps against G's. Visibility to the front & sides is better or the same as on other a/c IMO, while rear visibility isn't very good. However the Erla hood is MUCH better, and rear visibility is actually pretty good, but not the best at all.

You said "INSTRUMENT PANEL." I used the term "sorry" because I strongly disagree for the reasons listed - again your comment -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

The Bf-109's intrument layout is excellent IMO, but space is very scarce and you're kinda squeezed up in there. But the reclined seat position will help you to resist G-forces pretty significantly.

davparlr · 12-01-2008, 12:35 PM

I don't think a lot of thought went into cockpit instrument panel design until the late 50s. Most of the process was, "where can I stick this gage?" From what I could glean, Focke Wulf, probably Tank, was about 15-20 years ahead of other aircraft designers in being concerned about pilot work load. The Fw-190s cockpit looks very clean and I liked the layout, but I suspect it is a museum piece built to better-than-new. Did the Fw-190 have gunsight controls? Except for the Bf-109, which seems almost like a mockup or another museum piece, the others look like what one would really see in a cockpit, although the P-38 was not in an aircraft.

Here's a couple of stories told to me by old engineers when I started to work at Northrop (I'm old now so you can figure how far those guys went).

One of the guys I worked with was responsible for electrical installation on the P-61 (long before me), but when he went out to the aircraft, he discovered that none of the bulkheads had holes to run the wires. His solution, he grabbed a drill and drilled away.

Another story told but I cannot verify the truth, was that there were two old-head manufacturing type that was responsible for assembling the aft section of the F-5 airframe to the front portion, and had done this for years. One day, one of the men got sick while the other one was on vacation. When the stand-ins tried to assemble the parts, they discovered that the parts didn't fit. The bolt holes were slightly off-set. The production line stopped and hair was pulled out all over manufacturing. The next day, the sick guy came to work. All the management gathered around him wanting to know what had happened. He simply stated "Oh, they have never fit. We just got a slightly larger drill and drilled out the hole on one part and they went together fine!"

11-30-2008, 09:21 PM	#33
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,128	Then you'll have the same problem with the "birdcage" Mustang and Corsair, not to mention the -B and -C Thunderbolt with the steelframe right infront of you....THAT must have been a royal pain in the imperial @ss.... Who's bl**dy bright idea was that? __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

11-30-2008, 09:35 PM	#35
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,128	Sorry Joe, was thinking more about the vision thing.... I've heard that they were, well, roomy.... __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

11-30-2008, 09:45 PM	#37
Lucky13 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: A Swede living in Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 15,128	Thinking that an enemy fighter could "hide" for quite some time and distance before you saw it.... Those frames must have had blocked a fare angle out of your visibilty.... __________________ JAN "Felicis Tredecim" "I´m going back to the front to relax" "THE BLACK CATS FLIES TONIGHT" "Find your enemy and shoot him down - everything else is unimportant!" "When you're out of F-8's... You're out of fighters!"

11-30-2008, 10:23 PM	#40
Njaco The Pop-Tart Whisperer Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: South Jersey, United States Posts: 10,228	The ONLY positive I've ever read or heard about the 109 was that the pilot sat in such a way as to reduce 'g' effects - something about restricting the blood loss because the pilot was more of a laying/sitting position. Now we could talk about the Hs 129 cockpit....... __________________ "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's English, thank a soldier!" http://www.njcacoa.org/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-01-2008, 12:42 AM	#41
davparlr Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,485	The aircraft getting the most "good" rating in the Fighter Conference Report was the P-51. The F6F got good reviews also. This evaluation consisted of mostly American fighters but included the Seafire and Zeke.

12-01-2008, 12:35 PM	#45
davparlr Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,485	I don't think a lot of thought went into cockpit instrument panel design until the late 50s. Most of the process was, "where can I stick this gage?" From what I could glean, Focke Wulf, probably Tank, was about 15-20 years ahead of other aircraft designers in being concerned about pilot work load. The Fw-190s cockpit looks very clean and I liked the layout, but I suspect it is a museum piece built to better-than-new. Did the Fw-190 have gunsight controls? Except for the Bf-109, which seems almost like a mockup or another museum piece, the others look like what one would really see in a cockpit, although the P-38 was not in an aircraft. Here's a couple of stories told to me by old engineers when I started to work at Northrop (I'm old now so you can figure how far those guys went). One of the guys I worked with was responsible for electrical installation on the P-61 (long before me), but when he went out to the aircraft, he discovered that none of the bulkheads had holes to run the wires. His solution, he grabbed a drill and drilled away. Another story told but I cannot verify the truth, was that there were two old-head manufacturing type that was responsible for assembling the aft section of the F-5 airframe to the front portion, and had done this for years. One day, one of the men got sick while the other one was on vacation. When the stand-ins tried to assemble the parts, they discovered that the parts didn't fit. The bolt holes were slightly off-set. The production line stopped and hair was pulled out all over manufacturing. The next day, the sick guy came to work. All the management gathered around him wanting to know what had happened. He simply stated "Oh, they have never fit. We just got a slightly larger drill and drilled out the hole on one part and they went together fine!"