Author Topic: Spitfire NACA reports (Read 7352 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #60 on:** February 28, 2004, 07:24:54 AM »

109 pilots taxied with the hood open as well. Why would you even say such a thing?

Overlag · « **Reply #61 on:** February 28, 2004, 07:30:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by thrila
Eh? would got called a nazi? thought nazi comment was just about the view height for 109 being high on the pic.

its still calling someone a nazi. he isnt a nazi just because he was german in 1933-1945

MiloMorai · « **Reply #62 on:** February 28, 2004, 09:30:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
109 pilots taxied with the hood open as well. Why would you even say such a thing?

Was this directed to me Scholz? If so where did I say that?

It would be very few and far between from any photos I have seen. Did not see any in the Prien/Rodieke 109 book. Anyways, only if they wanted the heavy canopy to come crashing down while bouncing around on the "rough fields". It also played heck with the hinges.

Angus · « **Reply #63 on:** February 28, 2004, 11:38:09 AM »

One would not taxi at any speed with that hinged canopy of the 109. I also think it got closed by the fitter/rigger on many occasions.
Sliding hoods are another matter. And then the Spitty had that little door on the left side for comfort- and escape.
If the 109 flipped over, it somehow usually killed the pilot. I am curious to know more about why exactly.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #64 on:** February 28, 2004, 12:29:56 PM »

LOL sometimes the never ending debate cracks me up.

GScholz, what folks are talking about is not whether the hood was open when taxying(sp). I think you misunderstood the point is all. It wasn't a condemnation of the 109

Part of landing procedure, written in the manual, for Spit drivers was to open the hood and set the emergency exit door to half cocked position. This kept the sliding canopy from slamming forward if there was a accident. It was a safety measure that the 109 didn't have. It allowed for an easier escape in the event of an accident, turning over ect. Look for photos of Spits landing. I think you'll find most, if not all have the canopy open. I just went through all my Spit stuff and couldn't find one landing with the canopy closed. There is a mix and match of Spits taking off with it either opened or closed however.

They also had that nice little crowbar set in the cockpit door for bashing open the canopy should that be an issue.

Spit profile in Ingrim's diagram is clearly a Merlin engined bubble top IX/XVI. Yes there were a few IXs that had the bubble top too. Same airframe, with the designation being determined on which Merlin went in the 66 or 266 built in the US.

Spit pilots did tend to crank the seat up for take off and landing, and then adjust it down once they closed the canopy and settled in for the actual flight.

Griffon Spit variants had a better angle of site over the nose to the Merlin Spits. This was noted with the first Griffon variant, the XII.

Dan/Slack

Karnak · « **Reply #65 on:** February 28, 2004, 01:10:49 PM »

I seem to recall that the ADFU tactical trials document that was at the now apparently defunt

Fourth Fighter Group website stated that the gunsight view of the Spitfire Mk XIV had a 1.5 degree better view over the nose than did the Spitfire Mk IX.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #66 on:** February 28, 2004, 01:47:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I seem to recall that the ADFU tactical trials document that was at the now apparently defunt Fourth Fighter Group website stated that the gunsight view of the Spitfire Mk XIV had a 1.5 degree better view over the nose than did the Spitfire Mk IX.

In the tactical trials of the Griffon Spit XII the quote is:

"Sighting View-Owing to the engine having been set lower then the Merlin in the V or IX, the sighting view over the center of the cowling is increased from 100mph standard to 120mph[equivelent deflection angle of an aircraft in the gunsight], which gives a total of 4 degrees downward view."

Dan/Slack

VO101_Isegrim · « **Reply #67 on:** March 01, 2004, 01:08:40 PM »

The drawing is from some Polish Spit book I got from the net. It shows a Mk XIVe, a Griffon 65 Spit (5 blade propellor). IIRC FR XIV`s mounted the bubble canopies, not sure about the standard F XIV ever mounted one. I don`t know the Spit cowlings too well, but it serves the purpose as the relative dimensions are correct to each other. And the tailwheel is non retracted since it shows the plane on the ground... also as K-4. It would be nice to get similiar views from the cocpit to illustrate better, but I don`t have good Spit cocpit photos - the one I have is a bit unfair as the camera is low. On the 109 photos, I can see the whole cowling very well.

It`s worth to check out this. Video done inside of a Bf 109G to illustrate what the pilot saw. Not that restricted as the popular myth says IMHO.

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/Me109/JG4-Film-109.AVI

Also, I don`t believe the Spit`s cocpit was any roomier than the 109`s. I could test either (sadly I missed the 109E that was restored here..), so it`s a bit theoretical, but al the photos I seen of both cocpits actually tells me the Spit is just as small, if not smaller. Perhaps there`s more headroom.. In any case, I don`t get why that much of a talk about cocpit size. Spit and 109 were interceptors, not escort/LR fighters.. Besides, I don`t feel uncomfortable in my car, even though I doubt it would have any more room than the 109`s cocpit. It`s not an issue. Most WW2 fighters were "cramped", with rather few exception, usually radials that were wide enough to start with.

Re: 109 canopy.. I don`t think the non-open state was much of a problem. As for easyness of dropping the canopy, you only had to pull two levers, and bye-bye... a swinging canopy has much less chance of jamming than a sliding one. Messerscmitt kept this even on the Me 262. I guess he had a reason. Personally, I have never heard dying inside a turnover 109 was anything common. In fact, I heard a lot of stories to the opposite, pilots crawling out from 109s that did travel a hundred meter - while looping on it`s wings... if one looks on the Messer`s front canopy struts, he can see what massive bolted steel pieces are used. The razorback design also helps a lot, the plane would rest on these two, instead of smashing our flyier`s head. And from G-6 onwards, the Revi 16B gunsight was mounted, it could be swinged down before crashlanding, in order to keep it away from the pilot`s face.

Angus, you can see on this picture how high the eyeline was in a 109, as on my drawings :

http://www.jagdgeschwader4.de/Flugzeuge/Me109/Fotos/Bilder/Bf-109-G2%20(7)_JPG.jpg .

And here a good photo from the cocpit :

**Khmmm*** I wish I had a similiar good quality photo of a Spit`s cocpit...

Guppy35 · « **Reply #68 on:** March 01, 2004, 02:08:48 PM »

Just to clarify Ingrim. The drawing from the book must have a typo as it is definately a low back Merlin engined Spit 16(XVI). The cowling is for the Merlin and the tail is the earlier smaller pointed tail, not the broader tail and rudder of the XIV.

For comparison, a profile I did of a low back Spit 16. It's the same bird

Dan/Slack

HoHun · « **Reply #69 on:** March 01, 2004, 03:50:55 PM »

Hi Angus,

>Sliding hoods are another matter. And then the Spitty had that little door on the left side for comfort- and escape.

Well, the real emergency mechanism was a "knock-out panel on the port side of the hood". I guess the crow bar stored on the door was used to break the panel.

The sliding hood could slide shut if the airplane overturned, so the door had an intermediate position to prevent this. The door only worked as an emergency escape if the hood was slid back, thus the need for the additional knock-out panel.

>If the 109 flipped over, it somehow usually killed the pilot. I am curious to know more about why exactly.

Well, I've not heard of pilots being killed, but if the Me 109 flipped over with the hood in place, you'd be trapped in the airplane. (That's what happened to Black 6!)

Accordingly, normal emergency procedure was to jettison the hood before coming in to an emergency landing. Not only the hinged part would depart, but also the rear portion that was normally fixed. (The Black 6 pilot didn't follow that procedure since replacement canopies are hard to come by nowadays.)

It's my impression that when it came to bailing out, the Me 109's emergency release was considerably more reliable than the British escape mechanisms. The advantage of the British system of course was that it was standard procedure to land with open canopy, so the pilot should normally have an escape route even in the case of an accident during a non-emergency landing.

Sliding back the hood additionally provided improved view if the canopy fogged or iced up, or at night. The Me 109's cockpit heating and ventilation was said to be better than the Spitfire's, but even Galland noted that in bad weather the Me 109 could lose visibility, and opening the hood was not an option then.

Pros and cons, as usual :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Guppy35 · « **Reply #70 on:** March 01, 2004, 04:30:05 PM »

HoHun, the knock out panel on the port side of the Spit canopy was gone as soon as they bulged it out, probably in late 41, early 42. You'll see Spit Vs with either the flat side canopy with the knockout panel early and bulged canopies without the panel too. I haven't seen an IX with it outside of the early converted Vs for testing.

The crowbar was for the canopy itself. I believe the knockout panal was more for visibility should the canopy ice up, fog over. Way too small for anyone to crawl out of

image shows the prototype Spit XII DP845 with the flat side, knockout panel style canopy that first flew in November 41 and the bottom shows the last Spit XII MB882 with the bulged sided canopy that the spit used from 42 on.

Dan/Slack

Karnak · « **Reply #71 on:** March 01, 2004, 04:32:42 PM »

Isegrim,

The Spitfire's cockpit wasn't roomy by any means, but it did have more room than the Bf109.

Certainly neither were P-47 or P-51 like though.

Just from looking at pictures, the Fw190 looks like it had the best cockpit of any WWII fighter. Or maybe the Me262.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #72 on:** March 01, 2004, 04:46:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Isegrim,

The Spitfire's cockpit wasn't roomy by any means, but it did have more room than the Bf109.

Certainly neither were P-47 or P-51 like though.

Just from looking at pictures, the Fw190 looks like it had the best cockpit of any WWII fighter. Or maybe the Me262.

On of the comments made by Spit pilots was that it was like you strapped it on. This was said is a positive manner as they felt more a part of the plane.

Having been in the cockpit of a Spit, it's certainly roomy enough to do the job.

Was it a 51 or a 47? Nope, An old AW pilot who was a WW2 flyer in 39s and 47s in the Med, talked about one of his first flights in a bubble top P47D-27RE. He came up alongside a C47 and was able to duck down below the rim of the canopy to make it look like it was a pilotless Jug. Not something he could have done in the smaller cockpit of a 39.

Spit pilots who transitioned to the 51 appreciated the cockpit set up as it made it easier to take those long range flights.

Dan/Slack

MiloMorai · « **Reply #73 on:** March 01, 2004, 05:15:35 PM »

Up to and including the G model 109 there was problems jettisoning the canopy.

A test report was done, #109 18 E 43

"In spite of repeated improvements to the canopy jettison system of the 109G, complaints were still recieved that the canopy refused to jettison or did not do so without without problems"

HoHun · « **Reply #74 on:** March 01, 2004, 05:15:50 PM »

Hi Dan,

>HoHun, the knock out panel on the port side of the Spit canopy was gone as soon as they bulged it out, probably in late 41, early 42.

I found it in the Spitfire II's Pilot's Notes, so that would fit.

>The crowbar was for the canopy itself. I believe the knockout panal was more for visibility should the canopy ice up, fog over. Way too small for anyone to crawl out of

I agree. Seems I misunderstood what the Pilot's Notes meant with "for emergency use" :-)

(The term I connected with the small panel was "clear vision panel".)

Anyway, if the Spitfire really overturned with the hood closed, the small door would be blocked anyway, and the way out would require use of the crowbar to smash the plexiglass. Getting through the small door (if it could be opened at all) from a position hanging upside down in the seat harness ... I don't know, sounds rather difficult.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)