From the pilots view of things.....

[Lucky13]

...which would you say had the best design, layout of the cockpit among fighters, torpedo, divebombers etc... of WWII? Thinking about machines with one, two or three crewmembers...

[Glider]

I don't think that you can split things by type. From what I have read the Germans nearly always had an excellent reputation for their cockpits. There were exceptions such as the He111 and to a lesser degree the Me110, but overall the standard was very high.

[BombTaxi]

German cockpit design for medium bombers had an awful effect on crew survivability though. The design philosophy of the time meant that the He111, Ju88 and Do17 families all had the crew crammed together in a largely glazed nose, allegedly to improve morale. In practice, this constrained the positioning of defensive armament, and led to horrendous crew casualties - a fighter or flak hit could take out the entire crew in one go.

EDIT: On this subject, the Bf109 also deserves a mention for poor cockpit design - it was cramped, visibility was restricted and the pilot sat on a fuel tank. This was only marginally worse that British fighters though - the Hurricane had (correct me if I'm wrong) either a coolant or fuel tank under the cowl, right in front of the windscreen, which could cause horrendous injuries to the pilot if hit.

[Airframes]

You're right, Bomb Taxi. Both the Spit and Hurricane had a fuel tank directly in front of the front bulkhead.
As far as the Bf109 goes, yes, it was cramped etc., but, when it was designed, with a fully enclosed cockpit, providing comfort for the pilot, I guess that the future requierments of other comforts, and all-round visibility, probably weren't taken into account as much as they would be a few years later. One thing about the '109 though; I seem to recall that the positioning of the seat and the rudder pedals meant that the pilot was in a better physical position in which to absorb more 'g', as his feet were slightly higher than in 'normal' layouts, and the lower trunk sat lower. How much of a benefit this actually was, I don't know. Perhaps someone has some answers regarding this?
Terry.

[thewritingwriter89]

Another interesting bit about the 109 cockpit; the seat had only three adjustable positions and much of the issues usually complained about were because of the seating. I have read several pilot reports in which the author had banged his head lowering the canopy, simply becuase the 109 requires you to sit lower than most fighters. Airframes, this could be where you're theory about the 'g' absorbtion comes into play. It does kind of make sense that you would be better prepared for high g's in a more "slid down" position.

Going back to the cockpit arrangement, another pilot report mentioned the flap and elevator trim being arranged so they could be turned together, but the pilot mentioned it would be hard to do in practice. Whether or not that was an issue, it's hard to say.

Here's the link to the pilot report, which has some very descriptive information on the layout itself.

Flying the Bf 109: Two experts give their reports | Flight Journal | Find Articles at BNET

[GrauGeist]

I've heard a number of accounts by American pilots who didn't like the P-47's cockpit because it was so large. One had remarked that sitting in the "office" of a Jug was like riding in the back-seat of his Dad's Oldsmobile when he was a kid. They were more acustomed to the smaller cockpits of thier aircraft that the P-47 was replacing.

To touch on BombTaxi's comments regarding fuel tank placement, the Me262 had two fuel tanks, one behind the cockpit and the other being situated between the weapon bay and the instrument bulkhead. To top that off, it wasn't self-sealing, but lined with leather.

[kool kitty89]

Didn't the Me 262 also have 2 reserve tanks?

I've heard a number of accounts by American pilots who didn't like the P-47's cockpit because it was so large. One had remarked that sitting in the "office" of a Jug was like riding in the back-seat of his Dad's Oldsmobile when he was a kid. They were more acustomed to the smaller cockpits of thier aircraft that the P-47 was replacing.

I immagine this would have been particularly contrasted with the Eagle squadron pilots transferring from Spitfires.

I've also read reports by British pilots on the Curtiss Hawk and P-40 commenting on the roomier cockpit compared to the Spitfire or Hurricane. (which were slightly roomier than the Bf 109)
I also seem to remember Finnish pilots commting that their Brewsters had particularly spacious and well organized cockpits.


It should also be noted that visibility was significantly improved on the Bf 109 with the introduction of the "Galland Hood" with reduced reaming and increased rear glazing.

[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.

[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

[Glider]

Of those four I do like the look of the 190's cockpit, very neat.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Glider

Of those four I do like the look of the 190's cockpit, very neat.

Agree

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Out of those 4, I prefer the 190 as well. It seems like a very clean, modern and nice cockpit. I can not vouch for comfort however, because I have not had the oportunity to sit in a 190.

[HoHun]

Hi Bombtaxi,

>led to horrendous crew casualties

Nonsense - randomly distributed hits don't kill more crewmen if they bunch together. Each shot that misses the nose fails to kill anyone in the crew is in the nose ... if you distribute the crew all over the plane, there are many more locations that will result in the death of crewmen if they're hit. Average casualty rate is identical in both cases - basic stochastics, really.

(Besides, the pilot in German bombers enjoyed pretty good protection thaks to an excellent contoured armour seat - I have not seen anything like that in Allied bombers.)

>On this subject, the Bf109 also deserves a mention for poor cockpit design - it was cramped, visibility was restricted and the pilot sat on a fuel tank. This was only marginally worse that British fighters though

In fact, it was much better than the British fighters since there were many RAF pilots whose faces were horribly burned when the front tank caught fire. I have never found any mention of a similar "standard burns" from the Me 109 fuel tank position. In fact, the Me 109 shared the fuel tank layout with the P-47, another type that does not have a history of burning hapless pilots in the way the Spitfire and Hurricane did.

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. I haven't ever seen a quantitative comparison of the viewing angles from the various types either from those who are badmouthing the type's visibility, so as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about rumours at best.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Writingwriter,

>Going back to the cockpit arrangement, another pilot report mentioned the flap and elevator trim being arranged so they could be turned together, but the pilot mentioned it would be hard to do in practice.

This appears to have been well-liked by pilots who flew the type, even being positively commented on by some RAE report, if I remember correctly.

Another aspect of the flap arrangement of the Me 109 that was praised that it was a manually-actuated system that did not rely on hydraulic or pneumatic servo systems that could fail (or be shot up).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by HoHun

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. I haven't ever seen a quantitative comparison of the viewing angles from the various types either from those who are badmouthing the type's visibility, so as far as I'm concerned, we're talking about rumours at best.

"The cockpits of all of these enemy aircraft were much more comfortable. You could not fly the Bf-109 for seven hours; the cockpit was too tight, too narrow"

Gunter Rall

Aviation History: Interview with World War II Luftwaffe Ace Günther Rall » HistoryNet

There are others who had the same comments about the 109's cockpit.